Author: tom

Ross Earl Participant Status Request

Posted on by tom

Ross Earl is requesting Participant status on the grounds that he has an ongoing interest in opposing changes to Part K (Mineral Aggregate Resource Area) of the draft Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan, as requested by Lippa and Miller Paving in their appeals. Both Lippa and Miller Paving are objecting to a policy in Section K4 (Application Requirements) that restricts new quarries to sites farther than 2km from areas with a waterfront designation. This 2 km policy is in the current Official Plan, which has been in effect for more than twenty years.

In order to provide some context, here is a brief summary of how this 2km policy has been very important to Mr. Earl in his efforts to oppose the Lippa Quarry application. In 2017, after the Lippa applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments , with regards to to the proposed quarry, were turned down by the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council, Lippa appealed the Decision to the OMB. At the subsequent OMB Pre-Hearing Conference, Ross Earl was granted Party status, and he brought a Motion to Dismiss the Lippa Appeal, on the grounds that it was frivolous, given that the proposed quarry site was well within 2km of his waterfront property at Lambert’s Lake, in clear violation of the 2km policy. In her Decision, C.J. Bryson, the LPAT Member, did not grant the Motion to Dismiss, but she did rule that Lippa would have to apply to the Township of Muskoka Lakes for an OPA that would provide an exemption in terms of the 2km policy (refer to attached LPAT Decision). Subsequently, when Lippa applied for an OPA to deal with this issue, the TML Council turned down the application, and the Lippa Appeal has remained dormant ever since.

Ross Earl is very concerned that if the 2km policy is removed from the TMLOP, and the Lippa Quarry application is approved, then this would negatively impact opportunities to enjoy and develop his waterfront property on Lambert’s Lake. One of his main concerns is that the quarry operation, as proposed, would release large volumes of particulates into the air, and given that his property is downwind of the proposed site, this would pose a serious health threat to anyone at Lambert’s Lake. Geoff Ross, an expert on air pollution with respect to human health, sent a letter to the District of Muskoka Council, detailing why a 2km policy is needed to protect the community, especially young children, from the airborne particulates that would be generated by this kind of quarry (see attached Geoff Ross letter).

Ross Earl has been very involved in the development of the new TMLOP from the beginning of the process. He attended and participated in the initial TMLOP revision workshop that was held in Milford Bay several years ago, and he has attended many TML public meetings related to the OP revision process. He has delegated on issues related to aggregate extraction at a TML public meeting in Port Carling, on September 14, 2023 . He has spoken directly with Mayor Harding (previous TML mayor), Mayor Kelley (current TML mayor), and most of the TML Councillors, about the need to retain key policies, such as the 2km policy, in the revised OP.

The issues being raised by Ross Earl are not site specific, pertaining to only one waterfront property. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the Township of Muskoka Lakes, who own waterfront properties that could be impacted if the 2km policy is removed from the TMLOP.

Regards

Tom Newman (Representative for Ross Earl)

 

 

 

Irene and Ted Turner Letter – July 2024

Posted on by tom

Bill 185, introduced to the Ontario legislature on April 10, 2024, along with the proposed Provincial Planning statement, erodes local democracy by making OTL a developers’ only tribunal, and handing the future planning of our communities over to the development sector and the non- elected. The public will have no say over projects that effect our lives and the environment such as harmful and unnecessary gravel pits and quarries. The OLT should also be held responsible for verifying the accuracy of the reports submitted.

In December, 2023, the Auditor General’s report stated that “The management of the aggregate resources is in crisis and the province is failing to protect the public from the negative impacts of gravel mining.”

Muskoka Lakes developed an Official plan that would protect the environment. That is being challenged by the Lippa Quarry owners and Miller Paving. If the OLT allows The Lippa Quarry to proceed it will have a devastating effect on our communities forever.

Lippa Quarry will be a MEGA quarry NOT a gravel pit
– it covers 130 acres, within the Skeleton Lake watershed
– Blasting, & drilling below the water table, crushing and hauling rock
– it will have an on-site screening plant which will produce toxic silicon dust which will escape into the air resulting in serious health effects
– it will use up to 250,000 litres of water a day drawn from local creeks to wash the extracted rocks, and this will be “kept contained behind dams”. When these dams break the run-off will reach Skeleton Lake via the many small streams. OOPS! Just doesn’t cut it!
– the holes blasted out will be filled with discarded material trucked in from the south.
– this work will continue 6 am to 9 pm, 7 days a week, for the next 80 years.
– they estimate that 10 huge trucks an hour will be leaving the pit and travelling east 21 km to Hwy 11 or west 34 km to Hwy 400 through Rosseau, returning with discarded material
– Muskoka Road is classed as a scenic east to west corridor with many curves and small hills, it is 3 .7 metres wide with sloping gravel shoulders, it was built over 20 swamps and wetlands. Trucks tend to travel on the centre line. The solid yellow line goes from Huntsville to Rosseau, except for two short stretches of dotted passing spots
– in the report, (drawn up by Skelton & Bromwell for Lippa) it states that the trucks could travel an average speed of 90-100km/hr. No mention that the current posted speed limit is 80km/hr with signs for 60/70km/hr around the many curves
– in their report, (actually they call it uninhabited) there is little mention of the many people who live along Muskoka Rd 3 trying to exit their driveways, the school busses picking up children, the garbage trucks, the cyclists who use the road from Rosseau to Huntsville, the pedestrians walking on the shoulders, the animals who live in the bush on either side of the road, the number of small creeks that go from the proposed quarry to Skeleton lake.
– there are at least seven sources of gravel around this area, no quarry needed.

Skeleton Lake is listed as an ANSI lake (Area of Natural Interest)
It is pre-glacial, formed by a meteor hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is the only lake in Muskoka which is mercury free. The force of the strong vibrations from the blasting of the granite will crack and shatter the protective shell of the lake and let the mercury from the earth’s crust leach back into the lake water.

If that doesn’t do it, the thousands of tons of material being removed from the area will probably cause a shifting of the plates underground. (An earthquake happened in Wappingers Falls, New York in June 1974. Cause was determined to be the removal of tons of rock from a quarry nearby).

Not to worry! If this quarry is approved, Muskoka Lakes will be compensated by $12,000 and the district by $3000. Sorry! Huntsville District, you get $0 and lots of trucks coming your way. But you do get to help pay for road repair that is inevitable, added to your taxes.

Muskoka depends on Tourism. If Skeleton Lake is polluted, so will the rest of the lakes from here to Georgian Bay. Let’s hope the OLT does not let the greed of a few people today affect the future and health of tomorrow!

 

Concerned property owners,

Ted & Irene Turner

 

 

Geoff Ross Letter: District of Muskoka

Posted on by tom

November 12, 2023

To: Chair Lehman and District Councillors
District of Municipality of Muskoka
70 Pine Street
Bracebridge, ON P1L 1N3

RE: District Council Meeting, November 20, 2023
Agenda Item on Official Plan of the Township of Muskoka Lakes (TML)

 

Mr. Chair and District Councillors:

Being unable to delegate to the above meeting, I am herein submitting factual human health information that is highly relevant to the District’s consideration of the TML Official plan provisions for New Mineral Aggregate Operations.

 

Summary

Action proposed by the District to decrease to 500 metres the minimum distance from new mineral aggregate operations to waterfront shoreline areas, would seriously increase the risk posed by fine particulate matter (“dust”) from aggregate operations to human respiratory systems (lungs), particularly those of children.

Factual Considerations

1. The Source of the Problem

  • Aggregate operations release large quantities of fine particulate matter (“dust”) into the air.
  • Many of these particulates are of such a small size that they are difficult to capture, travel for long distances (100’s of kilometres) in the air, and penetrate deeply into the lungs.

2. Human Health Impacts

  • Since about 1955, the evidence for serious human health impacts from fine particulates has grown steadily – each new study indicating that they are more serious than previously understood. Some of the world-leading work in this field was done here in Ontario.
  • Health impacts of fine particulates include premature death, hospitalization, respiratory distress, heart attacks and other impacts that are key contributors to $ billions in health system costs each year in Ontario alone (ref. Ontario Medical Association, 2005).
  • Children are more at risk from fine particulates due to their physiology, status of development and their likelihood of being outdoors and physically active for long hours, especially at a cottage during summer.
  • The increase in childhood asthma is well known. Though the reasons for this are not well understood, air pollution, including particulates, likely plays a role.

3. Mitigation Possibilities

  • Most fine particulate emissions from aggregate operations are in the form of “fugitive” emissions, which means that they cannot reasonably be expected to be collected. Such emissions would normally include those from blasting, crushing, materials processing, loading and trucking. They are thus difficult to treat in the way that emissions from a smokestack can be treated to remove particulates. Fugitive emissions can in some cases be reduced, for example by water sprays on crushers or road surfaces. However, performance limits on such efforts are extremely difficult to monitor and enforce. As a result, substantial fine particulate emissions are virtually inevitable from aggregate operations.
  • The Province may apply point of impingement standards to determine if air quality standards are likely to be met at the quarry operation boundary. These however have a number of significant limitations and drawbacks.
  • From the above considerations, the only practical way to greatly reduce the health impact of fugitive emissions is to locate the source at substantial distance from human populations, and most notably from children.

Relationship to Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan

  • In consideration of the nature of fine particulate matter, there is likely no practical safe distance for a quarry operation from humans, notably children. However, a distance of 500 metres is, in my opinion, far too close to be considered as adequately protective of human health, particularly with respect to children. Permitting a new quarry is the occasion when it is possible to locate them as far away as reasonably possible from human habitation. (Existing quarries are not the subject of this letter)
  • Other than provisions for locating a new quarry a minimum distance from waterfront areas, there are no provisions and wording in the Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan (nor the District of Muskoka Official Plan) that are adequately protective of human health from the effects of fine particulate matter.
  • The only practical option for protecting human health from quarry dust is clear imperative direction such as, for example, “no facility [meeting this description] shall be located within 2000 metres of waterfront areas”.

Recommendation

In consideration of the human health impacts of fine particulate matter from mineral aggregate operations, particularly on children, I strongly recommend that the District Municipality of Muskoka does not in any way impede the Township of Muskoka Lakes from requiring as large a distance as possible between Waterfront Areas and new mineral aggregate operations. In no case should this distance be less than 2000 metres.

Postscript

I am aware of rationale that may be put forward alleging that recommendations such as the above are impractical. I do not believe this to be the case and am prepared to discuss this further if requested.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Geoff Ross

 

Qualifications:

MSc. Human Physiology (1976), University of Toronto, Faculty of Medial Sciences

Retired Professional Engineer, after a career primarily with Environment Canada, dealing with air pollution control, including:

  • represented Environment Canada as an expert witness in provincial environmental assessment hearings;
  • member of Canada-U.S. Air Quality Accord negotiating team;
  • represented Canada on United Nations Task Force;

All of the above dealt with air emissions in the context of their associated health impacts

 

 

MLA, FOM, MSLC, SLCO Letter: District of Muskoka

Posted on by tom

November 15, 2023

District Municipality of Muskoka 70 Pine Street
Bracebridge, ON
P1L 1N3

Attention: District Council

Dear Chair Lehman and Members of Council:

Re: November 20, 2023 Council Meeting – Approval of Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan

A number of community associations and groups, including the Muskoka Lakes Association, the Friends of Muskoka, the Muskoka Small Lakes Coalition and the Skeleton Lake Cottagers Organization, as well as many concerned constituents, have worked with the Township of Muskoka Lakes (“TML” or “the Township”) over the past four years to assist in the development of their new Official Plan (“OP”). The process at the Township level was exhaustive, lengthy and enjoyed extensive participation by individual constituents, lake associations, business interests and other interested parties. The Township adopted policies in its OP that recognize its lakes and waterways as key to its economic growth and wellbeing and prioritized language to protect them.

Approval of TML’s Official Plan, passed by the Township Council in October 2023, will be considered for approval at the District Council meeting on November 20, 2023. We are submitting this letter as a follow-up to our letter on November 13 , now that we have seen District staff’s report.

In short, we are asking Council to approve the aggregates policy K4 in TML’s Official Plan in the form approved by TML Council, without the modifications proposed by District staff. District staff’s proposed modifications to the aggregates policy K4 are shown in purple on pages 200 – 201 of TML’s OP here. We ask that you not approve the proposed changes so the Township is able to proceed with the important work around drafting by-laws in order that the full effect of the OP can come into force.

TML OP’s Two Limitations on New Aggregate Operations

There are two key features of TML’s OP dealing with the creation of new aggregate operations that we expect will be topics of discussion in the November 20, 2023 Council meeting.

  • Firstly, the OP calls for a 2km buffer between a water body and a new aggregate operation.
  • Secondly the OP calls for a new aggregate operation to be in close proximity to a provincial highway, and this is defined as being no more than 10km.

The 2km buffer has been enshrined in TML’s OP for a long time. We see no need or reason to change this long standing policy that has served the Township well. The Township’s new OP adopts a precautionary approach to guide development decisions. The growing body of evidence of the harmful effects of aggregate operations, including issues around noise, air quality, dust, environmental concerns, water quality concerns and community character, all require the precautionary approach be taken when considering a disruptive and large site such as an aggregate operation. We believe the limitations on aggregate operations adopted by TML Council are the precautionary approach.

The need for close proximity to a provincial highway is common sense (traffic concerns, safety concerns, noise concerns, wear and tear on District and Township roads, community character, air quality concerns from dust and exhaust etc), and there needs to be a quantified definition around what close proximity means, otherwise the concept of close proximity becomes meaningless.

TML Council approved these two limitations in order to protect water quality, protect the character of communities, protect the economic driver of the Township and to address the potential air quality issues coming from aggregate operations.

To clarify, the economic success of the Township and arguably the entire District depends on a healthy environment, with clean lakes and natural treed shorelines that entice seasonal and permanent residents to invest and live in Muskoka and attract tourists to the area. These residents and tourists support the retail, accommodation, construction and trades industries in Muskoka and are part of the fabric of the community. Significant aggregate operations that threaten to diminish the experience on the lakes represent a clear threat to Muskoka’s economy.

Draft Provincial Policy Statement

We have had several discussions with District planning staff about the aggregates section of TML’s OP. We understand that in their professional capacity they cannot support prohibiting new aggregate operations within 2km of the waterfront, nor can they support requiring new aggregate operations to be within 10km of a provincial highway. The reasons cited are based on the new draft Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) encouraging the proliferation of aggregate operations.

However, we believe it is still open to Council to support TML Council’s decision to adopt limitations on aggregate operations, for the following reasons:

  • Firstly, the new draft PPS is only in draft form at present, and we have no information as to when or even if it will be adopted. It’s very possible the Province may not move quickly on this in light of other development issues that are currently of major concern.
  • Secondly, the PPS enables the District to find the balance between competing interests in a manner that reflects local needs and characteristics. We believe that in the context of Muskoka, this is a pivotol consideration. Muskoka is a jewel in the Province’s crown, and it depends on its unspoiled natural beauty and tranquility for its economic success. Aggregate operations close to the waterfront threaten the quality of the water in our lakes, the air quality in the surrounding communities, the experience of residents and tourists, and the economic base of TML and the District.
  • Thirdly, the language in the new TML OP is consistent with the current PPS, which allows local municipalities to prioritize protection of the environment and important drivers of the local economy. Section 2.5.2.2 of the current PPS states: ‘Extraction shall be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social, economic and environmental impacts”. TML Council has determined that minimizing these impacts in the Township requires aggregate operations to have a 2km buffer from the waterfront, and be no more than 10km from a provincial highway.
  • Lastly, a noted purpose of the District Official Plan (in section A3(b)) is to “implement the Provincial Policy Statement at the District level in a manner that is intended to reflect the Muskoka context to the greatest extent possible while being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement’. We believe there is no conflict between this provision and the comments and recommendations in this letter.

Economic Cost of Aggregate Operations in Muskoka

Some might put forward the argument for the potential economic benefit that an aggregates operation will bring to the District/Township. We feel this argument is weak at best – more likely not at all supported. Statistics Canada (2021) reports that employment in the aggregate and mining sector makes up only 0.1 per cent of the employment in the District whereas retail trade and accommodation comprise 25.5 per cent of all employment. Further, aggregate operations pay very low property taxes. And relative to the marginal costs incurred by the municipality/district for road repair and maintenance, even many years of property taxes paid by an aggregate operation won’t resurface even a few km’s of roadway. This leads to a basic unfairness relative to other taxpayers in the municipality who will be paying the freight for inevitably higher road maintenance and resurfacing costs that these operations bring. It also could be viewed as an example of a municipality subsidizing a provincial policy directive, if “close proximity” is not contained to be a quantifiable and reasonable distance.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Susan Eplett
President,
Muskoka Lakes Association

Laurie Thomson President,
Friends of Muskoka

Jeff Crocker
President,
Skeleton Lake Cottagers Organization

Mark Scarrow Muskoka Small Lakes Coalition

Cc: Amy Back, District Clerk
Lisa Marden, Director of Planning, District of Muskoka
Elizabeth Purcell, Manager of Planning, District of Muskoka
Derrick Hammond, Chief Administrative Officer, Township of Muskoka Lakes
David Pink, Director of Development and Environmental Sustainability, Township of Muskoka Lakes

 

 

Ross Earl Letter: District of Muskoka

Posted on by tom

November 12, 2023

To Chair Lehman and Councillors, District of Muskoka Council

My name is Tom Newman, and I am sending this letter on behalf of my client, Ross Earl, a longtime resident of the Township of Muskoka Lakes (4232 Aspdin Road, Utterson, P0B1M0).

Mr. Earl is very concerned about proposed changes to the wording of a policy in Section K4 (Mineral Aggregates) of the draft Official Plan for the Township of Muskoka Lakes. The policy changes, proposed by District of Muskoka Staff, would remove the prohibition on the establishment of new aggregate operations within 2 km of the Waterfront Area. The current TML Official Plan includes a policy (Section E, Rural 14.2) stating that, “New rock crushing operations shall be limited to areas farther than two kilometres from the Waterfront designation.”, and this policy has been in effect for many years.

Mr. Earl owns Waterfront property on Lambert’s Lake, a small, pristine lake, close to his home, and since 2017 he has been fighting to stop the Lippa quarry application that would establish a new quarry less than 700 metres from the Lambert’s Lake, Waterfront Area. In a 2019 LPAT hearing, Mr. Earl used the existing 2-km policy as a key piece of evidence in his efforts to block the Lippa application. However, if the 2-km policy is modified, as proposed by District Staff, then it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for someone like Ross Earl to protect his waterfront property in this way. Mr. Earl is a retired school teacher, with a limited income, and he does not have the financial resources to hire the lawyers and consultants, who would be needed to contest an application, without this current policy.

At the TML Planning Committee Meeting on September 14, Mayor Kelley and the TML Councillors voted to reject modifications to the 2-km policy, as proposed by District Staff. Despite this fact, District of Muskoka Planning Staff continue to insist that the 2-km policy must be changed because it doesn’t comply with the the Provincial Policy Statement, citing policies in Section 2.5 (Mineral Aggregates), such as the following, “As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible.” However, these same Planners have chosen to ignore other policies in the PPS that support the inclusion of the 2-km policy in the new OP. For example, in Section 1.7 (Long Term Economic Prosperity), there is a policy stating that, “Longterm economic prosperity should be supported by … providing opportunities for sustainable tourism development.” In the Township of Muskoka Lakes, it could be argued that preventing aggregate operations within 2 km of Waterfront Areas is consistent with ‘providing opportunities for sustainable tourism development.’ Tourists don’t come to the Township of Muskoka Lakes to see the quarries and to hear the gravel trucks, rather, they come to experience the beautiful lakes and their watersheds.

Ross Earl and his wife, Sylvia, love living in the Township of Muskoka Lakes, and they are determined to do their part to protect Lambert’s Lake and the other Muskoka Lakes for future generations. Please support them by voting against proposed changes to Section K4 in the draft TML Official Plan that would weaken the existing policy that prohibits new aggregate operations within 2 km of Waterfront Areas.

Sincerely

Tom Newman (agent for Ross Earl)

 

 

Skeleton Lake history and ANSI designation

Posted on by tom

Ross Earl has uncovered some interesting facts about Skeleton Lake and the surrounding waterfront area. Please help ensure this unique part of Muskoka is protected by completing the official plan survey before fri.oct.9. Details here: Proposed Policy Directions Survey – TML OP Review

Here are some of the findings with sources listed below…

ANSI – Area of Natural Scientific Interest
Skeleton Lake is the only pre-glacial lake in Muskoka. It is an impact lake created by a meteorite 1.5 – 2 billion years ago. The north shore of the lake has an ANSI protection related to the discovery of breccias (broken rock from the impact) in the area. Much has been learned about the lake since its ANSI designation on the north shore in the 1970’s.

1989
Gary Long – journalist, Waterloo graduate in Geology and author of “This River the Muskoka” has written over 20 articles on his exploration of Muskoka’s Lakes, Rivers and creation history in the MUSKOKA SUN newspaper. Two of these articles were dedicated to Skeleton Lake.

1998
Scientists studied many lakes in Muskoka for mercury content. Only Skeleton Lake was found to have zero mercury content (0.5 ppm). Skeleton Lake was protected by a limestone shell created by the meteorite which filtered out the ground mercury from entering the lake.

2012
Scientific articles indicate that the bottom of Skeleton Lake holds some of the only history of the earth that is almost 2 billion years old and should be preserved for exploration. Cracks in the earth’s crust made on the contact follow the ridges on the north shore. Skeleton Lake has a relatively small watershed which can be protected more easily then our other lakes. It is the only mercury free pure water source flowing into the Muskoka lakes system (Rosseau, Joseph, and Lake Muskoka).

With the inherent vulnerability of Skeleton Lake, I would like to see the township Official Plan protect and promote it as a Muskoka gem. The lake is situated at the juncture of 4 townships in two municipalities. Protection of unique natural phenomenons must start with the local people and their governing bodies. It would be a shame to destroy something this rare, especially if you did not know the unique history and geology of Skeleton Lake.

Sources

  1. Micheal W Milner – Geologist, Geomorphologist
  2. Gary Russell – retired diamond driller (Canadian Shield, Columbia)
  3. 1997 – Mercury in the Lake Sediments of Precambrian Shield – Huntsville, Ont, Canada
    – P E Rasmussen (Geological Survey of Canada)
    – D S Villard – Ont. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
    – H D Gardner – Ont MNR
    – S I Schiff – Dept.of Earth Sciences University of Waterloo
    – W W Shilts – Illinois State Geology Survey
  4. A primer on the Geology of Skeleton Lake and Environments
    – 2010 Charles Barrie
    – Impact Crater Explorations – Charles O’Dale
    – A Paleozoic Impact Creator in Central Ont. Canada
    – Skeleton Lake – Waddington M R Dence – 1979
    – Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
  5. 1974 Earthquakes Triggered by Surface Quarrying
    (New York State Science Service – Series # 189
  6. Gary Long – Waterloo graduate in Geology and known author of “This River the Muskoka”.

 

 

Ted & Irene Turner Letter: Globe and Mail

Posted on by tom

This letter was sent to The Globe and Mail in response to the following article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-residents-cottagers-in-ontarios-muskoka-region-fight-quarry-proposal/

 

Air Pollution! Water pollution! Traffic Horrors! Impact on Wildlife! Noise!

There is no positive reason to allow a quarry of this magnitude to be developed in this area. It will be of no benefit to area residents nor to any of the cottagers or tourists who frequent this area. The carnage it will have on the environment will be irreparable. Despite claims by the proponents and their paid advisors, no one person can be sure that this pit and quarry will not have significant environmental impact on the water quality of Skeleton Lake. Shouldn’t our goal be to try to preserve this unique area for generations to come so that they can interact with nature, recreation, and history in a positive way. Our ancestors had the foresight to classify this area as environmentally sensitive. That is the way it should remain.

Personally, we have owned property on Long Point Road, Skeleton Lake since 1952. Our cottage , built in 1979, is on a small, shallow bay. The stream that feeds into this bay has its beginnings at the proposed quarry site. Any pollutants-airborne or by water- from this site will have detrimental effects on the water of this bay, and the fish , turtles, ducks, herons , loons and the people who make their home here.

In addition, given the expected increase in the massive trucks using Muskoka Road3, we will cease to be able to enjoy the peace and quiet. Already, the sound of traffic is clearly heard as the vehicles contend with the hills on the road directly across the bay. What happens when you have an extra 100 trucks a day? This proposed quarry (less than 2 km distance) will not be just gravel pit but a quarry where there will be blasting of bedrock that will make the ground shutter and the non-stop noise of huge machines grinding it into small pieces. The proposal states that this operation will be seven days a week from May to November for the next 50+ years.

For over 60 years , we have paid mega taxes to enjoy our cottage and property. Is it going to be destroyed by greed and lack of empathy for our environmental gifts?

The proponents of the Lippa Quarry would be transporting their material on Muskoka Road 3 going west through Rosseau and 21 km east towards Huntsville. This is a two way road with curves, hills , blind corners , hidden driveways and gravel shoulders. Large trucks ride the yellow line . It is intimidating for any drivers let alone seniors to continually meet these deadly machines. This road is classified as a “scenic” route. Who will have time to look at the scenery?

Situated about halfway between the pit and Huntsville is the Aspdin Community Centre-originally S.S.# 2 built in 1893. It is a central gathering place for dinners, potlucks, social events, weekly card parties, senior groups, programs for children etc. When large trucks pass , the building rattles making it impossible to hear. What happens when there is a constant flow of huge trucks passing?

The economic gains of one company should not be allowed to cause permanent harm to residents , wildlife and the local tourism industry which has flourished here for decades. This is tourist country not mining country.

 

Ted & Irene Turner

Huntsville, Ontario

 

 

 

Lena Letter: Globe and Mail

Posted on by tom

This letter was sent to The Globe and Mail in response to the following article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-residents-cottagers-in-ontarios-muskoka-region-fight-quarry-proposal/

 

To the Editor of the Globe and Mail,

Re:Residents, cottagers in Ontario’s Muskoka region fight quarry proposal near unique Skeleton Lake

We live close to the proposed quarry site in a modest house living a simple life. How will this quarry impact our quality of life, our health and well being? What is the human cost to the many families living nearby?

I do not want health problems from breathing silica dust. I do not want my house shaking and damaged by the blasting. I do not want the animals to disappear. I do not want my well water poisoned. I do not want my peace disturbed by the constant rumbling of gravel trucks by my door.

Perhaps the people who want to build these quarries should be made to live next door to one and experience firsthand the devastating impact it would have.

Lena

 

 

Tom Newman Letter: Globe and Mail

Posted on by tom

This letter was sent to The Globe and Mail in response to the following article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-residents-cottagers-in-ontarios-muskoka-region-fight-quarry-proposal/

 

Thank you to John Lorinc for writing an excellent article about the fight to stop the development of a quarry near Skeleton Lake, Muskoka. I just want to elaborate on several of the issues that Mr Lorinc identified in his piece.

My grandfather, Harry Newman, built a cottage on the north shore of Skeleton Lake in 1934, and members of my extended family have been cottaging there ever since. I personally have been visiting this area for more than sixty years, and in this time have seen many changes.

While the water still appears to be exceptionally clear, large blooms of algae have become increasingly common in recent years. A significant increase in phosphorous levels if the quarry goes ahead, as predicted by Gord Miller, would cause this algae problem to escalate rapidly, and to get out of control.

Muskoka Road 3, is proposed as the principal haulage route for the trucks from the quarry, and it runs within 100 metres of the shoreline at Newman’s Bay, where the trucks must climb a steep hill. Truck noise is already a serious problem for permanent residents and cottagers in this area, and the sound travels unimpeded across the lake, and can be heard clearly by cottagers on the southern shore.

Muskoka Road 3 is also designated as a Scenic Corridor in the Official Plan of the Township of Muskoka Lakes. It is a popular route for tourists in cars and buses, on motorcycles, on bicycles, and on foot. The proposed quarry would increase traffic by over 100 trucks per day during the height of the tourist season, a recipe for disaster.

Tourism is a sustainable industry that creates jobs and wealth in Muskoka, and this quarry proposal has very little upside, and a whole lot of downside.

Tom Newman

 

 

Letter from Kent Bonkoff

Posted on by tom

This letter was sent to The Globe and Mail in response to the following article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-residents-cottagers-in-ontarios-muskoka-region-fight-quarry-proposal/

 

Re Residents, cottagers in Ontario’s Muskoka region fight quarry proposal near unique Skeleton Lake (April 1st):

Imagine a postcard perfect Ontario wilderness lake in front of you. You can drink the water, loons call and swim by in the early morning. How is it possible that one could be so lucky to enjoy such a place, and it still exists? Then a ten or twenty ton gravel truck rumbles down the road behind you, a road categorised as a scenic route through what Muskoka Tourism says is “consistently named as one of the best places to visit in Canada and the world by publications such as National Geographic, Frommer’s and Reader’s Digest. Discover what makes Muskoka so amazing.” Those trucks are already rolling by every day, but for now mostly for a few peak hours in the mornings and evenings, less frequently on the weekends. The proposed quarry near Skeleton Lake would turn up the volume to a constant flow seven days a week, dawn to dusk and beyond. Traffic noise levels now exceed 80 decibels while sitting on the shore. Unfortunately, planners with a lack of foresight never imagined trucks using this scenic route as a shortcut between highway 11 and 400 and placed the road extremely close to Skeleton Lake on the north side. It passes less than 100 feet from many dwellings and the lake. Now they risk making the same mistake again. More than 100 trucks a day could be rumbling by. I don’t think the loons would like that. It might be a bit difficult to discover what makes Muskoka so amazing once phosphorous and mercury levels rise and pollute first Skeleton Lake and then Lakes Muskoka and Rousseau. Oh, but you might never get near the water as the noise and dust from the gravel trucks would scare you (and the loons) away.

I thank you for your excellent article and putting a spotlight on this issue.

Kent Bonkoff
Utterson, ON
(Skeleton Lake)