Numerous questions from a handful of residents were raised during a two-hour public meeting regarding the proposed expansion of the Cox Construction gravel pit near Laird Road.
Puslinch held a meeting last October during which dozens of questions were raised – many of which were related to the hydrogeology of the land involved.
As a result, the second public meeting at the Puslinch Community Centre on Jan. 15 included Andrew Pentney, senior consulting hydrogeologist at Groundwater Science Corp., who was hired by the township.
Rob Stovel of Stovel and Associates, agent for Cox Construction Limited, noted the property is a small portion of a larger Cox property currently licensed and zoned for aggregate extraction uses.
The property is located on the south side of Laird Road, west of Wellington Road 35 (Downey Road), east of Pioneer Trail, and west of the City of Guelph. The rezoning area is a 19.5 hectare (48 acre) portion of the Cox property and will permit the expansion of the Puslinch pit.
The area was not included in the licensing for aggregate extraction in the 1980s when the original licence was issued, but surrounding properties are licensed for mineral aggregate extraction.
Cox Construction owns and operates aggregate sites west of Sideroad 10 and to the east of the subject land there is a licensed pit owned by CBM/St. Mary’s Cement (Mast/Snyder Pit).
The zone change is required in order to permit mineral aggregate uses. Below water table extraction is permitted on the Puslinch pit and is proposed for the expansion land. There will be no new entrances to the pit lands and material is to be shipped out via approved roads.
The materials to be extracted are 10 feet deep above the water table and 20 feet below the water table.
In response to Grand River Conservation Authority concerns, the applicant has developed a mitigation area to include the creation of a silt barrier wherein silt will be placed into a trench which will separate the CBM property from the Cox property.
The GRCA is supportive of the site mitigation measures, and the recommended groundwater monitoring program proposed for the site.
Technical studies have indicated there will be no impact on adjacent wetlands or natural environment, and rehabilitation proposals include the creation of a pond and reforestation with native trees.
Though there were roughly 30 people at the Jan. 15 meeting, less than a third were members of the public. The majority were staff or consultants working on behalf of Cox Construction or councillors, staff and consultants for the township.
The current Cox pit was licenced in the late 1980s. While the original application contemplated rezoning this portion of property, it was removed to provide greater buffer to the property to the east. That land is now zoned for extraction as well.
Stovel stated there were sign-off letters from the city of Guelph and the GRCA. While the City of Guelph may not have voiced any stringent concern with the proposal, its correspondence to Puslinch on the matter made quite clear that under the Source Water Protection Plan, there could be potential limitations on the project if there is the potential of significant drinking water threats.
In addition, because the pit expansion within Puslinch lies within one of the city’s wellhead protection areas, the city contended that Puslinch “will have responsibilities to protect the city’s water supply.”
Stovel noted Cox Construction drivers are constantly reminded of the rules in place and said there are “approved entrances” to the site of which residents may not be aware.
Pentney said the township is concerned about mitigation measures to protect wetlands to the east. He said the new monitoring program – designed with input from township hydrogeologist Stan Denhoed – will reduce the reliance on data from wells on other properties.
“We’ve shown that any water table changes should be localized and not affect neighbouring wells,” said Pentney.
Dave Short lives across the road from the existing Cox pit.
“We have lived across from the pit since its inception in 1988 and there have been good things and bad things,” said Short.
He explained his relationship with Cox Construction “has been on the whole, pretty good. In most respects, I think they have tried to comply with our requests.”
Even so, he still raised concerns, especially the impact to water levels in his well and the pond on the property, both of which have dropped over the years.
“We are concerned that eventually the well might run dry and we would have to face the significant expense of a drilled well,” Short said.
Agreements have been made for Cox to visit the Short property later in the year to assess potential impacts and what might be done.
Short added traffic continues to be a headache.
“I have to be fair and say that in the main, the Cox Construction trucks obey the rules of the road. Unfortunately the contractors do not,” he said.
He was concerned the proposed extension may bring even more traffic onto Laird Road. He added below-the-water table extraction means the land will be lost for future agricultural purposes.
“The government keeps telling us to buy locally, but if we can’t grow it locally, we can’t buy it locally.”
He also wondered if the berm could be removed at the time the pit is rehabilitated, because a large pond/lake would “be something worth seeing rather than hiding.”
Resident Bev Wozniak questioned why the written responses to citizen concerns were sent to the municipal office instead of the person addressing them. As a result, the responses were not available to those residents until the day of the meeting.
Helen Purdy, a member of the Mill Creek subwatershed liaison team, asked several technical questions relating to the pit’s impact to both groundwater and the water table and the potential of contamination.
Additionally, concerns were raised as to where excess water might flow. She added she believed the process is important to ensure adverse effects from the pit are kept to a minimum.
