I write to express my…

I write to express my disapproval and disagreement with this application by Miller Paving Limited in respect of the Boyington #3 pit in Uxbridge, at the corner of Reid Road and 7th Concession, Uxbridge Township (“Pit”). I do so for three basic reasons.

Abdication of regulatory obligation: This posting is asking for resident approval to transfer the regulatory oversight to the Township of Uxbridge. The purpose is to get rid of any further obligation that the MNRF would have to monitor this pit. I therefore think that this posting is an attempt by the MNRF to evade its regulatory obligation to monitor and enforce compliance by aggregate pit operators with their license obligations and the Aggregate Resources Act.
As I understand it, Miller’s license permits them to extract aggregate resources and when commercially exhausted, rehabilitate the site to an agreed standard. That is the deal – remove aggregate for socially valuable purposes, and when no further commercial resources exist, make a reasonable attempt at rehabilitation. It is the deal because the license which permits Miller certain limited activities says so. It is issued under legislation with limits most other activities. We rely on you, the regulators, to issue licenses faithfully, then monitor compliance obligations. We expect that when bad actors try to extend their activities beyond that permitted, you will enforce the sidelines of the license and the aw and not shift it to the Township.
I understand that staff at the MNRF (specifically Emily Moore) documented more than a dozen breaches of Miller’s operations at the Pit. But when asked why the breaches were not remedied, the MNRF said there was not time to enforce things. That is weak ineffective regulatory oversight. Now it seems the solution to eh MNRF’s unwillingness to fulfill its regulatory job is to punt it to a municipal far less equipped technically and personnel wise to undertake on a reliable basis.
We relied on the legislation, the regulatory framework, and the terms of the license granted to Miller, which made commitments and promises. I am asking that we still rely on proper regulatory oversight by the MNRF including compliance. This application, if approved, would eliminate any such promised provincial oversight.
Unintended Industrial Intensity: we all know that the Oak Ridges moraine is sensitive ecologically. We know also that legislation was put in place to reflect society’s concern of increasing industrial intensity in the moraine. When that legislation was put in place, activities that pre-existed the enactment were exempted as legally non-conforming, a common practice in zoning land activities. In this case, Miller’s activities (on which they rely for this application to be considered legally non-conforming) commenced in 2015, well after the enactment of the legislation. This fact is beyond dispute, not merely from Google Earth photos in 2004 and 2009, but from the fact that a horse farm across the road leased the land for a couple of decades until 2014 pursuant to a written lease.
The Miller application and the posting should fail at this point. It should fail not because it is misleading and inaccurate but because it is illegally non-conforming and thus accrues non grandfather rights. That is because the ORM Act specifically did not want to facilitate unintended increasing industrial intensity.
The outcome of this type of industrial activity, intensifying in increments, is exactly the problem the legislation sought to eliminate. When further unintended activity is incrementally permitted in small but successive steps, we end up with industrial activity never contemplated, and never would have been permitted if the application for such increased industrial activity had been filed ab initio. It should not be permitted through backdoor applications that contravene the ORM Act.
The posting discloses little to facilitate a reasonable assessment of the application. The posting on the EBR is very limited in its description of the application. It contains no risks, no regulatory assessment, and is the equivalent of saying ‘Miller wants to do more with their land, are you OK with that?”. It is silent on the license obligations and the implicit breach of them, it doesn’t mention the non-conforming use, the disregard for regulatory orders on license breaches, and it is silent on the attempt to convey the MNRF ‘s regulatory burden to an ill-equipped township.
In short, the posting is misleading in several ways, and for many residents, is so limited in assessing the implications of this application, it is misleading. It refers to ‘consultation’ as if that makes the application OK. It doesn’t say the ‘consultation’ was limited to those residents within 120 meters of the site, and no others were even notified. Limiting consultation, however legal yet artificial, to five residents (all of whom took issue with the application) is just not good enough and should have been disclosed. It is just not an acceptable transparent process as is being implied in the EBR posting. Rather, proper disclosure might have been to say that only five residents were permitted to comment, and they all opposed the application. instead, we are simply advised that ‘consultation’ took place. That is misleading, yet residents are being asked to rely on that.
It also does nothing to disclosure the risks of the application. This includes fill on top of a sensitive aquifer, risk of greater future industrial intensity with all that that means, and it tells the industry that aggregate pit license obligations are a case of “that was then, this is now”. I worry that this kind of whitewash of Miller’s conduct and disregard of its licence and compliance orders will tell other pit operators that anything goes.
Conclusion; quite simply, this is an attempt to get of your regulatory responsibility. That is not an inference, as Emily Moore told one resident “with 181 pits to monitor, we have no time for compliance.” So, it seems the ministry has decided it can’t do the job, so we are now being asked to trust that a small municipality, with no experience or staff, can undertake it properly. My response is, reject this application, and, in accordance with legislation and the license granted to Miller, Just Do Your Job.