Re: Official Plan Amendment…

Re: Official Plan Amendment No. 18 - Hastings County - Changes designation from "Rural" to “Extractive (Active)"

I am writing to ask that pursuant to subsection 17(33) or (34) of the Planning Act, you refuse to approve Hastings County Official Plan Amendment No. 18 because the amendment does not adequately consider the economic impact and health and safety effects of the proposed change to the Official Plan to permit a proposed aggregate quarry.

My husband and I have a property located in Faraday Township. The proposed quarry operations will be too close to the economic centre of the town of Bancroft. It does not make sense to locate a quarry near the centre of town.

Locating a quarry in the proposed location will have a significant and negative economic impact on the tourism and supporting retail sectors that are trying to make it in Bancroft. The one economic study (the Tomlinson study) indicates that there will be a negative economic effect to Grail Springs (an award winning year-round wellness retreat) and the local economy if the quarry is allowed to proceed. To my knowledge there has been no other economic impact study. The required pre-consultation did not occur to identify areas for investigation.

A quarry so close to the economic centre is incompatible with the tourism industry and retail/hospitality sectors. It is my understanding the Freymond’s (the current owners of the land on which the quarry will be located who have recently partnered with a larger paving company and others) have other lands in other places farther outside town. I am not sure why having an operation in town that negatively impacts other more diverse and sustainable business ventures is wise land use planning. The Mayor of Bancroft, the Mayor of North Hastings and the Reeve of Woolaston have all spoken against the Official Plan Amendment because they understand that this proposed quarry interferes with other efforts to diversify and promote economic growth in the area.

It is my understanding that in the 60’s and 70’s Bancroft was known as a “mining town.” But this activity dried up by 1982 with the closing of the Madawaska Mine and the town went into recession. The quarry application sits in Hastings Township which now shares a rare distinction with Elliotte Lake in being a place where radon gas MUST be monitored, which to my knowledge it has not been, nor has this request addressed this in any of its proposals.

According to 9.1.1.7 of Section 9.1 of the Building Code Act,1992, the
annual average radon 222 concentration of the following 3 areas cannot
exceed 200 Bq/𝑚3
1. The city of Elliot Lake in the Territorial District of Algoma
2. The township of Faraday in the County of Hastings
3. The geographic Township of Hyman in the Territorial District of Sudbury

from : https://s3.amazonaws.com/newsletter.workers-safety.ca/newsletters/2016+…

Putting it simply, blowing things up in the county is known to create fissures, that can release known hazard deposits of radon gas. I am perplexed at why this application has requested a location in this township, and right up against the downtown area of Bancroft, threatening many livelihoods, with an industrial model that is heading towards automation while promising "jobs" in the area.

After the recession, the town, with considerable thought, rebranded itself and laid out strategy to become a premier tourist destination in Ontario. With that came the businesses that work well with tourists/visitors (pubs, patios, spas, art galleries, coffee shops, specialty stores for cottage stuffs and water recreation, and more recently a craft brewery). It does not make sense that Hastings County approved the Official Plan Amendment. Locating a quarry so near town strongly conflicts with the current vision of the town and ignores past failures in mining. Quite frankly, the proposed quarry puts the economic health of Bancroft at risk and will result in Bancroft and Faraday needing funds from the province. This is not responsible economic growth.

We have been told that the proposed quarry will create a mere 3-4 new jobs (and these jobs may shift from another nearby aggregate quarry currently serving local needs) – but we will lose significantly more jobs in the tourist industry (approximately 45 full and part time jobs at Grail Springs) and in the supporting retail and hospitality sectors.

My concerns are supported by what is permissible under the Provincial Policy Statement for Ontario (PPSO). A copy of this document was found here: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx . In particular, Part IV of the document outlines the vision for responsible development. It is my understanding that this document serves to inform responsible planning in cities and townships in Ontario:

Part IV: Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System
"The long-term prosperity and social well-being of Ontario depends upon planning for strong, sustainable and resilient communities for people of all ages, a clean and healthy environment, and a strong and competitive economy."

And here:
"The Provincial Policy Statement focuses growth and development within urban and rural settlement areas while supporting the viability of rural areas. It recognizes that the wise management of land use change may involve directing, promoting or sustaining development. Land use must be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate development to meet the full range of current and future needs, while achieving efficient development patterns and avoiding significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose a risk to public health and safety"

And here:

"The Province’s natural heritage resources, water resources, including the Great Lakes, agricultural resources, mineral resources, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources provide important environmental, economic and social benefits. The wise use and management of these resources over the long term is a key provincial interest. The Province must ensure that its resources are managed in a sustainable way to conserve biodiversity, protect essential ecological processes and public health and safety, provide for the production of food and fibre, minimize environmental and social impacts, and meet its long-term needs."

The newest PPSO was instituted in 2014 and had different priorities than the previous PPSO. This use of the land can be argued to be no longer in line with the most recent use of land in settlement areas, given the economic development around it.

We are also concerned about the public safety and health effect to the community that will be caused by blasting, quarry dusts, sludge from the gravel washing process, the proposed initial request of 20 trucks an hour on our Whispering Pines Scenic Route (Bay Lake Rd.), and the massive effects on water and well systems (as water "run off" will be flushed into the adjoining river without even a proposed treatment plan), and natural wildlife habitat. The aggregate trucks have been known to, and will probably continue to, idle in larger numbers on the road blocking access to and from the fire station on Bay Lake Road (which is a tertiary road that is not well maintained). Bay Lake Road is an approved scenic route with various cultural heritage attractions along the scenic route and cyclists can be injured or killed by the large trucks. There is a reason these types of extractive sites are place farther afield and away from residences and downtown centres. It is just in the wrong place. They have other locations that the applicant can use that would be suitable, and still very close by. I am not sure why they are persistent with this one, even as the town continues to grow around it.

We welcome you to visit Bancroft and Faraday to see for yourself how close this quarry is to Bancroft’s town centre. We are happy to talk with you about this issue if you would like.