Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 21, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000712
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.13.
Referred by: Katie O'Connell
Objector: See Schedule A
Subject: Application for a Class "A" license
Description: To permit the operation of a quarry above the groundwater level.
Reference Number: Licence No. 626565
Property Address: Part of Lot 10 & 11, Concession 9, Ferris Township
Municipality/UT: East Ferris/Nipissing
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000712
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000712
OLT Case Name: Amyotte v. East Ferris (Municipality)
Heard: April 29, 2024 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Ken Judd self-represented
1851477 Ontario Inc. Carly Emmett*
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Zachary D’Onofrio*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON APRIL 29, 2024 and order of the tribunal
1These proceedings arise from a referral by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (“MNRF”) under s. 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act for a hearing before the Tribunal. They are for the determination of issues raised in objections to an application made by 1851477 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”) for a Class A Licence (“proposed Licence”) for the operation of a proposed quarry above the groundwater level at Part Lot 10 and 11, Concession 9 (“subject lands”) in the Municipality of East Ferris (“Municipality”), in the District of Nipissing.
2Several neighbours living in the vicinity of the subject lands filed objections to the application for the proposed Licence; however, many have since withdrawn their objections (see Schedule A attached to this Order and Decision setting out their names). The remaining objectors are Ken Judd, Erin Pitkethly, Jesse-Rae Roesner, and Brad Amyotte (together “Objectors”).
3Prior to the hearing, MNRF and the Municipality withdrew objections to the proposed Licence. MNRF attended the hearing but did not produce evidence.
4The hearing was held by video on Monday, April 29, 2024.
5At the hearing, the Tribunal had before it various documents and submissions, including each Objector’s written objection. Of the Objectors, only Mr. Judd attended the hearing or produced evidence.
ISSUES
6Section 12(1) of the Aggregate Resources Act sets out criteria to which the Tribunal must have regard when conducting a hearing under s. 11 of the Act. Section 12(1) states:
12(1) In considering whether a licence should be issued or refused, the Minister or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall have regard to,
(a) the effect of the operation of the pit or quarry on the environment;
(b) the effect of the operation of the pit or quarry on nearby communities;
(c) any comments provided by a municipality in which the site is located;
(d) the suitability of the progressive rehabilitation and final rehabilitation plans for the site;
(e) any possible effects on ground and surface water resources including on drinking water sources;
(f) any possible effects of the operation of the pit or quarry on agricultural resources;
(g) any planning and land use considerations;
(h) the main haulage routes and proposed truck traffic to and from the site;
(i) the quality and quantity of the aggregate on the site;
(j) the applicant’s history of compliance with this Act and the regulations, if a licence or permit has previously been issued to the applicant under this Act or a predecessor of this Act; and,
(k) such other matters as are considered appropriate.
7In the present case, the main issues identified by the Objectors focus on the application of the above-noted statutory requirements in relation to:
i. noise impacts;
ii. traffic and road impacts;
iii. the impacts of blasting;
iv. impacts on water quality and quantity; and
v. environmental impacts.
8Each of these criteria and issues is addressed below.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
Mr. Judd’s Evidence and Submissions
9Mr. Judd stated that he has concerns regarding noise and traffic impacts from the proposed quarry. He stated that, in the past, the noise from rock crushing on the subject lands has been unbearable. He said that during the summer of 2022, the noise would start at 7 a.m. and continue into the evening for six days per week. He said the noise could be heard at least two kilometres away from the subject lands and impacted hundreds of local families. He said a new housing development is proposed nearby, which will be impacted by the noise. He said the quality of life of present and future local residents must be considered.
10Mr. Judd also raised concerns regarding the impacts