Welcome

Grey Highlands Approves BVV Planning Report

2012-01-14T09:30:00.000-08:00

On January 9, the Council of the Municipality of Grey Highlands voted to accept Planning Report PL.12.02 for the Beaver Valley Village subdivision. The report recommends conditional approval of 16 lots on individual wells and septic systems. The balance of the property is designated for future development and density will depend on the type of servicing available. PL.12.02 has been forwarded to the County of Grey for consideration and recommendations from their planning department and for final approval by County Council.

Your BVRA executive had little time to assess this report before the Council meeting but we did note that conditions for groundwater protection, of which we were critical in the previous planning report, remained unchanged. The outstanding planning policy issues are, sign-off from the Ministry of the Environment and cumulative impact assessment. We hope to follow up with Grey County to ensure that these issues are resolved to our satisfaction. We have concerns about the nature of the public process during future consideration of development of the balance of the property. We intend to ensure that we have a role at that time.

In light of the Municipality's Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Study, which both the Mayor and the CAO are confident will result in municipal servicing coming to the Valley, it is not difficult to understand the wish to move forward and leave the County to wrap up the "loose ends". Your board will continue to work hard on your behalf at the County level to address those loose ends - MOE sign-off, cumulative impact assessment, improved conditions for groundwater protection and a voice during future development planning for the property.

Beaver Valley Village Revised Planning Report

2012-01-08T09:53:00.000-08:00

See the revised Beaver Valley Village Planning Report to be presented and voted on at the Municipality of Grey Highlands Council Meeting on January 9, 2012. We plan to attend and will keep you advised. If you have any comments on this report, let us know.

Meet the Mayor

2011-12-06T07:35:00.001-08:00

We are pleased to announce that Mayor Wayne Fitzgerald will be our guest speaker at the 2012 AGM. There has been significant change in the vision for Grey Highlands, since the municipal election, and we encourage members to come out and hear what the new Council of Grey Highlands has planned, especially as it affects the Beaver Valley. In particular, learn more about the Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan, which proposes to bring municipal-style services to the area surrounding Hutchisons Corners.

Not a member? No worries - you can still attend the meeting.

We look forward to seeing you on Saturday, January 21 at the Kimberley Community Hall at 3 pm.

The Bigger Question

2011-11-16T15:09:00.001-08:00

The facts are that the County considers our area to be a "focus of growth" and "akin to a settlement area", the Municipality has zoned the area as "development" and the NEC designates the area as Escarpment Recreation, the least restrictive designation and in fact the area of the escarpment where growth should occur. The position of the BVRA is and has always been sustainable development, which protects the quality and quantity of groundwater in our neighbourhood. If, as has been suggested by the Municipal planner, there will be a concurrent secondary plan for the area along with implementation of municipal servicing, then the concerns raised by the BVRA will have been addressed. Planned growth and protection of the water supply are fundamental to our position on the Beaver Valley Village proposal. The BVRA has officially supported the Grey Highlands Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Study.

No one, not the public, nor the BVRA nor the proponent anticipated this Grey Highlands initiative, announced last spring. It changed the game for us and for Mr. Kiener. If servicing goes ahead, the vision for the area changes significantly. Mr. Kiener or any another developer could then make a new proposal for the balance of the Beaver Valley Village site as well as the remaining undeveloped portions of this Escarpment Recreation Area. The future of our neighbourhood is growth. The BVRA, its members and all residents have an opportunity as well as a responsibility to participate in this process. This is a different and potentially much larger issue than Mr. Kiener's Beaver Valley Village proposal and one that, as an association, we need to talk about at the 2012 AGM on Saturday, January 21 at 3 pm in the Kimberley Hall.

Beaver Valley Village

2011-11-16T15:08:00.001-08:00

While there is nothing brand new to report, there continues to be a persistent lack of interest from the proponent, Mr. Kiener, in accepting the compromise supported by the County of Grey, Grey Highlands, the MOE, the MMAH and the BVRA. The Municipality, the County and the Province are unwilling to approve or support this scale of unserviced development, given the Municipal undertaking of the Master Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Study, which is reviewing the feasibility of bringing water mains and sewer lines to the Beaver Valley Village area in approximately 5 years. Conditional approval of 16 lots on individual servicing does not appear to be enough for Mr. Kiener. If he continues to push for conditional approval of a three-phased development on individual wells and septic systems, it sounds like an appeal to the OMB is his only option.

Have Your Say

2011-10-28T20:18:00.001-07:00

Would you like the opportunity to have your say about the future of our community, whatever name it goes by? Whether it be Hutchison's Corners, or Beaver Valley or Vandeleur or Bowles Bluff, we live here in a part of Grey Highlands, in Grey County and on the Niagara Escarpment that has been identified in all three jurisdictions, as a growth area. Within five years, there could be municipal sewers and water. One thing is sure - change is coming. What can we do? Until now, we have been reacting to development proposals already underway - first the Beaver Valley Woodlands and most recently the Beaver Valley Village. We have put up a good fight and we have had an impact, but wouldn't it be so much more rewarding to put that same energy into creating the community in which we choose to live. The Have Your Say initiative provides that opportunity. The process began over the summer of 2011, but it is not too late to be included. Ed O'Neil and Cathy Little would like to have a meeting of interested individuals to get this ball rolling here and preferably before November 15. There's nothing to lose and so much to gain. We thought BVRA members would like to be involved, but this is not a BVRA activity; it is an ad hoc group of local interested property owners. If you are interested, contact Ed or Cathy sooner rather than later.

Cathy Little: 519-986-4369

Ed O'Neil: 519-986-3392

WORLD TOWN PLANNING DAY Right Here in Grey Highlands

2011-10-28T19:35:00.001-07:00

The Grey Association for Better Planning is hosting a World Town Planning Day Event on Tuesday, November 8, 2011 at 7 pm and YOU’RE INVITED.

How does the planning process work in Grey County? in Grey Highlands? in Southgate, Chatsworth or any other municipality? Is the process the same for a severance as it is for a quarry or a subdivision? How does an individual find out what's going on before the process is already well under way? What voice does an individual or a group of neighbours have in the process? Where is the means for a community to articulate and guide its vision for its future?

Event speakers will have the answers to those and other questions you may have about planning. Scott Taylor, professional planner with the County of Grey, Dan Best, Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality of Grey Highlands and Peggy Hutchison, founding member and past president of GABP are our speakers and all bring abundant knowledge and experience from their different perspectives. There will be a Q&A after the speakers present and you can ask questions yourself or submit your question(s) in writing.

The Grey County World Town Planning Day Event is an amazing opportunity to learn more about the planning process and how it affects you, your neighbours, your community.

Hope you can make it to the Flesherton Kinplex on Tuesday, November 8th at 7 pm.

See the Event flyer.

Sustainable Development for Grey Highlands

2011-09-20T08:05:00.000-07:00

The Municipality of Grey Highlands submitted a brief to the Minister of Infrastructure, Bob Chiarelli dated July 22, 2011, regarding SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FUTURE OF GREY HIGHLANDS THROUGH A WATER WASTEWATER SERVICING MASTER PLAN.

Highlights
General

Grey Highlands is well positioned to establish its industrial/commercial base in Markdale, a cultural base in Flesherton, development in the Beaver Valley and maintain the strong agricultural base that has been the foundation of Grey Highlands.
On March 28, Council approved Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan to determine future infrastructure needs to service the study area of Markdale, Flesherton, Kimberley, Eugenia and the Beaver Valley Area.
A water quality survey conducted in 2001 in the Beaver Valley Ski Club area demonstrated that 36 out of 64 homes surveyed failed to meet Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards. Servicing would provide better quality and safer drinking water, fire flows and protection of the Beaver River and its tributaries.
The one public meeting held so far met with favourable response. Two more public meetings are planned. One session will be held on a weekend to ensure that seasonal residents have an opportunity to participate.

Development in the Beaver Valley

There is development pressure in a designated development area not linked to urban style servicing.
Of concern to the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment is the cumulative impact of development in the absence of appropriate servicing.
Development vital to the local economy must be approached cautiously in order to ensure that the environmental safety and the integrity of the Beaver Valley area is retained.
While development can provide much needed revenue for a small rural municipality, it is important that concerns of current residents can be alleviated by ensuring that the way of life that they have come to know will not be negatively impacted as a result of development.
By working with the various Ministries on a collaborative and proactive approach, we will be able to plan and develop the Beaver Valley area responsibly and maintain the integrity of the Beaver Valley for generations to come.

To see the complete brief, click here.

Beaver Valley Village - the latest

2011-09-19T09:14:00.000-07:00

According to the Municipality of Grey Highlands CAO, Dan Best, Mr. Kiener is working with the Grey Highlands planning consultant to come up with an adjusted plan of a maximum of 16 units that would fall within the existing development area. "The idea is to ensure that we have a suitable developmentthat maximizes the site for future development once services are available inthe valley", said Mr. Best. He also emphasized to Mr. Kiener that the concern of the BVRA is sustainable development that is respectful of the environment, including "the protection of water in the valley in the absence of services coming out to the valley." Mr. Best went on to say, "it appears there is common ground from all parties on thispoint."

The BVRA's submission to Environmental Defence and our proposal to Dr. Beth Parker of the University of Guelph are on hold, pending Municipal decisions on the servicing plan for our area.

BVRA Progress re: The Beaver Valley Village

2011-09-19T08:42:00.000-07:00

March - we wrote a letter to Environment Minister, John Wilkinson expressing BVRA concerns about risk of cumulative negative impact to water quality and quantity from increasing development pressures in our area.

March - the Municipality's Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Study was unveiled.

May - we received a response from Minister Wilkinson acknowledging that our concerns are shared by the Ministry and suggesting we contact Ian Kerr, Water Resources Supervisor, at the MOE regional office in London. We were able to set up a tele-conference to discuss concerns.

June - A tele-conference with Ian Kerr, Bill Armstrong (Environmental Planner) and Angela Homewood (Supervisor of Air and Pesticide andEnvironmental Planning) provided some assurances, including a promise by Bill Armstrong to do his best to arrange a meeting with the Municipality, the County, the Province and us.

August - Ed and Cathy attended a meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipality of Grey Highlands. The meeting was chaired by Grey Highlands CAO, Dan Best (DB) and in attendance were Randy Scherzer (RS), County of Grey senior planner, Bill Armstrong (BA), MOE, Dwayne Evans (DE) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as well as Kristine Loft (KL), Grey Highlands planning consultant. Included here are the notes from that meeting.

Meeting August 4, 2011

Beaver Valley Village Subdivision Current Status
DB: There was a meeting with Mr. Kiener’s planner and RS and DB in April. Suggested to proponent conditional draft approval of a 16-lot development. Further development on the site would require a renewed application and would be subject to the results of the Servicing Master Plan and potentially the vision for the community as outlined in a Secondary Plan or Official Plan Amendment.
KL: Municipal servicing provides more options for a creative residential area.
DB: Current proposal is very “cooky-cutter”; servicing creates the potential for improvement.
DB: There has been no response from the proponent (who was not at the meeting) but will be meeting with RS and DB on Friday, August 12.
Mr. Kiener could decide to appeal to the OMB (50-50 chance), he could stop and wait to see what happens or accept the proposal and recoup some investment.
Grey County (approval authority)
RS: Recommends the 16-lot plan, with no phasing and with similar conditions as included in the last planning report. He will again discuss with Marcus Buck appropriate conditions and consider the findings of Chris Smart. RS wants to have flexibility for different kinds of development on site made possible by municipal services.
Grey Highlands
There don’t appear to be any large development proposals in the area (according to the map shown to us at the meeting). Based on the thinking with respect to the BVV, it is assumed that future development proposals would not be considered until at least the servicing study is done and most likely the secondary plan with a vision for community growth.
DB: Definitely not growth for growth’s sake.
KL: A secondary plan (or Official Plan Amendment) is up to GH Council and has not been decided yet.
DB: In the event of no municipal services, the Municipality would again discuss a cumulative impact study in cooperation with the MOE, as happened before undertaking the Servicing Master Plan Study, prior to further development of BVV.
Ministry of the Environment
BA: Servicing Plan and Secondary Plan need to inform each other. Growth is up to the community, not the engineer. He cautioned that the first “phase” (16 lots) not prejudge development vision. It might be wiser to have fewer, smaller lots. May need more involved study of the first “phase”. Situation of the lots on the site should be considered. We know that all the land on site is not the same.

BVRA
Before the meeting, the BVRA concerns were the following:

· While the BVRA supports the vision of the Water and WastewaterServicing Master Plan, which includes full services for the Beaver ValleyRecreation Area, there are, however, many possible alternatives outlined in theMaster Plan including the “do nothing” option; in addition, according to theMaster Plan overview, the servicing infrastructure for the Beaver Valley areawill probably not be undertaken for at least 5 years.

· The BVRA recommends that approval of the BVVsubdivision proposal include a phasing and monitoring program tied to theresults of the Master Plan process and the completion of the approvedinfrastructure.

After the meeting, we were satisfied that our concerns havebeen addressed.

What if servicing takes longer than expected to implementor is not feasible at all?

In the opinion of the BVRA, we still need:

· A cumulative impact study.
MOE, MMAH and GH agree

· A Secondary Plan for our area reflecting the level ofservicing – will be the recommendation of DB

· Full consideration of Chris Smart report when draftingconditions– RS assured us this would happen

BVRA Comments on Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan

2011-07-19T07:39:00.000-07:00

Comments from the Beaver Valley Ratepayers Association (BVRA)

(as submitted to Chris Wilson of Genivar on July 19, 2011)

We commend the vision of Grey Highlands Council in undertaking this Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan Study and support this initiative, especially Phase 1, as it includes the Beaver Valley Recreation Area.

Both the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the County of Grey Official Plan identify the Beaver Valley Area as a growth area; as such the MOE has consistently stressed the need for municipal servicing of the area given existing residential water problems, increasing development pressure and the ignorance of the cumulative impact of more and more wells and septic systems in this fragile karstic environment. Completing feasibility and environmental assessments, leading to some level of municipal servicing in the future makes good planning sense. The BVRA anticipates that this Grey Highlands initiative will go a long way toward addressing the concerns of our members about water quality and quantity.

It also makes good planning sense to us, that by doing the groundwork now, the Municipality will be eligible in the future to take advantage of government infrastructure funding opportunities; this shows great foresight.

The BVRA affirms the need for the development of a secondary growth plan for the area as was mentioned by the planner at the March 28^th Council Meeting, coinciding with the Servicing Master Plan and we look forward as an organization to being part of that process.

Of course there are at this stage, many questions that concern BVRA members.

· What is the cost? Who pays?

· Will property owners be required to hook up to municipal servicing if they don’t experience water problems?

· One alternative suggests a pumping station or stations in the area of Windy Lane and Bowles Bluff Road. Naturally this has residents there worried about noise, smell, and traffic.

· What effect will this initiative have on current development proposals?

· What effect will this initiative have on future development proposals?

In conclusion, the BVRA congratulates Council on this bold move, applauds the planning vision and looks forward to actively participating in the process.

Cathy Little (President) and Ed O’Neill (Vice-President)

Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan

2011-07-18T11:29:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, June 28 Grey Highlands Council held a public meeting to outline the rationale and the process of the Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan. Ross Slaughter, engineer with Genivar made a powerpoint presentation which can be viewed on the Grey Highlands website.

This initiative affects all of us and we urge you to become familiar with the Plan and take advantage of the opportunity to comment. Comments must be received by Wednesday, July 20, 2011. Your executive will be submitting comments which reflect the mission statement and the membership concerns of the BVRA.

No News is Good News. Right?

2011-06-12T17:09:00.000-07:00

Well, after asking you to keep checking the blog, as you can see, there have been no new posts for a couple of months. It seems to be the nature of this process, from our perspective, that bursts of intense activity are interspersed with long stretches of wait and see. What's happening is that nothing is happening as far as we can tell.

The County has not received the requested revised plan of subdivision from the proponent at this time.

We have received Dr. Smart's report and you can read it here. We are in the process of sharing the report with the relevant agencies, politicians and planners as well as the proponent.

Environmental Defence was to consider our submission in late May and we are still waiting to hear from them.

Also, Dr. Beth Parker has responded with interest to our suggestion of the potential for a small groundwater research project in our area, but we have yet to sit down and talk to her. We will continue to try and arrange a meeting with Dr. Parker.

In March, we wrote a letter to Environment Minister, John Wilkinson. He has responded positively, with the suggestion to contact the Water Resources Supervisor of the Southwestern Regional Office. We will be doing this in the next few days.

Thank you to everyone who completed and sent in their survey. If you have not done so, you still have time.

You may have seen the notice in the paper or on the Grey Highlands website. There is a public consultation scheduled for Tuesday, June 28 at 7 pm at the Centre Grey Complex in Markdale to outline the Water and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan.

Perhaps of interest to some members of the BVRA, is a town hall meeting on Saturday, June 18 at 2 pm at the Centre Grey Complex in Markdale called, Truth About Industrial Wind Turbines.

Please, if you have any suggestions or comments, you can add them here or email or phone one of your directors. We will continue to keep you posted when we have news to share.

Revised Beaver Valley Village Subdivision Plan

2011-04-04T08:41:00.000-07:00

Martin Kiener has sent a revised subdivision site plan and revised draft plan conditions to the BVRA board.

Have a look at the original site plan for comparison. (The NS orientations are completely opposite. Rotating one of the plans will make comparison easier.)

The proponent's revised set of conditions have come a little closer to matching the recommendations of peer reviewers; it also outlines the recommended development phasing order and process.

Your board will be assessing whether these revisions adequately address the concerns of the membership. Please contact any board member to share your views on these recent changes to the plan and conditions.

More Information: Water and Wastewater Master Plan

2011-04-04T07:52:00.000-07:00

I have fact-checked my notes from the March 28 Grey Highlands Council meeting, with the Chief Administrative Officer, Dan Best. He cautions that the master plan initiative is very conceptual at this time. However, here are the details of that plan as presented. Council voted to designate $96 800 to cover the first step: a study investigating feasibility and environmental impact of the plan.

Grey Highlands Water and Wastewater Master Plan

2011-03-28T13:46:00.000-07:00

Municipal services for the Beaver Valley? That is the vision of Mayor Wayne Fitzgerald. It is just one phase of a grand plan to pipe water to the Beaver Valley Ski Club recreation area, Flesherton, Eugenia and the lower valley and take waste from these locations to one of the three existing treatment facilities.

At the Grey Highlands Council Meeting today, Council approved the expenditure of $96 800 to proceed with the Regional Water and Wastewater Systems Plan which includes the Class B Environmental Assessment. This followed a presentation of the master plan concept from Ross Slaughter of Genivar, the firm undertaking the assessment and plan.

For details of the Grey Highlands Public Utility Report and the Genivar budget and timeline of the assessment and master plan, check the links.

Watch here for more details about the plan and how this affects the Beaver Valley Village proposal.

2011-03-11T17:00:00.000-08:00

WHEN THE WELL IS DRY

WE KNOW THE WORTH OF OUR WATER

(Benjamin Franklin)

Annual General Meeting

Kimberley Hall

Saturday March 19, 2011 3-6pm

Registration/Fee Payment 3-3:30pm

Meeting Begins: 3:30pm

Plan to Attend

Your directors will be reporting on the detailed activities/correspondence undertaken on your behalf to affirm

THE WORTH OF OUR WATER

www.beavervalleyratepayers.ca

www.beavervalleyratepayers.blogspot.com

GH:BVV - Planning Report

2011-02-22T07:10:00.000-08:00

Here is the corrected link to the Grey Highlands Planning Report on the Beaver Valley Village. It was originally presented to the Committee of the Whole in October (old council) and recommended acceptance and forwarding to the County. The committee voted to defer its decision. The same report was on the agenda for the December 13 Council Meeting (new council) for discussion purposes only.

The BVRA and the Beaver Valley Village: A History

2011-02-20T17:14:00.000-08:00

For a good overview of our concerns, see our PPT most recently presented to our membership on January 8, 2011. At that meeting, the membership gave the BVRA executive the green light to continue its advocacy and in addition to provide the membership with an estimate of the cost of retaining legal and/or hydrogeological expertise.

Background

The Beaver Valley Village (BVV) subdivision, planned for the top of the escarpment near the Beaver Valley Ski Club, is to be serviced with individual wells and septic systems. This 45-lot development proposal is in the Municipality of Grey Highlands (GH), in the County of Grey (GC). Google map.

The entire, surrounding 230 ha area, Beaver Valley Village Settlement Area (BVVSA), is designated Escarpment Recreation Area in the Niagara Escarpment Development Plan and deemed by GC to be a focus of growth and “akin to a settlement area”. The NEC has handed over development control to GH. ERA map.

There are 125 approved lots and residences in the area now, and the theoretical potential for 130 – 180 more; this does not include the existing and potential development below the escarpment, which is also part of the Escarpment Recreation Area. Currently, there are no municipal water or sewage services and none planned for the foreseeable future.

The AEMOT Groundwater Study, done post-Walkerton, noted that the study area as a whole is possibly one of the most sensitive in the province, due in part to the presence of karst, making particular mention of the escarpment area of the former Artemesia and Euphrasia townships, the site of the BVVSA. AEMOT recommended in 2002 that there be a groundwater management plan for the area and a commitment to such was incorporated in the GH Official Plan in 2003. In 2011, there is still no plan.

The BVRA supports sustainable development. However, many residents, already familiar with well-water shortages, dry wells, turbid and contaminated drinking water, are worried about the cumulative negative impact to area groundwater from increasing development pressure. We have made two presentations to GH outlining our concerns.

Despite our voiced concerns, GH is currently considering a planning report recommending conditional draft plan approval of the BVV. In the opinion of the BVRA, the report does not follow the recommendations of the peer reviewers, ignores the MOE and does not consider cumulative impact. The GH decision will be forwarded to GC, who is the approval authority. See BVRA critique of Planning Report.

This is a “settlement area” but not a settlement area. This is a focus of growth without a growth plan. This is a vulnerable aquifer area without a groundwater management plan. This is an area with a high concentration of rural wells, but not included in Sourcewater Protection planning. The Ministry of the Environment objects but is ignored. The PPS gets a work-around. The minimum standard is rarely met. Members of the public must appeal a decision in order to be heard. Who bears the risk? Who is accountable? Who pays when things go wrong?

History of Policy-related Activities

The BVRA is actively engaged in policy review opportunities and policy implementation proposals, as we become aware of broader issues through our specific involvement in the BVV process. Listed here is a summary of our policy-related activities.

April 2, 2008

Letter and presentation to GH Council.

Requesting Council to form a committee of stakeholders to examine cumulative impact of development in the area. Rejected.

June 24, 2008

Presentation to Sourcewater Protection Committee Meeting.

Requesting SPC to add the Bowles Bluff and surrounding area within Beaver Valley to the “Terms of Reference (TOR)” and complete the subsequent “Assessment” and “Protection Plan” as appropriate. GH approval required. Rejected after consultation with MOE.

November 25, 2008

Letter/presentation to GC - Policy recommendations for Official Plan 5-Year Review.

Recommendations rejected.

June 3, 2009

Letter to MMAH re: GC Official Plan Review.

MMAH referral back to GC.

June 23, 2010

PPT presentation to GH Council.

August 30, 2010

Submission to MMAH re: Policy recommendations for PPS 5-Year Review

Process ongoing.

December 13, 2010

PPT Presentation to GH Council.

February 6, 2011

Email to GH Mayor and Council re: groundwater management proposal.

Current Policy Initiatives

We have recently sent a position paper on the issue of density to Council, with a supplementary letter to follow.

Today we sent a position/proposal letter to GH Council, copying GC, MOE, MMAH, NEC, GSCA and DC Slade (proponent’s consultant).

We are working on a position paper documenting the failure of the proponent to meet minimum standards of policy, guidelines, and recommendations. The proponent’s eventual compliance with some of these requirements is often perceived by politicians as compromise. Adding insult to injury, delays in the approval process incurred by this so-called negotiating, are seen as unfair and inconvenient to the proponent leading to subtle pressure on reviewing agencies and individuals to expedite the approval process.

Perhaps one of the biggest planning issues evident here, is the lack of opportunity for meaningful citizen participation in the decision-making process. When citizens have a legitimate case but no opportunity for dialogue, appealing to the OMB remains the only option. In such cases, the adversarial solution is inevitable, unfortunate and imbedded in the system. This is a waste of everyone’s time, money, productivity and importantly, goodwill.

Special Members' Meeting - January 8, 2011

2011-01-25T19:43:00.000-08:00

See the minutes of our Special Members' Meeting.

Next Steps

2010-12-17T16:48:00.000-08:00

The time has come for the BVRA to actively engage in the Beaver Valley Village subdivision application process. It is important that BVRA executive decisions and actions have the support of the membership. The directors are meeting right after Christmas, to discuss what is the best forum for members' input. Of course, you can contact any of us by phone or email, or post a comment on this blog.

Sun Times Article

2010-12-17T16:37:00.000-08:00

Check the Thursday edition of the Owen Sound Sun Times. On page three there is a very good article about the Beaver Valley Village proposed subdivision and concerns of the proponent, Grey Highlands council and the ratepayers. We can't post the article here, but if you are a member and want a copy, we can email it to you.

BVRA Presentation to Council - Dec. 13. 2010

2010-12-16T08:43:00.000-08:00

At the regular council meeting on December 13, the BVRA was a scheduled delegation. Ed O'Neil congratulated the new councillors on their success in the recent municipal election. He outlined our concerns about the potential for cumulative negative impact from the proposed Beaver Valley Village subdivision to the quantity and quality of the local groundwater, focusing on the issue of density. Forty-five lots on private wells and septic systems is unacceptable to us, in an area already susceptible to well-water shortages and contamination. Ed informed council that since our last presentation, the MOE has stated that they still have concerns.

The BVV proponent and planner were in attendance.

Later on the agenda, the planning report for the BVV was presented for discussion purposes only. The planner is still recommending that the council forward conditional acceptance to the County for final approval. Councillor Stuart Halliday and Deputy Mayor Paul McQueen commented. Mayor Wayne Fitzgerald suggested to the BVV planner that the proponent's team meet with the BVRA and councillor(s) to discuss concerns. We look forward to this opportunity.

To see the new presentation, click on the tool bar at the top of the page.

Grey Highlands Planner's Report on Beaver Valley Village subdivision

2010-10-23T11:08:00.000-07:00

The planner's report for the Beaver Valley Village subdivision is included in the agenda for the Oct. 18, Committee of the Whole meeting, on pages 141 - 184. Have a look.

Planner Recommends Conditional Approval of Beaver Valley Village Subdivision

2010-10-23T10:54:00.000-07:00

Late in the day, on Friday, October 15 the BVRA executive learned that the Beaver Valley Village subdivision application was on the agenda for the Committee of the Whole meeting for Grey Highlands on Monday, October 18 at 10 am. We hurriedly sent out emails and gathered as many members as we could to attend the meeting. I guess councillors had the same inadequate preparation time as we did because they voted to defer any decision until the next CoW meeting on December 13.

The planner for Grey Highlands is recommending that draft plan conditional approval of the BVV go forward to Council, which if approved would then go to the County of Grey for final approval.

The BVRA executive is requesting delegation status at the CoW meeting on December 13, where we will present our case to the new Committee of the Whole.

Once the new council is formed, we will be contacting BVRA members with more information.

Provincial Policy Statement Review

2010-08-14T10:05:00.000-07:00

The Ontario government is conducting a review of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS). The PPS outlines policy direction for land use planning and development. Municipal planning decisions must be consistent with the PPS. The government is asking for input on how the PPS is working and whether any changes are needed.

Groups and individuals may comment. For more information and to access an online survey go to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing website.

Click online survey to immediately access and submit comments electronically.

Letter to the Editor

2010-07-13T05:05:00.000-07:00

This letter will be published in the July 13 issue of the Markdale Standard.

Dear Editor

I was happy to see coverage in the Markdale Standard of the Beaver Valley Ratepayers presentation to the Committee of the Whole of Grey Highlands. I would like to correct an inaccuracy in the reporting of density.

The single biggest issue for the BVRA is the density of this development. To set the record straight, the proposed lot size of 2000 square feet is half the 4000 square feet recommended in the Grey Highlands Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw. In addition, the proposed density contravenes the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, the planning guideline for municipal planning decisions.

For anyone interested, the BVRA has published the complete presentation and speaker's notes on the blog, www.beavervalleyratepayers.blogspot.com.

Respectfully

Cathy Little

Markdale Standard, July 7

2010-07-09T13:34:00.000-07:00

There is an article in this week's Markdale Standard reporting on our presentation to Grey Highlands Committee of the Whole. Press coverage is a good thing but there were some errors particularly about lot size and density. I guess a letter to the editor is in order.

We're in the Sun Times

2010-06-28T17:02:00.000-07:00

The Owen Sound Sun Times ran a well-written and balanced story about the BVRA presentation to Grey Highlands Committee of the Whole, June 21, 2010. Reporter, Don Crosby interviewed Ed and Cathy a few days later for another article to appear in the Markdale Standard, June 30.

If you are a member and would like an email copy of the Sun Times article, leave a comment below and we will be happy to send you one.

Update

2010-06-26T05:33:00.000-07:00

Regarding the proposed Beaver Valley Village subdivision, according to a recent email (June 23), from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to the planner at the County of Grey, the Ministry of the Environment continues to believe,

that there are risks associated with this development

and that the fundamental issue of cumulative impact has not been addressed.

BVRA Presentation, June 21, 2010

2010-06-26T04:38:00.000-07:00

Here it is: a slideshow of our presentation to the Committee of the Whole of Grey Highlands on Monday, June 21, 2010. There are some minor omissions, For a thorough appreciation, read the speaker's notes and the addendum posts below. To view the presentation full screen, click on menu in the bottom left corner of the presentation window and click on full screen.

Bvra Presents

Addendum to Presentation

2010-06-23T06:18:00.000-07:00

We gave councillors a copy of the slideshow and these supplementary pages. The BVRA supports the peer reviewer statements and recommendations including but not exclusively:

1. Statements by RJ Burnside (from the letter to Grey Highlands, dated February, 19, 2010)

We would note in general that the proponent’s hydrogeological consultant has either concurred with our comments or has undertaken on behalf of the proponent that additional works will be carried out and that these additional works would be mandated by conditions of draft plan approval. On the understanding that satisfying the conditions will be the proponents responsibility and further that it is the proponent’s risk should any conditions not be met we would support moving forward to drafting appropriate draft plan conditions to address these various works.

We expect that the proponent may wish their own consultants to propose wording for these draft conditions. We would recommend as proposed draft plan conditions are created that we have an opportunity to review the specific wording of those conditions to ensure that the work which they have committed to is clearly identified in those conditions. Alternatively, we could offer our assistance in drafting the draft plan conditions.

As we review this file relative to the servicing issues as well as look back though the chronology of documents within this file we raise the question whether the Ministry of the Environment has actually provided clearance to the County with respect to the Settlement Capability Study and the servicing options that were detailed with that document.

2. Recommendations of RJ Burnside (detailed in the letter, dated December 11, 2009)

a. building permits issued on a lot-by-lot basis upon the successful completion of construction and contractor’s testing of individual wells (Marcus Buck concurs)

b. pre-construction monitoring program to examine water level variations in the bedrock aquifer (Marcus Buck concurs)

c. TW5 tested and retested during the spring freshet period to examine turbidity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients and bacteria to examine water quality trends in the aquifer and design an appropriate water supply system for residents.

d. Municipality will be advised of evidence of karstic features identified during the drilling program, such as bit drops and/or cavernous rock

e. door-to-door survey of residences completed to collect baseline information on neighbouring wells to allow both the developer and municipality to effectively address any future interference complaints (Marcus Buck concurs)

f. more definitive discussions including recommendations for mitigating any potential concerns

g. a letter examining the shallow groundwater flow direction on the site, characterizing migration pathways and providing assurances that the septic effluent will have minimal impacts on the local groundwater resources.

h. The consultant should provide information on the combined effects of drawdown from 45 individual wells on local groundwater resources

3. Recommendations of Marcus Buck (detailed in his letter to County, December, 22, 2009)

a. obtain additional measurements (detailed) when surface flow is high during the spring to complete the collection of baseline data, including water levels in the monitoring wells

b. use additional data to improve the modeling and aquifer characterization

c. phasing of the development will provide an opportunity for the review of data to ensure that additional phases are expected to be environmentally sustainable (RJ Burnside concurs)

d. a monitoring program should be completed during an after each phase of the development (detailed).

BVRA Presentation, June 21, 2010, Speaker's Notes

2010-06-23T06:10:00.000-07:00

BVRA Presentation, June 21, 2010
Speaker’s Notes

1. We are the Beaver Valley Ratepayers. I am vice-president Ed O’Neil and with me is president, Cathy Little.

2. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak to you today. This is an outline of our talk. Basically, the concern is the effect of new subdivisions on existing wells that already have problems.

3. We were incorporated in 2002.

4. We speak for the 125 existing homes in the Beaver Valley settlement area and some below the escarpment. These homes are along Windy Lane, Bowles Bluff Rd., Grey Rd 30, the Seventh Line and the Beaver valley Crescent Subdivision southwest of Hutchisons’ Corners.

5. At the 2008 BVRA AGM in Kimberly, members packed the hall because of concerns about the proposed Beaver Valley Village Subdivision. Again at the Beaver Valley Village public meeting, the Rocklyn Community Centre was full. Members and property owners voiced their concerns regarding this development proposal.

6. This is a map of the area of the proposed subdivision. The turquoise area is the Beaver Valley Ski Club and the orange area is the proposed Beaver Valley Village subdivision on top of the escarpment. The Beaver Valley Village is a 45 lot subdivision packed on approximately 7.5 hectares of a 29 hectare site. The major portion of this site consists of hazard land and wetlands. The land is in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area and designated Escarpment Recreation. Grey Highlands has development control of the area.

Our people have concerns about the quantity and quality of water when new subdivisions are built. But even more concerning is the fact that peer reviewers have concerns and these peer reviewers have a lot more expertise than we do. We understand that there are proposals for 103 more homes. There are another 35 lots that could be developed, so we have 125 existing homes and we are going to more than double the number of homes in our area. This does not even include the remaining undeveloped 45 ha in this settlement area representing between 70 to 130 new homes.

7. The number one concern of BVRA members and local property owners is water. The AEMOT Groundwater Management Study, Final Report, 2001 identified this entire area as “one of the most sensitive groundwater management areas in the Province “(pg 104).
Mapping from the Study shows the proposed site for this development is within a “High Aquifer Vulnerability Area” and a “Recommended Protection Area for Groundwater.”
Many residents already experience water shortages, wells going dry, turbid and contaminated drinking water. The potential for negative environmental impact on the quality and quantity of water from this proposed 45 unit subdivision is real.
The Settlement Capability Study uses very complex formulas and very little well testing and concludes that we will not have problems with our water. We know differently – we have the practical experience and we have well problems.

8. We assume you are tired of hearing from delegations primarily against all development, but our concerns are real. We are concerned about
• Groundwater uncertainty
• Risk of cumulative negative impact and
• Density
We have done our homework. We have been monitoring this application since 2008, have read all the documents and correspondence. We are impressed with the process so far, particularly the work of the peer reviewers for the Municipality and the County. In addition, the BVRA has been advised by planner, Ron Davidson and hydrogeologist, Ray Blackport. With all due respect, the proponent is focused on the bottom line: to get approval for as many lots as possible. The justification for this application is often misleading, incomplete or even wrong in some cases. The residents too, have a bottom line: to minimize the risk to the quality and quantity of potable water to local residents now and in the future.

9. Groundwater hydrogeology is a complex system made even more complex by the presence of karst. This is the situation in this proposed subdivision location.
• In the opinion of the peer reviews, inadequate knowledge of local groundwater is being used to justify this development.
• Local experience has been neglected.
Failure to inform residents of well pump tests was interpreted as “no reports of adverse interference.” Anecdotal evidence about contaminated water, water shortages, and seasonal fluctuations was excluded from the assessment of the availability of potable water. There is resistance against implementing a monitoring program of local residents’ wells as recommended by both peer reviews. You would think that if you really wanted to learn about the water situation in the area, you would ask the people who live here.

10. For the most complete understanding of local groundwater, residents’ input and peer reviewer recommendations must be included.

11. Peer reviews have consistently pointed out inadequate assessment of both the area hydrogeology and the karst topography.
• Marcus Buck (County of Grey) believes that "… groundwater flow could be substantially less and the number of homes that could be supported within the BVVSA may also be substantially less (than estimated).”
• RJ Burnside (Grey Highlands) recommends pre-development water level monitoring program to assist in confirming long-term water capacity and believes risks associated with septic effluent require more discussions for mitigating concerns.
• We support the peer reviewer recommendations including peer reviewer oversight of the writing of draft plan conditions.
Ray Blackport, the hydrogeologist who advised us, believes more work needs to be done to better understand the site hydrogeology.

12. The position of the Ministry of the Environment is clear: Ministry of the Environment concern about cumulative environmental impact and the appropriateness of the servicing proposed is made more relevant by the other development in the immediate area either proposed or approved. There are 103 residential lots being proposed. Servicing should be reflective of and appropriate to this context.

None of the reports that the BVRA has seen has evaluated the cumulated impact of 45 new units not to mention the 103 new units on existing well water -- quantity and quality.

13. A Settlement Capability Study, completed by the proponent as a requirement of the County of Grey did nothing to change the position of the MOE: “The study does not address the fundamental question: What is the most appropriate way to service a settlement
• of this scale
• in this location
• with identified issues
• in an environmentally sustainable way?”

RJ Burnside raises the question whether the Ministry of the Environment has actually provided clearance to the County with respect to the Settlement Capability Study and the servicing options. Grey Highlands OP and Niagara Escarpment Plan both require that a development proposal on private services must meet the requirements of the MOE.

14. Filthy water cannot be washed is an African proverb which expresses a principle that guides the management of water resources throughout the world. It is more sustainable– that is, less expensive economically, more socially responsible and better for the natural environment – to maintain a pristine water supply than to treat water once it has been contaminated. It is also the title of a southern Ontario study looking at the health of groundwater in fractured bedrock soils, published in 2009.

15. This study concludes: “Further source water protection initiatives are imperative to protect the health of those consuming groundwater from private rural wells especially in sensitive settings.” (Authors: Jana Levison PHD, Kent Novakowski P.Eng, PHD, Queens University)

16. Slide shows cover of Municipal World magazine (March 2010), featuring the story, Ten Years After Walkerton – What have we learned?
After the Walkerton water tragedy, the recommendation of Justice O’Connor to protect drinking water at the source has resulted in Ontario’s Clean Water Act. This legislation requires communities to develop source protection plans on a watershed basis in order to protect their municipal sources of drinking water. Unfortunately, the timetable extends beyond 2012 and rural wells are not even on the current agenda.

17. Summarized from the article: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
1. The first lesson is that humans are part of the environment. What should be clear from Walkerton is that environmental management is not just about nature, but also about human health and safety.

2. The second fundamental lesson is that we need to look at the big picture: Society, the economy and the environment community interests and sustainability of the whole watershed.

18. The AEMOT Study recommended that participating municipalities have groundwater management plans. Grey Highlands can be commended for including in the Official Plan, acknowledgement of the importance of groundwater to the Municipality and intention to incorporate groundwater management policies into the Plan.

19. There is no evidence that a groundwater management plan has been used to evaluate this development proposal. Consequently, there is an opportunity for the Grey Highlands Planning Committee to honour the acknowledgement and intent in the Official Plan by implementing the peer reviewer recommendations, in order to protect groundwater quantity and quality in the Beaver Valley Settlement area.

20. The density of this proposal and individual servicing are incompatible. Since municipal services and communal services are deemed to be unfeasible, density of this subdivision is a key issue and must be reduced to comply with planning policy.
• The proposed lot size of this development is only half of the 4000 m2 recommendation of Grey Highlands Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 7.1.2
• Provincial Policy Statement 1.6.4.4 - recommends new development of 5 lots or less on individual private services
• According to the MOE, a development of this size on individual services is not appropriate.
• Grey Highlands OP states “New privately serviced residential units
should not exceed 3 units per ha (4.9.3 d)”.
This 7.5 hectare developable area with 45 homes works out to 6 units per hectare. The developer is proposing to calculate density including the wet and hazard lands. We cannot believe that this is the intent of the policy. If so, what stops the next developer from buying land with major wetlands and arguing for development on 20 ft. wide lots. The statement in the hydro-g report that development consists of widely-spaced wells on relatively large lots is just not true.

21. The BVRA supports sustainable development.
We would be willing to support this development if:
• the MOE approves,
• an independent cumulative impact study is completed for the Beaver Valley Settlement area before development,
• groundwater management strategies are implemented before development,
• the most cautious interpretation of Provincial Policy Statement, Official Plan policy and Zoning Bylaws is used in determination of density,
• all peer review recommendations are implemented,
• a reasonable enforcement plan for conditions of draft plan approval is implemented.

22. We have respect for council and we do understand the difficult responsibility council has, in addressing apparently competing needs. However, short-term thinking that focuses solely on economic revenue jeopardizes one of the biggest economic assets Grey Highlands has – it’s environment. The natural, beautiful and healthy Beaver Valley attracts people here and keeps them returning, often to move or retire here. We trust that council will take the long view and consider this application in the context of the whole settlement area and in the most cautious and most sustainable way. Long after the developers have moved on, we will be living here with the consequences of this decision.

23. Thank you to the Committee of the Whole for giving us this chance to address you.

We gave councilors and the planner a package containing the slide show and an addendum listing the peer review statements and recommendations that the BVRA supports. This addendum will be posted on the blog.

BVRA Presentation re: Beaver Valley Village

2010-05-23T09:16:00.000-07:00

Ed O'Neill and Cathy Little will make a presentation to the Committee of the Whole of Grey Highlands regarding the Beaver Valley Village application. The presentation is scheduled for June 21 at 10:00 am. Your executive has been following this issue since the 2008 AGM, on behalf of members and residents. Your attendance in support of the presentation would demonstrate to council that this subdivision proposal is still a "hot issue" with residents. Hope we see you there.

AGM Minutes

2010-05-23T09:07:00.000-07:00

BEAVER VALLEY RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

March 20, 2010

MINUTES

Opening Remarks/Call to Order. The meeting was chaired by BVRA member Keith Ellison. The chair announced that the attendance and the proxies received constitute a viable meeting.
The guest speaker, David Fawcett, Deputy Mayor of Grey Highlands provided a summary of issues at both the County and Municipal levels of government.

County: The CAO, Gary Wood has retired. His replacement is Lance Thurston from Kingston with a background in social services and housing. Gary Shaw (transportation and safety) is retiring. Budget has been a difficult process. Lower tiers are recieving cutbacks. Came in with a slight decrease of a quarter of a percent. County Road #32 to receive some “spot fills”; #31 was re-surfaced last year and re-negotiated with contractor who picked up 65% of cost. There are still some necessary repairs to this road. Bowles Bluff mirror was stolen. A replacement has been ordered at ~$1200-$1300.00

Municipality: Dan Best is the new CAO with a background in municipal affairs and housing at the provincial level. Transfer funding from the province has decreased by $400,000.00 which could translate to a 9% increase in taxes. Police contract is being re-negotiated at a possible 7% increase. Budget targets are aiming to increase by only 10%. Council does not want to cut the “roads budget”. Dollar reserves are diminished, which is worrisome. Funding received for projects: Flesherton Library, Flesherton Kineplex, Markdale Arena complex. Chapmans are re-building and want to have it completed by late fall. There are issues of water pressure. Bowles Bluff Road is breaking up, especially at south end. It is on the capital projects list since last year, but needs improvements this year. Issues such as one way road, cul-de-sac, or money from developer still to be resolved.

Planning Issues: A signed subdivision exists for Beaver Valley Woodlands, but no securities have been received, therefore no building permits issued. Just recently securities were posted on work that must be completed. The non-developed portion of the subdivision land must be turned over to the municipality before building permits are issued. Municipality is firm on the requirements. Four lots approved at BVSC. Have had to comply with zoning/by-law amendments required by County. Approval is likely in the short term.

Beaver Valley Village: A public meeting was held in August 2008. The developer has sent required reports to County and Municipality. Correspondence is ongoing. Council will not oppose or confirm the development, because of implications for a potential OMB hearing. Peer Reviews are at the expense of the applicant. BVRA members are encouraged to continue to make statements. In the developer’s opinion, the application of 45 lots meets the density requirements of the municipality. The proposed Tim Horton’s in Markdale has had a second public meeting. There are still location, traffic, and safety issues. Future wind turbine locations are a possibility at Maxwell and Feversham. The province has taken over the planning process.

Waste diversion is problematic for Grey Highlands. There are 3 landfill sites, which have a maximum life of 13-15 years. G.H is “way behind”. There are many changes/decisions ahead.

Approval of Minutes of 2009 as circulated. M. B. Smart Sec. R. Booth Passed
Treasurer’s Report: A.Ellison. Webcosts higher than previous years due to restoration of the site. Have changed our bank plan from a professional/business account ($11.95/mo) to community plan ($1.95mo). There is minimal use of the account for 6-8 mos., and TD. recognized the community nature of the role of a ratepayers association. M. J. Carrie Sec. D. Jarrett Passed
Update: Proposed Beaver Valley Village Subdivision C. Little.
According to the AEMOT Groundwater Study Plan, this area is possibly one of the most sensitive in the province. The PPS states that for settlement areas, full municipal servicing is the most preferred model. Peer reviewers have raised concerns with the methodology of testing and analysis. The most recent reports indicate some common ground between the GH reviewer and the applicant’s hydrogeologist, but less so between the County reviewer and the applicants’ agents, particularly the karst specialist. In Dec. 2009 the County reviewer comments that incomplete data and inconsistencies fail to support conclusions about the site hydrogeology and the influence of the karst on the hydrogeology of the aquifer beneath the development site. He recommends additional testing, a pre-construction survey to document existing problems with downgradient wells, and provide baseline data for claims that may arise as construction proceeds. He suggests a water well contingency plan be put in place to identify the steps to follow, in the event a claim is made. He also calls for a phasing of development and a monitoring program at selected wells downgradient to be completed during and after each phase of development

The reviewer for the applicant disagrees with the need for additional testing. The original karst study drew conclusions based entirely on observation. Since the, measurements were taken on one day at the spring in Bowles Gully, but no other testing has been undertaken.

There is a complete lack of consideration and communication with residents on the part of the proponent’s hydrogeologist. He recommends surveying residents within 200 m. of the site. This is ridiculously inadequate.

The BVRA has sought the advice of an independent hydrogeologist who concurs with the peer reviewers. To date, the process is painfully slow, but it is working. It will depend on what the planners do with the information.

The process of proceeding to the OMB was discussed and may require additional funding.

The BVRA will continue to monitor, and strategize to insure that we have input into the conditions of the draft plan approval.

New Business: none
Election of Directors: Slate of Nominations was put forth.

Drew-Brook, Geoffrey

Ellison, Anne

Little Cathy

O’Neill, Ed

M. Bob Smart to accept the slate Sec. J. Carrie Passed

Recognition was noted for the work/input of Don McGee, Ernie Glozier, and Lou

Saunders.

Adjournment: M. T. Armstrong

Sec. S. Ewing

AGM

2010-03-14T07:27:00.000-07:00

Be sure to set aside Saturday afternoon, March 20, for the Beaver Valley Ratepayers' Annual General Meeting, at the Kimberley Community Hall. Registration is from 3:00 to 3:30 pm.

Deputy Mayor Dave Fawcett is our guest speaker this year and we look forward to hearing his state of the municipality address. During the business part of the meeting, we will update you about the BVRA board's activities for the past year, including an update on the status of the proposed Beaver Valley Village subdivision.

We hope to see you there and bring along a friend or two. Discussion is sure to be of interest to property owners in the area.

Open Blog

2010-01-25T11:52:00.000-08:00

Be aware that anyone can read this blog and leave a comment. The executive decided that this option would be far easier to administer than the option of private, members-only blog. We don't anticipate problems but certainly would reconsider our decision if need be.

Marcus Buck Review of Updated KER and Supplementary HER

2010-01-05T05:38:00.000-08:00

Here is the latest response to the BVV proponent's updated studies. For a summary of events leading up to this letter, see the post of December 12.

December 22, 2009

Attention: Randy Scherzer, Senior Planner/GIS Coordinator

Re.: Beaver Valley Village: Review of Updated Karst and Hydrogeology Reports

Dear Mr. Scherzer,

As requested, I have completed a review of the updated karst and hydrogeology reports in support of the proposed Kiener subdivision (Beaver Valley Village). I have primarily commented on issues related to karst and karst hydrogeology. The two reports are reviewed individually in some detail. I then provide two comments on the Settlement Capability Study (dated February 25, 2009) that pertain to the conclusions of the karst and hydrogeology reports. The review then concludes with a summary and recommendations for additional baseline studies and steps required to ensure that the proposed development is sustainable.

Updated Karst Evaluation Report for Beaver Valley Village Proposed Plan of Subdivision,
Municipality of Grey Highlands, Prepared by Daryl W. Cowell & Associates, October 16, 2009.

A draft version of the updated karst report was reviewed a week in advance of the final submission and many of the minor issues were discussed at that time with Daryl Cowell by telephone and resolved. The original report dated September 19, 2007 was updated to include field observations and hydrologic measurement at the Wodehouse Creek ponor and at a spring located in Bowles Gully, which is located along the Niagara Escarpment to the east of the proposed development site. The documentation of the spring and its relationship to the ponor adds important information to the characterization of the aquifer. The following are specific comments related to the updated report:

1) Section 3 (final sentence):

The final sentence of Section 3 is presumably intended to be a general statement on the hydrogeology of the Amabel Formation close to the Niagara Escarpment. Hydrogeological studies often treat the Amabel Formation as a porous medium and do not consider the influence of karst nor utilize field methods and borehole tests to determine the influence of solutionally widened channel networks that result from karst processes. Therefore, the generalization that karst is “highly localized and ‘normal’ fractured aquifer flow tends to occur within very short distances of the karst” is largely unsupported and remains to be determined. For the property in question, there has been little attempt to test for solutionally widened fracture networks and their influence on groundwater flow. The transmissivities measured in the three wells on site exhibit variations of more than two orders of magnitude (78, 7.1, 0.3 m2/day) that may reflect the influence of karstic channeling. Also, cavernous rock was observed in well TW-1 over a 3 m interval during drilling indicating the likely occurrence of karst features in the bedrock well removed from the documented surface karst features. These are both hints that channeling may occur beneath the proposed development site.

2) Section 4.4 Ponor–Spring Connection:

The conclusions made in this section are not entirely convincing given the low accuracy of flow measurements and the limited search for additional springs. First of all, if the spring located in Bowles Gully is the only resurgence for lower Wodehouse Creek, then the spring discharge should not normally be less than the sinking stream recharge at the ponor unless there are other resurgences or unless the flow at the ponor was rising in response to rainfall. Measurements were made on September 1st and again on September 16th. For September 1st, the flow at the ponor and spring was measured to be 12.3 and 8.3 L/sec, respectively. Flow should have been in recession from rainfall three days earlier so the lesser flow measured at the spring suggests the possibility that there may be another resurgence that was not found. On the 16th, two measurements of flow at the ponor suggest a significant decrease in flow from 11.3 to 7.5 L/s over an eleven hour period. No explanation is provided for this apparent decrease in flow. The flow measured downstream from the spring was reported to be 9.4 L/sec, a value that is intermediate between the two flow measurements at the ponor. The water level data from the gauging site downstream from the spring indicate little change in flow over the course of the day. Given the nature of the creek at the ponor and the methodology utilized, it seems likely that the measurements were not sufficiently accurate, especially at the ponor, to reliably determine the difference in flow between the ponor and the spring. This makes it difficult to accurately assess the contribution of regional groundwater discharging at the spring and whether or not there may be additional resurgences.

There are several well documented examples along the Niagara Escarpment where a stream sinks into karst and flows in the subsurface to several resurgences that are widely spaced along the Escarpment slope. Daryl Cowell was questioned in an email regarding this and he indicated that he investigated along the Escarpment slope 1000 m to the north and 500 m to the south of the Bowles Gully spring without finding additional discharge areas. He also indicated that there may be an intermittent spring located roughly 800 m to the south of the Bowles Gully spring but the channel leading from there was dry when inspected. This channel was inspected at the confluence with the channel coming from the Bowles Gully spring. It seems unlikely that there would be resurgences for Wodehouse Creek located farther north or south than this, although this cannot be ruled out entirely. Topographic mapping for the area shows another possible spring located 1000 m south of the Bowles Gully spring, just north of County Road 30. While the Bowles Gully spring is likely the only resurgence for lower Wodehouse Creek, there is insufficient data to be certain. The possibility of divergent flow to other springs creates some doubt regarding the overall quantity of “regional groundwater” from the development site that discharges from the aquifer along the Escarpment.

3) Section 4.5 Pumping Test:

Without continuous monitoring over a period of several days to establish trends in flow at the ponor and spring, there was insufficient data to determine whether or not the pumping test on September 16 had any influence on the discharge at the Bowles Gully spring. The slight drop in water level reported at the stream gauge could be from a decrease in the sinking stream recharge at the ponor or from the pumping test.

4) Conclusion (7):

There is insufficient characterization of groundwater flow to conclude that the conduit between the ponor and the spring is “distinct” with little or no connection to regional groundwater systems. No attempt was made to measure spring discharge during high flow periods when there may be a substantial component of “regional groundwater” discharging from the aquifer. There is also the possibility that “regional groundwater” is directed along fractures parallel to the Niagara Escarpment for some distance north or south before discharging along the Escarpment slope. Furthermore, there is also a complete lack of seasonal data from the wells to assess seasonal variations in head and potential fluctuations in groundwater flow.

Supplementary Hydrogeologic Evaluation, Proposed Residential Development, Part Lots 1 & 2, Concession 6, Township of Grey Highlands (Euphrasia), Prepared by Ian D. Wilson Associates Limited on October 19, 2009.

Additional investigations were conducted to complete the supplementary hydrogeology report, including 1) pumping tests for two additional wells drilled on the development site, 2) interference analysis to determine the cumulative effect of the addition and use of 45 wells at the development site on the existing residential wells in the surrounding area, 3) water quality analysis for samples collected from the new wells at the completion of the pumping test, as well as from the Wodehouse Creek ponor and Bowles Gully spring, and 4) analysis of MOE water well records for existing wells located nearby. The additional investigation improves the quality of hydrogeological reporting substantially and resolves some of the concerns expressed during the conference call held by stakeholders on August 6, 2009. The following are specific comments related to the updated report:

5) Figures 3 and 4 (Generalized cross-sections from west to east and from south to north):

There are some inconsistencies in the geologic cross-sections shown on Figures 3 and 4 that may lead to inaccurate interpretation of the data. The data were reviewed briefly for accuracy. The static water levels in the three wells located on the site were estimated by plotting their locations on the Draft Plan of Subdivision (DWG575-06-CP14) and using the contours illustrated on that plan to estimate ground surface elevations. The results are presented in Table 1 below where they are compared to the static water levels reported in the text of the report (p. 11-12) and as plotted on Figures 3 and 4 of the report. The water levels reported in the text are consistent but well TW-1 appears to be plotted too high on Figure 3 and 4. The other two wells are fine.

Table 1. Comparison of static water levels for the three wells located on site (in metres asl).

Well

This review, based on Draft Plan of Subdivision (approximate)

Report Text

Figure 3

Figures 4

TW-1

402.8

403

406.5

406.5

TW-4

401.3

402

402.5

402.0

TW-5

402.8

403

403.0

For Figure 4, data for MOE 25-0068 or 25-4333 could have been plotted instead of extrapolating to the south of TW1 without any data. If data for either of these two additional wells are plotted and a corrected water level plotted for TW-1, then it appears that there is only about 3 m of variation in water levels in the north-south direction along Section B – B’.
In contrast, a review of the static water levels for the various wells plotted on Figure 5 (fromMOE water well records) indicates substantial variations in water levels parallel to the Niagara Escarpment for those wells located about 75 to 150 m from the brow of the escarpment (i.e., in an approximate line from well 25-3559 in the south to well 25-15964 in the north). This is in sharp contrast to farther to the west along Section B – B’. This is an important observation that has been overlooked. It appears that fracturing and/or karst development within 150 m of the escarpment has led to wider variations in static water levels. This appears to support the conclusion that major fractures or large karst conduits do not extend west from the Wodehouse Creek ponor to beneath the development site. However, there are too few wells on site for this to be conclusive. Generally, seasonal variations in water levels have not been measured nor discussed during data interpretation. Static water levels were measured for well TW-1 on both January 10, 2007 and again on September 16, 2009. However, only the earlier measurement is listed in Section 4.4 and there was no discussion of the change in water elevation.

The method for selecting wells plotted on Figure 3 is unclear. MOE Well 25-9308 is plotted, however, the water well record for this well is not included in the print-out in the appendices. It is not clear why well MOE 25-3354 was selected rather than any of the other wells located in its close proximity. Also, wells TW-4 and TW-1 are located a substantial distance from the east- west profile. As such, the profile does not truly reflect groundwater variations perpendicular to the Niagara Escarpment.

The Wodehouse Creek downstream ponor and the Bowles Gully spring are key hydrogeologic features, yet these are not plotted on Figure 3. It would be useful to plot an east-west section that illustrates these features in relation to data from wells.

6) Section 6.0, page 12 (final two paragraphs of Section 6.0):

Several important points are made here: 1) the groundwater elevation in the vicinity of the
Wodehouse Creek ponor may be 10 to 20 m below the ponor, 2) the karst conduits extending from the ponor to the spring probably draw in local groundwater, 3) the proportion of groundwater in the spring discharge is very low, and 4) the karst conduits extending between the ponor and the spring do not appear to influence the closest well, TW-4. The following comments are provided. Well 25-3535 is quite close to the ponor and the static water level is about 390 m asl, or perhaps 11 m below the elevation of the ponor. No other wells are sufficiently close to give an indication of the water level beneath the ponor. However, during high flow periods, the water level in the conduit system beneath the ponor may rise substantially and possibly all the way up to the elevation of the ponor. The proportion of groundwater versus sinking stream recharge contributing to the spring is inferred to be very low. However, there is insufficient data to reliably calculate the component of groundwater in the discharge. Furthermore, the quantity of groundwater contributing to the spring discharge could be substantially higher during high flow periods, such as during spring melt or after storm events. There are no seasonal measurements of flow at the spring or water elevations at the wells to make any inference in this regard. Therefore, it is premature to conclude that the springshed does not extend beneath the development site and that the karst has little influence on the groundwater beneath the development site. Additional measurements at the wells and spring would be required to adequately characterize the hydrogeology of the site and the influence of karst on the hydrogeology of the aquifer beneath the development site.

Settlement Capability Study, Beaver Valley Village Settlement Area, Township of Grey
Highlands, County of Grey, prepared by Ian D. Wilson Associates Limited on February 25, 2009

The Settlement Capability Study was reviewed for any inconsistencies pertaining to the
development of 45 homes at the Beaver Valley Village. Two comments are provided:

7) Calculations of groundwater infiltration and flux on page 7 and 9:

On page 7, the annual infiltration rate for the BBVSA is calculated to be 185 mm/year. Based on this, the mean annual groundwater infiltration for the BVVSA is equivalent to 13.6 L/s.

On page 9, the mean flow of groundwater into the BVVSA within the Amabel aquifer from the west is calculated to be 8.0 L/s, based on transmissivities measured in wells, hydraulic gradient and aquifer width. The specific data utilized to calculate hydraulic gradient are not provided or discussed in detail and this is perhaps the least reliable variable in the calculation.

The combined groundwater flow from the above two calculations is 21.1 L/s. This groundwater flow will be important for providing adequate water supplies for the proposed development and for diluting any nitrate that infiltrates into the aquifer from septic systems. However, the estimated discharge of this groundwater (excluding sinking stream recharge from lower Wodehouse Creek) from the aquifer at the Bowles Gully spring on September 16, 2009 was in the order of 1 L/s or less (see Updated Karst Report, p. 9). This is an apparent inconsistency that needs to be adequately explained.

Measurements of aquifer discharge from the Amabel aquifer at exsurgences elsewhere along the Niagara Escarpment vary seasonally by as much as two orders of magnitude or more. However, there is insufficient data to suggest typical ranges for karst exsurgences. In the case of the BVVSA, most of the groundwater discharging from the Amabel aquifer at the Niagara Escarpment should discharge to the various surface watercourses that descent the Escarpment slope because the underlying rocks have very low permeability. In all probability, there should be considerable range in the “regional groundwater” discharging at the Bowles Gully spring. However, seasonal measurements at this spring or at other springs to the north or south have not been documented. This casts some doubt as to the reliability of these calculations of groundwater infiltration and flow in the Amabel aquifer.

8) Section 6.0 Groundwater Supply

As indicated previously, the hydraulic gradient used to estimate groundwater flow is not well constrained and could be inaccurate. Therefore, the groundwater flow could be substantially less and the number of homes that could be supported within the BVVSA may also be substantially less.

Summary

The updated karst and hydrogeology reports have done much to respond to previous issues and to alleviate concerns over the proposed development. There is also far better integration of theresults of the two reports. At this point, only a few concerns remain that can be readily rectified. From a hydrogeology and karst perspective, there are three areas of concern regarding the development of 45 new homes at Beaver Valley Village: 1) adequate water supply, 2) potential contamination from septic systems and 3) adequate aquifer characterization to support conclusions.

Of the three wells drilled on site, well TW-5 has the least capacity and may require the use of increased water storage. This suggests that not all wells drilled on site will necessarily have sufficient capacity. There is also potential for the new wells to reduce water levels at existing wells and some of these already have low capacity. In addition, during the pumping test at well TW-5, the water level dropped to an elevation of approximately 373 m asl. The static water elevation in the closest well to the Wodehouse Creek ponor (MOE well 3535) is approximately 390 m asl. This suggests the possibility that prolonged pumping from some wells on site could draw in water from the karst system beneath the ponor, water which is vulnerable to surface contaminants from the sinking stream, especially bacteria.

The modeling performed for the Settlement Capability Study to calculate the effect of increased nitrate loading on the Amabel aquifer from septic systems utilizes estimates of groundwater flow and infiltration rates. The groundwater flow is based on approximate measurement of hydraulic gradients. The calculation of infiltration rates is based on observations from shallow test pits. No deeper geotechnical work has been completed and monitoring wells were not installed within the overburden to measure downward hydraulic gradients. While such additional work is probably not warranted, the single estimate of “regional groundwater” discharging from the Bowles Gully spring (Updated Karst Report, p. 9) is significantly lower than predicted by the modeling and this casts some doubts in the results. Additional seasonal measurements would likely resolve this apparent discrepancy and permit greater confidence in the modeling. Water quality monitoring of groundwater in wells and at the Bowles Gully spring post-construction would quantify any increase in nitrate loading. Thus, construction phasing could be considered, and water quality monitoring of ground and surface water after each phase of development would ensure a sustainable level of development.

There are some deficiencies in the characterization of the Amabel aquifer that should be
addressed. The existing documentation lacks seasonal measurements of water levels and spring discharge and this casts some doubt regarding the modeling of groundwater flow and infiltration. There are also no measurements to determine seasonal variations in water quality. In karst terrain, there can be substantial short-term and seasonal variations in water quality, especially as a result of variations in sinking stream recharge. Finally, the geological sections should be revised to reflect the additional measurements of seasonal fluctuations in water levels. The east- west profile could be improved by including the Wodehouse Creek ponor to better reflect its importance to the local hydrogeology.

Recommendations:

The following recommendations are provided to address the outstanding issues described above. These are considered to be the minimum and a concurrent review by R. J. Burnside & Associates Limited should be consulted for any further or more stringent requirements from a hydrogeological perspective.

1) Completion of a pre-construction water well survey by mail or telephone. This would
document existing problems with downgradient wells and provide baseline data for any claims that may arise as construction proceeds. A water well contingency plan would be useful to identify the steps to follow in the event that a claim is made and the responsibilities of the proponent.

2) Burnside staff have already recommended the satisfactory construction of wells on individual lots prior to the issuance of building permits and I concur.

3) Obtain additional measurements when surface flow is high during the spring to complete the collection of baseline data. The required measurements include:

• Water quality at the monitoring wells, the Wodehouse Creek downstream ponor, and at the Bowles Gully spring. The same parameters should be analyzed at all locations to facilitate data comparison. Parameters should include on site measurements of pH, temperature and specific conductance, and water sampling for major ions, hardness, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids or turbidity, metals, nutrients and bacteria.
• Concurrent (same day) measurements of flow, temperature, specific conductance and a visual estimate of turbidity at the Wodehouse Creek downstream ponor and the Bowles Gully spring. Particular attention should be made to obtaining sufficiently accurate measurements of flow to enable an estimation of the proportion of spring discharge that is from widespread diffuse recharge (i.e., “regional groundwater”) versus sinking stream recharge. This can be calculated by comparing flow and specific conductance data. In addition, the Niagara Escarpment slope should be investigated again and as far south as County Road 30 to document any additional springs. Documentation should include: location, elevation, photographic record, flow, temperature and specific conductance and a visual estimate of turbidity. It is recognized that it may be more effective to measure flow downstream from the actual springs.
• Water levels in the monitoring wells. When added to existing data, this will provide
documentation of the approximate range in water levels at the site.

4) Review the additional baseline data and incorporate into the modeling and aquifer
characterization, if necessary. Update and improve the geologic sections.

5) Phasing of the development. This will provide an opportunity for the review of monitoring
data (water quality and well data, see next bullet) to ensure that additional phases are expected to be environmentally sustainable.

6) A monitoring program to be completed during and after each phase of development. This
monitoring should include the following components:

• Water quality at selected water wells located either at the downgradient edge of the site or
downgradient from site, at the Wodehouse Creek downstream ponor and at the Bowles Gully spring. Parameters should be the same as for baseline data (as described above) and at a minimum should be completed twice annually during high flow in spring and after an
extended dry period in late summer or fall.
• The Wodehouse Creek downstream ponor should be inspected for any accumulation of
sediment or debris that may result from construction. Direct observation and a photographic
record should be sufficient, although an elevation survey of the base of the ponor relative to a local control point would provide quantitative data. This should be completed after any
major grading and after each phase is complete. The sinkholes at Karst Area B should also
be visually inspected to ensure no accumulation of construction debris.

I trust this meets your current requirements. Should you have any questions regarding this review, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Marcus J. Buck, B.Sc., P.Geo. (Membership No. 1373)

11 San Marino Crescent

Hamilton, Ontario L9C 2B6

905-575-4759

mbuck@karstsolutions.com

Keeping You Posted and Talkback

2009-12-18T07:13:00.000-08:00

If you are reading this, then you have found the BVRA Members' Blog. Welcome. Be sure to bookmark this page and check in often. We will do our best to keep information current. Oh, and leave us a comment. We would love to hear from you.

Our official BVRA website, www.beavervalleyratepayers.ca, does a great job of informing the general public about our organization and making available our minutes and newsletters. But we wanted an additional way of communicating that would be more timely and more engaging.

It is important to all of us that interested members know what is happening as it happens. Our biggest concern right now is the proposed Beaver Valley Village subdivision. There was a great deal of public interest when news of this plan broke and our 2008 AGM was packed. Since then, it probably appears as if little has happened. We want to correct that misconception and do a better job of keeping members "posted".

We are keen to discuss the issues with members. We are interested in your advice and will need you support, especially once the studies are deemed completed and the official decision-making process is underway. Your comments on posts, provides the opportunity for dialogue not just with executive, but also with other members.

The Proposed Beaver Valley Village Subdivision and Our Water

2009-12-12T13:37:00.000-08:00

Your executive has been actively monitoring the progress of the Beaver Valley Village subdivision application, which supports a 45-lot subdivision, on individual septic systems and individual wells, on a 29.7 Ha area bounded by Windy Lane, Bowles Bluff Road and the 7th Line.

Having studied the documentation for this application, it is our opinion that the applicant’s studies are neither extensive enough nor thorough enough to provide assurance that future development will not negatively affect the quality and quantity of water for property owners in the area of the proposed subdivision.

Additional agency and peer reviewer comments are anticipated. We will continue to monitor the process. In the meantime, we are researching the feasibility of retaining our own groundwater expert to help promote BVRA concerns to Municipality and County decision makers and, if appropriate, to the Ontario Municipal Board.

A brief summary of the sequence of events until December 11, 2009 is provided below.

Initial comments from the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), R.J. Burnside and Associates Limited, a private consulting firm (RJB), and Marcus Buck, an independent karst expert, expressed concern that the studies completed by the applicant do not providesufficient evidence that water quality and quantity would not be negatively impacted for existing and future residents in the area. (Fall 2008)

The County directed the proponent to conduct a Settlement Capability Study (SCS), to assess the impact of individual services on water resources within the entire Escarpment Recreation Area. The study was completed and circulated to agencies and peer reviewers for comment. (Spring 2009)

In response, agency comments and peer reviews continued to express concern about the potential impact to the quality and quantity of water in the Beaver Valley Village Settlement Area (BVVSA), from future development.

The MOE responded that previous concerns stood as unaddressed because the Settlement Capability Study draws conclusions based on the assumption that individual wells and septic systems are the most appropriate way to service these lands in an environmentally sustainable way.

RJB stated that the Settlement Capability Study does not provide complete confidence and confirmation that the size of development proposed on individual services is appropriate and environmentally sustainable especially with regard to the quality and quantity of water resources within the settlement area.

Discussions, held between the applicant’s agents and Grey Highlands planners, to address specific concerns, resulted in an updated Karst Evaluation Report (KER) and a Supplementary Hydrogeological Evaluation Report (SHER). These reports were submitted to both Municipal and County planning departments and circulated for comment. Only Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) has responded to date, to the updated KER. (Summer, Fall 2009)

The updated KER is a response to the criticism that a deficiency of the original KER was a failure to document springs along the escarpment slope. Additional field studies were done in September 2009 to investigate the location and characteristics of the spring(s) in Bowles Gully. Conductance, temperature and depth were measured. Water samples were tested for nutrient and selected metal concentrations. The updated report also addressed other comments, such as flooding and contamination hazard, drainage relationships and impact on ANSIs. (10/16/09)

The GSCA, in its letter, noted three factual errors in the updated KER, including the assertion that the creek below the Bowles Gully spring seasonally ceases. (12/19/09)

For the SHER, two additional wells were drilled and tested during September 2009. Well testing results and interference potential were summarized. Responding to a peer review comment suggesting that current utilization of wells downgradient from the proposed development be identified, a figure showing all wells in the vicinity of the proposed development (from the MOE water well database), a summary of wells with viable location data and conclusions with respect to well yield, were included in the report. A door-to door survey was considered not viable and a mail survey not undertaken because it would have required the consent and participation of the municipality. (10/19/09)

We await additional responses to the updated Karst Evaluation Report and the Supplementary Hydrogeological Evaluation Report, from agencies and peer reviewers.

To get more information or to comment, please contact:

Cathy Little
kippawa@cablerocket.com
519-986-4369

The Point

2009-11-18T18:38:00.000-08:00

The point of this blog is to keep BVRA members informed about the issues of concern to us. As well, the blog enables members to comment, suggest or volunteer; these options are not exhaustive.

To start, as newbie bloggers, we are opening up the blog to directors only, but as soon as we get our "sea legs", we will invite all members to read the BVRA Blog.

The board looks forward to a dialogue with members, soon. We want to know what members think about the issues facing us.

Well	This review, based on Draft Plan of Subdivision (approximate)	Report Text	Figure 3	Figures 4
TW-1	402.8	403	406.5	406.5
TW-4	401.3	402	402.5	402.0
TW-5	402.8	403		403.0