Comments re: …

Comments re: Certificate of Property Use (“CPU”) No. 0058-C82HUU
(ERO No. 019-4788)

First, my wife and I need to emphasize that after living beside these empty lots for over nine years we are keen to see the development completed in a successful manner. The weeds on these lots have grown in an uncontrolled fashion and when there was sand stockpiled on the lots beside us we were unable to sit outside and enjoy our backyard anytime the wind blew which, being situated near Georgian Bay, was often.

We appreciate receiving via email the draft Certificate of Property Use (“CPU”) on December 22, 2021, the day it was made available for public consultation. However we must say that the process governing the creation, review and finalization of this draft CPU has been executed in somewhat of an unfair manner.

The applicant was granted pre-approval (reference pages 730 & 746 of “Revised Site-Specific Risk Assessment, Tiffin Garden Estates, Taylor Drive, Midland, Ontario” by Terrapex dated June 30, 2021) for a mitigation strategy addressing soil that is too alkaline. It exceeds pH standards. The applicant proceeded to implement the mitigation strategy starting early November 2021. The pH mitigation strategy used consisted of capping the affected area with clean fill and was completed slightly over one month prior to the CPU being made available for public comment.

The issue we have is that there are multiple ways in which the alkalinity could have been dealt with, however, since it has already been dealt with these options are likely no longer up for discussion and any concerns we have in this regards become a moot point. A soil capping of approximately .75 meters has been installed which means the grade for parts of the affected lots is now elevated by 0.75 meters. It is reasonable to expect the remainder of the lots will be raised by much the same amount.

We reached out to the applicant once the draft CPU was made public, describing our concerns over grading and requested details about what the impact of the total mitigation strategy would be upon the grading of the lots in question. The response received was less than specific and gave the impression the lots and existing swales would all be capped with one meter of fill.

As abutting property owners, this creates a drainage issue for us. The abutting lot is currently slightly higher than ours, and will, it appears, become up to one meter higher creating a very real risk of causing drainage issues for us. The grading plan was revised by the local municipality in 2016 to recognize the potential for flooding / drainage issues. The swales between the lots listed in the draft CPU and the abutting property owners were identified and easements in favour of the municipality were added to preserve the swales in non-standard locations and size.

We clearly understand that environmental remediation issues totally fall under MOECP jurisdiction whereas approval of grading plans lie in the municipal domain. There is an overlap in this case and, MOECP being provincial, “out ranks” the municipal authorities. Simply put if it is interpreted as MOECP defining a one meter of capping is required then the municipality must accept the grading plan will be revised upwards by one meter. This plan would very likely result in, if not flooding, then certainly a “soggy backyard” for us and likely the other abutting property owners as well.

It is also clearly understood that the MOECP has directed that a minimum of one meter of unimpacted soil be present between the final grade and impacted soils (Section 4.2.1 in the draft CPU ). As per the various soil cross section diagrams using bore hole and monitoring well data (“Revised Site-Specific Risk Assessment, Tiffin Garden Estates, Taylor Drive, Midland, Ontario” by Terrapex dated June 30, 2021), it is clear to see that a uniform amount of clean fill is not required over all of the lots. That is to say the chemicals of concern are not dispersed at a uniform depth for all of the lots. This was raised with the applicant and again the response lacked any specifics as to the approach that will be followed other than to indicate varying fill depths might be difficult to implement.

The fundamental question is ‘Do we support the mitigation strategy described in the draft CPU or not?’ It is impossible to support, or oppose, something for which we do not have all the details on which to base this type of decision. If the mitigation strategy is to be implemented by simply ladling one meter of fill lot line to lot line, then this is a strategy we strongly oppose.

Simply put, as abutting property owners, we need to see a revised grading plan i.e. binding details on how the mitigation strategy will be implemented before we can support this draft CPU. We strongly feel this should be a mandatory component of any draft CPU. We have raised the question of impact on the grading plan with the applicant and have yet to receive anything other than a very vague response. We have also recently raised this with the local municipality, but it would appear that there is insufficient time remaining in the public consultation period to receive their response. It should be noted that issuing the draft CPU December 22 essentially meant a loss of at least 10 days from the 45 day consultation period due to the Christmas and New Year’s holidays.