SSMCA Meeting Minutes Oct 2011

7/28/2019 SSMCA Meeting Minutes Oct 2011

1/4

Notes of Technical Meeting of Experts regarding Proposed Pointe Estates Development

October 11, 2011 1:00 pm Prince Township Hall

Present: Ken Lamming, Jeff Avery, Mike Davies, Frank Breen and Linda Whalen

Opening comments from Ken Lamming:

As a result of the discussions at the October 5, 2011 meeting at the Civic Centre, it wasdecided to hold a meeting where the experts can discuss technical aspects of theproposal to see if concerns can be dealt with.

These discussions are without prejudice.

This is not a Conservation Authority (CA) Board Meeting.

Frank Breen is present on behalf of the Conservation Authority to discuss technicalaspects. He can not and will not negotiate on behalf of the Conservation Authority andcan not make commitments on behalf of the Conservation Authority.

With the Hearing scheduled to start on November 8 th, we need to know if there is anychance that the issues can be worked out. If so, the Hearing would have to be postponedto allow time for this.

Comments from Jeff Avery:

The CA has spent a lot of money on Frank Breen to get information. I have spent a lot ofmoney on consultants to get information. It is my hope that we can put minds together tocome to a compromise.

Comments from Frank Breen:

I have been asked to review the hydrogeological report and was asked to render anopinion on the merits of the technical arguments. I have been reviewing the technical

information and the report on my opinion will be completed shortly.

It is my objective to ensure that there is nothing in the subdivision that can result in risk tohuman health and the environment.

I am not an advocate for or against the development. Whether or not it proceeds is of noconsequence to me.


2/4

2.

With regards to the preliminary hydrogeological study, I am concerned about theuncertainty. The cross section could not be reproduced. The results can not besubstantiated. One serious concern is that the thickness of the clay layer below thesubdivision may not be 30 metres as per the assumption. It may be thinner. If so, it wouldnot provide the same, or enough protection.

The best thing to do is to have a qualified Hydrogeologist conduct a complete study. Ifthere is a significant amount of clay, this concern may be addressed. A permeabilitystudy of the existing clay would also be helpful.

The report done by Peter Richards refers to bore hole # 3855 to indicate the presence of30 metres of clay. However, the MOE data base did not include bore hole # 3855. Offurther concern is that the closest bore hole reflected on the MOE data base showed only5 metres of clay.

On another point, the use of lot size as a factor in the pollution dilution calculation isinaccurate. It is the distance between the septic tank / bed and the canal that matters.The hydrogeological study should assess whether or not septic effluent plumes couldreach the canal. These calculations need to be made.

The high water table needs to be taken into account in design.

These issues are not insurmountable, but Mr. Avery, where you stand right now, the PeterRichards / Watters Report leaves you very susceptible.

A proper hydrogeological study will also be necessary for the City in the future.

Jeff Avery:

We are here to do it right, but I dont want to spend a lot of money on a study if furtherroadblocks will be coming up.

Frank Breen:

My recommendation would be to take the necessary time to hire a capable consultant to

prepare a proper hydrogeological study. That should have been done first.

Im not sure how the hydrologic modeling that was done fits into the permitting process.Why is mixing modeling being done if it only confirms that pollution will enter the canal?


3/4

3.Mike Davies:

The modeling was in response to the initial reaction expressing concerns about waterquality and impacts on the canal.

Frank Breen raised valid points regarding the hydrogeological study and the need toverify the clay layer.

Frank Breen:

If the hydrogeological study demonstrates that there is not a complete pathway betweenthe source and receptor, it will likely address many of the concerns. The study needs tobe carried out to assess whether or not there is a sufficient clay layer in place to preventeffects on groundwater and/or the canal.

Potential ecoli contamination is another serious matter to be considered. A

demonstration must be made that ecoli will not get into the water.

Jeff Avery:

From discussions with Algoma Public Health, there are septic systems that do not resultin effluent.

Frank Breen:

I would suggest that you get a qualified hydrogeologist and make the best technicalargument that you can. Ron Donaldson from Water Science Consulting in Kitchenerwould be a good candidate.

Mike Davies:

I agree that the hydrogeological study needs tightening up. Frank Breens comments areclear, straightforward and addressable.

Jeff Avery:

(after a brief private discussion between Jeff Avery and Mike Davies)

I will agree to having a complete hydrogeological study done, but I want a solid assurancethat the Conservation Authority will then approve the permit. Only then will I agree to adeferral of the Hearing.


4/4

4.Ken Lamming:

Im not worried about the wetland, it is not much of a wetland anyway. If the studypasses, the Board will likely pass it. (Ken asked that a resolution be drafted tosummarize this)

Once the rest of the Board can be polled, Mr. Avery will be notified.

Draft Resolution prepared to be circulated to SSMRCA Board for consideration:

Subject to Jeff Avery having a site specific hydrogeologic study in accordance withMOE guidelines and regulations undertaken,

and that the results of this study demonstrates that the proposed development will notpose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment,

the SSMRCA Board will approve the application for a permit under O. Reg. 176/06.

Linda Whalen:

We have only one Board Member present here. The Board will be consulted with regardsto this suggested position as soon as possible. This can not be considered as a formalCA position or commitment. Any formal approval would have to be passed by resolutionat the next CA meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 18.

The meeting concluded at 2:30 pm.

File: Pointe Estates Technical Meeting notes October 12, 2011

Documents

SSMCA Meeting Minutes Oct 2011