<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.18309" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>That is fantastic news Lulu. Thanks for notifying us.
They say "It's time for alternatives to aggregate for infrastructure to be
found." Whoopie for this statement. !! Hope
it helps some of the others also esp. Conestoga and
Elmira and Westmontrose. Rockport is close to our
area. Ginny </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=butterflybluelu@rogers.com
href="mailto:butterflybluelu@rogers.com">Louisette Lanteigne</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=all@gren.ca
href="mailto:all@gren.ca">all@gren.ca</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, November 15, 2010 7:17
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [All] OMB says no to Quarry in
Rockport</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>Hi folks<BR><BR>The OMB says no to a Quarry in Rockport
to help protect sensitive ecological lands. Here is the written
conclusion of that OMB ruling. If anyone wants the full copy of the
ruling, email me and I'll foward the PDF file to you.<BR><BR>Below is
the conclusion as taken from the ruling which pretty much sums things
up.<BR><BR>We're making progress folks!<BR><BR>Lulu :0) <BR><BR><BR>
<STYLE type=text/css>P {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.08in
}
</STYLE>
<P lang=en-CA style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in" align=justify><FONT
size=+0><B>Conclusion:</B></FONT></P>
<P lang=en-CA
style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.17in; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.17in; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: 0.25in"
align=justify><FONT size=+0>The balance among competing interests
mandated by the PPS and the OP has been thoroughly considered by the
Board. It is apparent, that with respect to these particular
applications, the interest in protecting the natural heritage and
cultural heritage resources of the subject lands and those surrounding
them outweighs the interest in making the aggregate resource on the
subject property available to supply mineral aggregate needs. Too much
of enormous value to the Province, the Region and the Town could be lost
if the proposed quarry went forward. A failure in the mitigation
measures proposed for the quarry, as set out in the AMP, would have a
catastrophic impact on the natural environment or the natural features
and functions of the area. Such an impact cannot be countenanced by the
Board. In addition, the fundamental change to the character of the area
attendant upon the proposed quarry would not be acceptable. The loss of
views of rural lands, the loss of a cultural heritage landscape and
cultural heritage resources and the conversion of a rural area into an
urban area centred on a heavy industrial operation cannot be permitted
in the interest of the production of more aggregate for infrastructure
development. It is time for alternatives to aggregate for infrastructure
construction to be found. Too much of what is essential to the character
of this Province would be lost if aggregate extraction were to be
permitted on lands like the subject property. Lands situated in a
significant cultural landscape, surrounded by significant natural
heritage features and functions, are not lands on which extraction
should be permitted in the absence of demonstration of no negative
impacts. No such demonstration has been completed in this
case.</FONT></P>
<P lang=en-CA
style="MARGIN-TOP: 0.17in; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.17in; TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: 0.25in"
align=justify><FONT size=+0>Having regard to the provisions of the PPS,
the ROP and the OP, the Board finds that the requested OPA and ZBLA do
not represent good planning. Having regard to the ARA, particularly
section 12(1), the Board finds that the requested licence should not be
issued.</FONT></P><BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>All mailing
list<BR>All@gren.ca<BR>http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>