In response to Miller’s…

In response to Miller’s Boyington Pit #3 amendment, I am submitting my many concerns.

1. Air and noise pollution. Miller will be bringing in one million cubic metres of fill over the next ten years, which equals ninety nine truck trips per day. As we are located near the aforementioned pit we would be greatly impacted by the noise, dust and increased truck traffic. They can also request an extension after the ten years are up.

2. How can we be assured that the fill being brought in from other areas is clean? After the boondoggle created at the Greenwood Airport site confidence, in monitoring this fill, is not exactly high. Who would pay for clean up if the fill tests show contamination?

3. Pit #3 is sitting on highly vulnerable aquifer land. What oversight would be put in place to make sure our drinking water is safe? Another major concern is the salt content of the incoming fill. How can we be assured that either contaminated fill or salt, would not leak into and contaminate our water supply?

4. There are forty plus pits located in our area. If approval is granted to Miller this would set a dangerous precedent.

5. The amendment would no longer require Miller to return the land to its former natural state which affects the wildlife and natural habitats in the area.

6. What happens to our property value? Our taxes in this area are extremely high. We chose this area because of its natural beauty and I’m sure this pit would affect the saleability of our properties.

7. Miller is trying to shift the burden of this amendment to Uxbridge Council. Our municipality is under funded and lacks the knowledge and sophistication required in such an undertaking.

8. Why would an amendment even be considered for a company that has blatantly ignored and is in breach of the terms of its license? Going forward how can we trust Miller to comply to the amendment it is seeking? Their violation clearly demonstrates that they believe they
are above the law and take a “act first and ask forgiveness” later approach. Once they have secured an amendment what will prevent then from circumventing this new agreement?

In conclusion I strongly recommend that Miller Paving’s application for an amendment be denied. First and foremost they should be made to comply with their license as it stands now. If the Ministry has not been able to safeguard our interests how can we expect our Municipality to enforce any amendment going forward? Obviously Miller would like to shift the burden because they believe our Municipality is an easier target.