I object  to this…

I object  to this application 013-1976:   Permission to take 1,000,000 million tonnes of aggregate from  a quarry below the water line on fragile limestone. 
We have serious concerns which follow: 

Water security is a major issue:
Quarry operations (including blasting) are a constant threat to the neighbourhood’s well- based,  surface water supply.  We are constantly reminded of the Westbrook  water fiasco. Also, onus is on the home owners to prove water loss beyond the regulated 120 meters from the Quarry site specified specified in the act. And there is no regulating authority for assessing and regulating this in the city, nor for providing redress beyond the 120 metres..
Permit to take water
This operation has been granted a 19,000,000 million PLUS  litre a day permit on the existing quarry to draw water from the ground water table (equivalent to the needs of one third of the current households in the City of Kingston). These permits go unnoticed by the public as they are rather hidden in the bureaucratic email site…. And these permit requests are constantly being updated by the Corporation with no need to inform the public or the concerned residents.. There may even be more consumption requested for the new permit than I am aware of.. Please inform me on this point. As the new property purchased would presumably be a different permit for water drawing?

With regard to our water, the effluents from the operation of  a new quarry and the old or new asphalt plant are likely to contain harmful materials that would percolate into our water supplies. Our entire area is comprised of fragile ground water sources,  with soil substrate not conducive to a thorough filtering, as it  is not  on  clay soil, For some households, ground water can be the sole water source from ponds to  shallow wells. 

Asphalt Plants:
A direct consequence under regulation after the granting of a quarry licence is that an asphalt plant is permitted to exist. As Cruickshank does not operate with state of the art equipment,  his operation can only currently be described as dirty and wholly incompatible  with residential and village life downstream of the wind patterns.

The operation of an asphalt plant  (that is billowing black clouds of dangerous effluents when in operation), constitutes a danger to human health within the residential community of Elginburg Village, Cordukes Rd., Unity Rd., and the Bur Brook Rd., Sydenham Rd., and Hwy. 38 ( when the winds reverse). The pollution obviously depends on the wind patterns and the speed of the winds. Beyond 40 kms per hour these effluents can reach as far as 7.4 kms,  affecting even more individuals. We have extreme concern about the effluents leaving an asphalt plant as these effluents will eventually enter lungs and the waters of our creeks, our wells and our ponds. 
Further, As Cruickshank Construction LTD, has not committed to operate “state of the Art” best practice asphalt plants utilizing  scrubbing technology. This presents another severe detriment to the health of  the surrounding area, as not even the best technology is proposed to be used  to capture near 90 and more % of the negative effluents. Nothing should be exposing us to future negative  health effects.

Pipelines: 
 The passage of two 50 year old  gas and oil pipelines through the property  with mining blasting,  is an accident waiting to happen.

Recreational /Farming-agriculture and tree /environmental protection/ and Green belt use of the countryside properties:
There is complete incompatibility with the recreational uses of the K&P trail , which is directly next to the proposed Quarry expansion. Also the Rideau trail, as well as the KOA vacation site used by tourists are proximal  and likely to be affected,  certainly when one is strolling or biking or skiing along the trails- A counterpoint to the Greening and safe recreational use of our trails, with our families and pets.
*The land proposed for  Heavy Industrial -Mining Extraction is in an area of the City of Kingston  currently zoned residential, rural and agricultural with EPA  riparian protection zones, A2 agricultural  classifications and with creeks leading to the wetland protection area on Hwy 38.  All of this proposed land is adjacent to homes, cattle and horse establishments, grazing fields and is not far from an elementary school in the hamlet of Elginburg.
Crushing, loading and unloading of crushed materials creates enormous dust clouds of silicate born particulate as inhalants, which are dangerous to human health.
 Hiking , cycling,  with increased truck traffic hazards, speeding, over uses of roads (not conceived for heavy truck usage), problems with articulation of the corners at intersections, and safety considerations for pedestrians who have no sidewalks, are incompatible  with Heavy Mining.
Sadly, the current Quarry operation has not shown itself to be in compliance over and over again.  The citizens/residents have complained to the MOECC and the MNR as well as the City enforcement Officers over  breaking of rules and regulations and licence requirements. Satisfactory responses to these problems are rarely ever resolved.  Thus, the citizens are turned into policing agents expected to constantly complain to the various officials at all times.  All this because the land was initially, historically zoned as a very small, minor operation in a less developed area. The caution is to beware rezoning and Official Plan changes as they have longer term consequences, not thought of at the time of the initial applications. 
Lack of Protections for citizens and the City of Kingston :
In the application for Official Plan change, there are no protections for the citizens in the event all goes badly! The city is not demanding insurances, monetary compensations, or remediation from the corporation in the event that there are damages to the area citizens, their private property or the surrounding lands, environment  and waters. 
What damage insurance does the corporation carry if the quarry implodes ,  the south wall fails or the water table is seriously disrupted?  OR if the Company goes bankrupt after a major disaster why would the city expect all of the citizens of the city to p[ay for this eventuality!   Such as occurred with the Westbrook water fiasco.  We think this is critical!
*Please note, that these applications for OP changes are never accompanied  by  long term “Cost Benefit Analysis”  for the City at large and the local community. 
Closing of an Existing Quarry/ Remediation:
By extending the Quarry operation to new adjacent land is the owner attempting to avoid the requirements of remediation of the old quarry? A requirement of the ACT. What is the plan for that remediation.
SCHOOL PROXIMITY:
It is our  understanding that there are regulations that are quite strict regarding the operation of a school  near to an asphalt plant. 
 Would you please inform us of these regulations as soon as possible?
IN CONCLUSION:
We have determined  that there is major incompatibility in the Cruickshank application with the existing uses of the land:
The Ontario Government Policy Statement of 2014 pg. 6  1.1.1.states: 
Healthy liveable and safe communities are sustained by: 
c)“avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns.”,
d ) “avoiding development and land use patterns  that would prevent the efficient expansion of settlement areas which are adjacent to or close to settlement areas.”,
h) “ promoting development and land use patterns that conserve biodiversity and consider the impacts of a changing climate”   Not to  mention,  loss of enjoyment of property due to noise and contaminant distribution. 
 The Environmental Bill of Rights Act passed in 1993  states:
 Every citizen of Ontario is entitled  by law to breathe clean air, not to be exposed to load noises and excessive vibration, to have access to clean and  plentiful water and to have the enjoyment  and normal use of their property. These fundamental legal entitlements cannot be ignored, compromised or denied by elected officials, staff and or representatives of provincial and local municipal governments bodies, agencies or boards. 
To our knowledge this Environmental Bill of Rights Act is still in force!
And so that you understand  more basic concerns about protections for citizens  regarding  aggregate policy, we have included our  submission to the Government from  Dec. 13, 2015. See attachment. 
A Blueprint for Change: Dec 13, 2015  Comments regarding: A Proposal to modernize and strengthen the Aggregates Resources Act Policy Framework.

As you can see our concerns date back some time:

A Blueprint for Change: Dec 13, 2015
 Comments regarding: 
A Proposal to modernize and strengthen the Aggregates Resources Act Policy Framework 
RE: Permits to take water  PTTW:
*There is no requirement in the Blueprint for the neighbours surrounding a Quarry to be informed of an application for PTTW.  This requirement needs to be included. Wells, ground water cisterns and the water table may be or likely will be potentially affected. 
*There is no integration of Quarry applications with the later PTTW application. This is dangerous as at any time increases of water extraction from sites can be obtained without any notification to the public except through the Environmental registry on the computer.   Applications should be coordinated, such that public notice is given at the time of an application to Quarry, not afterwards as an add-on element.
RE: Rehabilitation of closed or non-producing Quarries and Pits:
There is no no requirement in the act to force a total rehabilitation of closed or non-producing quarry or pit properties, nor is there reference to operating pits and quarries.
Section   2.3 x refers to “aggregate site rehabilitation efforts as part of the annual compliance record keeping”.  If inspections by the Ministry were taking place, the Ministry would know that the  required plans are not enforced or there are no plans in place  and no rehabilitation is occurring on most sites.
The Ministry must mitigate this environmental disaster for the benefit of our lands and communities.  Guidelines prescribed by the Ministry must be in place and adhered to for  the rehabilitation of the lands torn apart for aggregate harvesting.
Placing money in a trust, does not mean that the land will always be rehabilitated. This must be done by law and not voluntarily or subject to decisions by The Aggregate Resources Corporation (TOARC) which administers  the trust. This is particularly important with regard to the private ownership of lands.  There is no recourse available to the public if the owner just stops quarrying. Pit or quarry rehabilitation just does not occur automatically.  The landowner just locks up operation and public/municipality/county is are left with the residue. 
RE: Self-Compliance Reporting:
In the absence of regular inspections by the Ministry through its agents, self-compliance reporting requires honesty and good will on the part of the Quarry operators.  Issues of environmental safety and provincial, county, and municipal royalties are in question. Thus, “self –compliance  reporting”  is not an acceptable procedure, when there is no oversight and regular  inspection. 
Furthermore, to increase the time frame on  self -reporting from one- to two years  in the absence of inspections,  does not satisfy the protection of the citizens and governments.  No doubt, it does allow less work for the businesses.  No matter the frequency of reporting,  if the self-compliance reporting  is not verified by the Government through site inspection, it is next to useless for the enforcement of standards. 
The Citizens expect the Government to beef up its inspections through MNRF and MOECC,  not to reduce the scope of oversight of Companies.  These agencies, the MOECC and the MNRF are supposed to be our public protectors.
RE: Environmental Contamination:
There needs to be a requirement in the Blueprint, that all Quarry and pit operators carry liability insurance payable to the Governments: Provincial, County and Municipal in the event that there is an environmental catastrophe caused by them:. i.e. Water  depletion, implosion of Quarry walls, contamination of ground water, or malfunction of scrubbers on cement plants and asphalt plants, etc.   What coverage is there for damage to the environment or properties in the event of a bankruptcy of a company due to an event or closure of a site due to loss of licence  etc?
RE: 2. 4  Site Plans and Conditions:
Enable  self-filing of amended site plans for Minor Changes in Certain situations:
Pg. 23    adding portable Asphalt /concrete Plants:
Asphalt plants and concrete plants  are the biggest polluters of noxious air emissions, (especially when the equipment is not “state of the art”).  There should always be  notification of the public  and consultation, when an operator wants to install such plants. This should be the case, especially when the operations would be in cities, near residences, and villages within a 1-2 kilometer radius.  Public health needs to be protected.  
There does not appear to be any requirement to inspect these plants and their equipments, on a regular basis by the MOECC.  The expectation is that the public needs to complain about emissions.  The public on the other hand, expects that the Government will exercise oversight to protect us from contaminants for the sake of our health and our water security.
Therefore, no ‘simple self-filing of amended site plans’ should be allowed for such plant additions to quarry and pit properties.  This section should be removed, and self filing avoided.  Public Notice should be required for all applications for changes to licences.
Allowing the applicant to apply through obscure web sites such as the Environmental registry for PTTW,  extensions to activities or changes to licences, does not constitute public notification in our view.  The public would have to be constantly monitoring the websites.  
2.3 Changes to Reporting and Record Keeping:
RE: Record keeping of daily operations:
Record keeping is extremely important and therefore must form part of the public record made available to the public. Aggregate is  a public mining resource.  Therefore no  records belonging  in the public domain should be destroyed. Seven years is insufficient for historical record keeping of this mining/aggregate resource.
2.2 Standardizing Tonnage Conditions :
Extraction, Blending of materials etc: 
 How do the Province, County, and  Municipality know the amount of aggregate that an owner removes from a site? Is there a weigh scale required? Since royalties are calculated by the ton, how is this done to be accurate,  in obtaining money for the Governments?  Is this ‘self-reporting’ again?  If so, it should send up a red flag!
Also, why does the Government not charge fees for blended or recycled materials?   Essentially, the royalties applied to tonnage are public monies. Recycled materials for the most part come from old public roads and often structures that are publically owned  by the public.  Surely, they are not free-to the owner of a quarry?  These materials  have value when recycled.  The public needs to know that they are receiving an accurate accounting of their resources and that  includes, what they have paid through their taxes in the past for their infrastructure  built with this material  and now recycled  with new value!  This material which moves in and out of a Quarry property  should not be a non charged ‘self-reporting’ item. This should present a Red flag as well! 
1.3 Extraction of Aggregate from Private lands: Pg. 17
Frankly, this is a Pandora’s box  being opened wide. 
There will be no inspection and no way to determine that the pit or quarry is not being used for Commercial activities.  There is no allowance for protection of the neighbours, no requirement for rehabilitation of the property etc.  And, who would be required to report non-compliance of unknown rules and regulations…. the busy public!!   This is unfair and again diverts from the responsibility of the downsized MOECC and MNRFF to ensure that things are being done correctly in our environments.  This recommendation should be removed from your blueprint.”
In the event that this clause is not removed, it would be hoped that the Ministry would inspect the site to ensure that the rules are followed. There should be a visible posting on the site,  so that the neighbours would be aware that all activity is lawful on the subject property.
1.2  Pg. 13  Other Provisions Related to Applications:
n. New Ability to waive application requirements in unique circumstances.
This change will allow too much discretion on the part of an agent of the Government to waive rules or regulations arbitrarily without public oversight or scrutiny. The public would only know later or when things get out of hand and a complaint is brought forward.  This exception may seem viable in the North,  but in populated areas or in cities,  it is unacceptable. especially so, where inspections are not currently occurring and self-reporting is the norm. Abuses are more likely to occur than streamlining.
q. Create flexibility for ‘grandfathering’ existing sites in newly designated areas:
The intent of this change is that a ‘grandfathered’ site is required to re-obtain a permit while awaiting a definition of ‘Grandfathered’ site. 
In the case of a municipal site, when a  small privately owned operation changes hands and begins to grow or grows substantially,  there is no opportunity for the residents surrounding it to intervene when the operation of the site become noxious. ie: dust, pollutants, blasting, truck traffic, noise  effluents from asphalt plant etc.  There is no notice to the public of expansion and no opportunity for intervention. The licence just continues despite the inappropriateness of the historical placement of the operation as the city grows around it. If the intention of this section is to review the licence and allow the public to intervene, this should be applauded.  It should not be assumed “once a quarry or pit. … always a quarry or pit!”. 
 How does ‘grandfathering’ protect the public or the Environment?    PTTWs  are assumed to be a right of an owner and are not made public. They are found only when searched through FOI.  As the operation grows, generally so does the requirement for water consumption. But as the process to relicense is not described as being open to the public, certain considerations like water consumption get lost in the application/re-licensing process. How does this  proposal to ‘Grandfather”  protect the public if the process is not made public, with allowance for public input? 
There is no mention that there would be a forensic verification of an old site before a licence would again be granted.  There seems to be an assumption that all is well on old sites.  There should be broad notification of the public when these old sites are expecting to be re-licenced, thus, allowing public scrutiny. 
p. Peer review requirements for technical studies in the future:
If the Ministry is responsible for requesting Peer reviews, the selection of the consultant needs to be done through an open transparent process.

Dec 13, 2015
Thank you for your work and for allowing us to comment.
Respectfully yours,
Comments submitted on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Countryside