(10-31-2024, 04:18 PM)ac3r Wrote: "I do not believe that this is the right site for any sort of development" haha it's a vacant plot of land that has sat unused for decades. It's the perfect place for development. "We are deeply concerned about the potential contamination of our private wells along with the interruption of our water supply. We directly and solely depend on our private wells for our water" as if the millions of vehicles that drive along the 401, 8, King Street, all the little residential roads each year and all the filthy runoff that flows down the Grand River hasn't been contaminating the water supply. Nope, it'll be a small residential tower development that starts making everyone sick...
Typical nonsense from wealthy, white, boomer landowners lucky enough to live on a secluded street surrounded by forests and a river, now forced to accept the prospect of having new neighbours. Yawn.
Hopefully it gets approved without having to waste everyone's time. Though, if it ends up at the OLT then I welcome that too, since the OLT is actually pretty decent at approving projects like this.
Maybe you didn't notice - this submission was made by LJM on behalf of Imperial Oil. This is a brownfield site with known groundwater contamination from a former gas station (1960's-90's). The residents mostly draw their water from the lower aquifer. The contaminated water is currently trapped in the upper aquifer. The resident's concern is that the construction may breach this barrier between the upper and lower aquifer. Most likely that barrier won't be breached based on other data in the ESA, but it isn't really clear because they don't have precise data on the depth of the hardpan in this particular area. Why don't they have data on the depth of the hardpan in this area? Because the ESA specifically identifies drilling on this site as a risk point to the lower aquifer. There is no municipal water available at the street, either, and the city does not have services installation on the 10-year budget. So, it could be 11 years or 20 years away.
All that said - I do think that the excavation activity would basically qualify as abatement of the site, so the groundwater may be in better shape after construction.