HomeMy WebLinkAboutLGL-006-11 Qy n*L on g the way REPORT
MUNICIPAL SOLICITOR
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINSTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution#: 4PA //By-law#:
Report M LGL-006-11 File#: L2030-05-11
Subject: 4148 Regional Highway 2, Newcastle
GRCA Permit No. 1089 dated June 30, 2010
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council as follows:
1. THAT Report LGL-006-11 be received for information;
2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign an agreement with 1744856 Ontario
Inc. substantially in the form of agreement attached to this Report (Attachment No. 9)
in order to address some of the off-site impacts associated with the on-going fill activity
at 4148 Regional Highway 2, Newcastle;
3. THAT staff be directed to review Site Alteration By-law No. 2008-114 and report back
to Council with recommended amendments to more directly address the impacts of
commercial fill operations;
4. THAT the following resolution passed by the Board of the Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority at its meeting on May 19, 2010 be endorsed:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority request
Conservation Ontario engage the Provincial govemment to develop and
implement legislation to effectively deal with large scale commercial fill
operations, and
FURTHER THAT the Full Authority forward this motion to the watershed
municipalities, requesting the municipalities engage the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario to also work towards addressing concerns regarding
large commercial fill operations.
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0720
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 2
5. THAT staff be directed to continue to participate in the Greater Toronto Countryside
Mayors Alliance roundtable discussions dealing with the regulation of commercial fill
operations;
6. THAT Council reaffirm its support for the efforts of John R. O'Toole MPP to see that
the Province of Ontario takes all necessary steps to provide for the proper regulation of
commercial fill operations as set out in his letters to the Minister of the Environment,
Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing dated
April 12, 2011;
7. THAT staff be directed to participate in the Durham Region Works Department
initiative to develop a model by-law that could be consistently applied across Durham
Region to address the impacts of commercial fill operations; and
8. THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Minister of the Environment,
Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, John R.
O'Toole MPP, The Regional Municipality of Durham, all local municipalities in Durham
Region, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Ted and Beth Meszaros, Sherry
Ibbotson, Donna Middleton and Carmela Marshall.
Submitted by:
Andrew C. Allison, B. Comm., LL.B.
Municipal Solicitor
Reviewed by:
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 3
1.0 PURPOSE
1.1 This Report is intended to provide Council with some background information relating
to the on-going activities at the property municipally known as 4148 Regional Highway
2, Newcastle (the "Property").
1.2 This Report is also intended to provide Council with some options to address the
impacts of commercial fill operations, not only at the Property but elsewhere in the
Municipality.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The Property
2.1 1744856 Ontario Inc. (the "Owner") owns the Property. It was purchased in May 2009.
The Property and surrounding lands are shown in the Location Map attached to this
Report (Attachment No. 1). The Property is approximately 36 ha in size.
2.2 Barklay Fieldstone Estates Limited, a corporation that is affiliated with the Owner, owns
land immediately to the north of the Property (shown as 2505 Morgans Road on
Attachment No.1).
2.3 The Department of Highways Ontario (now MTO) is the registered owner of a piece of
land contiguous to the Property on the east side of Morgans Road (see Attachment No.
1). There is an on-going dispute between the Owner and MTO regarding the rights and
interests that each has in relation to this parcel
2.4 The Property has two vehicle access points— one off of Regional Highway 2 and one
off of Morgans Road. The Owner had constructed a third access onto Morgans Road
north of the MTO property without Municipal permission. This access was removed by
Municipal staff on March 14, 2011. There is also legal access to the Property through
2505 Morgans Road as shown in Attachment No. 1.
2.5 The Property is an abandoned aggregate pit.
2.6 The Property is zoned Agricultural and Environmental Protection. A provincially
designated wetland complex is located within the area zoned Environmental Protection.
The uses permitted as of right today in the Agricultural zone include one single
detached dwelling, one additional single detached dwelling for a person employed on
the lot, and a home occupation use. Non-residential uses include conservation and
forestry, a farm, fur farms, riding and boarding stables, a seasonal farm produce sales
outlet, and private kennels. The permitted uses in the Environmental Protection zone
include greenbelt park, conservation, forestry, bird sanctuaries, wildlife reserves or
other similar uses which provide for the preservation of the natural environment, a farm
exclusive of any buildings or structures, and flood and erosion control works. A more
I
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 4
detailed description of the land use designations applicable to the Property and
possible future land uses are set out in Attachment No. 2.
GRCA Permit
2.7 Ontario Regulation 168/06 (Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of
Development, Interference with Wetlands, Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses)
regulates the placing and dumping of fill in areas under the jurisdiction of Ganaraska
Region Conservation Authority ("GRCA"). This regulation was passed under section 28
of the Conservation Authorities Act.
2.8 The entire Property is within an area regulated by GRCA under Ontario Regulation
168/06. Accordingly, Clarington's Site Alteration By-law No. 2008-114 does not and
cannot apply to the Property (subsection 142(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and section
3.4 of By-law No. 2008-114). Clarington therefore has no legal ability to regulate the
placing or dumping of fill on the Property.
2.9 On June 30, 2010, GRCA issued a permit (the "Permit") under Ontario Regulation
168/06 (Attachment No. 3). The Permit will expire on June 30, 2011.
2.10 The Permit requires certification that all imported materials meet MOE Table 2
standards, that a final grading plan be submitted, that sediment and erosion controls be
installed, and that stockpile areas which had been identified as having exceeded Table
2 levels be removed or relocated.
2.11 On May 3, 2011, the Owner applied for a renewal of the Permit. GRCA is in the
process of reviewing this application.
3.0 COMMERCIAL FILL ISSUES
3.1 GRCA staff have expressed a concern regarding the extent of their powers to regulate
fill activity on the Property. Their concerns are set out in a staff report dated May 19,
2011 (Attachment No. 4). Sections 3.1 through 3.19 below describe some of the steps
that have been taken recently by public officials and public agencies to address the
concerns of GRCA and other conservation authorities, municipalities, and the general
public regarding the regulation of commercial fill operations.
CLOCA
3.2 On April 10, 2010, the Board of Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
("CLOCA") approved a large fill protocol. This protocol was CLOCA's first attempt at
establishing a guideline document to ensure that its interests could be met when
reviewing fill proposals. CLOCA was one of the first conservation authorities to put in
place such a protocol. While implementing the protocol over the last year, CLOCA has
had many discussions with various stakeholders (municipal partners, contractors, other
conservation authorities and the Province) about ongoing issues around fill sites and
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 5
strengths and weaknesses of the various regulatory tools available. CLOCA has
recently started an internal review of its protocol to strengthen certain components in
order to address potential issues of fill sites, particularly as they relate to concerns
regarding contamination and pollution.
John O'Toole MPP
3.3 On April 4, 2011, John O'Toole MPP raised the issue of commercial fill activity on
Morgans Road during question period in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and
followed up with letters dated April 12, 2011 to the Minister of the Environment, Minister
of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing. Council
endorsed these letters on May 2, 2011 (Resolution #C-212-11).
Ministry of the Environment
3.4 In April 2010, MOE staff visited the Property and obtained representative soil samples
of two fill piles located at the southeast end of the Property.
3.5 Sample results indicated an exceedance of the Ministry's Table 2 Soil Criteria
(Agricultural/Residential) for a sample from the most southerly pile. These results were
forwarded to the GRCA on June 22, 2010 for its consideration.
3.6 On April 6, 2011, MOE issued an Order (Number 3333-8FN29D) respecting the
Property. The Order requires additional, more stringent controls on the materials being
deposited at the site and management of the site including an environmental site
assessment with soil and groundwater sampling, auditing of incoming soils and the use
of qualified individuals to manage the site. The Order also requires the Owner to
disclose any business relationships amongst the parties involved in the site activities.
A copy of the Provincial Officer's Order is attached to this Report (Attachment No. 5).
3.7 By letter dated April 13, 2011, the Owner requested that the MOE Director review the
Provincial Officer's Order. In a Director's Order issued April 15, 2011, the original
Order was amended. A copy of the Director's Order is attached to this Report
(Attachment No. 6). The Director's Order recognized the jurisdictional limitations of
GRCA and Clarington.
3.8 In the Director's Order, the Owner was given additional time (to May 9, 2011) to comply
with some aspects of the original Order. The Owner was also required to prepare a
communications plan.
3.9 A copy of the procedure prepared by the Owner in response to item 5 of the original
Order ("Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures") is attached to this Report
(Attachment No. 7).
3.10 On April 28, 2011, untreated, drinking water well sampling was conducted by MOE staff
at three private residences located in the immediate vicinity of the Property, all of which
were located on Morgans Road. The samples were analyzed for metals, general
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 6
chemistry, PAH's, VOC's, PHC's, chlorides and carbonates. Municipal staff do not
know the results of the analysis.
3.11 We have been advised that on April 29, 2011, the Owner filed an appeal of the
Director's Order with the Environmental Review Tribunal. Municipal staff have not
been provided with a copy of the appeal.
3.12 We have been advised that on April 29, 2011, the Owner submitted a draft
communications plan to the MOE as required by new item 5 of the Directors Order, but
we have not been provided with a copy of the plan.
3.13 We have been advised that the Owner has provided MOE with the reports required by
items 2 and 3 of the Director's Order, but we have not been provided copies.
3.14 Ministry of the Environment ("MOE") staff have advised Municipal staff that they
recognize and appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by all of the different
levels of government, and are working on new protocols and regulatory standards for
conservation authorities.
Durham Region Works Committee
3.15 On April 13, 2011, in response to concerns raised by the Mayor and Mayor Mercier of
Scugog, Durham Region Works Committee directed Regional staff to work with the
lower tier municipalities to create a model by- law that could be consistently applied
across Durham Region to address the impacts of commercial fill operations.
Greater Toronto Countryside Mayors Alliance
3.16 On March 3, 2011 and May 12, 2011, the Greater Toronto Countryside Mayors Alliance
organized roundtable discussions with representatives of Durham area municipalities,
conservation authorities and several Provincial Ministries to discuss "commercial fill
and fill-in pits". Minutes from those discussions are attached to this Report
(Attachment No. 8).
Scugog
3.17 In March of this year, there was heightened public concern regarding the source of the
fill material that was being deposited at the Property and the quality of that fill. Part of
the concern arose as a result of recent fill activity on Lakeridge Road in the Township
of Scugog. Scugog was, and still is, dealing with a legal situation respecting its site
alteration by-law. The major difference between the Morgans Road site and the site in
Scugog is jurisdictional. In Clarington, the fill permit was issued by GRCA. In Scugog,
the fill permit that was issued (and revoked) under Scugog's site alteration by-law
because the site in Scugog was not in an area regulated by a conservation authority.
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 7
3.18 On March 12, 2011, Scugog obtained an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the owner
(2241960 Ontario Inc. operating as Earthworx Industries) from depositing fill pending
the outcome of judicial review application filed by Earthworx to challenge various
orders issued by Scugog under its site alteration by-law and under the Building Code
Act. The position of Earthworx was that its property was being used for aeronautical
purposes (a federally regulated matter) and therefore constitutionally a municipal by-
law could not apply to the activities on the site. The application was heard in Divisional
Court on April 4, 2011.
3.19 In a decision released on May 18, 2011, the Divisional Court agreed with Scugog on
every issue. It ruled that Earthworx Industries "is not engaged in the activity of
aeronautics at this time; rather it is operating a commercial landfill site' and that such
landfill activity "is subject to valid provincial and Township regulation." It also held that
even if this conclusion was wrong (i.e. that Earthworx Industries was engaged in an
aeronautical activity), "the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity does not prevent the
application of the fill by-laws". This means that even if Earthworx Industries wants to
construct a heliport, hangar and/or runway in the future, Scugog's site alteration by-law
will still apply to the site. Finally, the court agreed with Scugog that the judicial review
application should not deal with Building Code orders because there is another
statutory appeal mechanism (section 25 of the Building Code Act) for those orders.
4.0 CLARINGTON'S RESPONSE
4.1 On March 28, 2011 Clarington Council passing the following resolution (#C-149-11):
THAT the owner of the property(1744856 Ontario Inc.) be requested give
Clarington and GRCA permission to take:
(a) shallow groundwater samples down gradient of the fill material and
wetlands to establish background water quality concentrations for use in
evaluating future groundwater impacts, and
(b) random soil samples at timesdocations of their choosing, with reasonable
notice to the owner so that its consultant can be present.
THAT the owner of the property(1744856 Ontario Inc.) be requested keep and
make available for inspection upon request by Clarington a log of every truck
that dumps materials onto the property which identifies the source of the
materials deposited on the property.
THAT the owner be required to enter into an agreement with Clarington to
address issues with respect to the damage caused to Morgans Road by the
trucks leaving the property.
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 8
Regulatory Activities
4.2 As a result of complaints from residents, municipal law enforcement officers have
attended the Property and the surrounding area on numerous occasions. Over the
past several weeks, staff have visited the Property at least twice every weekday and on
Saturday mornings unless the weather was such that there was no trucking activity.
4.3 Clarington has the ability to regulate traffic on roads under its jurisdiction through
Traffic By-law 91-58. Clarington has jurisdiction over Morgans Road.
4.4 The Regional Municipality of Durham has jurisdiction over Regional Highway 2 in the
vicinity of the Property. Clarington has no jurisdiction over any part of Regional
Highway 2.
4.5 Section 19 of Traffic By-law 91-58 permits Clarington to regulate "heavy traffic" and to
restrict loads for specified periods of time. Signs have been posted on Morgans Road
advising that half load restrictions are in place on Morgans Road between Durham
Highway 2 and Concession Road 3. Staff intend to maintain this restriction if and so
long as the Permit is in place.
4.6 No charges have been laid by Municipal staff either under Traffic By-law 91-58, Noise
By-law No. 2007-071 or the Highway Traffic Act because no infractions have been
observed by the officers at the times that they have been at the Property.
4.7 MTO and Durham Regional Police have the ability to regulate Highway Traffic Act
matters. In response to complaints from residents and at the request of Clarington
councillors, MTO and DRPS officers have been patrolling Morgans Road and Regional
Highway 2. Trucks coming from the Property have been ticketed for a variety of
Highway Traffic Act offences.
5.0 GOING FORWARD
Morgans Road Agreement
5.1 Consistent with Council Resolution #C-149-11 (see section 4.1 of this Report), staff
have prepared an agreement that is intended to address some of the off-site impacts
associated with the operations at the Property. The form of agreement (without
attachments) is attached to this Report (Attachment No. 9). Amongst other things, the
agreement deals with the following matters:
(a) Number and Location of Entrances
• Consistent with Clarington's Policy for Entrances and Traffic By-law No. 91-
58, any truck carrying fill will be required to enter the Property off of Regional
Highway 2 access and exit the Property using Morgans Road.
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 9
(b) Truck Routing
• The Owner has been requested to ensure that all trucks coming into and
leaving the Property do not travel through Newcastle Village.
(c) Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control
• The Owner will be required to adhere to all of the requirements of the "Dust,
Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures" filed with the Ministry of the
Environment on April 15, 2011. The meaning of several sections of the
Procedure will be clarified. The Owner has been requested to agree to
further restrict its hours of operation on weekdays and on Saturdays as
compared to the hours set out in the Noise By-law (which allows
construction activity on weekdays and Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. and from 10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays).
(d) Load Restrictions
• Half load restrictions are to remain in place on Morgans Road.
(e) Road Repair
• The Owner has been requested to pay for a culvert and necessary ditching
at the current access onto Morgans Road to the satisfaction of the Director
of Engineering Services.
• The Owner has been requested to construct upgrades to Morgans Road
from Durham Highway 2 to the north side of the existing entrance to the
Property (approximately 250 metres north) to the satisfaction of Clarington's
Director of Engineering Services.
(f) Performance Guarantee
• The Owner has been requested to provide Clarington with a performance
guarantee in the amount of the $54,285 as security for road rehabilitation work.
(g) Cross Default
• The Owner has been requested to agree that default under the road
agreement is default under the Permit.
5.2 The agreement does not address soil quality or other matters addressed either by
GRCA in the Permit or by MOE in the Director's Order.
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 10
5.3 As of this date (May 26, 2011), the owner has not provided a formal response to the
Municipality's request to enter into the agreement, but has indicated that it will be
providing one.
Site Alteration By-law No. 2008-114
5.4 Not unlike many municipal site alteration by-laws, Clarington's Site Alteration By-law
No. 2008-114 was not written in anticipation of large scale commercial fill operations
similar to what has been observed at the Property.
5.5 As stated in section 2.8 of this Report, Clarington's Site Alteration By-law does not and
cannot apply to the Property. If it did, the Municipality would have had the ability to
regulate many of the on-site and off-site impacts associated with the fill operation as
noted below:
• Fill quality (sections 4.1(f), 5.2(e) and (f), 6.2 and 6.3 (testing))
• Haul routes (sections 4.1(e), 5.2 (c)(xiii) and (xviii), and 5.3)
• Trucking schedules (sections 5.2 (c)(xviii) and 5.3)
• Noise (sections 4.1 (c), 5.2 (c)(xviii) and 5.3)
• Source of the fill material (section 5.2(e))
• Morgans Road infrastructure impacts (sections 4.1 (e) and 5.3)
• Mud tracking and dust control (sections 5.2(c)(xvii), 5.4 and 6.1)
5.6 Having observed all of what has happened at the Property, staff are of the opinion that
Site Alteration By-law No. 2008-114 should be reviewed to determine whether it needs
to be revised to more directly address the impacts associated with commercial fill
operations. Specifically, the by-law should be reviewed to consider possible
amendments to address the following matters:
(a) Public meeting or public liaison committee requirements for applications that
exceed a specified volume of fill.
Currently, the Director of Engineering has the authority to issue permits under the
by-law without any requirement for formal public involvement. While formal public
involvement may not be required for smaller fill activities, permits for larger scale fill
activity should go through a public process.
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 11
(b) Fees
The current fee prescribed by Council for a site alteration permit is $250 for 250 m3
or less (including $100 application fee) and $500 for more than 250 m3 (including
the $100 application fee), with a $25 surcharge per 1,000 m3. Many municipalities
impose significantly higher fees, particularly in relation to commercial fill operations.
(c) Standards and Protocols
More rigorous standards and protocols to regulate fill quality (similar to the MNR's
"Off-site Fill Acceptance Protocol" developed for use in the rehabilitation of
aggregate pit and quarry operations - Attachment No. 10) may be appropriate.
(d) Permit Duration
The current by-law states that all site alteration permits expire after 90 days. In
some cases, it may be appropriate to provide for longer permit terms.
(e) Source Restrictions
Whether it is appropriate to restrict or prohibit the placement or depositing of fill that
comes from areas outside of the Municipality needs to be considered.
(f) Commercial Operations
There may be reasons to distinguishing between land owners that are operating a
commercial fill site from construction companies or developers who are looking to
find a place to deposit fill from their own development activity.
(g) Regulating Hours of Operation
While the current by-law contains provisions that allow the Director of Engineering
to regulate hours of operation, it may be appropriate to establish baseline hours of
operation that are different from the hours set out in the Noise By-law.
5.7 Staff are of the opinion that the issues described in section 3.6 should be investigated
further and the results of such investigation reported to Council for its consideration.
REPORT NO.: LGL-006-11 PAGE 12
6.0 DEPRTMENTAL INPUT
6.1 The Director of Engineering Services, Director of Planning Services, Municipal Clerk,
Director of Emergency & Fire Services, and Director of Operations concur with the
recommendations of this report.
Attachment 1: Location Map
Attachment 2: Property Designations
Attachment 3: GRCA Permit
Attachment 4: GRCA Staff Report dated May 19, 2011
Attachment 5: Provincial Officer's Order dated April 6, 2011
Attachment 6: Director's Order dated April 15, 2011
Attachment 7: Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures
Attachment 8: Minutes from GTCMA roundtable discussions
Attachment 9: Draft Morgans Road Agreement
Attachment 10: MNR "Off-Site Fill Acceptance Protocol"
ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO
REPORT LGL-006-11
N I
f 2513b
.. 2505
.2495
0d'''f�SR!y
P
s
," �� L• < '_ y� mot ,
c Y
f < ` 1744856 Ontario Inc
i � y � 4 a•A
� 4 �RrV �.. �g. ♦ 4'+C4. �t V M1. . ,
yp r
l 1
2
y<r 050 , 1
• 036
4 _e'1�^MM41M{�dY'.NMI' J_... ♦ � a N.I I`��
i
t
ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TO
REPORT LGL-006-11
�
Property Designations
The Greenbelt Plan
The Greenbelt Plan indicates that the Property is within the Protected Countryside and is part
of a Natural Heritage System. A full range of existing and new agricultural, agricultural-related
and secondary uses and normal farm practices are permitted. This would include farm-
related commercial and farm-related industrial uses that are small scale and directly related to
the farm operation, home occupations, home industries, and uses that produce value-added
agricultural products from the farm.
Activities related to the use of renewable resources such as forestry, fisheries and wildlife
management are permitted as are non-renewable resource activities, such as mineral
aggregate operations and wayside pits and quarries.
The rural area policies support recreational, tourism, institutional and resource-based
commercial/industrial uses.
New multiple units or multiple lots for residential dwellings are not permitted. New lots for any
use that would create or extend or promote strip development are not permitted.
Durham Regional Official Plan
The Property is designated Major Open Space Area within the Greenlands System. The
predominant use of lands in the Major Open Space Areas is conservation, and a full range of
agricultural, agricultural-related and secondary uses. The establishment of limited non-
agricultural uses which are in conformity with the Durham Regional Official Plan and the
Greenbelt Plan may be considered.
The Property appears to contain key natural heritage and hydrologic features and be part of
the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System. Development or site alteration is not permitted in key
natural heritage and/or hydrologic features, including any associated vegetation protection
zone. Limited exceptions such as forest, fish or wildlife management, conservation and flood
or erosion control projects, infrastructure, minor recreational uses, agriculture and aggregate
extraction may be permitted.
Clarington Official Plan
The Property is designated Green Space and Environmental Protection Area. No
development is permitted in the Environmental Protection Area except low-intensity recreation
and uses related to forest, fish and wildlife management or erosion control and stormwater
management.
Lands designated Green Space are to be used primarily for conservation and active or
passive recreational uses. Agriculture, farm-related uses, home-based occupations, limited
home industries, farm-related commercial/industrial uses are also permitted. Golf courses
may be considered by amendment.
Former Town of Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63
The Property is zoned "Agricultural (A)" and "Environmental Protection (EP)" under Zoning
By-law 84-63.
The Agricultural zoning permits one single detached dwelling, one additional single detached
dwelling for a person employed on the lot, provided the lot is a minimum of 20 hectares, and a
home occupation use. Non-residential uses include conservation and forestry, a farm, fur
farms, riding and boarding stables, a seasonal farm produce sales outlet, and private kennels.
Residential uses are prohibited in the Environmental Protection zone. The permitted non-
residential uses include greenbelt park, conservation,forestry, bird sanctuaries, wildlife
reserves or other similar uses which provide for the preservation of the natural environment, a
farm exclusive of any buildings or structures, and flood and erosion control works.
Permitted Uses and Required Amendments
The residential uses permitted as of right under the Agricultural zone and the Greenbelt Plan
include one single detached dwelling, one additional single detached dwelling for a person
employed on the lot, and a home occupation use. Non-residential uses include conservation
and forestry, a farm, fur farms, riding and boarding stables, a seasonal farm produce sales
outlet, and private kennels.
The permitted uses in the Environmental Protection zone, which contains a provincially
significant wetland, include greenbelt park, conservation, forestry, bird sanctuaries, wildlife
reserves or other similar uses which provide for the preservation of the natural environment, a
farm exclusive of any buildings or structures, and flood and erosion control works.
The Clarington Official Plan permits limited home industries and farm related
commercial/industrial uses in the Green Space designation. An amendment to the Zoning By-
law would be required to permit these uses on the property. A golf course may be considered
on the Agricultural portion by amendment to the Official Plan and a rezoning would be
required. Home industry uses in the Agricultural zone require an amendment to the Zoning
By-law.
No development is permitted in the Environmental Protection Area designation of the
Clarington Official Plan except low-intensity recreation and uses related to forest, fish and
wildlife management or erosion control and stormwater management.
The rural policies of the Greenbelt Plan permits tourism, institutional and resource-based
commercial/industrial uses outside of the provincially significant wetland complex. An
amendment to the Clarington Official Plan and a Zoning Bylaw amendment would be required
to have these uses on the property.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TO
REPORT LGL-006-11
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Ga naras ka. Box 328, Port Hope, Ontario L1A 3W4
(905)885—8173 FAX(905)885-9824
eCOWERVA'nON - e-mail:info @grca.omca .
No:1089
PERMIT
Development, Interference with Wetland's,Alteration to Shorelines and
Watercourses Regulation(Ontario Regulation 168106)
PERMISS16N HAS BEEN GRANTED TO:
Owner:
Address-
Phone No:
Location: Part Lot 16;Concession 2—Municipality of Glarington
Morgans Road (east side, 100 metres north of Highway 2)
To unit r;aketh64otlowing work:
Tempdrarystockpiling offil('material for future use on-site, within the designated areas
Indicated on the attached plan;
During the period of: June 30t', 2010 to June 30th, 2011
and at midnight of the date last mentioned after which this permit becomes null and void;
Sub' ct to the following conditions:
1.
That prior to any fill being placed on site the GRCA be provided with certification
from a qualified soils engineer that the imported material meets MOE Guidelines
Table 2 (Potable Water Designation),
2:' That within one month of the issuance of this permit the owner prepare and
submlt a final grading plan forthe'stockpiled material; acceptable to the GRCA
which includes, phasing, stabilization and re vegetation details.
03. That prior to any on-site works(i.e. grading, fill placement, excavation) silt
fencing be installed as.shown on the attached plan(s), and maintained until the
area hasbean adegtiately re-vegetated;to prevent the reladid of sediment from
the'work'areas.
4. That prior to any fill placement the GRCA be contacted to inspect the sediment
and erosion controls on site, in addition to barrier fencing.
5. That the recently placed fill material labeled "Existing Stockpile Areas"be
removed from the site, or relocated to the proposed stockpile.atea If it is
demdnstrated th e material meets MOE Guidelines Table 2 (Palabla Water
Designation). '
6. That no other grading, excavation, or fill placement occur on.site, except as
indicated on attached plan, and described irrCondition 5 of this permit.
7. That all areas of exposed soils be re-vegetated in a,timely fashion.
see reverse side.fo r general conditions
COPIES TO:
Enforcement Officer:
❑ BUILDING INSPECTOR
e( PROPERTY OWNER Signing Officer.
o� AGENT
la OTHER:Clci a21 )aair oc,r Date of Issue: June 30.2010
Ganaraska
CONSERVATION
G2_t CoMtlitions
1. That all works are subject to provincial,federal and municipal statues,
regulations, and by-laws.
2. That t■ts perrfilt does not confer upon yoLLany fightto occVPyr daVelop or flood
lands 6wried by other,tersons or agencies without.peTmisstprt
3. That the applicant maintains and complies with the local drainage requirements
of the Municipality.
4. That nothing herein authorizes any person to-carry:on any work or,undertaking;
which may result in the harmful alteration,disruptiomor destrucion of fisfi habitat
or any fishery.
Nate: It is the responsibility of the owner and their.agent(s)lcontractgrs to.,teke all
reasonable steps to minimize any potential hazards and risks that may
occur during the proposed works.
Note: It is the responsibility of the owner and/or their agents to carry out the
works.in accordance.wgh.the.above conditions. Failure to.doso•may
result in action takan4n accordapce.with the provisions under,5ection 28
of the Conservation Auttior(ties Act.
Caution: The G.R.CA.assumes no liability for.any losses or damagesjassoclated
with these works or that may occur as a resulf of failure to ipiry, o'ut the
above noted conditions. ,
Noce:
Section,28 of the Cpnservetlon Alithori8es Act,Chapter=,RSO 1990 prbvides the'1Cllovring-pe'rialties:
(16)Every.persoriwho contra'venbs a regulation matte undersubsectlan:(t1 Itpfity.dGAn o fe4"he on
conviction is liable to a fine of not more than$10,009 or to a term at imprisonment of not more`,th8n1hree
months.
(17 In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law,the court,upon making a conviction under
subsectloh'(18y�inay order the:petsbni convrcted to, ..
c) remove;at that:persorfs:exlsdr a any;developmentwlthln.such reasonable:time�as�me:cavo orders: and
d) rehabilitate any watercourse or wetland in the manner and within the time the couri.ora i. '
(20)If a person does not comply with an order made under subsection(17) the authority having jurisdiction may,
in the c996 of 5 dedetopment h,Wellrerridved ar4 to the ease of.a Watertoursa bh*4d6nii;S&e it
rehabilitated. - -
(21)The person convicted is-0able tortha cost of a removal or rehabilitation under subsection and the amount is
recoverable by me au8idri `by abBOrrbi a conrt'of co 4 etenqurisdidim.
ATTACHMENT NO.4 TO
REPORT LGL-006-11
STAFF REPORT — May 19, 2011
TO: Chair and members of the Full Authority
Re: Large Commercial Fill Operations
The following staff report provides background information regarding large
commercial fill operations and the applicability of the Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority regulation (O.Reg. 168/06) to deal these works.
Additionally, staff has prepared a draft resolution for Board consideration, following
the motion from the April Full Authority meeting. The motion attempts to capture
the essence of the discussion and concerns raised by the Board at the previous
meeting.
Background
1. Conservation Authority Act Regulation
The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) has been given the ability
to regulate development within a number of areas within its jurisdiction. The
sections of the Conservation Authorities Act that provide for this regulation are
listed below:
Excerpts from: Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.27
Regulations by authority re area under its jurisdiction
28. (1) Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority may make
regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction,
(c) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for
development if, in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion,
dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the
development;
Definitions
(25) In this section, "development" means,
(c) site grading, or
(d) the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material,
originating on the site or elsewhere;
2. Areas Subject to Conservation Authority Regulation as defined in the Act
The sections of the Conservation Authorities Act that describe the areas that this
regulation can be applied to are listed below:
Minister's approval of development regulations
(5) The Minister shall not approve a regulation made under clause (1) (c) unless
the regulation applies only to areas that are,
May 19, 2011 —Staff Report: Large Commercial Fill Operations Page 2
(a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
System or to inland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic
beach hazards;
(b) river or stream valleys;
(c) hazardous lands;
(d) wetlands; or
(e) other areas where, in the opinion of the Minister, development should be
prohibited or regulated or should require the permission of the authority. 1998,
c. 18, Sched. 1, s. 12.
3. Areas and activities that can be regulated as described by Regulation
As noted above the Conservation Authorities Act allows the Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority to make a regulation. Excerpts from the regulation provide
details of the regulated area and the things that can be addressed within this area.
Excerpts from: Ontario Regulation 168/06 made under the Conservation
Authorities Act Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of
development, interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines and
watercourses.
Development prohibited
2. (1) Subject to section 3, no person shall undertake development,
or permit another person to undertake development in or on
the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority that are,
(d) wetlands; or
(e) other areas where development could interfere with the hydrologic
function of a wetland, including areas within 120 metres of all provincially
significant wetlands and wetlands greater than 2 hectares in size, and areas within
30 metres of wetlands less than 2 hectares, but not including those where
development has been approved pursuant to an application made under the
Planning Act or other public planning or regulatory process.
4. Relationship Between Municipal Fill By-Law and Conservation Authority
Regulations
The Municipal Act allows municipalities to make by-laws regarding the regulating
of site alteration. Excerpts from the Act are noted below. You will note that
Section 142, subsection 8 states that if a regulation made under Section 28 of the
Conservation Authorities Act is in effect, the Municipal By-law is of no force or
effect. Excerpts from the Municipal Act are provided below:
Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, CHAPTER 25
Site alteration Definition
142. (1) In this section, "topsoil' means those horizons in a soil profile,
commonly known as the "O" and the "A" horizons, containing organic material and
May 19,2011—Staff Report: Large Commercial Fill Operations Page 3
includes deposits of partially decomposed organic matter such as peat. 2001, c. 25,
s. 142 (l).
Powers of local municipality
(2) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, a local municipality may,
(a) prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill;
(b) prohibit or regulate the removal of topsoil;
(c) prohibit or regulate the alteration of the grade of the land;
(d) require that a permit be obtained for the placing or dumping of fill, the removal
of topsoil or the alteration of the grade of the land; and
(e) impose conditions to a permit, including requiring the preparation of plans
acceptable to the municipality relating to grading, filling or dumping, the removal
of topsoil and the rehabilitation of the site. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 76 (1).
By-law ceases to have effect:
(8) If a regulation is made under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities
Act respecting the placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration
of the grade of land in any area of the municipality, a by-law passed under this
section is of no effect in respect of that area. 2001, c. 25, s. 142 (8).
5. What a Conservation Authority can ask for in a permit application
As noted above the Conservation Authorities Act allows the Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority to make a regulation. Excerpts from the regulation provide
details on what a Conservation Authority can ask for when receiving a permit
application to undprtake development, (e.g. place fill):
Excerpts from: Ontario Regulation 168/06 made under the Conservation
Authorities Act (Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority's Development,
Interference with Wetlands, Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation.
Application for permission
4. A signed application for permission to undertake development shall be filed
with the Authority and shall contain the following information:
1. Four copies of a plan of the area showing the type and location of the
development.
2. The proposed use of the buildings and structures following completion of
the development.
3. The start and completion dates of the development.
4. The elevations of existing buildings, if any, and grades and the proposed
elevations of buildings and grades after development.
5. Drainage details before and after development.
6. A complete description of the type of fill proposed to be placed or
dumped. O. Reg. 168/06, s. 4.
May 19,2011 —Staff Report: Large Commercial Fill Operations Page 4
Concerns
The following concerns have become evident in relation large fill operations that
are regulated by the Conservation Authority regulation:
1. The municipality, GRCA board members, GRCA staff and the public have
expressed concerns with a number of conditions included in Conservation
Authority permitting requirements for large commercial fill operations;
2. As described above the Conservation Authorities Act and regulation defines
what can and cannot be addressed when a Conservation Authority considers an
application to place fill;
3. The Municipal Act clearly removes the ability of a municipality to regulate an
area over which a Conservation Authority has a regulation;
4. The Conservation Authority regulation contains wording regarding the things
that a Conservation Authority can require of an applicant and this wording is
vague;
5. If an application for fill is proposed in an 'other area" limited criteria can be
used when assessing the application;
6. The Conservation Authorities regulation was not intended, nor does it have the
capability to address the significant social and economic impact of large
commercial fill operations on the neighbouring communities;
7. The Ministry of the Environment has stated that the regulation of fill sites is
outside of its mandate; and
8. In Conclusion, the Conservation Authority regulation was not developed with
large commercial fill operations in mind.
Given these issues, it is clear that the regulations developed under the
Conservation Authorities Act do not adequately regulate large commercial fill
operations. During its Board meeting of April 2011, the Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority Full Board requested that staff prepare a report for the May
Full Authority meeting to provide background information regarding large
commercial fill operations. Additionally, staff was asked to prepare a
recommended resolution to be forwarded to several agencies and Conservation
Ontario outlining concerns that were brought forward regarding this matter. A
recommended resolution has been provided below:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
WHEREAS Conservation Authority regulations in Ontario apply to `other areas"
(within 120 metres) of wetlands, and
WHEREAS it appears the only consideration in assessing an application for
permission is hydrologic impact to a wetland; and
WHEREAS the section Section 142(8) of the Municipal Act exempts a landowner
May 19,2011—Staff Report: Large Commercial Fill Operations Page 5
of the requirements of a Municipality's site alteration by-law, if a Conservation
Authority has a regulation in effect;
WHEREAS the Conservation Authority regulations requires an applicant to submit
"A complete description of the type of fill proposed to be placed or dumped"; and
WHEREAS it is beyond the resource capacity and scope of CA regulations to
effectively deal with, large scale commercial fill operations; primarily with respect
to the sources and quality of material they import;
WHEREAS it is the position of the MOE that the regulation of fill sites; or filling
activity is not addressable through its legislation;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority request
Conservation Ontario engage the Provincial government to develop and
implement legislation to effectively deal with large scale commercial fill operations,
and
FURTHER THAT the Full Authority forward this motion to the watershed
municipalities, requesting the municipalities engage the Association of Municipalities
of Ontario to also work towards addressing concerns regarding large commercial fill
operations
Prepared By: ui c e
Mark Peaco . Eng. Greg ells
Director, Watershed Services Manager, Planning & Regulations
n n
�.t
Recommended by: 1r � A
Linda J. Lalibe e, CGA
CAO/Secretary Treasurer
ATTACHMENT NO.S TO
PPR-06-2011 1521 YaRK DLRHAM DISTRICT OFF. REPORT LGL-006-11
Walstry of V' Ontario MInli do 10'I F.nvkoon
Provincial Officer's Order
Enwmaw w Probeson Act RAID.1990,CA 15(EPA) Order Nu111ber
onto to wA1M RN04rp9 AOt ttAA.1919,a O.ee(OWRA) 33334FN290
PeaaWu Act,RA.0.1190.0.P11 MAI
ace DdWna vwbrAa,8.0.M2.o32 ISOWA1 Incident Report No.
NubWd him" mantAot,MM&0.119L CA(NNA) W?34FMH37
To: 1744856 Ontario Inc.
96 Cawkees Cove Rd Port Perry
Scugog,Ontario,L91. IR6
Canada
Richard Rondeau
96 Cawhers Cove Rd Port Perry
Swans,Ontario,L9L IR6
Canads
Site: 2513 Morgans Rd Newcastle, Part Lot 16,Concession 2(Clarke Twp.)
Clwington,Regional Municipality of Durham
Pursuant to my authority tinder EPA Section 157.1,I order you to do the following:
Work Ordered
Item No.1 COMPNenee Date 2011/(W15
trm'naMroo)
After April 15.2011 at 07:00 hours,cease accepting any material at the site tmtil:
a)One or more Qualified Person(s)have been retained to carry out the work described in
ORCA Permit No. 1099 and this Order and there has been submitted to the undersigned
Provincial Officer written documentation confirming the came,contact infomtation and
qualifications of the retained Qualified Person(s).
b)There is put in place a procedure whereby the Qualified Persons)have reviewed
written documentation for each source site and has confirmed in writing that the material
being received is acceptable for use at the Site and that there are appropriate soil
roenagement activities at each source site prior to delivery of material to the Site to ensure
the material being delivered to the Site meets Table 2 criteria. The written documentation
and written confirmation shell be available at the Site,for review by a Provincial Officer.
Pop 1•NUMBER 3333-OFN20D
RPR-06-2011 1522 YORK DURHAM DISTRICT OFF. 905 427 5602 P.03
c)There is an on-site,independent Qualified Person(s)to confirm in writing that the
material being received is acceptable for use at the Site. The written documentation and
written confirmation shall be available at the Site for review by a Provincial Officer. The
Qualified Person(s)aball be responsible for monitoring all vehicle activities depositing at
the Site,including documenting the vehicle identity for all vehicles depositing material at
the Site,details of the approved source of the material,and the date and time the material
was deposited.
d)There is a procedure in place that is acceptable to the undersigned Provincial Officer
whereby each source site material can be segregated and managed at the Site in
conjunction with the confirmatory audit sampling procedures set out below.
e)The Qualified Person(s)shall collect weekly audit soil samples from trucks that
represent each source site that has been accepted to ship soil to the Site.These soil
samples shall be analysed for metals,soluble chlorides,volatile organic compounds,
petroleum hydrocarbons,and benzene,toluene,athylbenzene,xylem and semi-volatile
organic compounds. Copies of these analysis results snail be maintained on the Site and
be made available to Ministry staff upon request. If any audit temple results indicate
levels above Table 2 criteria,the undersigned Provincial Offiosr shall be notified within
24 hours and advised of the action(s)being taken and by when the soils above Table 2
will be removed from the Site.
Item Na 2 Compliance Daw 2011 Y co:
By 16:00 hours on April 29,2011,submit to the undersigned Provincial Officer, a copy,
report from the Qualified Persons)regarding the nature and sources of the material that has
already been deposited at the Site prior to April 15,2011. This report shall also include a
description of any relationships between the parties involved at the source sites,the excavation
and trucking activities,and all the parties involved at the Site including,where corporations ate
involved,any relationships with their officers,directors,and shareholders.
Item No.3 Compliance Dots 2011/04/29
(YYYY&UNM
By 16:00 hours on April 29,2011,submit to the undersigned Provincial Officer one or more
reports on any environmental site assessment and soil work done at the Site,and a plan for
additional environmental site assessments. The site assessment will include,at a minimum:
(a)a site soil and fill characterization program including test pitting and borehole as
appropriate to determine the concentration and vertical and horizontal extent of any
contaminant in the fill received at the Site and underlying native soils,and
(b)a groundwater characterization program including intrusive investigations to characterize
the depth to groundwater,groundwater flow direction and a survey of on and off
groundwater uses and/or the relation to surface water features for all groundwater aquifers
at the Site that may be impacted by activities at the Site.
Pare 2-NUMBER 3333•aFN29D
FFR-06-2011 15:22 YORK DURI- M DISTRICT OFF. 905 427 5602 p,04
Item No.4 Compliance Date 2011/04/15
By 16:00 hours on April 15, 2011,submit to the undersigned provincial Officer a plan for
appropriate security measures at the Site and implement the measures by April 29,2011.
Item No.6 Compliance Data 2011/04/15
lrvvr»,o�wol
By 16:00 hours on April 15,2011,submit to the undersigned provincial Officer,procedures in
place relating to managing any noise and dust from activities at the Site and truck traffic to and
from the Site and court these procedures are implemented.
A. While this Order is in effect,a copy or copies of this order shall be posted in a
conspicuous place.
B. While this Order is in effect, report in writing,to fire District or Area office,any
significant changes of operation,emission,ownership,tenancy or other legal status of the
facility or operation.
This Order 1s being issued for the reasons set out in the anaexed.Provincial Officers Report
which forms pert of this Order.
Ismud�at Ajax this 6th day of April,2011.
Steve Etford "
Badge No: 1184
York Durham District Office
Tel;
Pape 3•NUMBM 33334FN29D
APR-06-2011 15:22 YORK DURN M DISTRICT OFF. 905 427 5502 P,05
A"EAL/REVIEW INBORMAMON
Rg"gST FOR REVIEW
You may request that this order be reviewed by the Director.Your request must be MWe in writing(or orally with written
Confirmation)within seven days of service of this order and sent by mail or But to the Director a the address below.In the
wram regress at written confirmation you must
• specify 1116 Fatboae of this order111et you math to be reviewed;
• Include my submissions to be considered by she Director with vespers to Iaumee of the order to you or any Otter Farmer
and with respect to the Contents of the order;
• apply,for a my of rids order,if netxawy;and provide an ad&=fm service by me of the following meets.
1.mail 2.fix
The Director may confimt alter or revoke this arder.If this order is revoked by the Diseases,you will be notified in writing.If
dds order Is oonMmed or amended by order of the Dimemr,the Dhalmts amer will be saved upon you.The Dkatats order
will include im truetlons for requiring a hearing before she Environmental Review Tribtoal.
DEEMED CONFIRMATION OF THIS ORDER
Ifyou do not receive oral or wrium motice of the Directors decision within seven days of receipt of your request this order is
doomed to be confirmed by order of to Director and deemM to be served upon you.
You may require a hewing before tie Environmental Review Tribunal if,whirls IS days of serrvia of die owdrowag order
domed to Mvo bean made by dun Director,you save written nods ofyour appal on der EsvimmoanW ReviewTribaml and
the Director.Your notice must tote the porWru of she order for which a kuring IS required and she grounds on which you
belad to rely a the haring.Except by leave of me Envimnmamal Review Tribunal,you as not winded to appeal a portion or
the order or to rely on grounds of appeal flat we not stated in the notice requiring the kearbag.Unkse stayed by to
Environmental Review Tribunal,the order Is effusive from to dam of service.
Wrhtm notice requbng a keasng row be sexed personally or by moll upon:
TheSeeretarr and Director(provincial Officer Orders)
Envirahmmtal Review Tribunal Ministry of the Envirommeat
633 Bay Stata,ISO Floor York Durban District Office
Teaano ON Sib Flow
MSG IES 230 Wutney Rd S
Ajax ON LIS7I5
Fax:(903)427.5602
Tel:(90S)427•5600
When service is made by mail,it is decimal to be mode on the AfUh day star site dam of aaling ad the tkme for m4miciag o
hearing is not extended by choosing n"ke by mail.
Further information an the Environmental Review Tribunal's requUenoew for an appeal ere be obtained directly from the
Thlbnmlby:
Tel:(416)3141600 Fax:(416)3144306 WMLE gpv."
FOR YOUR 1111FORMATION
• Unless$toyed by the Director or use Environmental Review Tribmd,this order is dfaalve fkmn she dam of service.
Non-compliance with the mquiramhts of ttis order commit"an offin e.
• The re"i"a mis of side order we minimum regobmaos only end do not relieve you gam complying with the fullowkrg:
• any applicable hdenl legislation;
• any Vidiable provincial nquiraamn the are not addressed in the order,and
• any applicable municipal law.
• The roWma eras oftble order are severable.If any rapuimmentof this order or der application of my requbontem to my
eiramWance Is held mvWd,me&Wkdicn Of VA mgWMUM to odor circumsmneu and the remainder of the order are
not alfeetot
• Further orders may be Issued in accordance wlik the legishmoo u circumstances require.
• 7Tm procedures to request o review by Ike Director and other nPonnstm provided above on Intended as a guide.The
laga stion should be cashed for additional details and aeeura•reference.
Page •NUMBER 33333FN290
APR-06-2011 1522 YORK DLJ*M DISTRICT OFF. 905 427 5602 P.06
((Tii✓✓���
Ministry of the Environment/O�nO Mins0re do I'Emlronnev mnt
Provincial Officer's Report
Order Number
3333-aFN29D
1744856 Ontario Inc.
96 Cawkee+s Cove Rd Port Perry
Scugog,Ontario,L9L IR6
Canada
Richard Rondeau
%Cawker's Cove Rd Port Perry
Scugog,Ontario,L9L 1R6
Canada
Site
2513 Morgans Rd Newcastk, Part Lot 16,Concession 2(Clarke Twp.)
Clarington,Regional Municipality of Durham
Observations
On 2011/03/02,I visited the above sites)and made the following observations:
1.Authority to Issue Order
I have authority as a Provincial Officer to issue orders under the Environmental Protection Act
(R.S.O. 1990,c.E. 19)as amended(EPA)to further the purpose of the EPA,namely"to provide
for the protection and conservation of the natural environment".
This Order is issued pursuant to subsection 157.1 (1)of the EPA. Under this provision,an order
may be issued to any person who owns or has memgemeat or control of an undertaking or
property if a Provincial Officer reasonably believes that the requirements specified in the order
are necessary or advisable so as to(a)prevent or reduce the risk of a discharge of a contaminant
into the natural environment from an undertaking or a property or(b)to prevent,decrease or
eliminate an adverse effect that may result from the presence or discharge of a contaminant in,on
or under the property.
Pape 1 -NUMBER 33334FNM
PPR-06-2011 15:22 YORK DLRHFIM DISTRICT OFF. SW 427 5602 P.07
Set out below is a brief description of the reasons for tie Order and the circumstances on which
the reasons are based.
2.D9Mitions
For the purposes of this Order,the following tears shall have tie meanings described below,
"Clarington"means the Municipality of Clariugton.
"EPA"means the Environmental Protection Act,R.S.0. 1990,c.E. 19,as amended.
"ORCA"means the Oansraska Region Conservation Authority.
"Ministry"means the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
"Order"means this Provincial Officer Order No.3333-BFN29D,as it may be amended.
"Provincial Officer~means the undersigned provincial officer or any other provincial officer
designated under the EPA w act.
"Qualified Person"means a person who has obtained the appropriate education and training and
demonstrated the experience and expertise in the areas relating to the work required to be carried
out by this Order.
"Site"the property municipally known as 2513 Morgans Road,Newcastle,ON,LIB IL9.
S.Site Description
The Site is a former gravel extraction pit,approximately 100 acres in size. It is located in a Waal
setting on the east side of Morgans Road in the Municipality of Clarington. The area in the
vicinity of the Site is agricultural and vacant fields with sparse residential.The Site is located
approximately 5 kilometres east of the community of Newcastle,and three kilometres west of the
community of Newtonville. The Site has frontage on both the earl side of Morgans Road and a
very small portion,which amounts to an access driveway,on the north aide of Durham Regional
Road 2. Thera are residences located to the west of the Sire,and north and south of the Site.
Enclosed within the central part of the Site is a designated provincially significant wetland.
Resident in the vicinity of the Site rely on groundwater as their source of drinking water.
4.Parties Involved with the Sit*
1744856 Ontario Inc.has been the owner of the Site since May 1,2009. Richard Rondeau
completed an application as an agent for the owner and the ORCA issued "Development,
Interference with Wetlands,Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regukedon(Ontario
Regulations 168!06)Permit No. 1089 in the name of Rick Rondeau who is the person in
management and control of the Site.
Page 2-NUMBER333"FN290
FPR-eS-2011 1522 YORK DLFMRM DISTRICT OFF. 905 487 5602 P,00
The Site is regulated by the GRCA because of the presence of the wetland. Although Clearing=
has issued a bylaw regarding the placement of fill in the municipality,it does not apply to the Site
because of the GRCA involvement. Clarington has jurisdiction over the use of and conditions
regarding Morgans Road,
The Ministry has not issued any control documents concerning the Site prior to the issuance of
this Order.
S,Summary of Events Leading Up to the Order
The following outlines my involvement at the Site and the key events that have occurred.
On April 6,2010,the ORCA first contacted the Ministry and provided information regarding the
Site and their involvement.
The following sets out my understanding of the facts which have been received from GRCA:
(a)Filling started on or about March 6,2010. GRCA and/or Clarington contacted Richard
Rondeau and advised that till should not be placed on the Site until the GRCA had issued
a fill permit for the management of the existing fill and any new fill.
(b)On Match 23,2010,Richard Rondeau,as agent,submitted an application for a permit"to
stockpile clean full materials in designated areas".
(c)The GRCA delayed issuance of the permit until such time as they had an opportunity to
review the implications of the full that had already been placed at the Site possibly being
contaminated.
(d)On June 22,2010,the ORCA received sampla analysis results from me indicating an
exceedance of F2 and of F3 hydrocarbons when measured against the Ministry's Table 2
Soil Criteria(Agricultural/Residential)for a sample obtained from the moat southerly
pile at the Site.
(e)On June 30,20 10,the ORCA issued to Richard Rondeau,Permit No. 1089 regarding the
Site,a copy of which is attached hereto, end forms a part of the Order.
(t)On October 18,2010,the ORCA advised me that trucking fill onto the Site has been
recently ongoing,and the previous stockpiles had not all been removed or relocated The
ORCA have not been given all pertinent information,as required by Permit No. 1089 and
they were considering next steps,regarding their options.
(g)In March 2011,the GRCA received a copy of the final grading plan referred to in
Condition 02 of Permit No. 11189(a copy of which is attached,and forms part of this
Order).
Pape 3.NUMBER 3339.aFN290
PPR-06-2611 1522 YORK DJ"M DISTRICT OFF. 905 427 S602 P.e9
(h)On March 2,2011, the ORCA received and provided to the Ministry,a 26-page fax"Soil
Report"from Stantee Consulting Ltd.regarding 25 Queens Quay East,Toronto(Pier 27).
(i)On March 8,2011,the ORCA was provided a copy of a letter from V.A.Wood Associates
Limited Consulting Geotechnical Engineers with respect to Condition#1 of Permit No.
1089.
0)On March 30,2011,die ORCA advised tae that,on Friday,March 25,2011,fill was also
being shipped to the Site from Direct Line Environmental located on Toy Avenue in
Pickering.
The following outlines the Ministry involvement at the Site:
On April 15.2011 Provincial Officer Kim Lendvey and myself attended the Site and observed a
large amount of what appeared to be f eshly-deposited soil in the south central area of the Site.
The two piles were each approximately IS feu high by ISO feet long by 40 feet wide. When
disturbed or moved,the top portion of the soil had a moderate hydrocarbon-like odour.
Representative samples of the two piles were taken and were not for analysis at the Ministry
laboratory.
On June 1,20 10,1 received the sample results,which indicated an exceedence of F2 and of F3
when measured against the Ministry's Table 2(Residential/Agricultural)criteria for F2 and F3
hydmoaftris. Later in Iwo,I contacted the ORCA and notified them of these results.
During the summer and fall of 2010, 1 was in contact with ORCA regarding the Site.
On March 2,2011,while working in the Newcastle am of Clatington,I observed a Imp number
of soil"dump"trucks travelling outbound and westbound on Durham Regional Road 2,within 2
kilometres of Morgans Road. I drove north along Morgans Road and observed numerous dump
trucks depositing what appeared to be fill in on area approximately 500 metres north of the an
of the Site where fill was observed to be deposited on April 15,2010. I spoke to people at the
Site who advised me that they were coordinating the filling activities and that the fill originated
at the Pier 27 site in Toronto. The Ministry has concerns over the quality of fill originating at
Pier 27 and being deposited at other sites located in the York Durham District.
The Toronto District Office of the Ministry attended the Pier 27 site in obtain information
regarding fill destinations from that site.On March 18,2011,the Pier 27 Site Superintendent
submitted a spreadsheet to the Ministry which indicated that soil had bean transported to the Site
in March of 2011. The total amount of soil transported to the Site in Mardi was listed as 9099
cubic metres.
Since March 15,2011 Ministry staff at the York Durham District Office have received several
telephone calls from area residents inquiring about the filling activities ongoing at the Site. The
residents,mein concern were that of the quality of their drinking water and if it could be affected
Pape 4-NUMBER 33334MM
PPR-96-2011 15:23 YORK DI "M DISTRICT OFF. 905 477 5602 PAD
by the quality of fill being brought into the Site. Also,the residents stated they had believed the
Site was currently zoned by Clarington for agricultural uses,and they were concerned regarding
the potential future laud use.
6.Order Requirements
The following outlines the requirements of the Order and the reasons for such requirement•.
Although Chrington and the GRCA have legislation which controls filling activities at the Site,
there=jurisdictional concerns over certain areas of the Site and what the GRCA has the
authority to regulate. The Ministry has experience in oontiolliug filling scdvities at other sites
and has c000ems regarding the quality of fill being deposited. Although Permit No. 1099 does
provide some environmental controls,I believe that this is a situation which requires the Ministry
to become involved and impose more detailed and stringent controls as they have done at other
fill sites and ensure that all areas of the Site are managed appropriately.
As indicated above,there is insufficient informatim available for tae to determine whether or not
the operations at the Site may be causing an adverse effect that may result from the presence or
discharge of a comemb ant in,on or under the Site. The presence of materials that exceed the
Ministry's Table 2 criteria(residential/agricultural)for the contaminants identified in Work
Ordered Item No. 1 (e)is an indication of potential adverse effect. Any such material should be
removed.
The requirements of this Order are in addition to and do not relieve Richard Rondeau or 1744856
Ontario Inc.from complying with any applicable order,notice,statute,regulation,municipal,
provincial or federal law,including any requirements imposed by the GRCA or Cbsrington.
Work Ordered Item No. I is necessary as a preventative measure. I am not confident that the
current documentation is satisfactory to confirm that acceptable material is being received at the
Site. Consequently no material should be received at the Site until the issues are addressed.I
believe that the use of Qualified Person(s)is required to ensure that Richard Rondeau and
1744856 Ontario Inc.,both jointly and severally,are not causing or permitting an adverse effect
that may result from the presence or discharge of a contaminant IN on or under the Site.
Procedures are required at the Site,and must include some quality control over the materials
being deposited at the Site,so as to ensure time is no risk to the environment.l will review the
procedures and discuss them with Richard Rondeau. I reasonably believe the material should
only be accepted at the Site if proper procedures are in place and implemented appropriately.
Work Ordered Item No. 2 is necessary so diet the Ministry is aware of all of the materials that
have been deposited at the Site. The Ministry requires the relationship information in order to
review our involvement with other similar fill sites in the York Durham District and to ensure
our approach is consistent.
Work Ordered Arm No 3 is necessary to ensure that a Qualified Person is involved to provide a
proper anvirownontsi site assessment so that the conditions of the Site are understood and are
Pop 5•NUMBER 3333.OFN290
APR-06-2011 1523 YORK DURHAM DISTRICT OFF. SOS 427 5602 P.11
being managed properly.Ibis plan will be reviewed by the Ministry and it is expected that this
environmental site assessment will commence in the spring of 2011.
Work Ordered item No. 4 is necessary to provide sufficient controls to ensure no illegal waste
disposal occurs at the Site and that all filling activity is controlled.
Work Ordered fiem No. S regarding noise,dust and mA traffic,is regulated by Clarington and
others,but I require this information so as to ensure that these potential emissions ate also
properly managed.
Ofteneals)
saeP.aa vuudaNsyoaenalN�
oeeeApt an
(800"d Orh"*
Steve Elford
Provincial Officer
Badge Number: 1184
Date:2011104/06
District Office: York Durinem District Office
Page e-NUMBER 7333.OFN290
TOTAL P.11
Ganar ska Regni,,uonservagon Authority
�Ganaraska Box 320,PonHopu Ontario L 1A 3W4
CONSENWfION
(905J885-8171 FAX(905)885-9824
e-n Cnl: inforaDgrCamil.ca
No 1089
PERMIT
Development, Interference with Wetlands,Alteration to Shorelines and
Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Ragulatlon 168106)
PERMISSION HAS BEEN GRANTED TO
F wner: Rick Rondoau
ddress: 96 Cawker's Cove Road, Port Parry,ON. L9L 1R6
hone No: (9051427-0390
Location: Part Lot 16. Concession 2—Municipality of Clarington
Morgans Road (east side, 100 malres north of Highway 2)
To undertake the following work:
Temporary stockpiling of fill material for future use on-site, wdhln the designated areas
indicated on the attached plan;
During the porlod of: June 30", 2010 to June 30'n, 2011
and at midnight of the date last mentioned after which this permit becomes null and void;
Subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to any fill being placed on site the GRCA be provided with certification
from a qualified soils engineer that the imported material meets MOE Guidelines
Table 2(Potable Water Designation).
2. That within one month of the issuance of this permit the owner prepare and
submit a final grading plan for the stockpiled material, acceptable to the GRCA
which includes,phasing, stabilization and re-vegetalion details
3. That prior to any on-site works(i.e. grading,fill placement, excavation)sill
fencing be installed as shown on the attached plan(s), and maintained until the
area has been adequately re-vegetated,to prevent the release of sediment from
the work areas.
4. That prior to any fill placement the GRCA be contacted to inspect the sediment
and erosion controls on site, in addition to barrier fencing
5. That the recently placed fill material labeled "Existing Stockpile Areas"be
removed from the site, or relocated to the proposed stockpile area If it is
demonstrated the material meets MOE Guidelines Table 2 (Potable Water
Designation)
6. That no other grading, excavation, or fill placement occur on site, except as
indicated on the attached plan,and described in Condition 5 of this permit.
7. That all areas of exposed soils be re-vegetated in a timely fashion
see reverse side for general conditions
COPIES"r0 � ! I
EnrorcmnantOHlcsr, l4' I It�'j-�/
i BUILDING INSPECTOR —�� r
k( PROPERTY OWNER signing of icur:
u AGENT
OTHERA L„rgr1� L',..�-n�.r . )__, Data of Issue: Junn 3p 2010
A
Gangmka
CONSERVATION
General Conditions
1. That all works are subject to provincial,federal and municipal statues,
regulations,and by-laws.
2. That this permit does not confer upon you any right to occupy,develop,or flood
lands owned by other persons or agencies without permission.
3. That the applicant maintains and complies with the local drainage requirements
of the Municipality.
4. That nothing herein authorizes any person to carry on any work or undertaking,
which may result in the harmful alteration,disruption or destruction of fish habitat
or any fishery.
Nob: it is the responsibility of the owner and their agent(s)1contractors to take all
reasonable steps to minimize any potential hazards and risks that may
occur during the proposed works.
Note: It is floe responsibility of the owner andktr their agents to carry out the
works in accordance with the above conditions. Failure to do so may
resuk in action taken in accordance with the provisions under Section 28
of the Conservation Authorities Act.
Caudon: The G.R.C.A.assumes no liability for any losses or damages associated
with these works or that may occur as a result of failure to catty out the
above noted conditions.
Sm9on 28 of the Coneruvabon Aulbordo Ach,Chapter C27.RSO 1990 providq 8b folbwing penSMW.
(te)Ewry pelaal who contravenes a regulation garde under lubsealam(1)Is Vurty of on off um and on
Convidonislhdae to a and of not more Men S10,000 o,to a bum of hnpte nniaM of not maw then throe
nwoih&
(tr)in addition to any cater &Ody ot penslp provided by law,tiu Cou4 upon(MOUM a mnvigboa under
sutroalorl(16)a"order In person owAcurd b,
d mmow,atom pewan's eaperrae,any devebernera within such reasonable door as lhsomal orders: and
d! Mbbaaeb day watnoaune ar watlawnMs nWYler and vrahintlw Cate the COUm cedars.
(20)ea permrr dose rmt oompywhn an order made under suboacdm(1T),dro aulhpay hftN Wnsdimon mey,
in Ine ease or a asvebprreM new it removed"n we seas of a watercourse or wound,haw It
mhsbwAm.
(21)The Peron comiclad b Saole for Our Coal Of Movie or rehoblraaeun under a ftection and the amount is
recovdrme,by no surnow by moon in a court of
Property Plan „ a _
rS�•.” �a a. 1Ar k94 iy•.
a*"
ant
'
CagnnCal y'1,5 D.rm 6110rPbm
eOP$ l A 1.5 m) see"IM of
RPWaI RNPUrcn(110'6 f010)
B'IN •'rog6 PrNiUM by Fm ll t�"{� t • �J
♦ �, 9 .. 1F �r
Ga-r61
NSiOGWPS a I.fi/l N
etM O Ga P 6(6IIet t 6 on W Yq
2r,). ND 63. y r6uylfrl y \(` • i .•* �14 9_W
X
UFU T- ♦ �, 4 I
�d ZA j
}a
[[[ \
——50 m Will OWletr
EAb of Bill
A';
I Weuew
1 J
w
•_.•'' Proposed Doublet Row sin ` T�..1.1FS 1, I J� • f + �
Fence ,• yh q !. r ' � '� � �' v ''
-- .. PmpOaed Srq Fence l f" ` _�r�' r` , 1 •'i
it
Vf or
--_. Apprciiwala DWI oI Fill �•".e '♦.
Matte 0 AKRIDGE ENWRONMENfAl-
, . '• a:yti'
r �
LIMITED
S M IT),+60 Mmwr Noap ••� s• 6 . _
P.O. aN Q1 .r d y R
P.Ine..,%OR. K91 Eta r _ t. ]l�yY •�y6�` j'
nmKl unm :rd ludo. �.\ter F� y.K� , li
Newcaaua Pit Fll:ing PermK `'s n . ' r•=i AN
Pon of Lot 10 Coa slcia z ✓ '� '#+ -- 1'6-1347
�� �,•.wf . Mar. 2010 figure 1
Mun�up6lity of Cla-rplon ��6 S'
(tormar Clark-Tnwnsldp) 5,000
r
Final Grading Plan N
{
I,
A. \
it •":tic •k � �'sf ,� � '� �
y _jgg S
f -
�t v`
t- ,� 1:fgrai'enatall�;Fpn(fl�nt ;
C C' L
m -
V
1 i \
V y
a
Line of Section l7 -
-— Proposed Posl-Dev'e ment
Contour(0.5 m Interval)
-- - Welland Buffer(30 m)
Limit of Fill Placement with
Sediment Controls to be
Erected - • �
- -•- Proposed Chain Unit Fence - _ ��\D.
_— Weiland Boundary
proposed!Vegetation Rehab Area Milk
Property Boundary a -
Stornwator Collection
Area
(expected to t vegetate)
Proposed Fill Area
Area to be Graded Laing
Existing Materials(minimal S •��� µt9hWay
nn required) `., t
.ate 0..4 w+e.�.meno+ lam:t
M1 Own1C }]
nV, •0 ®
"'°'°""°di06j'°°'•'"�^'M1�J1M Newcastle Pit Filling Permit
"'"""""^^`m'°""•`°"°""°°� Pert of Lot 16 Concession 2 v� OdNo �W
� � o•w.�,.....w..ao,.�.� Municipality of Ciarington 10.1341
S'.' 1:7.000 (Former Clarke Township) os,. 4
p 1® m February 2011 v
ATTACHMENT NO. 6 TO
REPORT LGL-006-11
O #. Ministry of the Environment
ntario Ministbre de I'Environnement
Director's Order
Section 157.3 Environmental Protection AM,R.S.O.1990 Order Number
Section 16.4 Ontario Water Resources Act,R.S.O.1990 3333-8FN29D-1
Section 26.3 Pesticides Act,R.S.O.1990
Sate Drinking Water Act,S.O.2002,c.32(SDWA) Incident Report NO.
Section 32 Nutrient Management Act,2002,S.O.2002 P
5573-8FMH37
To: 1744856 Ontario Inc.
96 Cawker's Cove Rd Port Perry
Scugog, Ontario,L9L 1R6
Canada
Richard Rondeau
96 Cawker s Cove Rd Port Perry
Scugog, Ontario,L91, 1R6
Canada
Site: 4148 Regional Highway#2 RR#8,Newcastle
Clarington,Regional Municipality of Durham
Pursuant to my authority under EPA Section 157.3(5), I order you to do the following:
Response to Request
I have reviewed the request for review and stay dated April 13, 2011 and clarified on April 14,
2011 from legal counsel for the parties ordered,namely 1744856 Ontario Inc. and to Richard
Rondeau (the "Review Request"). The Review Request related to the Provincial Officer's Order
Number 3333-8FN29D ("Order")issued by Provincial Officer Steve Elford on April 6, 2011.
The Order is a preventative measures order issued pursuant to subsection 157.1 (1)of the
Environmental Protection Act ,R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 19 (EPA).
The Review Request asks that the Director,review all of the Items of the Order, and revoke the
Order,or alternatively amend it in accordance with some proposed modifications. I am issuing
this Director's order as the acting District Manager in the absence of Dave Fumerton, to whom
the Review Request was originally addressed. In addition to reviewing the Review Request,I
have reviewed the Order including the reasons for the Order. I have also discussed the Order
with the issuing officer, Dave Fumerton and legal counsel for the Ministry.
I shall respond to each of the key points raised in the Review Request below in the "Reasons for
Response"portion of this Director's Order.
Page 1 -NUMBER 3333-8FN29D
i
Clause(b)of subsection 157.3(5)of the EPA provides that the Director may,by order,revoke,
confirm or alter an order of a provincial officer. Subsection 157.3(6)provides that for the
purposes of subsection 157.3(5)the Director may substitute his or her own opinion for that of
the provincial officer.
I have decided that the Order should not be revoked. I have agreed with a number of the
wording amendments and a date change suggested in the Review Request. Because this
Director's order is being issued today, there is no need for me to consider a stay. I am also of the
opinion that a communication plan would be a beneficial addition to the Order.
For convenience and ease of reference, I hereby set out my Director's Order,in its entirety, and
use, by means of capitalization, the defined terms set out in the Provincial Officer's Report or in
this order
Work Ordered
Item No. 1 Compliance Date 2011/04/15 jPft�'
After April 15, 2011 at 07:00 hours, cease accepting any material at the Site that''
from any source, other than Pier 27 or the soil reconditioning facility located at Toy Avenue,
Pickering,until:
a) One or more Qualified Person(s)has/have been retained to carry out the work described in
conditions 1, 5 and 6 of the GRCA Permit No. 1089 and this Director's order and there has been
submitted to the undersigned Director written documentation confirming the name, contact
information and qualifications of the retained Qualified Person(s).
b)There is put in place a procedure whereby the Qualified Person(s)has /have reviewed
available written documentation for each source site and confirmed in writing that the material
being received is acceptable for use at the Site and that there is documentation supporting that
there are appropriate soil management activities at each source site prior to delivery of material
to the Site to ensure the material being delivered to the Site meets Table 2 criteria. The written
documentation and written confirmation shall be available at the Site,for review by a Provincial
Officer.
c)There is an on-site,independent Qualified Person(s), or an independent inspector instructed by
the Qualified Person(s) and reporting thereto, to confirm in writing that the material being
received is acceptable for use at the Site. The written documentation and written confirmation
shall be available at the Site for review by a Provincial Officer. The Qualified Person(s)or the
independent inspector shall be responsible for monitoring all vehicle activities at the Site,
including documenting the vehicle identity for all vehicles depositing material at the Site, details
of the approved source of the material,and the date, time and location where,material was
deposited and/or managed.
d) There is put in place, a procedure that is acceptable to the undersigned Director whereby each
source site material can be segregated and deposited into separate areas and managed at the Site
Page 2-NUMBER 3333-8FN291)
in conjunction with the confirmatory audit sampling procedures set out below.
e) There is put in place, a procedure whereby the Qualified Person(s),or an independent
inspector reporting thereto, shall collect weekly audit soil samples from trucks that represent each
source site that has been accepted to ship soil to the Site. These soil samples shall be analysed for
metals, soluble chlorides,volatile organic compounds,petroleum hydrocarbons, and benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene,xylenes and semi-volatile organic compounds. Copies of these analysis
results shall be maintained on the Site and be made available to Ministry staff upon request. If
any audit sample results indicate levels above Table 2 criteria, the undersigned Director shall be
notified within 24 hours and advised of the action(s)being taken and by when the soils above
Table 2 will be removed from the Site.
The provisions of subparagraphs (d) and(e) shall apply, after April 15, 2011,to all materials
received at the Site including the Pier 27 and Toy Avenue materials.
The foregoing provisions have no expiration time periods indicated, and shall continue in full
force and effect, until such time as a Director revokes or alters the requirements. The Site owner
and the Permit holder may,at any time, submit to the Director, an application,based on a
recommendation from the Qualified Person,for a revocation or alteration of the provisions. The
Director shall alter this order following receipt of such an application,even where the Director
may not approve or accept the submission made in order to provide for a right of appeal of such a
decision.
Item No. 2 Compliance Date 2011/05/09 -
By 16:00 hours on May 9,2011, submit to the undersigned Director,a copy of a report[4vm the
Qualified Person(s)regarding the nature and sources of the material that has already been
deposited at the Site prior to the date of the report. This report shall also include a description of
any business relationships between the parties involved at the source sites, the excavation and
trucking activities, and all the parties involved at the Site including,where corporations are
involved, any business relationships with their officers,directors, and shareholders.
Item No. 3 Compliance Date 2011/05/09
By 16:00 hours on May 9, 2011, submit to the undersigned Director one or more rep6f t3 ott any
environmental site assessment and soil work done at the Site, and, a plan prepared by the
Qualified Person(s),for additional environmental site assessment(s) and the date for completion
of those assessment(s). The additional environmental site assessment(s) will include, at a
minimum:
(a)a site soil and fill characterization program including test pitting and boreholes as appropriate
to determine the concentration and vertical and horizontal extent of any contaminant in the fill
received at the Site and,if determined by the Qualified Person to be necessary, a program to
assess underlying native soils, and
Page 3-NUMBER 3333-8FN290
(b)a groundwater monitoring program including intrusive investigations to characterize the
depth to groundwater, groundwater flow direction, a groundwater sampling program and a survey
of on-Site and off-Site groundwater uses and/or the relation to surface water features for all
groundwater aquifers at the Site that may be impacted by activities at the Site.
Item No. 4 Compliance Date 2011/04115
By 16:00 hours on April 15,2011, submit to the undersigned Director,the following
(a) a report confirming appropriate security measures at the Site and ensure the measures
continue to be implemented,and
"(b) written confirmation of procedures and legal requirements in place relating to managing any
noise and dust from activities at the Site and truck traffic to and from the Site and ensure these
procedures continue to be implemented and legal requirements followed.
Item No. 5 Compliance Date 2011/04/29
By 16:00 hours on April 29,2011, submit to the undersigned Director a communications plan
with timelines for implementation,in order to advise all interested parties,concerning the
activities being undertaken at the Site in relation to this order.
' REQUEST FOR HEARING
You may require a hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal if,within 15 days of service of this order,you
serve written notice of your appeal on the Environmental Review Tribunal and the Director.Your notice must state
the portions of the order for which a hearing is required and the grounds on which you intend to rely at the hearing.
Except by leave of the Environmental Review Tribunal,you are not entitled to appeal a portion of the order or to
rely on grounds of appeal that are not stated in the notice requiring the hearing.Unless stayed by the Environmental
Review Tribunal,the order is effective from the date of service.
Written notice requiring a hearing must be served personally or by mail upon:
The Secretary and Director
Environmental Review Tribunal Ministry of the Environment
655 Bay Street, 15th Floor 5th Floor
Toronto ON 230 Wesmey Rd S
M5G 1E5 Ajax ON LIS 775
Fax:(905)427-5602
Where service is made by mail,the service shall be deemed to be made on the fifth day after the date of mailing and
the time for requiring a hearing is not extended by choosing service by mail
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
The procedures to request a hearing and other information provided above are intended as a guide.The legislation
should be consulted for additional details and accurate reference.
Reasons for Response
Richard Rondeau:
Page 4-NUMBER 3333-8FN29D
I disagree that there is "no basis for inclusion of Richard Rondeau in the Order". As indicated in
the Provincial Officer's Report, Mr. Rondeau personally applied for, and was issued, the GRCA
permit No. 1089. Consequently,I am of the opinion that Mr. Rondeau is a person responsible
for managing or controlling the Site,and is therefore an appropriate person against whom a
preventative measures order should be issued.
Site Ownership and Description:
As noted in the April 14, 2011 clarification letter, 1744856 Ontario Inc. is the owner of the Site.
It should be noted that the municipal address for the Site was incorrectly stated in the Order as
"2513 Morgans Road,Newcastle, Clarington,Regional Municipality of Durham". Clarington
has advised that there is no Morgans Road address for the Site,but that the municipal assessment
records describe the Site's address as 4148 Regional Highway 2,R.R. #8,Newcastle. The legal
description of the Site is "PT LT 16 CON 2 CLARKE AS IN D463967 EXCEPT PT 1 1OR2193;
S/f N9921;CLARINGTON(PIN 26668-0065 (LT)). I have amended the Site address above
accordingly.
I have also noted that the "property plan" and the "final grading plan" that were attached to the
Order as part of the GRCA permit material indicate that the Site is generally in the shape of a
rectangle. The land registry office records indicate that, in fact,a portion of the rectangle
adjacent to Morgans Road,beginning just to the north of the vehicle roadway onto Morgans
Road, to just below the "proposed fill area",is owned by the Crown(Ontario Ministry of
Transportation). The owner of the Site is claiming rights over this property (including,in
particular,the right to access and use the roadway)and has been in discussion with Crown legal
counsel concerning this property. I understand that there has been, and will be, no deposit or
stockpiling of fill on this parcel of land.
Basis for the Order:
I am of the opinion that the Order and this Director's order are necessary and appropriate in these
circumstances. I agree that 1744856 Ontario Inc.has indicated a level of cooperation in dealing
with this matter. However, given the broad public interest in this Site and in filling operations,
generally,I believe it is important to have the Ministry issue a control document which outlines,
formally,its expectations and requirements. The Order is the appropriate document to do so and
also provides appeal procedures,if necessary. It is important to recognize that the Order is not a
contravention order; but rather a preventative measures order. The Ministry has not been
provided with sufficient information required at this time to properly assess the environmental
status of the Site. Furthermor G1CA and Chnington are involved,as indictftd hithe,
Ore .$mtitntions. The involvement of the Ministry and the issuance of
the Order and this Directors order supplement their requirements and provide for an
improvement in the understanding of the Site and its operations.
I do not agree with all of the Review Request background and factual information.
Although the meeting on Monday,April 11,2011 was the first opportunity for Mr. Shawn
Page 5-NUMBER 3333-8FN290
Rondeau, the son of Richard Rondeau,to discuss the matter with Ministry staff,Provincial
Officer Steve Elford did attend at the Site on Monday,March 2, 2011 and spoke with Mr. Jody
Churchill who was managing the Site operations and was well aware of the Ministry's concerns.
Previous to that,the Ministry's concerns are reflected, in a general way,in the GRCA Permit No.
1089.
z Clarington counsel has advised me that the statement made on Page 3 of the Review Request,
"Prior to accepting any fill at the site,our client was advised by Clarington that a permit was not
required to accept fill." is not completely correct. The advice provided by the Clarington official
was that no permit was required from Clarington because the Site was being regulated by the
GRCA and a permit would be required from them.
I do not agree "there is no evidence of an adverse effect or the potential for an adverse effect
from fill deposited on-site under the terns of the Permit...there is no basis for an Order".
The sample taken by the Ministry in April 2010, which showed a minor exceedance of Table 2,
was taken to assist the GRCA. GRCA did issue their control document, Permit No. 1089, which
did deal specifically with requirements regarding the area of the Site which was sampled(see
Condition 5 on the Permit). No further sampling,however,was conducted by either the Permit
holder or the Site owner, to confirm that the balance of the material, which had been deposited at
the Site, and has since been relocated,did, in fact,meet the requirements of Permit Condition 5.
Although the Site owner did receive some sample results from its engineering consultant,who in
turn was relying on information received from the Pier 27 consultant,I have concerns regarding
this information. The amount of the sampling was not sufficient and how the sample
information relates to the material that was, in fact, deposited at the Site is not clear. As
indicated in the Review Request,the report being submitted to satisfy Work Ordered Item No. 2
regarding the nature and sources of the material deposited at the Site will provide further
information in this regard. It is important to note that I now understand filling occurred at the
Site in March 2010 (from Toy Avenue,before the Permit), in September 2010(from
Bowmanville) and then in March 2011 (from Pier 27 and Toy Avenue), and that,in all cases, the
GRCA was not provided with the sample results from these source sites prior to the filling
activities taking place. If the new soil analysis reports being submitted by the Qualified Person
indicate specific exceedances of Table 2 criteria,appropriate actions will be required to be taken.
In summary, a basis for the Ministry's concern is a lack of appropriate information regarding the
source sites'material and the public concern regarding potential impact to private drinking water
wells.
I believe the requirements of this Director's order are necessary or advisable so as, as stated in
Section 157.1 of the EPA:
" (a)to prevent or reduce the risk of a discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment
from the undertaking or project; or
(b)to prevent,decrease or eliminate an adverse effect that may result from
Page 6-NUMBER 3333-8FN29D
(i) the discharge of a contaminant from the undertaking, or
(ii) the presence or discharge of a contaminant in, on or under the property."
Work Ordered Items:
The following specifically comments on the Work Ordered Items:
I have required the submission of materials to myself,instead of"the undersigned Provincial
Officer" in the various sections where this was noted in the Order and the Review Request
proposed amendments. Since I am issuing this Director's Order,it is appropriate to have the
submissions sent directly to me.
Item No. 1:
I have agreed with a number of the proposed amendments in Item No. 1. The following sets out
the reasons for the key areas involved:
I have received on April 14, 2011,information required by Item No. 1 (a)of the Order,
confirming that Decomissioning Consulting Services Limited has been retained as the Qualified
Person for the purposes of the Order.
The Ministry does not require the Site to cease accepting material from Pier 27 and if or the soil
reconditioning facility at Toy Avenue, Pickering, as the Qualified Person will be, as of April 15,
2011,supervising the on-site soil management activities and providing a report by May 9,2011 _.
to me regarding these source sites.
Although I have agreed to the wording changes in sub-paragraphs (a) and(b) of Item No. 1,I see
the role of the Qualified Person as being critical "to ensure the material being delivered to the
Site meets Table 2 criteria."
I have agreed in sub-paragraph(c) of Item No. 1 to add "an independent inspector instructed by
the Qualified Person and reporting thereto". I have not, however, agreed to any two-week time
period limitation for this requirement, as requested. Until the May 9,2011 report is submitted
by the Qualified Person, such a decision cannot be made. This independent audit requirement is
a requirement at other fill site operations where the Ministry is involved in York Durham
District.
I have,however,provided provisions that address a possible revocation or alteration of the Item
No. 1 requirements. This addition will also provide appeal rights if the Site owner and/or
Permit holder and the Qualified Person do not agree with a decision by the Director made in the
future. This provision is often inserted in orders or certificates of property use to address these
time limitation concerns.
Item No. 2:
Page 7-NUMBER 3333-8FN29D
I h 4pprot,'agreed to change the compliance date for the submission of the nature and sources of fill
from April 29, 2011 to May 9, 2011 to allow the Qualified Person time to complete an
ria te detailed report for our review.
Item No. 3:
I have also agreed to change the sgmp ,i'ay date for the submission of any environmental site
assessment reviews. It is my view that a groundwater monitoring program is particularly
important at this Site to understand the groundwater flow regime in the area wherein the
community relies on groundwater as the source of drinking water, and any possible adverse
impacts, either off-site or moving within the Site, or as has been suggested,possibly moving
onto the Site from a nearby former landfrlling operation.
Items No. 4 and No. 5:
Items No.4 and No. 5 of the Order have been merged into my Director's Order Item No.4, as
they both have the same compliance date.
I understand that there are security measures currently in place for the Site,and therefore have
amended the requirement to submit a report,rather than a plan.
I have added "legal requirements" to the procedures in place with respect to the report on the
management of noise and dust from activities at the Site and truck traffic to and from the SiteWT
evil#t�s ng with thgse rttatters in faith&detail at`a"later date.
New Item No. 5:
I have added a new provision requiring a the submission of a proposed communication plan in
order that the activities being undertaken at the Site can be properly conveyed by the Site owner
and Permit holder to all interested parties. Measures that I have seen being used effectively
elsewhere to provide proactive and open information include newsletters, websites,open houses
and meetings and presentations. I will review the submitted plan and provide comments thereon
and the next steps.
Attachments
This Notice constitutes part of Order Number 3333-8FN29D, issued on 06/04/2011.
Issued at Ajax this 15th day of April, 2011.
'AZ
Page 8-NUMBER 3333-BFN29D
Sandra Thomas
York Durham District Office
Page 9-NUMBER 3333-8FN29D
ATTACHMENT NO. 7 TO
REPORT LGL-006-11
_ TAT rinO
Unit 11
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Canada L46 31\14
DECOMMISSIONING CONSULTING SERVICES LIMITED Tel: (905)882-5984
Fax: (905)882-8962
E-mail: engineers @dcsltd.ca
701229 Web Site: http://www.dcsltd.ca
15 April 2011
Ministry of the Environment
Central Region
230 Westney Road S.
5a'Floor
Ajax, On
LIS 7J5
Attention: Mr. Steve Elford
Senior Environmental Officer, York Durham District Office
Re: Compliance With Provincial Officer's Order Number 3333-SFN29D Item 5
2513 Morgans Road,Newcastle, Ontario
Dear sirs:
We are pleased to provide, herewith, the dust and noise management procedures that we have
prepared on behalf of 1744856 Ontario Inc. to be applied at the above referenced property. The
attached procedures document, entitled Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures, 2513
Morgans Road Clarington, Ontario are being submitted to comply with the provisions of
Provincial Officers Order Number 3333-8FN29D, dated 6 April 2011 (as may be amended),
specifically Item 5 which states:
By 16:00 hours on April 15, 2011, submit to the undersigned Provincial Officer,
procedures in place relating to managing any noise and dust from activities at the Site
and truck traffic to and from the Site and ensure these procedures are implemented.
We trust that the enclosed is suitable for your current purposes. Should you have any questions
or should you require additional or more detailed information, please do not hesitate to call the
writer at any tine.
Yours very truly,
COMMISSIONING CONSULTING SERVICES LIMITED
G man,P.Eng.
Senior Principal
encs
Specialists in Property Assessments and Environmental Audits,Site Remediation and Decommissioning,
Geotechnical Engineering, Hydrogeology,Waste and Wastewater Management and Industrial Hygiene
DUST, SOIL TRACKING AND NOISE CONTROL PROCEDURES
2513 Morgans Road,Clarington,Ontario
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The procedures documented herein are to be applied at the site to manage dust and noise
generated during soil stockpiling, grading, compaction and earth moving works and trucking
activities.
2.0 SITE INFORMATION
The site is located at 2513 Morgans Road, in the Municipality of Clarington and the Regional
Municipality of Durham. The site fronts the east side of Morgans Road and the north side of
Durham Regional Road 2. Site access/egress is from the north side of Durham Regional Road 2
and the east side of Morgans Road. Residences are located to the west of the site as well as north
and south of the site.
3.0 DUST CONTROL
The potential sources of airborne particulate(dust)at the site include the processes involved in;
1. the soil stockpiling process;
2. soil grading works;
3. movement of vehicles and equipment within the work area;
4. movement of haulage trucks on public roads; and
5. the tipping of soil imported to the site.
In addition to the above processes, wind blown particulate from exposed soils in roadways, and
in existing and future fill placement areas can also occur. Control measures shall be maintained
for the entire duration of the work to ensure that the generation of dust from the earth moving
works and other activities on and off-site is minimized. The Contractor will be required to
implement all necessary control measures to minimize dust generated during:
Dust,Sod Tracking And NWm Con&o/Procedum
2513 Morgam Rom6 C3adngran,ON
701229-April 2011 1
DCS
• construction and or maintenance of access roads and soil tracking control pads;
• movement of haulage vehicles and other equipment across the site;
• tipping imported fill;
• stockpiling imported fill;
• site grading works; and
• windy periods in dry conditions.
The potential health risks associated with the inhalation of dust are anticipated to be very low.
Precautions are, however, to be taken to avoid or minimize the generation of dust. Dust control
measures shall include:
i) instructions of workers in dust control methods;
ii) adjustment of the rate at which fill is imported to the site, as required, to minimize
dust emissions;
iii) enforcement of a construction site speed limit as required to minimize dust
emissions;
iv) maintaining site access roads in good condition and if necessary surfacing with a
granular fill;
V) use of water, as necessary, to wet all exposed soil including road surfaces on the
site sufficient to prevent dust from becoming airborne by wind or vehicular
action;
vi) ensuring tarpaulins are in place across the boxes of all loaded haulage vehicles
entering the property to prevent dust from becoming airborne by wind action;
vii) cleaning of the municipal/regional roads to a minimum distance of 50 m in either
direction of any and all access/egress gates to the property using wet methods to
Dust,Soil Tmeking And Noise Control Psocedum
2513 Morgan Road,Mrtngron,ON
701229-April 2011
2
DCS
prevent dust on the road surfaces from becoming airborne by wind or vehicular
action,as required;
viii) monitoring dust emissions visually, and by sampling if required at the property
boundary and taking action to suppress dust as observed to be necessary;
ix) monitoring wind and weather conditions and temporarily adjusting or ceasing
earth moving works and/or soil import rates for as long as such controls are
determined to be necessary; and
x) responding to dust complaints from the public and taking action as necessary to
further control dust.
Road dust generated from on-site traffic shall be controlled through the application of water
spray, as required and where necessary. Road dust generated on adjacent thoroughfares used by
vehicles departing from the site shall be controlled through the regular wet sweeping of
trafficable surfaces. The Contractor shall supply and have available at all times a power street
sweeper equipped with water sprayers to removed tracked soil and suppress dust, a water truck
with spray bar and cannon or other suitable discharge device and other suitable dust suppression
equipment to control and prevent dusting from the Works as needed. In addition, the Contractor
will be required to maintain an adequate water supply for the site. The application of water to
control or prevent dust from being generated on and migrating from the site,will take precedence
over all other work activity. Dry sweeping of roadways will not be tolerated.
4.0 SOIL TRACKING CONTROL
While dust generation from the on-site earthworks and haulage comprises the principal concern
for off-site impacts, secondary dust associated with access and egress to and from the site by
haulage vehicles onto the municipal roadways will also have to be addressed.
The concern in this regard relates to the loss of soil, mud, dust or debris onto municipal
roadways adjacent to the site from the wheels, axles, truck frames, and truck boxes of haulage
vehicles picked up while traversing across the on-site access roads. Tracked materials on
municipal roadways and other surfaces comprise a secondary source for the generation of dust
resulting from vehicular and wind action across affected roadway surfaces.
DU$4 Solt Tmeking And Noise Comml Pmeedaler
3513 Mergaw Road,Cl wuron,ON
701229-April 2011 3
DCS
The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent the tracking of soil, dust, mud and
debris wastes onto municipal roadways. All haulage vehicles and equipment floats shall be
cleaned and controlled through Soil Tracking Control Zones, equipped with a Soil Tracking
Control Pad and monitoring station to be installed by the contractor at all site egress points in
operation. The Contractor shall clean all debris, soil and dust deposits adhering to the vehicles
on the Control Pad before departing from the site to the satisfaction of the Engineer.
4.1 SOIL TRACKING CONTROL PADS/ZONES
A Soil Tracking Control Pad is to be constructed at each Soil Tracking Control Zone. The Soil
Tracking Control Pad shall comprise a minimum 15 m long x 10.0 m wide x 500 mm thick pad
of 20 mm diameter clear stone placed above non-woven geotextile and excavated into the ground
surface to be level with the surrounding ground surface. The Pads shall be large enough to
accommodate the largest equipment to be used on the site to perform a complete washdown as
may be necessary and based on by monitoring and inspection findings.
All vehicles departing the site shall report to the soil tracking control pad/zone where the
Contractor shall visually inspect the vehicles and immediately clean all soil,mud,debris and dust
deposits adhering to their tires, wheels, undercarriage, body, and box prior to their departure
from the site onto municipal roadways to the satisfaction of the Engineer. The Contractor shall
provide and maintain at each Soil Tracking Control Zone suitable tools, including brooms,
brushes, shovels, water supply and power washer, as required to remove dust, mud, soil and
debris adhering to haulage vehicle exiting the site.
No other vehicles used by contractor's or subcontractors' forces or suppliers shall depart from
the site for any reason whatsoever without being cleaned across a Soil Tracking Control Pad and
without the express permission of the Inspector. In the event that adhered materials persist on
the vehicle surfaces despite sweeping, the affected equipment will be subject to power washing
on the Soil Tracking Control Pad.
The Contractor shall also maintain the decontamination pad, including repairs to approaches,
removal of soil build-up, and collection and disposal of washwater for the duration of the work
and shall remove or replace the Soil Tracking Control Pad whenever necessary to control off-site
tracking.
The municipal/regional road pavements shall be swept using a power sweeper equipped with
water sprayers, supplied by the Contractor, to a minimum distance of 50 in to either side of each
Daa9 Seg TMCMMg And Nobe Comro(Pmed m
2513 Morgam Reaq Qarfngton,ON
701229-April 2011 4
DCS
site egress gate, and along which haulage and service vehicles having access to the work site
have travelled. The roads shall be swept as required to permit the removal of visible debris or
tracked soil and not less than once at the end of each working day that vehicles may access the
property. Dry sweeping of the roadways,will not be accepted.
A departure log noting inspection results and any truck cleaning activity found to be necessary
for all vehicles that have had access to the site shall be maintained by the Contractor and shall be
made available for inspection on demand by the Engineer, the Owner, and MOE, GRCA and
Municipality of Clarington Staff.
4.2 INSPECTION AND TESTING
Air quality will be monitored on an on-going basis by the Inspector on site, using visible dust as
the principal criterion. If determined to be necessary, following the receipt of complaints from
neighbours or Municipal, GRCA, Region or Provinicial Government regulatory authority staff a
boundary survey using mini-volume air samplers should be conducted to establish working
levels for total suspended particulate (TSP) material in air. The results of the gravimetric
analysis for TSP will be compared to the MOE 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Criterion for TSP
in air of 120 gglml.
The planned and implemented dust control activities will be refined as necessary. If visual
observations and or the boundary air monitoring results indicate that the dust control activities
being implemented by the Contractor are insufficient to control the generation and migration of
dust from the site, additional dust suppressant applications shall be implemented and further
boundary air monitoring work may also be undertaken during the course of the earthworks on-
site at the direction of the Engineer.
Boundary air monitoring work would be conducted if warranted to establish both background
and earthworks generated TSP concentrations in air at the sits. Boundary air sampling will thus
be carried out during active earthmovingtimporting fill works and during inactive periods at the
site to permit accurate determination of earthworks related dust concentrations to be established.
Each sampling event will take place over two days comprising two 24-hour monitoring periods.
Each boundary air monitoring period will be completed using two mini-volume air samplers, one
situated at the upwind boundary of the site and one situated at the downwind boundary of the
site. In order to establish the general background concentrations of TSP in ambient air at the
site, one monitoring period will be conducted at a time when no work activities are being
undertaken. To establish the site earthworks generated TSP concentrations in air, the second
Dual Sol!7}arkUgAndNoue Cavrol PMCfthfM
2513 Morgan Rwd,Mdngto4 ON
701229-April 2011 5
DCS
monitoring period will be completed during the coarse of active site soil importing, stockpiling
and grading work. Samples will be taken and analyzed for total suspended particulate and
reported immediately to the Engineer upon receipt.
Should the Engineer determine that the dust control measures implemented by the Contractor are
ineffective or that weather conditions (wind and dry conditions) are such that control of dust
emissions is impractical, the Contractor will be ordered to stop or modify any operation that is
aggravating the condition and/or to take appropriate mitigative action, including increasing the
application of dust suppressant.
5.0 LONGTERM DUST CONTROL
Upon completion of soil import and stockpiling operations on the site, and in the event that soil
stockpiles are to remain in place prior to final site grading work, exposed soil stockpiles are to be
vegetated to prevent the on-going generation of windborne particulate. The vegetation process
can be completed via natural seeding processes if this can occur within a reasonable time frame.
If natural seeding processes are determined to be ineffective, hydro-seeding or other suitable
seeding process will need to be implemented and completed on the site.
6.0 NOISE CONTROL
The site is situated within the Municipality of Clarington and all work completed on-site is
subject to and to be completed in accordance with The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington Noise By-law 2007-071.
To control noise generated at the site as part of the earthmoving works, the following measures
shall be implemented as required;
• Limit earthmovingtconstruction works to the time periods from 7:00 am to 6:00
pm Monday through Saturday to comply with The Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington Noise By-law 2007-071 (Section 3.3a).
• Should there be a need to undertake construction outside of the hours allowed in
the applicable noise by-law, the client or its Agents on behalf of the Contractor,
will seek any required exemptions and permits directly from the Municipality in
advance for any such work. If an exemption cannot be obtained, then
construction will only proceed in accordance with the requirements of the by-law.
Dust,Sa Tracking And Notre Control Procedures
2513 Morganr Roa4 Mrtngton,ON
701229-April 2011 6
DCS
• The Contractor shall comply with all applicable requirements of the contract and
local noise by-law.
• All construction equipment used, including earthmoving equipment, haulage
vehicles etc.. shall be in good repair and properly maintained to limit noise
emissions. All equipment shall be operated with effective engine muffling devices
that are in good working order.
• As required install temporary hoarding in order to provide acoustical screening to
control noise from earthworks activities that is found to affect neighbouring
residents.
• The .separation distance between the construction staging areas and nearby
receptors should be maximized to the greatest extent possible to reduce noise
impacts to off-site receptors.
• To the extent possible, design the on-site access roads/haul routes in such a
manner to limit the need for heavy trucks to reverse and use "back-up beepers".
• Onsite access roads/haul routes shall be well-maintained to prevent pot-holes and
ruts to avoid the loud noises caused by haulage vehicles and other equipment
travelling over uneven road surfaces.
• Enforcement of a construction site speed limit in order to control excessive noise
caused by haulage vehicles revving their engines or braking heavily.
• Reducing truck tailgate noise by requiring that the tailgates of all trucks be kept in
the closed and locked position whenever haulage vehicles need to travel any
significant distance on-site. In addition, ensure that the practice of "tailgate
banging" be avoided as a means of releasing trapped dirt from the boxes of the
haulage vehicles.
• A complaints protocol should be established for receiving, investigating and
addressing construction noise complaints received from the public.
Dust,Soil Tracking AadNoise Conmol Procedures
2513 Morgans Road,Uarington,ON
701229—April 2011 7
DCS
• Receipt of any noise complaint will require that an inspection be implemented to
verify that the general noise control measures are in effect and are being enforced.
• In the presence of persistent noise complaints, all construction equipment should
be verified to comply with MOE Noise Pollution Control publication 115 (NPC-
115).
• In the presence of persistent complaints and subject to the results of a field
investigation, alternative noise control measures may be required, where
reasonably available. In selecting appropriate noise control and mitigation
measures, due consideration may be given to the technical, administrative and
economic feasibility of the various alternatives.
DUO,,Soil Tmddxg AnANa&e Coximl Pr"e&ree
251J Morgam Rama Clanngrox,ON
701229-Apol 2011 g
DCS
ATTACHMENT NO.8 TO
REPORT LGL-006-11
MINUTES - ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON FILL
MARCH 3, 2011 -9:00 A.M.
UXBRIDGE TOWNSHIP
Attendees: List attached
Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor began the discussion by stating that Uxbridge Township has 47 licensed
pits with the majority being on the Oak Ridges Moraine. We understand the need for fill placement but
where are the checks and balances if we allow fill to come in? The concern is that there is no level of
comfort with the operators and we do not have the resources or expertise to monitor operations.
Ingrid Svelnis(CAO Uxbridge)—Uxbridge has been working on a fill bylaw for the last 3 years.
Uxbridge is getting pressure not only on pits but also rolling land. Township is resistant because there is
no guarantee that they will stop if there are problems because of the amount of money to be made from it.
Mayor Chuck Mercier, Scugog—The fill operation(Earthworks)at Highway 21/23 was supposed to set
an example. They have been bringing in fill days a week(1 million tons now and likely to hit 2 million
when complete). Unfortunately the owner took the stance that he was not governed by municipal rules,
only federal ones as it was an"Aerodome". This isn't just a Scugog problem. It is also a Provincial and
National issue. It is great that everyone has come together to look at it from different perspectives. For
the Scugog site, there are 3 main issues:
1. Quality of Life(Environmental) Issues—it has been 306 days of dumping. Over 1 million tons
of fill going in. Lakeridge Road(Hwy 23)is falling apart from(possibly)the weight of the
trucks.
2. Safety Issues—Need for a proper traffic flow(trucks exiting and entering). Durham 23 is a main
road and a well used one. Although there have been no serious accidents, there have been lots of
complaints(delays,noise, etc.)
3. Building is part of an Aerodome—They are trying to erect a building without permits. There
was no discussion on this—no proper planning.
Need provincial legislation to help us; not for anti-commercial fill but for managing commercial fill
Alex Georgieff(Region)—The Durham Regional Official Plan incorporates the provisions of the Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and contains rigorous policies for environmental protection. The
concerns being expressed regarding fill operations are indicative of a province-wide problem. The Town
of Caledon has been dealing with fill-related issues for some time and may be a resource for best
practices. Traditionally, site alteration has not been considered a"use of land"from a planning
standpoint. In late January, the Regional Chair wrote to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario
(AMO)requesting that they engage the Province to address the concerns of municipalities across the
Province regarding fill. AMO staff has acknowledged receipt of the letter but specific action steps are not
known at this time.
Rob Messervey(Kawartha Conservation)—They looked at several by-laws including the draft from
Uxbridge and pulled together a Draft Model Fill By-law to be used as a frame of reference. Lakeridge is
not a regulated area. Conservation Authority can only deal with regulated areas. They have another issue
that they are looking at—slurry(drawn from trenches)with sludge being dumped. The issue-putting a
stop-work order on the site. MOE has good protocols in place. Conservation Authority being pushed to
do well testing to see if there are problems.
• What to test for at adjacent sites?
• Is there an onus on the owner to do any testing?
Roundtable Discussion on Fill March 3, 2011
Peter Waring(Kawartha Conservation)—Legislation is in place but not much for when they don't
comply. Legislative Tool Kit needs enhancement.
Chris Darling(CLOCA)—The challenge in determining if large fill sites are a change in land use that
can be dealt with under the Planning Act is that most permit applications for large fill sites indicated that
they are for"agricultural purposes". CLOCA has established a large fill protocol which includes
requirements for pre and post elevation, inspections and confirmation that the fill is clean. Applications
must document origin of soil, if origin site was subject to P.A. (Planning Act)approval, and must meet
MOE Table 1 or 2 requirements.
This works great...when the filler is reputable. Challenge is arguing whether it is a change of land use.
Pickering/Whitby/Oshawa are all looking at their by-law in the last 6 months. There is a desire for
municipalities to work together. Also protocol and regulations make it difficult to bid competitively on
large projects.
Rob Baldwin(LSRCA)—LSRCA is looking at internal policies. They are in the final stages of the Lake
Simcoe Plan which does contain some references to fill. Conservation Authority will have the power to
issue a stop-work order.
Carolyn Woodland(TRCA)—TRCA has had quite a few issues. Peel and Caledon have both struggled
with implementation activities. Had residential site problems. Even with a site plan exercise, there were
still problems. People even dumping in remote areas. Unless someone sees them, we can't do anything.
Townships will need to have a fill strategy on where fill will be disposed of on big tenders.
Nick Saccone(TRCA)—Has dealt with a number of operators over the years solving erosion issues. Fill
can be a resource and a source of revenue in some cases. Requires protocol development and monitoring
the process closely.
Tom Farrell(MNR)—The requirement for rehabilitation of gravel pits is a 3:1 sloping and ground cover.
Ten sites in Uxbridge are possible rehabilitation sites. Sites are required to stockpile topsoil and
overburden. If they do not have a sufficient stockpile to properly slope,they need to import it and follow
MNR protocol. They must specify the types of material: soil(must be Table 1 standard—difficult to
meet),rock,brick and concrete. Should strive for a ticket system:
• Ticket goes from originating site to the trucker
• Requires inspection before entering site(checked against a list)
• Copy kept by both trucker and the site
Most bad cases are solely money-driven and they don't care about the repercussions. "Surrendering a
License"—Licensee has completed the rehabilitation. Municipalities are notified. MNR wants 18
months(a few seasons)to ensure that vegetation is growing, etc. and to make sure that it is stabilized. It
is also important to know what the plan is for the end use of the property. Other method to surrender a
license is a municipality agrees to work with owner to finish off the rehabilitation or other and MNR
would agree to allow the license be surrendered.
John O'Toole(MPP)—This is an important topic. No one wants to inherit liabilities of consequences.
10:15 BREAK
Page 2
i
Roundtable Discussion on Fill March 3, 2011
Greg Sones(MOE)—Has had talks with MPP O'Toole. For the last 6-7 months,MOE has been in
discussion with the Residential&Civil Construction Association. Stakeholder Review has been
established for soil management. Industry and stakeholder consensus is being sought in order to
determine the best way to manage fill. They are looking at Municipal procurement practices and model
procurement strategy established by AMO and also looking at greater emphasis to be placed on the
requirements of a"qualified professional". Stakeholders could include today's participants. MOE will
work directly with the municipalities. Re. Scugog issue—MOE has also been told by Earthworks that
they have no jurisdiction but Earthworks is"voluntarily"co-operating with the MOE right now. There
are a number of orders issued related to that site. MOE required that groundwater testing take place.
There have been no concerns with the samples to date. Adjacent properties will be approached for
samples. Bore holes(50 metres apart)were a requirement and they have the results. Some exceeded the
standards so now the bore holes must be 25 metres. They want additional audit samples of loads which
can only come from the site by the authorized soil management analyst. Lessons learned—they will be
charting some operational guidelines learned from the Earthworks issue.
Mayor Mercier—Thanked MOE for being on-site in Scugog. Another issue is Public Trust. There were
over 200 attendees at their last meeting. Communication is key. We need a Public Communication
Strategy. Active environmental groups are visiting the site. Went to Good Roads at ROMA and spoke to
the Minister. Minister says that the operator must adhere to provincial laws. Mayor Mercier requested a
letter stipulating this to show a united front. Scugog will not participate in Earthworks' Advisory
Committee until they comply with municipal laws.
Bev Hendry(CAO—Scugog)—it makes it look like a planning permit means nothing.
MPP O'Toole—Expectations must be provincial. Each municipality cannot have different rules. The
local permit was the problem. They ignored it.
Victor Doyle(MMAH)—he has not been as involved as others in attendance. The Municipal Act gives
townships the authority for their own by-laws. Site alterations and peat extraction weren't considered
"use of land". Scugog's requirements did not address environmental issues. Bore-hole requirements, etc.
are too late. We need to know what is going in prior to it being dumped. There needs to be some kind of
cost recovery. MPAC (change of taxes)is a possibility. Diane Ploss(MMAH)—Applying fees and
charges may be an option for cost recovery. Rob Messervey—the Planning Act has broader
opportunities and greater tools for the municipalities.
Debbie Leroux(Clerk—Uxbridge)—Our municipal process—Although the by-law is not ready yet, it
would involve a planning process for anything over 1,000 cubic metres(fees per load, fees for restoration
if an issue, registration fee,charge operators for any additional studies that are required). Ingrid Svelnis
—We would be looking at"end use". If there is not environmental benefit,perhaps we shouldn't be
interested. Conservation Authorities would be involved at the restoration stage.
Page 3
Roundtable Discussion on Fill March 3, 2011
Alex Georgieff—The$64,000 question to be addressed is the linkages between the Municipal Act,the
ORMCP Act,the Greenbelt Act and the Planning Act. Changes to legislation may be required.
MPP O'Toole—perhaps look at the Niagara Escarpment Act.
Mayor Mercier—The soil is not coming from our township. It is coming from Toronto and they are
reaping all the benefit. We need help. We can't afford to fight this. This is a provincial issue. Operators
are watching us with great interest to see the result.
Paul Foster(Region—Roads):
1. Need to set an example of our own fill. Ensure contract obligations are met
2. Well-head protection zoning needs to be considered
3. Access Control By-laws should be required for any new access required for a site
4. Weight restrictions—a 2-month window
There is power to limit activity.
General Comments
• Victor Doyle: We can do everything we want because of the Planning&Municipal Acts.
• Tom Farrell: We already have the powers under the Municipal Act. If we want more then we
need to be more specific about what we want.
• Weigh stations should be required
• Better monitoring for weight restrictions
• Planning protocol needs to be more defined
• Peat should be included/added
• Determine strategic locations for fill
• Further discussion on how we deal with our own soil
• Focus on policies, regulations,policing and penalties
Next Steps (suggestions):
• bring up at the next AMO conference
• should consider peat and fill together as both have similar challenges
• confirm deficiencies and gaps
• enhancements—done collectively with Conservation Authorities
• plan a second session and include:
• GTCMA
• municipalities that are opposed and ones currently running fill operations
• invite some of the generators of fill
Meeting adjourned 12:30 p.m.
Page 4
Roundtable Discussion on Fill, March 3, 2011 - Attendees
Oroanization Representative
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) Chris Darling, Director of Development Review& Regulation
Kawartha Conservation Rob Messervey, Chief Administrative Officer
Kawartha Conservation Peter Waring, Manager of Planning and Regulations
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) Rob Baldwin, Director, Planning &Development Svcs
M.P.P., Constituency Office John R. O'Toole, M.P.P.
Minister of Intemat'I Cooperation & Member of Parliament Meg Goard, Constituent Assistant on behalf of The Honourable
for Durham Beverley J. Oda
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Victor Doyle, Manager- Planning Policy Branch
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Louis Bitonti, Senior Planner
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Diane Ploss, Municipal Advisor
Ministry of Natural Resources(MNR) Tom Farrell, Supervisor, Planning & Information Mgmt.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Steven Strong, District Planner
Ministry of the Environment(MOE) Greg Sones, Director Central Region
Region of Durham Alex Georgieff, Planning Commissioner
Region of Durham Brian Bridgeman, Director of Current Planning
Region of Durham Paul Foster, Project Mgr-Transportation Infrastructure
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(TRCA) Carolyn Woodland, Director- Planning and Development
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(TRCA) Nick Saccone, Director- Restoration Services
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) David Hatton, Supervisor- Soils Management
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(TRCA) At Willison, Manager, Enforcement and Security
Township of Scugog Bev Hendry, Chief Administrative Officer
Township of Scugog Mayor Chuck Mercier
Uxbridge Township Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Uxbridge Township Ingrid Svelnis, Chief Administrative Officer
Uxbridge Township Debbie Leroux, Clerk
Uxbridge Township Bev Northeast, Ward 1 Councillor
Uxbridge Township Jacob Mantle,Ward 4 Councillor
Uxbridge Township Rich Vandezande, Manger- Development Services
Uxbridge Township Brian Pigozzo, Chief Building Officer
Uxbridge Township Andre Gratton, Bylaw Officer
Uxbridge Township Kris Sullivan- Scribe
MINUTES OF THE ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
ON COMMERCIAL FILL AND FILL-IN PITS
THURSDAY, MAY 12TH, 2011
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
UXBRIDGE, ONTARIO
Minutes of the Roundtable Discussion on Commercial Fill and Fill-in Pits on
Thursday, May 12"', 2011 at Council Chambers, Township of Uxbridge
Present: Mayor Virginia Hackson, Councillor John Eaton, Wayne Hunt, Town of East
Gwillimbury, Mayor Adrian Foster, Tony Cannella, Municipality of Clarington, Mayor
Robert Grossi, Joe Costanza, Town of Georgina, Mayor David Ryan, Bob Starr, City
of Pickering, Mayor Wayne Emmerson, Town of Whitchurch-Stoufiville, Mayor Terry
Clayton, Deputy Mayor Debbie Ann Bath, Joe Bonura, Township of Brock, Mayor
Chuck Mercier, Ian Roger, Township of Scugog, Glenn Blakely, Richard Lloyd, Town
of Caledon, Councillor Ron Simpson, Gavin Watson, Barry Russell, Debbie Korolnek,
Township of Bradford West Gwillimbury, Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor, Councillor Bev
Northeast, Councillor Jacob Mantle, Ingrid Svelnis, Debbie Leroux, Brian Pigozzo,
Township of Uxbridge, Steven Strong, Ministry of Natural Resources, Greg Sones,
Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Dave Fumerton, Ministry of the Environment
and Energy, Laura Rupprecht, Scribe
1. Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. and
introductions were made.
2. Mayor O'Connor turned the meeting over to Ingrid Svelnis, CAO, Township of
Uxbridge for a brief background on events leading up to today's meeting.
3. Ms. Svelnis suggested that a representative from each municipality advise
whether or not they allow commercial fill and fill-in pits as well as share some
of the pros and cons they may have experienced.
Debbie Korolnek, Township of Bradford West Gwillimbury explained that they
presently have a Site Alteration By-law but that it does not distinguish between
commercial and non-commercial fill. Ms. Korolnek advised that the Township has
not experienced any concerns until quite recently and provided an explanation of
such events. Councillor Ron Simpson of Bradford West Gwillimbury advised that the
by-law was passed in 2004 but is in need of amendment.
COMMERCIAL FILL ROUND 2
TABLE MEETING MINUTES MAY 12TH, 2011
Mayor Virginia Hackson, Town of East Gwillimbury explained that they presently
have a fill by-law which is under review. Mayor Hackson advised that they have
experienced more negatives than positives. Wayne Hunt, General Manager of
Community Programs & Infrastructure explained that they are presently only filling
aggregate extraction areas and that it is a very detailed process. Mr. Hunt advised
that truck routes and volumes are a concern and explained their fill quality and
ground water monitoring process.
Mayor Robert Grossi, Township of Georgina advised that they do have a current fill
by-law in place and that truck volumes are a concern. Joe Costanza continued the
discussion by how their by-law tries to deal with truck volumes. Mr. Costanza
explained that anything over 250 cubic metres requires an agreement with the
Township. Weekly reports and ground water monitoring is a requirement. Filling in
residential areas requires Table 1 soil and anything over 2,000 cubic metres requires
Table 2 soil. The Township's fee is $.60 cents a cubic metre.
Glenn Blakely, Manager of By-law Enforcement, Town of Caledon, advised that they
have had a fill by-law for a number of years. Presently they allow fill only in
agricultural areas. They have set fees of$1.42 per load to cover road damages and
$1.00 per load to place fill.
Joe Bonura, Chief, Building Official, Township of Brock explained that they have one
fill by-law which addresses fill amounts under 500 cubic metres and one for fill
amounts over 500 cubic metres. Mr. Bonura advised that any fill requests of over
500 cubic metres must go to Council for a public meeting. Mr. Bonura explained that
fill quality is always a concern and that a fee a requirement for security deposit is in
place.
Mayor David Ryan, City of Pickering advised that they passed their fill by-law in 2002
which works in conjunction with their zoning by-law. Bob Starr, Manager of
Development Control advised that their by-law permits top soil on agricultural lands
only, unless otherwise stated. Mr. Starr explained that they have had some issues
with contaminated soil in the past but that they have no large operations presently on
the go.
Mayor Chuck Mercier, Township of Scugog advised that they presently have a fill by-
law and provided an update on the problems associated with a current fill operation
on Lakeridge Road. Ian Roger explained that the Township of Scugog's by-law is
similar to that of the Township of Uxbridge in that any requests of fill over 500 cubic
metres must have Council's approval. .
Mayor Adrian Foster, Municipality of Clarington spoke to a current issue in their
municipality involving a fill permit issued by a conservation authority and is therefore
outside of the municipality's jurisdiction. Tony Canella, Director of Engineering
COMMERCIAL FILL ROUND 3
TABLE MEETING MINUTES MAY 127H, 2011
Services spoke to their current site alteration by-law including fee structure and
operation controls. Mr. Canella explained that they have control over their entire
operation including truck routes and soil inspections. Mr. Canella also expressed
his concerns with conservation authorities issuing fill permits which undermine the
municipality's site alteration by-law.
Greg Sones, Ministry of the Environment and Energy explained that there is currently
no provincial legislation that regulates soil quality used for infilling purposes other
than it can not be hazardous waste and it can not impact water quality off site.
Mayor Wayne Emmerson, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville explained that the Town
currently has a fill by-law in place and is home to several ongoing fill operations.
Mayor Emmerson explained the permitting process advising that they use a staging
approach and undertake strict monitoring. The Town currently imposes a fee of .50
cents per cubic metre which will be increased to $1.00 per cubic metre in the near
future. Mayor Emmerson suggested that commercial filling of pits can work as long
as municipalities take complete control of the process.
Mayor Gerri-Lynn O'Connor, Township of Uxbridge spoke to the need for better
communication between municipalities, the various ministries as well as conservation
authorities with respect to the filling of pits. A better working relationship between
these agencies must be established. Municipal roads as well as residents can be
severely affected by commercial filling operations and yet the municipality has little
control
Debbie Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge provided some background on the
Township of Uxbridge Fill Committee and the Township's current site alteration by-
law. Ms. Leroux explained that there are no commercial fill operations in Uxbridge at
this time however the Township is feeling pressure from local pit owners to allow
filling in pits.
The meeting recessed at 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:40 a.m.
Councillor Jacob Mantle read a statement from the Honourable John O'Toole, MPP
who was not able to attend the meeting. Mr. O'Toole expressed his concerns with
respect to commercial fill and advised that he will continue to work with the Ministry of
Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment and all stakeholders to ensure
the protection of people, property and the environment.
Stephen Strong, Ministry of Natural Resources advised that his ministry regulates
licenced aggregate pits and explained some of their protocol procedures. Mr. Strong
suggested that not all pits need to be filled and that the pits that are rehabilitated are
done with a 3:1 slope.
COMMERCIAL FILL ROUND 4
TABLE MEETING MINUTES MAY 12TH, 2011
Councillor Bev Northeast, Township of Uxbridge reiterated Mr. Strong's suggestion
that not all pits need to be filled. Councillor Northeast stressed the importance and
benefits of allowing pits to rehabilitate themselves naturally.
Greg Sones, Ministry of the Environment spoke to the benefits of reused soil. At the
same time Mr. Sones emphasized the importance of the generating sites knowing
where the fill is going and the receiving site should have a qualified professional
prepare a soil management plan. Mr. Sones recommended ground water
monitoring, good record keeping, signage and regular audits for both generating and
receiving sites. Mr. Sones also recommended that operations have a good
contingency plan should any problems arise. Mr. Sones advised that the ministry is
currently meeting with agencies and stakeholder working groups and staff are looking
at developing a "best practice" policy.
Dave Fumerton, Ministry of the Environment spoke further to the Township of Scugog
and Municipality of Clarington fill operations as it is in unique situations such as this
that the MOE get involved.
Greg Sones, MOE advised that the Ministry has 'emergency' power to stop work on
an operation however the circumstances are limited in which to do so.
Next Steps
Mayor Foster spoke to his concerns with Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
approved sites. Mayor Emmerson recommended establishing a fill process and
partnering with the MNR with respect to fill operations.
Ron Simpson, Township of Bradford West Gwillimbury suggested that all
municipalities establish one fill by-law, endorsed by all the agencies.
Joe Bonura, Township of Brock spoke to a commercial fill by-law meeting at the
Region Durham on June 15, 2011.
Mayor O'Connor suggested that each municipality dedicate one staff person to
participate in a working group with other municipalities to establish a common
commercial fill by-law. Greg Sones advised that the a Ministry of the Environment
staff person could be available to attend that meeting.
Adlournment
Mayor O'Connor adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
ATTACHMENT NO. 9 TO
REPORT LGL-006-11
ROAD AGREEMENT
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE A41
MUNICIPALITYOF CLARINGTON
("Clarington")
- and -
1744856 ONTARIO INC.
(the °Owner')
WHEREAS:
(a) The Owner owns the property municipally known as 4148 Regional Highway 2,
Newcastle which is legally described as part of Lot 16, Concession 2,
Municipality of Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham (the "Property").
(b) Barklay Fieldstone Estates Limited, a corporation that is affiliated with the Owner,
owns the property immediately to the north of the Property shown on Schedule
"A" (Location Map) as "Additional Lands Controlled by the Owner".
(c) The Property has two vehicle access points - one off of Regional Highway 2 and
the other off of Morgans Road as shown in Schedule "A".
(d) Access to the Property is also available through the Additional Lands Controlled
by the Owner.
(e) Clarington has jurisdiction over Morgans Road.
(f) The Regional Municipality of Durham has jurisdiction over Regional Highway 2 in
the vicinity of the Property.
(g) The entire Property is within an area regulated by the Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority (°GRCA").
(h) GRCA issued a permit under Ontario Regulation 168/06 on June 30, 2010 (the
"Permit") in relation to the Property.
(i) The Permit will expire on June 30, 2011.
Q) The Owner has applied for a renewal of the Permit.
Page 2
(k) Clarington and the Owner wish to enter into this Agreement in order to clarify the
rights and responsibilities of the Owner in relation to the Property, including those
obligations imposed on the Owner under Provincial Officer Order Number 3333-
8FN29D of the Ministry of the Environment issued April 6, 2011 as modified by
the Directors Order issued April 15, 2011.
NOW THEREFORE Clarington and the Owner agree as follows:
PART 1 —VEHICLE ACCESS
Number and Location
1. Consistent with Clarington's Policy for Entrances, vehicular access to the
Property shall be restricted to those locations described in recital (c) to this
Agreement.
2. No trucks shall access the Property through the Additional Lands Controlled by
the Owner.
3. Any truck carrying any amount of fill shall obtain access to the Property via the
Regional Highway 2 access only. The Morgans Road access shall only be used
by trucks if they are exiting the Property without any fill.
Truck Routing
4. The Owner shall ensure that all trucks coming into and leaving do not travel
through Newcastle Village.
PART 2 — OFF-SITE IMPACTS
Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control
5. The Owner shall adhere to all of the requirements of the "Dust, Soil Tracking and
Noise Control Procedures" filed with the Ministry of the Environment on April 15,
2011. For purposes of this Agreement, that Procedure shall be deemed to be
amended as set out in Schedule "B" to this Agreement (Amendments to the Dust,
Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures).
Load Restrictions
6. The Owner acknowledges that under section 19(3) of Clarington's Traffic By-law
91-58, half load restrictions are in place on Morgans Road between Durham
Highway 2 and Concession Road 3 from January 1 to December 31 in each and
every year.
Page 3
Road Repair
7. Clarington shall install, at the Owner's expense, a culvert at the Owner's current
access onto Morgans Road.
8. Prior to June 15, 2011, the Owner shall construct upgrades to Morgans Road
from Durham Highway 2 to the north side of the existing entrance to the Property
(approximately 250 metres north) to the satisfaction of Clarington's Director of
Engineering Services. Upgrades shall include:
• pulverize the existing surface over the full width of the existing road platform
and grade the base with a 2-3% crossfall from centreline.
• add 150 mm Granular 'A' over entire width of road platform.
• lay 50 mm HL8 binder course
• ditch where required to drain the pavement structure and provide positive
grade to an outlet.
Performance Guarantee
9. The Owner shall provide Clarington with a performance guarantee, in the form of an
unconditional and irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by a chartered Canadian Bank
to be used by Clarington as security for the Owner's obligations under section 8 of
this Agreement. The amount of the performance guarantee shall be $54,285
calculated in accordance with Schedule "C" (COST ESTIMATE).
PART 3 — DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
Permit Condition
10. The Owner shall not object to GRCA making it a condition of the Permit or any
renewal of the Permit that the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be
complied with and that default under this Agreement shall be default under the
Permit.
Remedies
11. Subject to section 12, if the Owner is in default of any provision of this Agreement,
Clarington may,
(a) enter upon the Property and do all such things as are required to remedy the
default and charge the cost of such work to the Owner together with an 25%
Page 4
of such cost for overhead (to be construed as a liquidated amount, not a
penalty);
(b) draw upon the performance guarantee;
(c) declare Morgans Road a "No Heavy Trucks" under Clarington's Traffic By-
law 91-58 for whatever period of time it deems appropriate; and/or
(d) designate Morgan's Road as "Heavy Traffic Prohibited" under Clarington's
Traffic By-law 91-58.
12. With respect section 5 only, the Owner shall not be deemed to be in default unless
Clarington has notified the Owner of the particulars of the default and given the
Owner a reasonable period of time to cure the default.
PART 4 — GENERAL PROVISIONS
Successors and Assigns
13. This Agreement shall not be assigned by the Owner without the prior approval of
Clarington.
14. This Agreement enures to the benefit of and binds the parties and their
respective successors and permitted assigns.
Term of Agreement
15. The term of this Agreement shall coincide with the term of the Permit, including
any renewal of the Permit.
16. Part 3 of this Agreement (Default and Remedies) shall survive the termination of
this Agreement.
Non-waiver
17. Waiver or non-enforcement by either party of a term or condition of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver or a non-enforcement of any other term
or condition of this Agreement or any subsequent breach of the same or similar
term or condition.
Changes to Agreement
18. Changes to this Agreement shall only be made by agreement in writing by both
parties.
Page 5
Notice
19. (1) Any notice to the Owner under section 13 shall be in writing and shall be
delivered to the following address:
1744856 ONTARIO INC.
96 Cawker's Cove Road Port Perry
Scugog, Ontario 1-91- 1R6
Attention: Richard Rondeau
Facsimile: 905-427-0265
(2) Notice shall be sufficiently given if delivered in person, sent by registered
mail or sent by facsimile transmission during normal business hours on a
business day.
(3) Each notice sent shall be deemed to have been received on the day that it
is delivered, on the third business day after it is mailed, or on the same
day that it is sent by facsimile transmission or on the first business day
thereafter if the day on which it was sent by facsimile transmission was not
a business day.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Clarington and the Owner have signed this Agreement.
Dated at Clarington this_day of May, 2011.
THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Adrian Foster, Mayor
Patti Barrie, Municipal Clerk
1744856 ONTARIO INC.
Richard Rondeau [title]
ATTACHMENT NO. 10 TO
REPORT LGL-006-11
MNR AURORA DISTRICT
OFF-SITE FILL ACCEPTANCE PROTOCOL
This Protocol has been developed for use in the rehabilitation of aggregate pit
and quarry operations.
I. Definitions
For purposes of this Protocol, the following shall have the meanings
described below:
"Acceptable has the meaning set out in Part II following
Filr'
"EPA" means the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O.
1990, c.E.19, as may be amended
"Generating The location from which acceptable fill material
Location" originates
"Site" means the relevant properties licensed under the
Aggregate Resources Act
"MNR" means the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
"Protocor, means this Off-Site Fill Acceptance Protocol, as may
be amended from time to time
"Qualified means a Qualified Person as defined in O.Reg.
Professional" 153/04 (Environmental Protection Act) as may be
amended
"Reviewing means a Qualified Professional retained by the
Professional" Licensee as required by this Protocol, and who is a
professional geoscientist or professional engineer
experienced in environmental site assessment and
peer review
"Licensee" means the person or company and its successors and
assigns to whom the Aggregate Resources Act
licence is issued
"Table 1 means the standards set out in Table 1 of the "Soil,
Standards" Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under
Part XV1 of the Environmental Protection Act"
published by the MOE and dated March 9, 2004, as
1
may be amended or replaced pursuant to the
provisions of the EPA under the column entitled "All
Other Types of Property Uses".
"Topsoil" As defined in c. 25, s. 142 (1) of the Municipal Act,
2001, as may be amended, to mean:
Those horizons in a soil profile, commonly
known as the "O" and the "A" horizons,
containing organic material and includes
deposits of partially decomposed organic
matter such as peat.
II. Acceptable Fill
The Licensee shall place at the Site only Acceptable Fill which, for the
purposes of this Protocol, is defined as being material that meets the
following criteria, provided that the material does not contain any
putrescible materials:
a) Soil / earth that meets Table 1 Standards and passes a slump test
as outlined in the General Water Management Regulation (O.
Reg. 347 pursuant to the EPA), as may be amended; or
b) Rock; brick (without coating and free from contamination); and
concrete (without coating or exposed rebar or containing cement
fines and free from contamination).
In addition to Acceptable Fill, Topsoil may be imported for use as final
cover (i.e., 5 — 10 cm or as identified on the approved Aggregate
Resources Act site plan). See section VIII.
III. Application for Shipment of Fill Material
1. Any person wishing to ship off-site material to the Site will be
provided with a copy of Parts I, II and III of the Protocol.
2. Anyone seeking to ship material for deposit at the Site must
receive written approval from the Licensee that the material
proposed to be shipped has been accepted in accordance with
the Protocol.
3. An application to ship material for deposit at the Site shall include
the following:
2
(a) Name of the owner of the Generating Location and the
representative of the Generating Location authorized to sign
any bill of lading or other documentation relating to shipments
of Acceptable Fill to the Site.
(b) One or more reports, prepared by a Qualified Professional
from the Generating Location), to include the following
information:
i A description of the Generating Location and its history,
including the location, past and present uses of the land,
and current activities.
ii A description of the material to be shipped to the Site,
including the processes involved in its generation.
iii Where some or all of the material to be deposited is
soil/earth, a record of the results of a comprehensive soil
testing program for the Generating Location, including a
description of the sampling locations, sample collection
procedures, and parameters analysed. An explanation or
rationale for the selection of the sampling locations and the
parameters for testing must be included.
iv A statement from a Qualified Professional stating that in
his/her opinion the material satisfies the requirements of
the Protocol and is suitable for placement at the Site.
v . The anticipated volume of material to be shipped to the
Site.
A An estimated time frame in which the material will be
shipped.
4. Copies of any application, together with the related report or
reports, will be forwarded to the Licensee and the Reviewing
Professional.
5. The application will be reviewed by the Reviewing Professional to
determine whether the material proposed for shipment is suitable
for acceptance. The Reviewing Professional will consider the
results of the sampling program, including but not limited to,
whether the sampling locations and number of samples are
representative of the material proposed to be shipped, whether
the test results include the full range of parameters of potential
concern relating to the Generating Location and whether a
3
suitable Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program was
implemented.
6. The Reviewing Professional will advise the Licensee in writing
whether or not the material proposed to be shipped is suitable for
acceptance and provide any terms or conditions of acceptance.
The Licensee or the Reviewing Professional, if so authorized by
the Licensee, will communicate the approval or rejection, in
writing, together with any terms or conditions of approval to the
person making the application and confirm the approximate times
of shipment of any off-site material.
7. Once written approval has been provided by the Reviewing
Professional, the Licensee will proceed to issue "bills of lading" to
the Generating Location.
8. A master list of bills of lading will be produced for each
Generating Location by the Licensee prior to the shipment of any
materials. The master list will enable the bills of lading to be
linked by number to the specific Generating Location,haulage
company(ies) and site assessment report. The master list will be
updated as required so as to remain current.
9. The Licensee will keep at the Site, or at some other secure place,
a copy of the documentation referred to in this Part III and shall
provide a copy thereof promptly upon request to MNR.
IV. Controls at the Site
1. The Site will be fenced and gated to prevent unauthorized access
to the Site during the times that any off-site material is being
received at the Site. The Site will be manned by persons who
have been appropriately trained by the Reviewing Professional.
2. On a daily basis, the Licensee will identify a location on the Site
where filling activities will occur. The location of loads will be
tracked and recorded on a daily basis through the development of
a locational grid tracking system for the property. Records will be
retained and made available to MNR upon request.
3. A bill of lading will be presented before any truck(s) can enter the
Site. Each load to the Site will be accompanied by a completed
bill of lading indicating:
■ the name of the generator,
■ Generating Location,
4
• the name of the hauling company
• license plate number and truck identifier (if one exists)
• the date and time of the shipment,
Each bill of lading will be signed by an authorized representative
of the Generating Location.
4. The gatekeeper will cross-reference the information on the bill of
lading against the master list which will include truck ticket
numbers issued by project.
5. Untested/undocumented loads or loads with no bill of lading will
not be accepted under any circumstances.
6. The gatekeeper, who must be trained for such purposes, will
complete a visual inspection of each load prior to permitting
access to the Site. Loads containing unacceptable material or
exhibiting evidence of possible chemical impact (e.g., unusual
odours or staining) will not be permitted access to the Site.
Repeated situations of material being rejected by the gatekeeper
from a particular Generating Location will give rise to an
investigation. An investigation report will be prepared within 30
days, giving a full account of the reasons the quality control
system on the part of the Generating Location failed and the
corrective actions taken and a copy shall be provided to MNR.
The report will be retained by the Licensee at the Site, or at some
other secure place.
7. Once the gatekeeper approves the load for acceptance at the
Site, he/she will sign the bill of lading, and direct the driver to a
specific dumping location at the Site. The assigned location will
be noted on the bill of lading.
8. A daily summary log will be maintained for loads shipped to the
Site, including rejected loads. The log entry will include:
➢ Date
➢ Daily total # of trucks entering the property
➢ Daily total # of trucks accepted
➢ Daily total # of trucks rejected (and reasons for rejection)
➢ For each Generating Location:
i. Identification number for each Bill of Lading received
on that date,
ii. Location fill was placed on the locational tracking grid.
5
9. All applications and related reports, bills of lading, logs of material
accepted at the Site, records of material approved for acceptance
at the Site, etc. will be retained by the Licensee until the licence is
rehabilitated and surrendered.
V. Quality Control Audit Program
1. For the purpose of a quality control audit, samples of materials
shipped to the Site will be collected by or on behalf of the Licensee
under the supervision of the Reviewing Professional for every
10,000 cubic metres of imported fill (or as approved by MNR) and a
record will be maintained of the sampling procedure and the
rational connected therewith.
2. Samples collected for audit purposes will be submitted to an
accredited laboratory for analysis and will be analyzed for inorganic
parameters, volatile organic compounds, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, and F1 through F4 general petroleum hydrocarbon
parameters, together with any other parameters that are deemed
necessary by the Reviewing Professional, given the information
contained in the reports for the Generating Location relating to the
materials being shipped to the Site.
VI. Discovery of Unacceptable Materials
Should any unacceptable materials (i.e., material other than Acceptable
Fill) be discovered at the Site (through the audit program or during, or
after, dumping of a load), the Licensee shall do or cause to be done the
following procedure. All unacceptable material will be located by way of
the site log and locational tracking grid and recovered and stockpiled for
further assessment and/or removal from the Site. A record of the action
taken, together with any applicable documentation (e.g. testing and
analysis and/or shipment off-site) with respect to the unacceptable
material will be kept in the site log (at the Site, or at some other secure
place). A copy of the documentation referred to in this Part VI shall be
provided promptly upon request to MNR. Should any unacceptable
materials be discovered at the Site, the MNR will be notified promptly in
writing by or on behalf of the Licensee.
VII. Groundwater Monitoring
1. MNR, in consultation with the Licensee, will determine if a
groundwater monitoring program will be required at the Site.
2. Any such monitoring program may include documentation of the
number and type of samples, the manner and timing of sampling,
6
the parameters to be analyzed, the standards to be used for
comparison purposes, the reporting requirements, and any
confirmatory sampling requirements should the results indicate any
exceedance of a standard established for a parameter of concern,
and any further response requirements.
3. As far as is practicable, existing groundwater monitoring wells will
be utilized for the purposes of any groundwater monitoring
program.
4. Groundwater samples will be collected by or on behalf of the
Licensee under the supervision of the Reviewing Professional and
delivered to an accredited laboratory to be tested. Results of the
testing will be provided to MNR upon request. Any changes to
groundwater quality (i.e., from background condition) will be
reported to MNR immediately.
VIII. Guidelines for Topsoil
1. All requests to import Topsoil for rehabilitation purposes shall
include the following:
➢ A demonstrated need to import Topsoil for rehabilitation
purposes
➢ An area identified on a drawing or sketch as to where
Topsoil is to be placed and/or stockpiled on the Site for
rehabilitation purposes
➢ Name of the owner of the Generating Location and the
representative of the Generating Location authorized to
sign any bill of lading or other documentation relating to
shipments of Topsoil to the Site.
➢ A description of the Generating Location and its history,
including the location, past and present uses of the land,
and current activities.
➢ The volume of Topsoil anticipated to be received
➢ An anticipated time frame in which the Topsoil will be
shipped
➢ A maximum depth of Topsoil to be used as top dressing
as shown on the approved site plan or as approved by
MNR
2. All requests to import Topsoil shall be subject to the conditions as
set out in Part IV #6-9 and Part VI of this Protocol.
3. To the extent possible Topsoil will be used immediately as final
cover. Topsoil stockpiles should be as minimal as possible and are
to be used progressively in rehabilitation efforts.
7
4. Additional testing or information may be required for the importation
of Topsoil as deemed necessary by MNR.
IX. Amendments to the Protocol
This Protocol has been developed for use in more typical, larger scale, fill
importation operations. Where any special.circumstances exist or the
importation of fill operation is smaller in size this Protocol may be reviewed
and/or altered in co-operation with MNR.
8
November 212007
SAMPLE BILL OF LADING
No: 0000001
Name and Location of Generating Location:
Date Shipped:
Time Shipped:
Haulage Company:
Truck Number:
Licence Plate:
Signature�of Authorized Personnel at Generating :-�
Date Received:
Time Received:
Assigned Location for Deposit at Receiving Site:
Sign#ure of Authorized Personnel atRecevmg Site
ANY UNSIGNED OR INCOMPLETE FORMS WILL RESULT
IN REFUSAL OF LOAD AT THE RECEIVING LOCATION.
WHITE COPY- RECEIVING SITE
YELLOW COPY- HAULAGE COMPANY'
PINK COPY- GENERATING LOCATION
9
November 212607
SAMPLE
DAILY SUMMARY LOG
Date: dd/mm/yyyy Total Number of Truck Loads Received at Site: 34
Generating # of Truck Filling
Location Loads Bill of Lading# s Grid Location Assigned
ABC Condos 8 0001-0007, 0032 Al
ABC Homes 14 0008- 0021 Al
123 Homes 10 0022-0031 B2
TR UCS LOADS REJECTED
Generating Hauling Bill of Lading# Reason for Refusal/Comments
Location Company
ABC Condos 234 Hauling - Rejected—no Bill of Lading
123 Homes WYZ Excavation 27 Oil smell/staining, mixed with asphalt—report
required
Signature of Authorized Personnel at Receiving Site:
10
November 212007
Sample
Master List: Bills of Lading
Generating Location #1 (Name and Location)
Bill of Lading# Date Issued Date Received at Site Gatekeeper Initial
0001 Sept 2, 2007
0002 Sept 2, 2007
0003 Sept 2, 2007
0004 Sept 2, 2007
0005 Sept 2, 2007
0006 Sept 2, 2007
0007 Sept 2, 2007
0008 Sept 2, 2007
N N N N
0025 Oct. 5, 2007
0026 Oct. 5, 2007
0027 Oct. 5, 2007
0028 Oct. 5, 2007
Generating Location #2 (Name and Location)
Bill of Lading# Date Issued Date Received at Site Gatekeeper Initial
0017 Sept 6, 2007
0018 Set 6, 2007
0019 Sept 6, 2007
0020 Sept 6, 2007
0021 Sept 6, 2007
Generating Location #3 (Name and Location)
Bill of Lading# Date Issued Date Received at Site Gatekeeper Initial
0017 Set 6, 2007
0018 Sept 6, 2007
0019 Sept 6, 2007
0020 Set 6, 2007
0021 Sept 6, 2007
0022 Sept 6, 2007
0023 Sept 6, 2007
0024 Sept 6, 2007
Date of Last Update:
Signature of Authorized Personnel at Receiving Site:
11