Nothing found for 2 Forum ?group=4&xfeed=group

ObserverXtra on Opponents challenge hydrogeological study in gravel pit application

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:44:24 -0700

Opponents of a gravel pit proposed for West Montrose this week fired the latest salvo in the ongoing battle, deeming inadequate a hydrogeological study provided by the applicant, and expressing concerns about the future of wetlands near the covered bridge. The Bridge Keepers organization says the subwatershed study provided by Capital Paving does not cover in any detail the information required to assess the impact of the proposed gravel pit. In a presentation to Woolwich council Tuesday night, Dr. Kim Cuddington, a professor in the Department of Biology at the University of Waterloo, said the report fails to provide any facts to back up Capital Paving’s assertion the pit would have a minimal impact on the environment. The hydrogeological study tackles one of the most contentious issues, as the company plans to excavate below the water table on portions of the 115-acre site. That gives rise to worries about the impact on local wells, the nearby Grand River and the future prospects of farming the land after any aggregate operation has closed and the land remediated. If the pit goes ahead, it could have a detrimental impact on the naturalized areas near the bridge, Cuddington suggested. “There are woodlands and wetlands in the immediate vicinity of the bridge, immediately adjacent to [the site of the proposed pit]. Because it is immediately adjacent to this area, we want to make sure the wetlands and woodlands are protected, not only because they provide a beautiful background for the bridge, but because the GRCA has suggested [they] are provincially significant,” she said. Information provided by the company fails to address pressing concerns, Cuddington added. There are no figures, for instance, on how much water it will use to wash the aggregate, nor does the company say where that water will come from. As well, Capital Paving has not identified the water budget currently required by the wetlands, so it cannot say how much of an impact diverting water will have. Nor has it addressed the permanent changes in topography that will exist, even after rehabilitation. “We’re going to change the topography: we’re going to dig out a pit. This will disrupt surface water flow to the wetlands. If the pit is deep enough, we can also disrupt groundwater flow.” Initial studies show there is a potential for the diversion of water to starve the wetlands and woodlands to the north and west of the site, she noted. Dan Kennaley, the township’s director of engineering and planning, said he has issues with the study supplied by the applicant, adding the information provided by Cuddington will be helpful in assessing the company’s data. “Staff have some fundamental concerns with the scoped subwatershed study.” Coun. Mark Bauman noted this is why the township maintains the need for peer reviews as part of the gravel pit application process, a requirement that has been challenged by Capital Paving, which wants Woolwich to move more quickly on its submission. In a related matter, West Montrose resident Nathan Hallman pressed council for a date when it will discuss a proposal to designate the bridge’s surroundings as a cultural heritage landscape (CHL). Earlier this year, Prof. Robert Shipley, who heads the Heritage Resources Centre at the University of Waterloo, submitted the findings of a two-year study into the “kissing bridge,” recommending the township explore the CHL designation. Kennaley said he expects to bring a report to council in December. That document won’t, however, recommend a position on the CHL idea, but rather will set out at process, including public consultations, to consider such a designation.

ObserverXtra on Victoria Glen likely put on shelf

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:49:44 -0700

Lessons learned in Victoria Glen struggle

To the Editor,

On Tuesday night, the Friends of Victoria Glen Park, perhaps 100+ strong, again packed Woolwich council chamber to witness the final and historic vote on designating the land adjacent to Victoria Glen Street as a park, or place it on the market for a developer to irrevocably alter its beauty as we know it.

The little creatures, such as birds, squirrels, rabbits and frogs, and passing visiting deer, which have long made this forest their home, will never know how many thousands of hours went into the fight to save their habitat, where we in turn may be refreshed while following its winding trails and enjoying its towering trees. It is up to us to sense its magic.

During this marathon over the past six months, many of us have experienced a new type of adventure, dealing with our local council. Personally, it brought me inside the newly renovated and beautiful township office building, and I gradually have grown to put faces with names of staff. They have gone beyond the call of duty in their kindness and helpfulness to me. Thank you. It has been an education to watch democracy at work. This is the freedom, hard fought, that we celebrated this week with Remembrance Day. I have also formed a stronger bond with my neighbours, and rejoiced that my larger community shared my own passion for keeping the whole woodlot intact as Victoria Glen Park. Together we found that we are strong: A good lesson to learn. It works particularly well when we have a good cause.

Staff and council listened to our reasoned arguments and embarrassingly sentimental pleas, from all ages - little children to grandparents - and concluded that our love affair with this little patch of seemingly useless scrubby brush has a vibrant life of its own, and a value far greater than the dollars that could be generated by selling it off to a few homeowners. For this I am truly thankful.

Ruth Josephs
Elmira

ObserverXtra on Victoria Glen likely put on shelf

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:33:01 -0700

They came expecting the development was a done deal. They left seeing there’s a good chance Victoria Glen Park will remain in its current state. The impassioned pleas of residents who packed Woolwich council chambers Tuesday won the day, as the towns hip backed away from its original proposal for a residential subdivision in the park. The fallback plan all but ensures there will be no construction given the relatively small return on investment. With the approval of Coun. Mark Bauman’s motion to remove the largest parcel of land from the development plans, councillors in essence reduced to $400,000 an expected return of $1.5 million. And even that scaled-back concept is contingent on obtaining two pieces of land from the Region of Waterloo. At the end of two and half hours of public input and debate, staff was sent away to come up with revenue numbers for a smaller development. They’ll also look at other ways to finance a shortfall in funding for the township’s extensive capital building campaign: the current budget counts on developing Victoria Glen. A new report will be tabled Tuesday night. Opponents of the development are expected back en masse to push for an end to any and all construction plans, which appears to be the likely outcome. Even this week’s steps toward axing the project met with hearty applause from some 130 people in the audience. From the comments, many opponents expected the worst after reading the staff report firmly in favour of clearing the trees on 2.5 acres of land in favour of a new road and residential building lots. “There’s a general feeling here that we’re wasting our time,” Elmira resident Jeff Seddon told councillors, expressing a widely held view the township had already made up its mind to go ahead with development. Snyder Avenue resident Elin Edwards said people felt manipulated by the process, as if a decision has already been made, with planning staff dismissive of the public’s input, which was entirely against the proposal. Chief administrative officer David Brenneman argued, however, that public comments were taken into consideration, changing the scale of the proposed development. In the end, staff made a recommendation and the elected officials made a decision more to the public’s liking. Both Ward 1 councillors, Ruby Weber and Sandy Shantz, took positions against the proposal. “I walked through there … in the summertime. The place is truly magical, a real gem,” said Weber, drawing a large round of applause from the gallery. Bauman’s stance, which included a call to rezone at least part of the land in question as open space from the current residential designation, puts him closer to the opposition side. While he called for some development in the southern portion of the studied lands, Mayor Bill Strauss supported the compromise approved this week. The original proposal involves land bounded by Victoria Glen Street, Snyder Avenue North and Dunke Street North. The Kissing Bridge Trail runs to the north. The parkland under discussion runs along a portion of the existing Victoria Glen Street, and would front on either side of that route’s extension on an unopened road allowance between Dunke Street and Snyder Avenue. The version tabled by Bauman removes 1.58 of the 2.55 acres, an area known as parcel 1 to the north of the unopened Victoria Glen Street road allowance. The future of the proposal will be discussed when council meets again Nov. 10 at 7 p.m.

Laurel L. Russwurm on Open Discussion: Victoria Glen

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:57:46 -0700

The report prepared by Woolwich Council is a pretty clear indication that the Council which is supposed to represent us doesn't seem to be listening to either the many very good arguments or the very strong feelings of citizens to keep this Forest as a community asset. They want to bulldoze it and create a development so they can use the money to pay for the new Rec Center. If you have strong feelings about Victoria Glen, don't stay home and be sad that they aren't listening, come to the meeting because we need to show Council that thei isn't a mere neighborhood special interest issue. Victoria Glen Park belongs to the whole community. That means all of the the citizens of Woolwich Township. It is an asset that should not be sold without the full consent of the owners-- which means US. Maybe what we REALLY need is a referendum. If you know the area, the trail or the park, or if you care about the environment, come out to the meeting at 6:00pm Tuesday November 3rd. The only thing that might save this lovely little forest is to have a really big turnout. Because even if they don't listen to our words, they will notice if there are enough of us. Forget the fact that Victoria Glen Park was purchased to be a park (of the forest variety) and has been used only for that purpose to the advantage of the town for over a hundred years. Removing it will remove 50% of the public forest in the Elmira Settlement area. Since it is adjacent to the Kissing Bridge Trail it adds to the whole Woolwich Trails experience. Forget the fact that it is one of only 3 safe habitats for all of the wildlife that's being displaced by a building boom including the former fairgrounds and a few farms being turned into subdivisions. Even if you aren't keen on wildlife, isn't it a good idea to have a nice place for skinks to nest that isn't under your shed? Forget the fact that the houses nearby, which are farther from the flood plain have flooding issues already, but the earth moving that would need to be done will make those problems worse because it will compromise the natural drainage and filtration offered by Larch creek. It is clear that they can't build even one house without fouling the whole forest/wetland. The end result will be houses with even worse water problems, for which the Township will be responsible. Forget the fact that the current glut of housing and housing starts that have been put on hold only because we're still in the grip of the current rotten economy means that money made by developming this will be minimal if not an actual loss. Forget the fact that when all the houses in all of the subdivisions currently being built will result in twice as many families wanting to be able to take a walk in the woods, Woolwich Township will have to spend much more money than they can possibly make selling this land to buy some replacement empty stretch of land most likely devoid of trees... and even then it will take a hundred years to grow it into a forest. I don't live in the Victoria Glen neighborhood, it is actually a bit of a hike to get to the Forest. But it's important that it IS there. It's much wilder than Gibson, which I also love. My family moved here from Brampton because (as anyone who has lived in a place where development has been allowed to run rampant knows) "greenspace" consisting of a ribbon of grass surrounding a sidewalk flanked by the occasional spindly trees surrounded by litter does not cut it. If it was enough I would still live there where there is effective public transit and movie theatres. The reason people move to towns like this, filling up the houses in the subdivisions, and are willing to put up with an increasingly killer commute is because we want more. Silly me... I wanted to be able to raise a family where I would be able to walk to the grocery store or to the forest. One down. If the municipal government is in the development business maybe they shouldn't be in the government business. Isn't this a HUGE conflict of Interest?

drcressman on DANGEROUS TSUNAMI OF GRAVEL PIT APPLICATIONS IN CONESTOGO-WINTERBOURNE-WEST MONTROSE AREA

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:29:39 -0700

TSUNAMI OF GRAVEL PIT APPLICATIONS IN CONESTOGO-WINTERBOURNE-WEST MONTROSE AREA

As a long-time resident of Waterloo with a strong affection for the landscapes and people of Woolwich Township, originating from summer work as a teenager on area farms , then study in detail most of its major soil landscapes while helping create the agricultural soil maps in ‘Soils of ‘Waterloo County’, I have grave concerns about the potentially damaging consequences of the tsunami of gravel pit- oriented land transactions and licence applications sweeping destructively across the Winterbourne -Conestogo -West Montrose area , with more on the horizon given the extent of mapped aggregate resources and the several existing pits not accounted for in any of the technical studies submitted thus far to the Ministry of Natural Resources(MNR) by the consultants of applicant hopefuls.

My concern arises from close review of those studies in the light of my twenty five year local consulting practice in environmental impact assessment, specializing in agricultural impact, and cumulative effects assessment.

My concern is for the future well-being of the farming community in general , but especially the fate of my more conservative Mennonite ‘cousins- in-the- faith’ in the horse and buggy Order Mennonite,(OOM) -community, centred on the meetinghouse on Letson Rd.

Clearly lacking from the technical studies is any consideration of the inevitable ‘cumulative’, or ‘chain-reaction’ socio-economic impacts from so many pits within a relatively small area, Ignored in particular is the unique and hazardous mix of slow-moving gravel trucks, horse and buggies and with faster moving impatient vehicles traveling to and from the Grand River Casino and Raceway in Elora and traffic. Since the Aggregate Resources Act and MNR which administers it allow applicants to examine each application in isolation from any other significant and relevant developments. Traffic studies have therefore grossly underestimated the ‘aggregate’ number of gravel truck trips, all slow moving at pit entrances and intersections. Also ignored is the risks they pose in general to both farm-related traffic on Katherine St.,and connecting roads, and residents from the community at-large, especially at high risk locations such the Crowsfoot intersection.

Buttressing the flawed claims in the consultant studies are spurious applicant claims of environmental benefits that would flow from at least one application.To illustrate this flawed reasoning; how can a pit in general proximity to KW be environmentally superior to the numerous large active pits inside Kitchener and a huge Steed and Evans pit north of Heidelberg, perched closer to Waterloo, while nearby North Dumfries and Puslinch Townships are littered with active pits. Shortage of aggregate is far from the limiting factor on urban growth in the Region of Waterloo!

Given the large number of serious and quite obvious flaws in reports submitted by planning consultant David Sisco, he and other consultants have reason to be concerned about the outcome of peer reviews required by the Township. Surely, he was, or should have been fully aware of that existing requirement in OPA 13 before commencing his firm’s studies.

He misleads Council in claiming Woolwich’s demand for peer reviews amounts to duplication as many of the reports are being scrutinized by other agencies, including the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

According to the MNR principal contact, applicants “ are not required to complete a traffic assessment”, even though, under the Act, MNR must consider the effect of the operation of the pit or quarry on the environment;

on nearby communities, and on agricultural resources,before recommending approval by the Minister. Consequently, MNR is not conducting a duplicate review. Director of Engineering and Planning Dan Kennaley, however, is correct in dismissing Sisco’s assertion, and in characterizing other agency reviews as “perfunctory”, in relying on the credentials of the experts submitting the original reports.

Sisco’a claim of $30,000 for the peer reviews required under the township’s policy is highly speculative. Furthermore, the better quality of the original reports the lower the cost of peer reviews. Nevertheless any such cost is and trivial, compared with the financial gains to flow from gravel extraction. Beyond these issues lies the farce that gravel pits will simply be temporary\ ‘interim’ land uses, with agriculture returning after questionable efforts at rehabilitating the soils, but not the displaced farm operations.

I urge Council and the larger community to remain steadfast in the face of pressure from the vested interests in this David and Goliath encounter with the aggregate industry, placing the interests and well-being of the community as a whole over those of a very few direct beneficiaries. The time is long overdue that shoddy, incomplete work by consultants for aggregate companies be exposed along with the complicity of MNR.

Cheryl Fisher on Open Discussion: Victoria Glen

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:25:25 -0600

Staff report for Victoria Glen Park has come out, and their recommendation remains the same. Remove a substantial amount of the bush (57% to be exact) for subdivisions. To clarify some incorrect information from the Township report. Township staff continues to use the 20% of total area to explain that they are really not taking away that much of the area. The area of concern and what residents are fighting to preserve is the wooded lot that is used extensively by many residents from all over the Township. 57% of the wooded lot area must be removed to make room for the recommended subdivision. Anyone travelling in the park can clearly see how the majority of the bush will be removed. There are so many issues yet that have not been clearly dealt with in the report. Flood plain, GRCA input, etc.. We have not heard one person come forward to speak in favour of the project.

Please come out on Nov 3 at 6p.m. to show council that they cannot have community used green space and/or parkland to pay for capital expenditures. This has been a park since 1914 and is well used by the community.

Council members----listen to the people of the Township!

HCBPoccupation on Open Discussion: Victoria Glen

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:05:06 -0600

Greetings,

I have driven through Elmira many times yet never knew this patch of old growth exists. Thank you for trying to protect it! I am so glad you are doing this.

I am one of the many people involved in the recent land occupation that stopped Guelph's ill-conceived Hanlon Creek Business Park. 60 of us walked onto the land and shut down construction, and lived there for 19 days. We made it front page news and the talk of the town, and a judge has ordered a temporary stop work order until the Minister of Natural Resources makes the call one way or another.

All in all it was a huge success and showed what we are capable of when we join together. This is becoming increasingly necessary nowadays as more people realize we need some serious change in how things are done.

We were told to check out this forum, and are so glad that someone has already spread the word about what we are up to. We are having a big social event next Saturday, August 29. We would love to meet up with anyone and everyone interested and involved in land protection activity, so we can work together more in the future. Elmira is not too far away....

Please check out our website hcbpoccupation.wordpress.com, where you can find more general info and photos, and info about the event on Aug 29. Also please feel encouraged to contact us via email at hcbpoccupation@gmail.com. We'd love to hear from you.

Michelle Dubois on Open Discussion: Victoria Glen

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:22:35 -0600

I've been wondering where best to bring this up, and if there is a better place can someone please pass this forward? I'm not sure how many of you have been following the blockade/protests in Guelph over the last few weeks, but their struggle is based out of the same quick cash grab by cities at the expense of the environment that ours is.

(The city of Guelph has decided to build a business park that will damage wetlands, pollute tributaries to the Speed and Grand rivers, slowly kill an old growth forest and possibly destroy the habitat of an endengered salamander. Protestors stopped the destruction for a couple of weeks until a judge ordered the protestors off the site and a 30 day halt to constuction.)

Anyways having seen several manucilapities choose cash over green space i think it is very important to find allies who are fighting not just for the forests and meadows in their own community but for the bigger picture of a greener tomorrow. Guelph has been so successful so far because of the friendships made with local cites like Hamilton and Kitchener as well as with Six Nations and those fighting at Dump Site 41.

The protestors are hosting a gathering at Goldi Mill Park on Aug. 29th to discuss protecting greenspaces not only in guelph but in all of southern ontario. If the city council decided to go forward with this plan, or something similar in the future it would be useful to have ties with other communites, for ideas and support. Hopefully some of us will make it out.

For more information please check out their website: http://hcbpoccupation.wordpress.com/

eedwards on Open Discussion: Victoria Glen

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:52:16 -0600

i'm not even sure the message about "trendy observations" was even aimed at victoria glen: the fact is, however, that a fair number of the people who spoke passionately at the woolwich council public meeting on "surplussing" the forest WERE people who had been "born and raised here for generations". the rest of us? well, this is still our home and most of us have a strong commitment and tie to the community - and the trees!

on another note: today's "View from Here" in this paper is terrifying -- i have a hunch many of the hundreds of people who attended that council meeting in june are still feeling the power of the group presentations and overwhelming community passion for preserving the Victoria Glen Park woods. as we get closer the the township's releasing the final report on what they plan to do -- well, preserving the woods as parkland is still nowhere near a done deal.

you can't un-cut-down a woods that's been growing for a goodly number of those generations that the earlier writer mentioned. let's hope Woolwich Council shows leadership and wisdom in committing themselves (and subsequent generations) to true environmental stewardship.

elmira_hunt_camp on Elmira's hockey heritage

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:12:19 -0600

When I saw the cover story of satuday Aug 01 2009, I thought “Great, some input by real vetrans of Hockey in Elmira and maybe some real stories which ARE the TRADITION of the game and it's influence on the town.

Unfortunately it was all window dressing with next to nothing of such as relavence as statements from these gentlemen, most of whom have my respect.

There was some mention of the names honored in the seats purchased a list of which (would not only be appropriate, but mandatory in responsible journalism) was not published.

Such simple questios as “At one time there were two members of the same team accepted for the NHL draft. One went the other could not get his father's consent for the following reason, some of which partly proved to be true, ” There is no future in playing hockey and unlike Rodney you do not have a wealthy family to fall back on if you can't pee with the big dogs”. it soon became apparent that the only talent of this guy(the stuck up prick who was too good to sign autographs for the kids in town when he visited his family) was playing on the same squad as the other who successfully used his gift by securing a job in promotions”. Unfortunately, as he lived his life as a perfect example of the values which minor hockey is rumored to instill in participants, he died at the age of 35. I certainly expect that this name is included on the list although I bet that not one of the arena fundraiser committy have even heard of him.

I am sure that the genlemen pictures knew him better than I and could also tell you how Life Magasine described Elmira in an article relating to hockey Again I will express an opinion tha none of the fundraising commitee would answer “life magasine did a hocket related story about Elmira?” One hint.” The time frame is slightly before number 27 became associated with Elmira junior hockey.”

Should anyone like the answers to these questions they can be found at elmira_hunt_cam@twitter.com

In case the answers were not obvious amongst the other tweets(all true) Life magasine described Elmira as “a grim, grimy,little factory town.”

The hockey player was Don Duke.

Nancy S. on Open Discussion: Victoria Glen

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:44:08 -0600

It "amazes" me that preserving land could even be viewed as something 'trendy'. Simply because someone's grandparents did not grow up in this area does not take away the legitimacy of their opinion as a citizen. It is this paternal, old-school sense of superiority and entitlement to the land and council that poses a serious problem to the democratic process.

elmira_hunt_camp on Open Discussion: Victoria Glen

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:55:47 -0600

It amases me that newcomers (to those of us born and raised here for generations) make trendy comments to preserve a heritage that they know little if anything about.

Katieedmonds on Community Gardens

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:43:52 -0600

Thanks Nancy, I think that's a great idea. (Haha if you're interested, I could send you a copy as well!)

Nancy S. on Open Discussion: Victoria Glen

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:21:25 -0600

It's defeating to realize that council makes decisions in such an underground fashion. Where is the legitimate representation of the citizens? This decision DOES NOT reflect the values of the local community.

I think most locals would agree that we have chosen to raise our families here (and not in the city) because we value the natural integrity of the local land. Selling off old-growth in exchange for a quick buck is something we will regret deeply when our children look back at our decisions in years to come.

-Nancy S.

Nancy S. on Community Gardens

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:06:11 -0600

Perhaps you could print only your first newsletter the old-fashioned way (as to reach everyone), and then include information in the printed copy about how to sign up for the email version to follow. The best of both worlds perhaps? Either way, your newsletter sounds fantastic!