[All] Challenges we still face on Source Protection

Fri Sep 24 19:06:37 EDT 2010

Dear All

I had with a few helpers, gathered 77+69 signatures on a petition against
the re-zoning for the Gas Bar/Car Wash as well as 29 signatures from
Caledon, Mississauga, Scarborough, Stoffville, Toronto, Milton and Oakville
well knowing the last 29 did "not count". Just wanted to show that people
outside Kitchener cared.

Paul Britten stated at the committee meeting Sept 13th that a sign had been
posted on the property and that letters had been Hand Delivered to people in
the area.
Nobody has seen the sign nor any evidence that there have ever been one.
What happened to those letters nobody knows because so far I have not found
anybody who received any one of those letters. As a matter of fact the
re-zoning appeared to be news to all the people as they signed the petition.

As for the 45 letters council claimed on Monday Sept 20th to have mailed via
Canada Post on July 16th, 2010; they must have gone to the same place where
the sign and the hand delivered letters went. On Sept 23 no mention was
heard about Paul Briton claims re sign and hand delivered letters. Only that
the sign had been ordered, picked up and paid for.

Alain Pinard of Planning Act Department make a big deal of telling me that
all the city had to do legally was post notice in the paper, which they did,
so it is interesting that anybody made the statements regarding the sign,
Hand Delivered letters and letters sent via Canada Post.

Other cities know better than deal with this kind of matter during the
summer time when many people are away, What was the hurry one must ask?

Alicia

  _____  

From: Louisette Lanteigne [mailto:butterflybluelu at rogers.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:48 PM
To: all at gren.ca; Ginny Quinn
Cc: alicia.pokluda at sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: [All] Challenges we still face on Source Protection

Hi Ginny

Kitchener Council clearly admitted there was no EIS study conducted in
regards to the Gas Bar on the evening of the vote. Council did state
however, that the proposal was approved by the GRCA and that it was part a
subwatershed review but THERE WAS NO EIS. Contact Councillor Vrbanic or
Kelly Galloway because they were the two council members who debated this
issue the most that evening. 

Technically speaking, the current ROPP would prohibit this kind of proposal
from happening at a location like this but because the ministry has yet to
approve the current version of the ROPP, we can't use it.

Take note, in Breslau a housing development did not have an EIS study and
that proposal depleted several residential wells. The result was a proposal
to introduce a looping water pipe at home owners expense to the tune of
approx. $15,000 per home. The public protested and the project was declined.
Technically according to MOE laws, the developer should have been held fully
accountable for the remediation of all the adversely affected wells in the
area. These are the kids of issues that EIS is designed to PREVENT.

Even the new constraints of the Oak Ridges Moraine Act do not apply to older
proposals so we are still observing development encroaching upon sensitive
areas degrading the very resources the Act was designed to protect. They
can't grandfather the law. 

The new decision coming out of Mount Nemo could have helped in this case. If
we were to implement a private member application, that would have allowed
the proper level of environmental protection to be decided ahead of, or at
the same time as, the Gas Bar approval justified by the need to take a
precautionary approach.

That's one option we need to remember in the days ahead. 

Lulu

--- On Fri, 9/24/10, Ginny Quinn <ginny at kw.igs.net> wrote:

From: Ginny Quinn <ginny at kw.igs.net>
Subject: Re: [All] Challenges we still face on Source Protection
To: "Louisette Lanteigne" <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>, all at gren.ca
Cc: alicia.pokluda at sympatico.ca
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010, 4:55 PM

Lulu   With the proximity of the wellhead and the high water table  and
proximity of Strasburg Creek   are you SURE  that there have been NO EIS
studies ??Please tell me where I can confirm this fact.   and I'll see if I
can get my teeth into that one correctly.  Or if they're going to do it soon
???   and is responsible to see that it is done???Thanks  Ginny

Alicia   I'm copying you on this because we have to keep you updated   Ginny
I want to write to the Editor but MUST have my facts straight.  GQ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Louisette Lanteigne 
To: all at gren.ca 
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:42 AM
Subject: [All] Challenges we still face on Source Protection

Hi folks

Last night the city of Kitchener approved building a gas bar with car wash
to be built over top a sensitive well head protection area within 500 meters
of Strasburg Creek. The runoff from the car wash is intended to discharge
into sewers, the related chloride of road salts from the cars will end up in
the Grand because they can't remove it. The Fuel storage is supposedly going
to be placed "above the water line" using a fiber glass tank, but the land
has not been subject to an EIS study. The zoning was given back in 1987 so
the ecological constraints are set to those standards.

Well over a hundred signed the petition against it, all delegates opposed it
except for Mr. Brittan who was representing the group. No regional hydrology
staff or GRCA were present. Council said the GRCA approved this, and council
Vrbanic stated that even with todays laws it would still technically be a
use allowed for this location. Kelly Galloway stated that conflicts with
what she was told by Regional Staff. According to the current ROPP it would
not be allowed but the ministry has yet to fully approve that ROPP so it
doesn't stick yet.

Citizens tried to put a delay on the project stating more info is needed,
why not let the next council participate in this decision but no delay was
given. They simply approved of it with the only opposition from Ms. Wiley
and Ms. Galloway.

When Mr.Gazolla started speaking of his confidence of developers to be able
to responsibly construct this project in this area I lost it. I stood up,
showed him my the iron suppliments my doctor ordered me to take to make up
for the chronic anemia I have from all the bloody episodes of e coli that I
endured in my subdivision. The result of poor planning has changed the
biological composition of my blood. I stormed out of there so angry. They
just don't get it. They have not actualized the risk.

The technical manual as produced by the MOE clearly identifies projects of
this nature as a "threat to drinking water quality". I told them in my
speech how all the legislation I've reviewed from the Clean Water Act, the
Ontario Source Protection Act, the PPS, ROPP, Kitchener OPP, there is no way
this project can reasonably be viewed as compliant. Seriously, if any of
those pipes sink or shift for either the car wash or the gas station it's
contamination. They just don't get it

The City planners and city council are woefully undereducated on the bona
fide risks and they give absolutely no regard to any legislation outside of
the outdated planning policies of this project. They don't know or
understand what other options exist.

At this time we are sitting along a fault line where on one side there has
been extraordinary scientific advancements that can identify ecological and
hydrological risks and develop policy strategies to avert them. On the other
side there are past plans and associated fiscal investments pushing the
ecological limits to advance forward. It's a time of opposing and
conflicting values, opposing and conflicting long term economic and
environmental visions. To add to the sense of horror, the educated public is
witnessing these economic projects come to fruition going beyond
environmental constraints. We can see the damages at the local level with
Elmira, Northstar, leaky landfills etc. Then at the national level we have
Tar Sands, the Gulf Oil spill.  The trust in government working for the good
will of the people has been shattered at every level we have a gross
disconnect between municipal objectives and the public. 

It's easy to blame council, but on the flip side, the latest ROPP is
amazing. Our policies are trying catch up to science and make everyone happy
while trying to avert fiscal disaster associated with previous investments. 

Maybe GREN needs to create a panel to consult with ministry officials and
planners to see if we can create ways to intervene with past planning that
poses a risk if only to bump up mitigation strategies. If we created a
report like that we can distribute this widely, not only our region but
others. 

Politicans across Ontario need access to options like this otherwise these
crazy things are going to continue over and over again. Reactionary
approaches are weakest but in providing strategies,knowledge that can be
used, to address these types of issues, now that's the path to creating real
solutions. 

Lulu :0)

  _____  

_______________________________________________
All mailing list
All at gren.ca
http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20100924/5a6a2af3/attachment.html>