Canada markets close in 2 hours 40 minutes
  • S&P/TSX

    17,807.48
    -98.54 (-0.55%)
     
  • S&P 500

    3,856.19
    +0.83 (+0.02%)
     
  • DOW

    30,989.60
    +29.60 (+0.10%)
     
  • CAD/USD

    0.7878
    +0.0029 (+0.37%)
     
  • CRUDE OIL

    52.53
    -0.24 (-0.45%)
     
  • BTC-CAD

    40,742.59
    -72.86 (-0.18%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    647.41
    +0.09 (+0.01%)
     
  • GOLD FUTURES

    1,852.20
    -3.00 (-0.16%)
     
  • RUSSELL 2000

    2,156.67
    -6.60 (-0.31%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    1.0410
    +0.0010 (+0.10%)
     
  • NASDAQ

    13,652.99
    +17.00 (+0.12%)
     
  • VOLATILITY

    23.10
    -0.09 (-0.39%)
     
  • FTSE

    6,654.01
    +15.16 (+0.23%)
     
  • NIKKEI 225

    28,546.18
    -276.11 (-0.96%)
     
  • CAD/EUR

    0.6476
    +0.0015 (+0.23%)
     

Long-contested Peyton pit approved in the Holstein area

·1 min read

A lengthy appeal process came to its end Nov. 13, when the LPAT (successor to OMB) decided in favour of allowing the application for the Petyon pit.

The pit, proposed in Southgate on Grey Road 9, about three km east of Grey Road 109. was opposed by some local residents.

Two of those whose names were attached to the LPAT appeal were Douglas Karrow and Jo Chisholm, who had appeared at Southgate council over the years.

As a pit application, there are planning concerns which involve the local municipality. The Official Plan Amendment was passed by Southgate and by Grey County in about three years ago.

There is also a separate application, and an appeal, under the Aggregate Resources Act process.

The proponent, Huttonville Sand & Gravel, was represented by Stovel & Associates.

Ms Chisolm, a neighbour of the pit, and Mr. Karrow raised a number of issues, one of these being the cumulative effect of the number of pits in the Holstein area.

The decision referred to the planning process where the commenting agencies did not indicate they found any cumulative negative effect aft considering noise, dust, water table quality and quantity, ecology, traffic, and land use compatibility.

As well, the decision found that the evidence supported the position that the applications and accompanying studies had demonstrated that there would be “no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.”

No further conditions were placed on the licence, as the decision noted that the licenced area had already been adjusted, additional water monitoring wells installed and the County had addressed traffic-related requirements.

M.T. Fernandes, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Dundalk Herald