Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-82-83PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAMPTON, ONTARIO LOB 1JO R. DUPUIS, P. ENG., DIRECTOR TEL. (416) 263 -2231 987.5039 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 1983. REPORT NO.: WD -82 -83 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH -WEST OXFORD RE APPEALS TO CABINET UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS ACT. RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended: 1. That this report be received; and, 2. That the correspondence from the Township of South -West Oxford be received and filed. REPORT: In late July, correspondence was received from the Council of the Township of South -West Oxford requesting support and endorsement of the attached resolution. To summarize, South -West Oxford had been deeply involved in a hearing under the Consolidated Hearings Act pertaining to a waste disposal site. South -West Oxford had spent considerable time and money to make representation at this hearing with the decision being in favour of their position. Subsequently, the position of the Joint Board was appealed to Cabinet. As a result, South -West Oxford is requesting that the appeal mechanism be deleted from the Consolidated Hearings Act. J ...2 if s A �0.} P '�-q,i(C) i Page 2 REPORT: 82 -83 Having reviewed this situation and the relevant legislation, the following points are made: 1. Almost all legislation where there is a Hearing mechanism contains an appeal provision. It is doubtful that the Province will change this as in many cases, appeal is warranted. 2. South -West Oxford embarked on their efforts in the waste disposal site, being fully aware that there was an appeal provision. Had the hearing resulted in the opposite decision, the Township would have had the opportunity to appeal. 3. Elimination of the appeal provision can often work to the detriment of a Municipality where such Municipality feels that new information could be brought out in an appeal. Having considered the above, the Town of Newcastle should not support the Township of South -West Oxford and, therefore, receive and file their request. This matter has been discussed with the Planning Director, who concurs. Respectfull,y submitted, R.G. Dupuis, P. Eng., Director of Public Works. :jco /'` eptember 27, 1983. Conununications Directi TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH -WEST OXFORD HELEN L. PkOUSE Cleric A. FORkESiER, 9.A., A.M.C.T. D®puty Clork and Trwsur`r STEPHEN MCDONALD Deputy-Treasurer IRMA PRIESTER Tax D"rtm•nl Town of Newcastle D.M. Oakes, Clerk 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 MOUNT ELGIN, ONTARIO July 20, 1983 r D JUL 25 CLER;t D'cPARTMi:r1T Phono: Brownsville 977.2702 Ingonoll 195 -0177 ADDRESS RR 1, MOUNT ELGIN NW I NO Dear Sir or Madam: Re: Appeals to Cabinet from decisions of Joint Boards under the Consolidated Hearings Act The support and endorsement of the enclosed resolution by your Council is hereby requested. This resolution was passed by South -West Oxford Township Council on July 19th, 1983. Would you please submit it to the next meeting of your Council and forward its response to us at the address shown below. The early consideration of this matter by your Council would be appreciated. L t ACK, BY' , ORIGINAL. TO::::.�r(;;: COPIES TO: - Yours truly, � i I Helen Prouse, Clerk Twp, of South -West Oxford R.R. N 1 Mt. Elgin, Ontario NOJ 1 NO i THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH -WEST OXFORD Resolucion number 29 J u'l y 19, '1583 WHEREAS the Corporation of the County of Oxford has made application to the Lieutenant Governor -in- Council to rescind the decision of a Joint Board under the Consolidated Hearings Act in the mutter of a proposal by the County of Oxford for a long -te nn waste disposal site in the Township of South -West Oxford on 220 acres near the Village of Salford; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of South -West Oxford is advised that :' 1) The decision of the Joint Board properly and fully considered the evidence before it. The Joint Board conducted 59 days of public hearings, entered 217 exhibits and heard 68 witnesses. Expert witnesses testified on hydrology, geology, hydrogeology, and the design and operation of the proposed facility as well as on the ecology, traffic impact, noise impact, and land use planning related to the site. 2) The decision of the Joint Board properly assessed and fully appreciated the technical geological and hydrogeological evidence. Such evidence was discussed at length in the decision as a result of the issues raised by the Township at the hearing and because a consideration of the suitability of the soil is a primary and fundamental requirement in locating a1 andfill site. Having heard evidence from 3 quaternary geologists (1 for the County, 2 for the Township), a hydrogeologist (County), and an expert in soils and groundwater movement (Township) the Board concluded that the site is unacceptable from a geological and hydrogeological standpoint. 3) The Joint Board properly fulfilled its duties under The Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981 and its decision ought to be upheld having regard to the intent of the legislation which provides for applications with multiple complex issues to be heard by a joint tribunal representing the Ontario Municipal Board and the Environmental Assessment Board. To rescind the decision or to require a new lengthy hearing would result in a loss of public confidence and respect for this new process of joint hearings. 0-:—;Tl 610 4) There is no question of urgency in the matter of selecting an alternate site. Counsel for all parties agreed that urgent need for a long -term landfill site was not an issue at the hearing. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Lieutenant Governor -in- Council be requested to establish a {)olicy whereby matters that have had an extensive, proper and costly hearicng before a Joint Board under the Consolidated Hearings Act not be given a further re- hearing by Cabinet where the proceedings are not entirely in public with full disclosure and rights of parties to the matter to respond to all submissions, unless there are clear indications of procedural error by the Joint Board or new evidence has become available that could not have been submitted to the Joint Board; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be circulated to all municipalities in the Province of Ontario and their support and endorsement requested.