To whom it may concern: I am…

To whom it may concern:

I am concerned about he proposed amendments to the "aggregate Resources Act put forward by the Ministry.

Specifically I find it very troubling that point 3 in the "Summary of Proposed Changes" states: "clarify the application of municipal zoning on Crown land does not apply to aggregate extraction".

Why would this be a positive proposal?

The municipalities are closest to the issue and are the most knowledgeable with respect to local environmental and land use concerns. Also, it is my understanding that there is legal precedent involving waterfront usage in the Kawarthas that has caused MNRF generally to agree to respect Municipal Zoning for Private Operators of Quarries on Crown Land.

So, I ask you again....what is the upside is proposing "municipal zoning on Crown land does not apply to aggregate extraction".

Apart from making it easier for aggregate companies to seriously compromise the environmental integrity of large parcels of land....there does not appear to be any upside for anyone else from my perspective...in fact, there is a serious downside for every other stakeholder apart from the aggregate operators.

How is this good PUBLIC policy.

Noise pollution, dust pollution, a huge increase in heavy truck traffic, total destruction of the immediate quarry area, potential compromise to the watersheds feeding nearby lakes and streams and a severe curtailment of natural wildlife in a much larger area around the quarry due to the noise, dust and increased truck traffic...these will be the results for all residents (voters) who live within a few miles of the aggregate site.

I recognize that this is "Crown Land" we are talking about, and that it is not in the direct control of the adjacent municipalities. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on good PUBLIC policy to take into consideration and to respect the concerns of all those directly affected and to respect the intent of the local municipalities and the laws they have promulgated with regard to appropriate land use and environmental protection.

I urge you strongly to reconsider the proposed change referenced above...ie "clarify the application of municipal zoning on Crown land does not apply to aggregate extraction". Compliance with local municipal zoning bylaws should be of paramount concern in PUBLIC policy and should be enshrined in the legislation, not ignored and overruled.

Far better PUBLIC policy would be to consider a 2,000-metre setback requirement from all waterfront designations in alignment with many Official Town Plans and to push for increased environmental protection and local input into decision making. Isn't that what "Conservative" political ethos is all about?

Apart from a few well off company owners, whom I can guarantee you do not live anywhere near any proposed new quarries...there will be no winners here.

You can be sure the local residents will not be happy and will likely vote accordingly....not to mention that respecting local wishes as already enshrined in law, is the right thing to do in this case and good PUBLIC policy.

Please re-consider this aspect of the proposed amendments....it will not stop quarries from being developed....it will just keep them where they will impose less harm on people and the environment.

Would you like a new quarry to be dug close to where you live or recreate?

Thank you for your consideration.