Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
March 02, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000990
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Galibier Materials Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the expansion of the existing mineral aggregate operation (Lewis Pit)
Reference Number:
OP-2022-002
Property Address:
Lot 15 Concession 9 Vespra
Municipality/UT:
Township of Springwater/ Simcoe County
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000990
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000990
OLT Case Name:
Galibier Materials Inc. v. Springwater (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Galibier Materials Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the expansion of the existing mineral aggregate operation (Lewis Pit)
Reference Number:
ZB-2022-016
Property Address:
Lot 15 Concession 9 Vespra
Municipality/UT:
Township of Springwater/ Simcoe County
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000991
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000990
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8.
Referred by:
Galibier Materials Inc.
Objector:
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Objector:
Esther Allen and David Maginn
Objector:
Grant and June Hunter
Objector:
Guillaume Gagnon
Objector:
Mike and Monika Hurst
Objector:
Rod and Jean Rumble
Objector:
Sue and Jurij Rosil
Objector:
Susan Gariepy
Subject:
Application for Referral of Objections
Description:
Gravel Pit Expansion
Reference Number:
626566
Property Address:
Lewis Pit Part Lot 15, Concession 9
Municipality/UT:
Town of Springwater/ Simcoe County
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000873
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000990
Heard:
September 15, 2025 to October 3, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Galibier Materials Inc.
Township of Springwater
Springwater Green Community Coalition Inc.
Chiefs of Ontario
Objectors
Esther Allen and David Maginn
Susan Gariepy
Sue and Jurij Rosil
Mike and Monika Hurst
Rod and Jean Rumble
Guillaume Gagnon
June Hunter
Marc Kemerer
Bruce Engell
Kelin Algayer
David Donnelly
David Donnelly
David Donnelly
DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns two appeals filed by Galibier Materials Inc. (“Galibier”) against the Township of Springwater (“Township”) for its failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Township Official Plan (“OPA”) and the Township Zoning By-law (“ZBA”). Additionally, the Minister of Natural Resources (“Minister”) referred an Application for a Licence to extract aggregates (“Licence Application”) to the Tribunal to conduct a hearing.
2Galibier proposes to expand an existing aggregate pit (“Lewis Pit”) on to the abutting lands (“Expansion Lands”). The Expansion Lands are located at the northeast corner of George Johnston Road and Seadon Road and these lands are the subject matter before the Tribunal.
3Springwater Green Community Coalition Inc. (“SGCC”) represents neighbours residing on Boothby Crescent opposing the OPA, ZBA, and Licence Application. Boothby Crescent is a court with 10 residences, four of which abut the Expansion Lands. The SGCC opposition is based on the impacts on air quality resulting from the dust generated by the Lewis Pit operation and the potential impact on the natural heritage features located on the Expansion Lands, specifically the removal of a wildlife corridor that crosses the Expansion Lands.
4Objectors to the Licence Application share the interests of the SGCC and their opposition was addressed through the submissions of the SGCC.
5The Chiefs of Ontario (“COO”) settled their issues in the matter prior to the commencement of the proceedings and withdrew from the proceedings.
6The Township also withdrew from the proceedings advising the Tribunal that they are in receipt of a Dust Management Plan dated September 18, 2025 (“DMP”) which addresses the remaining outstanding issue of the Township.
7Having considered the evidence presented, the Tribunal is satisfied that the DMP addresses the air quality issues and the revised phasing plan addresses the wildlife corridor issues. The Tribunal allows the Planning Act Appeals and requests the Minister to issue the Licence subject to conditions for the reasons set out as follows.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
8The Lewis Pit operates under Licence No. 3560 (“Existing Licence”) issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources (“MNR”). The Existing Licence permits a maximum annual extraction of 750,000 tonnes. The Lewis Pit had been dormant for some time prior to being acquired by Galibier in 2015. Galibier resumed aggregate extraction at the Lewis Pit in 2016.
9Galibier filed the following applications to facilitate the approvals required to expand the Lewis Pit:
An application for a “Class A” Aggregates Licence with the MNR,
An application to amend the Township Official Plan proposing a redesignation of the Expansion Lands from the current Agricultural designation to an Aggregate Extractive / High Aggregate Potential designation, and
An application to amend the Township Zoning By-law to rezone the Expansion Lands from Agricultural (A) and Waste Disposal Buffer (WD-1) to an Extractive Industrial (ME) Zone classification.
10The OPA and ZBA (together the “Planning Applications”) were filed with the Township on November 10, 2022 and the Township deemed the Planning Applications complete on December 7, 2022. The Township held the statutory public meeting on April 12, 2023.
11The Licence Application was submitted to the MNR on December 8, 2021, and deemed complete on April 14, 2022. The Licence Application proposes an expansion of the Lewis Pit operation onto the Expansion Lands. The Licence Application proposes a licensed area of 21.1 hectares (“ha”) with a total extraction area of 17.7 ha. Galibier proposes excavation above the water table with the maximum annual aggregate extraction not to exceed a combined total of 750,000 tonnes between the Lewis Pit and the Expansion Lands. The Expansion Lands is estimated to contain 15,000,000 tonnes of high-quality sand and gravel. Based on a maximum annual extraction, the minimum timeframe required for the complete extraction of the Expansion Lands will be 20 years.
12The prescribed Notification and Consultation Process was concluded on December 30, 2022. The MNR received 19 letters of objection, and the circulation of the Licence Application attracted comments from the MNR, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) and the Township. The Notification and Consultation Process also included consultation with First Nations. The Licence Application and the supporting documents were provided to a list of First Nations provided by the MNR on October 24, 2022. The MNR provided a further notification of the Licence Application on February 23, 2023.
13In support of the Licence Application, Galibier submitted site plan drawings (“Application Site Plans”) including an operational plan outlining the proposed phasing of excavation and a rehabilitation plan detailing the proposed rehabilitation of the Expansion Lands. Rehabilitation will be completed on a progressive basis, meaning as excavation is completed on each phase and excavation moves into the next phase, the rehabilitation of the previous phase will be started.
14The Application Site Plans incorporate technical recommendations contained in the reports submitted in support of the Licence Application. The recommendations are included as requirements on the drawings by way of notes addressing, among other matters: water resources, natural heritage, noise, air quality and dust, visual impacts, and traffic. Over the course of the hearing, revisions to the Site Plans were filed in response to issues raised during the course of the testimony of the air quality and natural heritage experts.
15Galibier appealed the Planning Applications on September 27, 2023, for the failure of the Township to make a decision on the Planning Applications within the timeframes prescribed in s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13 (“Planning Act”) respectively.
16The Minister referred the Licence Application to the Tribunal on August 23, 2024, for consideration pursuant to s. 11(5) of the Aggregates Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8 (“ARA”).
17The MNR withdrew from the proceedings prior to the commencement of the hearing. The MNR, in letter dated December 3, 2024, advised Galibier that all objections are now addressed to the MNR’s satisfaction.
18The County of Simcoe (“County”), the MECP, and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (“NVCA”) have provided correspondence stating that they have no objections to the Planning Applications and the Licence Application. The County, MECP, and the NVCA did not participate in the proceedings.
19At the commencement of the Hearing, Counsel for the COO and Counsel for the Township advised that their issues have been addressed and the COO and the Township withdrew from the proceedings. The Township advised that the submission of the DMP by Galibier, prepared in consultation with the Township’s air quality expert, addresses the remaining air quality issues between Galibier and the Township.
20Counsel for the remaining Parties, being Galibier and the SGCC, advised that there have been ongoing discussions between the Parties resulting in a resolution of the majority of the issues and that the Parties have scoped the two remaining issues being:
Air Quality as identified in Issue 9 of the Issues List set out in the Procedural Order for these proceedings, and
Natural Heritage Features, specifically the retention of a Wildlife Corridor during extraction.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
21When considering an appeal of an amendment to an official plan or a zoning by-law, the Tribunal must have regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act.
22Further, s. 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).
23The Tribunal must be satisfied that the amendment of the official plan conforms to an upper tier official plan, if applicable, and that amendments to the zoning by-law conform with the official plan(s) in effect.
24In consideration of the Licence Application, s. 12(1) of the ARA sets out the matters to which the Tribunal shall have regard for when considering whether to issue or refuse the licence.
25In consideration of the above, the Tribunal shall be satisfied that the proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
26The Tribunal received and considered witness statements and viva voce testimony from the following:
On behalf of Galibier
i. Melanie Horton, a Registered Professional Planner, a member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and the Canadian Institute of Planners, and President of Esher Planning Inc. with over 30 years of experience, qualified to provide opinion evidence having expertise in land-use planning.
ii. Kyle Fleming, an Ecologist and Principal at Roots Environmental Inc. having over 20 years of experience, qualified to provide opinion evidence having expertise in ecology.
iii. Brian Sulley, a Licensed Professional Engineer and a Principal at RWDI having over 20 years of experience, qualified to provide opinion evidence having expertise in air quality.
iv. John (Jay) Flanagan, Manager, Aggregate Resources at MTE Consulting Inc., qualified as an expert in preparing ARA Site Plans.
On behalf of SGCC
v. Allan Ramsay, a Registered Professional Planner, a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, and Principal at Allan Ramsay Planning Associates with over 40 years of experience, qualified to provide opinion evidence having expertise in land-use planning.
vi. Mark Heaton, an Ecologist retired from the MNR having over 34 years of experience, qualified to provide opinion evidence having expertise in ecology.
vii. Doug Lyons, a Licensed Professional Engineer and a Principal at D.H. Lyons, Air Quality Management Services having over 30 years of experience, qualified to provide opinion evidence having expertise in air quality.
viii. Esther Allen and Devon Guergis, residents on Boothby Crescent, attended and testified as lay-witnesses providing factual evidence of their experience as neighbours of the Lewis Pit and the Expansion Lands.
Site Plans
27Galibier filed revised Application Site Plans dated September 22, 2025 (“Revised Site Plans”). The Revised Site Plans were presented and reviewed by Mr. Flanagan. He explained that the Revised Site Plans were prepared in accordance with Ontario Regulation 244/97 (“O. Reg. 244/97”) and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario: Site Plan Standards, August 2020 issued by the Province of Ontario (“SPS”).
28The Revised Site Plans include four drawings which are comprised of drawings, details, and notes to address the many technical requirements of the proposed aggregate pit. The Revised Site Plans identify the land uses within 120 metres (“m”) of the Expansion Lands, the extent of the area to be extracted, locations of monitors, access locations, processing areas, aggregate stockpiles, internal haul roads, notes that set out technical requirements including the maximum tonnage to be extracted annually, the hours of pit operation, and drawings that detail the final rehabilitation plans for the Expansion Lands post extraction.
29The Revised Site Plans identify a 30 m buffer along the easterly, southerly, and westerly limits of the Expansion Lands. The northerly side of the Expansion Lands is adjacent to the Lewis Pit and excavation will extend across the boundary. It was noted that at the north end of the easterly boundary of the Expansion, the buffer has a width of 15 m.
30An earth berm is proposed along the westerly and easterly boundaries and the westerly end of the southern boundary of the Expansion Lands as part of the noise mitigation measures. The berms will be located within the 30 m buffer. The berms will have heights ranging from 6 m to 8 m as shown on details 3 through 6 of page 4 of the Revised Site Plans.
31Mr. Flanagan acknowledged that the width of the buffer is not sufficient to accommodate the width of the base of the proposed berms and provide a 3 m setback as required by O. Reg 244/97. He confirmed that the proposed berms will extend beyond the 30m buffer and encroach into limit of extraction identified on the Revised Site Plans.
32The Revised Site Plans detail the proposed phasing of the excavation which generally proceeds in a southerly direction from the Lewis Pit over three phases. The fourth and final phase is at south-easterly corner of the Expansion Lands in proximity to the residential properties located on Boothby Crescent.
33Mr. Flanagan explained that notes on the Revised Site Plans require that Galibier maintain a wildlife corridor across the Expansion Lands during the excavation of Phase 4.
34Mr. Flanagan advised that it is expected that each phase of extraction will take approximately 10 years which will provide sufficient time for rehabilitation of the extracted lands and the maturation of the vegetation and the tree plantings thereon. This timeline will ensure that a suitable alternative wildlife corridor is available during the excavation of Phase 4.
35Mr. Flanagan acknowledged that the Note 7.1.1 under the heading Noise Mitigation Measures Recommendations requires that the berm along the easterly side of the Expansion Lands is required at a height of 6 m prior to the extraction of Phase 1. The berm is required to be increased to a height of 7 m prior to the extraction of Phase 2 as required by Note 7.2.1.
36The Tribunal observed, based on the Revised Site Plans and Mr. Flanagan’s testimony, that increasing the height of the berm identified in Note 7.1.1 would require the vegetation planted on the berm being disturbed after 10 years of maturation to increase the height of the berm. Mr. Flanagan proffered that the Notes do not prevent Galibier from constructing the 7 m berm along the easterly boundary prior to the excavation of Phase 1.
37The Tribunal reasons that requiring the construction of the berm along the easterly boundary at 7 m prior to the excavation of Phase 1 will allow the maximum amount of maturation of the vegetation planted on the berm prior to and during the excavation of the Expansion Lands.
38In response to issues raised by SGCC, Galibier submitted revised Site Plans with a revision date of September 25, 2025 (“Site Plans”) (Exhibit #30).
39The Site Plans include a note providing further direction with respect to the progressive rehabilitation specifically requiring that the wildlife corridor shall be provided having a minimum width of 50 m and a tree canopy equal to 60% of the land area of the corridor prior to the excavation of Phase 4. Further, Page 3 of the Site Plans provides revised Phasing Plans identified as Details 2 through 6.
40The revised phasing redefines Phase 1 to Phase 1A with no change in the configuration. The size and configuration of the remaining phases changes to “blocks” that are labelled Phases 1B, 2, 3, and 4 with excavation proceeding west to east. The Tribunal notes that the excavation faces of Phases 1B, 2, 3, and 4 have been reduced significantly from the prior Phasing Plan.
41The Tribunal finds that there are discrepancies on the Site Plans that must be resolved prior the issuance of the Licence. The Site Plan drawings should be revised to remove the overlap between the berms and the limits of the excavation. The Site Plan notes should be revised to require the construction of the berm along the easterly boundary at a height of 7m prior to the excavation of Phase 1A, notwithstanding the technical recommendation contained in the Noise Mitigation Measures set out on page 4 of the Site Plans. The recommendations at note 7.2.1 require the construction of a 7 m high sound barrier prior to the extraction of Phase 1B, which the Tribunal was advised would be comprised of a berm.
42The Site Plans make allowance for the further works should the lands on the south side of Seadon Road be developed with residential uses. The Tribunal notes this as it questions whether further residential uses directly opposite the Expansion Lands is consistent with the policies of the PPS particularly section 3.5 which is discussed later in this decision.
Natural Heritage - Wildlife Corridor
43The Tribunal was advised that the issues surrounding the Natural Heritage Features have been satisfactorily resolved with the exception of the provision and maintenance of a wildlife corridor across the Expansion Lands. The wildlife corridor connects the woodlands on the south side of Seadon Road, opposite the Expansion Lands, and the woodlands located on the abutting lands at the northeast corner of the Expansion Lands.
44The Tribunal heard that a minimum width of a wildlife corridor should not be less than 50 m and the issue raised by SGCC was two-fold. The proposed construction of a 7 m tall berm along the easterly boundary of the Expansion Lands requires the removal of 30 m of the existing woodlands within the required buffer. The second concern is that the Wildlife Corridor proposed on the Phasing Plan described on the Revised Site Plans does not propose an acceptable alternate Wildlife Corridor during the excavation of Phase 4.
45Mr. Fleming advised he prepared the Natural Environment Report (“NER”) in consultation with the MNR and the MECP in support of the Planning Applications and the Licence Application. Mr. Fleming further advised that he provided technical input into the preparation of the Site Plans in consideration of the phasing and the rehabilitation works to maintain a wildlife corridor during the excavation of the Expansion Lands. Mr. Fleming opined that the rehabilitation plantings in the proposed alternate wildlife corridor area will be completed well in advance of the excavation of Phase 4.
46Mr. Heaton testified that he cannot recall a project where a noise attenuation berm was included in a wildlife corridor. It was Mr. Heaton’s contention that the removal of the woodlands through the phased excavation of the Expansion Lands will negatively impact the woodlands and the linkage that exists over the Expansion Lands. The progressive rehabilitation and the timing of the excavation create uncertainty that a suitable wildlife corridor will be available on the Expansion Lands at all times during the excavation. Mr. Heaton directed the Tribunal to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (“NHRM”) at section 13.2 where the NHRM addresses the determination of negative impact where it states:
For example, demonstration of no negative impacts on a significant woodland through mitigation measures may be contemplated, provided that factors such as the successional status and replaceability of the woodland components and functions within a reasonable time frame (e.g. 20 years) are considered.
47Mr. Heaton opined that the timing of the extraction phasing proposed, and the rehabilitation of the extracted phases proposed to replace the significant woodland features (the wildlife corridor) will not provide the reasonable timeframe as contemplated and recommended in the NHRM.
48The Tribunal, having reviewed the Site Plans, specifically the revised phasing details, and considering the testimony and evidence of Messrs. Fleming and Heaton, finds that the proposed maintenance of a wildlife corridor and the provision of an alternate wildlife corridor over the Expansion Lands during excavation is appropriate. Note 17 on page 2 of the Site Plans addresses the timing of the excavation of Phase 4 only after the rehabilitation works have achieved a specified maturation as set out in Note 17.
49Having reviewed the PPS, the Tribunal is satisfied that it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions as required by Policy 4.1.5. The progressive rehabilitation of the Expansion Lands will ensure that the natural features and their ecological function will be maintained overall for the Expansion Lands and thereby ensuring a wildlife corridor exists at all times during the excavation. The Tribunal notes that neither the MNR nor the Township raised concerns or objections to the proposed provision of a wildlife corridor as described on Application Site Plans. The Tribunal finds that the revised phasing, the additional detail and clarification provided on the Site Plans improves upon the original drawings. Further, the revised phasing provides a suitable wildlife corridor over Phase 4 without the inclusion of the berm as originally contemplated.
Air Quality
50Galibier submitted a DMP at the beginning of the Hearing detailing the measures to be taken by Galibier to control and mitigate dust onsite and to reduce fugitive dust, that being dust that escapes beyond the limits of the Expansion Lands. The Tribunal was advised that the DMP was prepared collaboratively with the air quality experts of Galibier, the Township, and SGCC.
51Ms. Guergis and Ms. Allen both presented photographs that they had taken at their properties showing the extent of dust accumulations at their respective properties. They advised the dust started appearing at their homes after Galibier resumed the extraction activities at the Lewis Pit. Both Ms. Guergis and Ms. Allen assert that the dust is from the Lewis Pit, and they expressed concerns that the dust has negatively impacted the use of the properties and will result in health impacts for their families. They further proffered that the proposed expansion will exacerbate these impacts.
52Ms. Guergis testified that the emission of dust from the Lewis Pit and future Expansion Lands releases fine particulate matter into the air that will create, what she believes, are negative impacts on the health, safety, and well-being of citizens residing in close proximity to the pit operation.
53Mr. Sulley and Mr. Lyons (together the “Air Quality Experts”) agreed that the Lewis Pit experiences wind erosion across the exposed excavation face resulting in the generation of dust. The Air Quality Experts recommended revisions to the existing Lewis Pit site plan to mitigate the wind erosion including applying dust suppressants both during excavation and during times when there is no active excavation occurring on any exposed excavation face. These measures would be applied to the Expansion Lands as part of the mitigation works outlined in the DMP.
54Mr. Sulley described the anticipated dust sources with the operation on the Expansion Lands, including the excavation face, and detailed the mitigation measures to be implemented through the DMP. The DMP is separated into sections, the first being titled General which specifically addresses the actions to implemented when fugitive dust is observed. The other sections of the DMP address roadways, wind erosion control, tree plantings, complaints, and monitoring.
55Mitigation measures will include applying water to internal haul roads, the use of water cannons to apply water to an extraction face, and the application of a MECP approved dust suppressant where longer term dust mitigation is required such as on an inactive extraction face. He advised that Galibier has agreed to implement the DMP at the Lewis Pit, noting that the current licence for the Lewis Pit does not require specific dust control measures other than compliance with the provincial guidelines and requirements.
56The Tribunal noted that neither the licence nor the operation of the Lewis Pit is before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal finds that Galibier’s experience with identifying effective dust mitigation measures and any changes to their operational practices can be applied to the extraction of the Expansion Lands.
57The Tribunal accepts the contention of Mr. Lyons and agrees that the dust experienced at the residences of Ms. Guergis and Ms. Allen, together with their neighbours on Boothby Crescent, originates at the Lewis Pit. The extent of the exposed extraction face appears to be the significant contributing factor and there is no evidence that Galibier has applied any effective form of dust mitigation arising from wind erosion.
58The revised Phasing Plan described on the Site Plans reduces the extent of the extraction face for Phases 1B, 2, 3 and 4. The Tribunal accepts that this will reduce the impact of fugitive dust as a result of wind erosion. The Tribunal observes that the extraction face of Phase 1 is comparable to the extraction face of the Lewis Pit. Galibier must use their experience at the Lewis Pit to ensure that dust mitigation measures have been established prior to the commencement of excavation of the Expansion Lands to eliminate fugitive dust generated from wind erosion and excavation operations. The Tribunal reasons that the operation of the Lewis Pit provides Galibier the unique opportunity to develop dust mitigation measures and practices that achieve effective dust mitigation prior to the commencement of extraction on the Expansion Lands.
59The Air Quality Experts were in agreement that implementation of the DMP will take time and through monitoring the mitigation measures being applied, the mitigation measures will be refined to achieve desired results.
60Mr. Sulley reviewed the proposed monitoring program described in the DMP. The monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with the provincial guidelines measuring airborne concentrations of particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns, referred to as PM10, on a 6-day sampling schedule. Mr. Sulley explained that the monitoring will also capture particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns, referred to as PM2.5, and material collected will be analyzed for crystalline silica content.
61The DMP requires that Galibier provide the results of the sampling program to the residents on Boothby Crescent and to the Township on a quarterly basis. The Tribunal finds that the quarterly reporting will provide information to the Boothby Crescent residents and the Township that can be used to ensure compliance with the MECP air quality standards.
62Page 6, paragraph 4 of the SPS states,
The site plan must include any of the following measures, programs, or areas that must be undertaken as identified in the Technical Reports and Information that are required to be prepared for an application:
mitigation measures
monitoring programs
avoidance areas
temporary avoidance and protection areas
and refer to an adaptive management plan(s)
63The Tribunal, having reviewed the DMP, concludes the DMP is a document arising from the Technical Reports that includes mitigation measures and monitoring programs referred to in the SPS. The Tribunal reasons that revising the Site Plans to include the technical requirements identified in the DMP would be appropriate as the requirements contain both mitigation measures and monitoring programs. The Tribunal recognizes that any revisions to the DMP would require a Site Plan revision, however the Tribunal responds that the importance of the DMP to the protection of the surrounding land uses warrants such consideration.
64Ms. Allen reviewed the Auditor General’s December 2023 Value-for-Money Audit of Management of Aggregate Resources in the Province of Ontario. The Auditor General in their Overall Conclusions starting on page 28 of the Audit stated,
Our audit found that the Ministry did not have effective systems and processes in place to ensure compliance with the ARA and aggregate-related regulations, policies and approvals, nor to oversee aggregate development and operations in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment.
65Ms. Allen testified that the Auditor General’s findings are consistent with her experience as it relates to operation of the Lewis Pit and her dealings with the MNR.
66Ms. Allen provided evidence that the MNR has inspected the Lewis Pit and found no issues with the current operation. The MNR reports did not appear to reflect the experience of the neighbours. It is clear to the Tribunal that there is an impact being experienced by the neighbours and monitoring will be a key component of the effectiveness of the DMP.
67The Tribunal acknowledges that the Auditor General has raised issues that the MNR needs to address, however, Galibier, the Township, the County, and the Boothby Crescent residents also have a role to play in this matter.
68The Tribunal reasons that the Township and the County permitted the sensitive land uses, as defined in the PPS, with the planning permissions that created Boothby Crescent. The Tribunal considers Boothby Crescent to be in relatively close proximity to the Lewis Pit.
69The residents of Boothby Crescent purchased properties in close proximity to an existing aggregate pit. While the Lewis Pit may have been dormant at the time of their purchase, the Existing Licence was active and would allow extraction.
70Galibier acquired the Lewis Pit and the Expansion Lands aware that there are sensitive land uses located immediately abutting the Expansion Lands.
71The Tribunal acknowledges that the MNR is responsible to ensure Galibier operates in compliance with the licence and the provisions of the approved site plan. The Tribunal also acknowledges that the MNR cannot be present at the Expansion Lands at all times and cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of the operational conditions on any specific day. Should issues arise that cause concern for the neighbours or the Township, these matters must be brought to the attention of Galibier, the MNR, the County, and the Township as appropriate. This is the expectation of the DMP to ensure appropriate measures can be taken to address such matters.
72The Tribunal finds that the DMP contemplates this type of communication, and it is intended to provide a method by which issues and concerns can be addressed.
Land Use Planning
73Ms. Horton reviewed the planning policy framework for the Expansion Lands and proffered that the proposed expansion has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as delineated in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the County Official Plan (“County OP”).
Matters of Provincial Interest ([s.2](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec2_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html))
74In consideration of the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, Ms. Horton specifically addressed the matters identified on the Issue List for the Hearing and proffered that a NER was prepared to address the matters in s. 2(a) identifying the natural areas, features and functions on and adjacent to the Expansion Lands. The recommendations contained in the NER have been incorporated into the Site Plans including the rehabilitation plan which provides for the reforestation of the majority of the area to be extracted. The Site Plans have also addressed the recommendations of the MNR and MECP.
75The conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resources identified in s. 2(c) are addressed with the rehabilitation of the Expansion Lands back to a forested condition while allowing the interim use of the aggregate extraction. Ms. Horton opined that this represents wise resource management and protects resources for the long term.
76In consideration of s. 2(h) and 2(o), Ms. Horton opined that the orderly development of safe communities is supported by a close to market supply of mineral aggregate. She proffered that the aggregate industry is regulated by the ARA in addition to other legislation that ensure the safe operation of aggregate operations in the province. Further, the DMP contains mitigation measures which have been developed to minimize the impact of the pit operation and have regard for public safety, including setbacks, berms and acoustic barriers, management of dust and the use of an approved existing entrance.
77Ms. Horton concluded the Planning Applications and the Licence Application have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act.
78Mr. Ramsay countered that the proposed expansion is not a compatible use with the adjacent residential uses. He proffered that compatible means that a development can co-exist with surrounding uses and will not result in adverse impacts. The Lewis Pit operation has resulted in adverse air quality impacts currently being experienced and there is no certainty that these impacts will be mitigated. Should the mitigation measures proposed in the DMP fail to mitigate the dust impacts, he is of the opinion that excavation of the Expansion Lands must cease as the public health and safety of residents as identified in s.2(o) of the Planning Act will not be protected.
79The Tribunal reviewed s. 2 of the Planning Act and considered the submissions of Ms. Horton and Mr. Ramsay. The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Horton and finds that the proposed aggregate pit expansion applications have regard for matters of provincial interest set out in the Planning Act.
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
80Ms. Horton reviewed the applicable policies from the PPS. Chapter 4 of the PPS requires the wise use and management of resources including natural heritage, water, agriculture, and mineral resources for their economic, environmental, and social benefits.
81Section 4.1 of the PPS policies relate to matters concerning natural heritage. Ms. Horton proffered that the policies have been addressed through the NER prepared by Mr. Fleming and the technical recommendations incorporated into the Site Plans. Ms. Horton noted that scoped issue related to the preservation of the wildlife corridor has been addressed to the satisfaction of the MNR and further bolstered with the clarification in the notes on the Site Plans.
82Section 4.2 of the PPS addresses water resources policies. The Site Plan, on page 4, provides for ongoing monitoring to ensure ground water is protected under the Hydrogeological Recommendations. Section 4.3 contains the Agricultural Policies of the PPS and Ms. Horton proffered that aggregate extraction is a permitted interim use on Agricultural lands.
83Mr. Ramsay, in consideration of Section 4.1, proffered that the evidence of Mr. Heaton does not support the conclusions of Ms. Horton and the consistency with the policy has not been demonstrated.
84The Mineral Aggregate Resources policies are in Section 4.5 of the PPS. The Tribunal was directed to Policy 4.5.2.1 and Policy 4.5.2.2 which are set out below:
4.5.2 Protection of Long-Term Resource Supply
- As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible.
Demonstration of need for mineral aggregate resources, including any type of supply/demand analysis, shall not be required, notwithstanding the availability, designation or licensing for extraction of mineral aggregate resources locally or elsewhere.
- Extraction shall be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social, economic and environmental impacts.
85Ms. Horton opined that the expansion proposal is consistent with Policy 4.5.2.1 as the Lewis Pit and Expansion Lands are close to the market being served. The proposed extraction will address environmental impacts through the requirements included on the Site Plans arising from the NER. The mitigation measures required and implemented on the Site Plans address social impacts and economic considerations are addressed by the proximity to the market being served reducing costs.
86Mr. Ramsay focused on the words “realistically possible” in the PPS policy and offered that increasing the setback to the properties on Boothby Crescent would provide an environmental benefit by increasing the distance between the extraction and the sensitive receptors being the residential properties. He submitted that the Tribunal must consider all of the relevant policies to understand how they work together, and the PPS preamble states that there is no implied priority of one policy over another. A balance is to be found when all the policies are considered in their totality.
87Mr. Ramsay raised a concern with land use compatibility and referred to the PPS policies in Section 3.5. He summarized that major facilities and sensitive land uses shall be planned and developed to avoid potential adverse effects. The proposed aggregate operation raises public health concerns with respect to the fugitive dust experienced by the residents creating an adverse impact.
88Ms. Horton opined that the intent of the policies in Section 3.5 of the PPS are framed such that they are to protect major facilities from the introduction of sensitive land uses when the PPS states, “to ensure the long-term operational and economic viability of major facilities in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures.”
89The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development and sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land province-wide[1]. The PPS is more than a set of individual policies and is to be read in its entirety and the relevant policies are to be applied in each situation[2].
90The Tribunal agrees with the interpretation of Ms. Horton, that the policies in Section 3.5 are directed towards ensuring that the long-term viability of major facilities, such as the proposed aggregate pit operation, are preserved.
91The Tribunal finds that the policies of the PPS when considered in their totality provide for the expansion of the proposed aggregate operation. Galibier has provided the approval agencies with the required reports and documentation and has prepared Site Plans that incorporate the recommendations of the agencies and the experts that have reviewed the proposal, thereby demonstrating that the policies pertaining to water resources, natural heritage features, and agriculture have been addressed.
92The Tribunal finds that Mr. Ramsay’s careful analysis and interpretation of the words “realistically possible” in Policy 4.5.2.1 of the PPS when applied in this instance supports the reduction of the extraction area to accommodate the required sound barriers to be provided in the form of earth berms. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Ramsay’s assertion that it is not realistically possible to construct the proposed berms and provide the required berms and setbacks without the berm encroaching into the extraction area. The Tribunal was presented with no evidence refuting the overlap of the berm across the limit of extraction. Extraction within the required berm is not appropriate and the Site Plans should be revised as described earlier.
93The Tribunal is satisfied that the Planning Applications and Licence Application are consistent with the PPS.
County of Simcoe Official Plan
94Section 4.4 of the County OP provides a policy context for new aggregate operations and the expansion of existing aggregate operations. Ms. Horton proffered that the County OP policies echo many of the PPS polices relating to mineral aggregate resources. Policy 4.4.1 addresses natural heritage features and requires that, “in assessing negative impacts, proposed mitigation measures, rehabilitation and ecological enhancements, if any, shall be considered.” Policy 4.4.6 addresses minimizing impacts on nearby uses and Policy 4.4.7 addresses rehabilitation.
95Ms. Horton opined that the proposed expansion has addressed these matters as previously indicated. Ms. Horton, having reviewed the County OP, proffered that the Planning Applications and Licence Application conform to the County OP.
96Mr. Ramsay re-iterated that the air quality impacts from the Lewis Pit have not been addressed. The proposed expansion of the Galibier operation onto the Expansion Lands prior to Galibier demonstrating that this matter has been satisfactorily addressed does not provide the residents with the protection as required on the County OP. Mr. Ramsay submitted that the Planning Applications and Licence Application do not conform to the County OP as the air quality issues have not been resolved.
97The Tribunal has reviewed the relevant policies of the County OP and the concerns raised by Mr. Ramsay and notes that the DMP has been developed to address the air quality concerns of SGCC. Upon the implementation of the DMP, the Tribunal reasons that the air quality issues will be addressed. The Tribunal finds that the Planning Applications and Licence Application conform to the County OP.
Township of Springwater Official Plan
98The Township Official Plan (“Township OP”) locates the Expansion Lands within the Snow Valley Settlement Area and designated Agriculture. The Snow Valley Settlement Area Policies are set out in Section 8.10 of the Township OP and specifically identify that an overriding objective of the policies is the protection of the Minesing Swamp.
99The OPA is proposing the designation be changed to Aggregate Extractive / High Aggregate Potential. The related policies are set out in Section 19 of the Township OP.
100Ms. Horton testified that the Settlement Area goals of the Township OP include policies applying to natural heritage features, archaeological, and agricultural objectives. The rehabilitation of the Expansion Lands will restore the natural heritage features and an archeological assessment was completed and accepted as required by the Licence Application and the Planning Applications.
101Ms. Horton opined that the Planning Applications and Licence Application conform with the intent of the Township OP.
Section 12 of the Aggregate Resources Act
102Section 12(1) of the ARA reads:
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.
103Ms. Horton reviewed each of the subsections in s. 12(1) of the ARA. She proffered that environmental matters (s.12(1)(a)) have been addressed through the submission and acceptance of the NER together with the conditions attached to the Site Plans. Regard for the effect of the pit on nearby communities (s. 12(1)(b)) is addressed through a Noise Impact Analysis, Traffic Impact Study, an Air Quality Assessment, and a DMP addressing air quality. The comments of the Township (s. 12(1)(c)) have been satisfactorily addressed and the Township is not opposing the Licence Application. The rehabilitation of the Expansion Lands (s. 12(1)(d)) involves the reforestation of the lands after completion of extraction resulting in a use that is consistent with the use of the lands prior to excavation. Possible effects on ground and surface water (s. 12(1)(e)) were addressed through the preparation of an acceptable Predicted Water Table Report and supporting Technical Memoranda. The Hydrogeology Experts agreed that there will be no impact on water resources as confirmed in a Agreed Statement of Facts. The planning and land use considerations (s. 12(1)(g)) are being addressed by way of the OPA and ZBA. The main haulage routes and truck traffic (s. 12(1)(h)) are addressed through the use of the existing approved access on George Johnston Road. Geotechnical studies have confirmed the presence of high-quality sand and gravel on the Expansion Lands, and it is estimated there are 15 million tonnes of aggregate available for extraction (s. 12(1)(i)). Finally, there are no outstanding orders at the MNR with respect to the applicant’s history of compliance with the ARA (s. 12(1)(j)).
104Ms. Horton proffered that the Licence Application has proper regard for the matters set out in s. 12(1) of the ARA.
105Mr. Ramsay offered that the Licence Application has not addressed the matters identified in s. 12(1)(a), (b), (g) as the Licence Application has not addressed the air quality issues that have negatively impacted the neighbouring residents and the proposed pit expansion will result in the loss of significant woodlands and the wildlife corridor creating an adverse impact on the natural heritage features and functions.
106Mr. Ramsay reiterated his earlier concern that the proposed aggregate pit expansion is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and will result in adverse impacts on air quality. Mr. Ramsay contends that the DMP requires that should mitigation not be achieved, the activities in the pit must cease and that this does not represent certainty that the air quality won’t be an issue.
107The Tribunal, in consideration of the evidence presented, the testimony and opinions offered by Ms. Horton and Mr. Ramsay, finds that the Licence Application has regard for the matters outlined in s. 12(1) of the ARA. The Tribunal is satisfied that Galibier has addressed the requirements of the MNR through the processing of the Licence Application and the preparation of Site Plans that incorporate and address the technical requirements identified. The DMP includes monitoring that is essential to the dust mitigation measures to be applied to the site including a reporting requirement to provide a level of oversight by MNR staff, the Township and the residents of Boothby Crescent.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
108The Tribunal having weighed the evidence with respect to the air quality impacts finds that Galibier has had the necessary studies and reports prepared which have been accepted by the MNR and the MECP, being the agencies responsible for reviewing the reports and enforcing the relevant provincial legislation and guidelines as it relates to air quality in the Province.
109The current air quality impacts, specifically the dust generated as a result of wind erosion at the Lewis Pit, must not be permitted to carry over to the Expansion Lands. The Tribunal understands that the Lewis Pit operation has a substantial working face that is susceptible to wind erosion and which creates dust under certain environmental conditions. The Air Quality Experts agreed that applying an appropriate dust suppressant, likely some form of surfactant, will be required to mitigate the generation of dust caused by wind erosion on the Expansion Lands. Inactive, exposed excavation faces would be the appropriate locations for the application of such dust suppressants. The DMP addresses the use of appropriate dust suppressants where required.
110The Tribunal is troubled by the inference that the health impacts resulting from the aggregate pit operation is as dangerous as is being suggested by the SGCC. This apprehension was not supported by any expert evidence on health impacts advanced by SGCC and the Tribunal held that mere apprehension is insufficient without evidence. The Township, the County, and the Province have permitted the development of residential uses (sensitive receptors) in what the Tribunal considers “close proximity” to the existing aggregate pit operation. If the Tribunal is to accept the assertions of the SGCC, the Tribunal questions why the Township, the County, or the Province has not stepped in and closed down the Lewis Pit operation or alternatively removed the residential uses.
111The DMP describes the process through which dust will be monitored and mitigated on the Expansion Lands and includes a reporting program which provides the MNR, the neighbouring residents, and the Township opportunity to review the monitoring results and identify concerns, if warranted. The DMP also includes a section addressing how complaints will be processed and responded to by Galibier. The Tribunal finds that the DMP, once implemented, together with the revisions to the Site Plans will address air quality issues.
112The proposed phasing and progressive rehabilitation described on the Site Plans make appropriate provisions for the wildlife corridor and will protect the natural heritage features and functions on the Expansions Lands during and post excavation.
113The Tribunal is satisfied, based on the evidence considered that the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard for the matter of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and are consistent with the relevant policies of the PPS.
114The Tribunal finds that the OPA conforms with the County OP policies for mineral aggregate operations and the requirements and conditions included in the Site Plans will limit impact on the surrounding land uses. The ZBA will conform with the County OP and the Township OP and the OPA.
115The Tribunal has reviewed the matters set out in s. 12(1) of the ARA and is satisfied that the OPA, the ZBA, and the Proposed Licence have regard for these matters.
116The Tribunal finds that the proposed expansion of the aggregate pit represents good planning, appropriately mitigating impact on the surrounding land uses and protecting the function of the natural heritage features. Further, the Tribunal finds that the proposed expansion is in the public interest as it protects close-to-market mineral aggregate resources for long-term use.
117The Tribunal allows the Planning Act appeals and approves the OPA and ZBA.
118The Tribunal directs the Minister approve the Proposed Licence in accordance with the Site Plans and subject to the minor revisions and amended conditions.
ORDER
119THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:
The appeal filed pursuant to subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act is allowed and the Official Plan of the Township of Springwater is modified by the amendment as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Township of Springwater to assign a number to this amendment for record keeping purposes.
The appeal filed pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed and By-law No. 5000 is amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the Township of Springwater to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
120THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS the Minister of Natural Resources to issue the licence to Galibier Materials Inc. subject to the prescribed conditions and to the following additional conditions:
- The Applicant shall submit to the Ministry of Natural Resources for approval with the Licence the current Site Plan drawings prepared by MTE Engineers, Scientists, Surveyors dated September 25, 2025, which shall incorporate the following revisions:
a) Note 5 on Site Plan drawing AR1.1 shall be revised to reflect the corrected area to be excavated as a result of the revised berm dimensions as required by conditions b) and c) below.
b) Site Plan drawing AR1.2 shall be revised to show the extent of the base of the required berms and any applicable setbacks to scale.
c) The Site Plan drawings AR1.2 and AR1.3 shall be amended to revise the limit of extraction to be coincident with the limit of the base of the required berms.
d) Note 53 on Site Plan Drawing AR1.2 under the heading DUST CONTROLS shall be revised as follows:
The Dust Management Plan (September 18, 2025), filed with the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT Case No. 23-000990, Exhibit 8) shall be implemented and shall be attached to the Final Site Plans approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources with the approval of the Licence.
e) The Site Plan drawing AR1.2 shall be revised to add the following additional notes under the heading DUST CONTROLS:
The Licencee shall provide quarterly monitoring reports to Township of Springwater and the Boothby Crescent residents. The reports shall include the results of the sampling program including analysis of wind data for the sampling dates.
Prior to the commencement of excavation activities on Phase 1A, the Licensee shall provide the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, the Township of Springwater, and the Boothby Crescent residents monitoring reports (sampling data) for a 30 day monitoring period occurring within 180 days preceding the commencement date of excavation.
f) Note 7 on Site Plan drawing AR1.4 under the heading NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDATIONS shall be revised to clarify and confirm that the sound barriers referred to under this heading section consist of earth berms as described in Detail 8 of the Site Plans.
g) Note 7.1 on Site Plan Drawing AR1.4 under the heading NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDATIONS shall be revised as follows:
7.1. Prior to Phase 1A extraction, sound barriers as described below shall be constructed (see Detail 9):
7.1.1 A 7.0m high sound barrier at the eastern boundary of the licenced area, notwithstanding a minimum 6.0m high sound barrier is required by the Noise Impact Analysis Report.
h) Note 7.2.1 on Site Plan Drawing AR1.4 under the heading NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDATIONS shall be revised accordingly as a result the revisions outlined in condition 1.g) above.
i) Detail 9 on Site Plan Drawing AR1.4 shall be revised accordingly as result of the revisions outlined in condition 1.g) above.
“David Brown”
DAVID BROWN
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
Amendment No. ##
To the Township of Springwater Official Plan
Introduction
Part A - The Preamble does not constitute a part of this Amendment.
Part B - The Amendment consisting of the following text and Schedule “A”, constitutes Amendment No. ## of the Township of Springwater.
Part C - The Appendix does not constitute part of this Amendment.
Part A – The Preamble
1.0 Purpose
The purpose of this Amendment is to amend Schedule "A-12" of the Township of Springwater Official Plan, to redesignate the lands municipally known as 2857 George and legally described as West Part of Lot 15, Concession 9, in the former Township of Vespra, in the Township of Springwater from the ‘Agricultural’ designation to the ‘Aggregate Extractive / High Aggregate Potential’ designation, as shown on Schedule A.
2.0 Location
The lands subject to this Amendment are municipality known as 2857 George and legally described as West Part of Lot 15, Concession 9, in the former Township of Vespra, in the Township of Springwater. The subject lands are approximately 21.1 hectares (52.1 acres) in size with a proposed extraction limit area of approximately 17.5 hectares (43.23 acres). The lands have approximately 280.0 meters (907.0 feet) of frontage along George Johnston Road and 970.0 meters (3,170 feet) of frontage along Seadon Road.
3.0 Basis
The purpose of this Official Plan Amendment is to redesignate the subject lands from the ‘Agricultural’ designation to the ‘Aggregate Extractive / High Aggregate Potential’ designation to facilitate an expansion of the adjacent 'Lewis Pit’ aggregate (sand & gravel) operation.
Part B – The Amendment
Introductory Statement
This part of the document, entitled "Part B - The Amendment", and consisting of the following changes to Schedule "A-12" and text of the Township of Springwater Official Plan, constitutes Amendment No. ## of the Township of Springwater Official Plan.
1.0 Details of the Amendment
The Township of Springwater Official Plan, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows:
Schedule "A-12" to the Official Plan, as amended, is hereby further amended by:
a) Redesignating the lands municipally known as 2857 George Johnston Road and legally described as West Part of Lot 15, Concession 9, in the Township of Springwater, as shown on Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming part of this Amendment to the ‘Aggregate Extractive / High Aggregate Potential’ designation. 2.0 Implementation
This Amendment shall be implemented in accordance with Section 19, Implementation of the Official Plan of the Township of Springwater.
The provisions of the Official Plan regarding the implementation of that Plan shall also apply to this Amendment.
3.0 Interpretation
The provision of the Official Plan, as amended from time to time, shall apply in regard to the Amendment.
Part C – The Appendices
This part consists of the background information and planning considerations associated with this amendment. This section does not constitute part of the actual amendment. This appendix contains the Public Meeting Minutes, Staff Report, the Council Resolution associated with this Amendment and the following reports and studies:
Planning Justification Report prepared by Esher Planning Inc.
Traffic Impact Brief prepared by Skelton Brumwell & Associates.
Maximum Predicted Water Table Report prepared by MTE Consultants.
Stormwater Brief prepared by MTE Consultants Inc.
Natural Environment Report prepared by Roots Environmental.
Stage 1 & 2 and Stage 3 Archaeology Assessment Reports prepared by Archaeological Assessments Ltd.
Noise Impact Assessment Report prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd.
Aggregate Resources Act Site Plans, MTE Consultants
o Existing Features Plan
o Operational Plan
o Rehabilitation Plan
o Cross Section & Details Plan
Schedule A to OPA-##
ATTACHMENT 2
The Corporation of the Township of Springwater
By-law 5000-###
Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 5000 as amended, by rezoning the lands in West Part of Lot 15, Concession 9, in the former Township of Vespra, now in the Township of Springwater, and known municipally as 2857 George Johnston Road, Roll No. 4341 010 0061 0801.
(ZB-2022-16 - Galibier Materials Inc.)
Whereas By-law 5000, as amended, is the main Comprehensive Zoning By-Law of the Township of Springwater;
And Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Springwater has received a request to amend By-law 5000 as amended;
And Whereas authority is granted under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 as amended, to enact such amendments;
And Whereas the proposed amendment is in conformity with the Township of Springwater Official Plan;
Now Therefore the amendment to By-law 5000 is enacted as follows:
That Schedule “A” to By-law 5000 as amended, be further amended by rezoning lands in West Part of Lot 15, Concession 9, in the former Township of Vespra, now in the Township of Springwater, and known municipally as 2857 George Johnston Road, Roll No. 4341 010 0061 0801, as shown in Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this By-law from the Agricultural (A) and Waste Disposal Buffer (WD-1) Zones to the Extractive Industrial (ME) Zone; and,
That this By-law shall take effect and come into force pursuant to the provisions of and regulations made under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended.
The Corporation of the Township of Springwater
By-law 5000-###
Schedule “A”