July 24, 2020 · 0 Comments
By Peter Richardson
In what has become an ongoing and contentious issue for residents of the 4th line in Mono, Council once again addressed the matter of fill and the Town’s Fill By-law and the ordered removal of existing fill at 833231 4th Line, a property owned by one Robert Paul Ritchie.
Mr Ritchie, is a standardbred race horse owner, who plans to build a training rack on his property and to do so, will need to import some 22,000 cubic metres of clean fill to regrade part of his property.
Unfortunately, Mr. Ritchie illegally imported this fill in 2019 and that is what started the uproar. Despite having the best of intentions, Mr. Ritchie has found himself in hot water with the town, as he was in violation of the Fill By-law and having the required permits.
Subsequently, the Town ordered the removal of the fill, which began a process of applications for an exemption to the By-law in order to allow Mr. Ritchie to import fill from the Eglington subway excavations . It was this exemption that Council discussed on it’s agenda Tuesday, as well as the proposed plan to remove the existing fill to an address in North York. The latter will take place on July 20th.
Several residents were supportive of Mr. Ritchie’s endeavours, however there were a number with strong concerns, concerning the environmental impact of trucking in the fill, the potential for contamination, both from the existing fill and any new fill, of ground water and the disruption of their peace and quiet.
Despite a report from the ministry, that the current fill presented no contaminant problems, residents were both sceptical and concerned for the ground water and their wells. Several espoused land value worries and stated that without clean water, their properties would be valueless.
Others are concerned regarding drainage and erosion and despite a report stating that the soil surrounding the track, would adequately drain the water into the ground, expressed objections based on winter conditions, when the ground was frozen and storms and melts would cause water to simply run off to adjacent properties and possibly pool on or even flood those lands.
Many residents along the 4th Line expressed concerns for the amount of dust and road damage that the trucking would cause. The requested fill would require 1,835 truckloads of fill being brought up the 4th Line. Some residents said that even regular small car traffic produces nearly, opaque dust clouds during dry conditions already, let alone large tandem dump trucks, while others cautioned that the increased traffic would prevent the safe enjoyment of the roadway by residents and their families, during the coming months. As the area is filled with wetlands, streams and the headwaters of the Humber river, residents expressed concerns for potential damage even beyond immediate properties as well.
Councillor Ralph Manktelow wanted to know about the rehabilitation of the land once the fill was removed. He was informed by Mr. Ritchie that the land would be levelled out as it had been. He also mentioned that the trees that had been removed, had been authorized by town staff and would not be replaced. Geoff Bell P. Geo., of G2S Environmental Consulting, stated that no concerns were found regarding contaminants in the fill, in response to a question from Councillor Fred Nix and when asked by Mayor Laura Ryan if further tests were being overly cautious, answered no, that the more testing the better was the rule of thumb. Deputy Mayor John Creelman felt that more testing should be left as an option, to help assuage residents concerns. The motion to accept the removal plan, was carried.
Next up, were discussions concerning the actual exemption request. CAO Mark Early explained that the presentation, made in March, had been sent back to the Planning Committee and was now again before Council.Geoff Bell said the plan had been adapted to meet all recommendations and that only acceptable clean fill would be brought in. Councillor Nix asked why the fill was necessary and could not the field simply be levelled by grading. Mr. Ritchie answered that the soil had been looked at and was found to be sand and rock, which was unacceptable as a race track base. He explained that 4 feet of hard material, such as clay, is required to form a track base. He said his track designer, a Mr. Rayburn, is well known for building these tracks. When asked, Michael Dunmore stated that Mr Rayburn knows what he is talking about and that his only concern was that the regrading would cause a huge slope that could lend itself to erosion. Councillor Nix then brought up a point from an immediate neighbour, a Mr. Pasquale, concerning a drainage culvert proposed on his property line? When Mr. Nix asked if the drainage flow had been calculated, the answer was that the water would be absorbed by the ground and would not change from existing conditions. Then why the pipe? Councillor Nix asked. Mr. Ritchie responded that it was added as a safety measure by the designer.
Mayor Ryan then opened the floor to members of the public for commentary. Anthony Jenkins, an opponent of the plan, asked how this could be good for Mono? He felt that three months of disruption did not help to make Mono a better place to live.
Stephen Grill spoke to Mr. Ritchie suggesting he was uncooperative and in violation of the Town By-laws. He felt that if this continued, Mono would be highlighted as a poorly administered Town where certain residents were favoured over the majority. Mr. Jenkins added that the beeping of farm machinery, while in operation disturbed him and that 1800 trucks beeping was totally unacceptable.
Cindy Glassford, who lives in an old farmhouse on the 4th Line said that she can feel when trucks pass by because of her stone foundation and that that many trucks would disturb her foundation and that traffic would be unbearable, not to mention that life would be disrupted for four months.
Mr. Ritchie, in response to these criticisms, noted that it would be four to six weeks, not three months and was not Mono currently horse country? He currently spends $50,000 to house his race horses elsewhere and that he has followed ever by-law. He simply wished to house and train his horses at home. He said residents will be notified of fill days and that scheduling will be carefully coordinated.
Isabella Bakker noted that Mr. Ritchie’s interests cannot be allowed to override those of other residents. Councillor Nix noted that there were inconsistencies with the original fill remove order, while Councillor Mankdelow felt that even experts make mistakes and they should listen to the wish of the people. Deputy Mayor Creelman assured that this was not a done deal, but part of a process and every avenue would be considered. Councillor Martin said the neighbours must have a full knowledge of the plan, going forward and that it must be clear. She said a lot of experts were involved and it was getting very hard to follow events. CAO Early said the next step would be a response from Mr. Ritchie, o the issues and a report from the Town Engineers. The issue would likely return to Councillor August 18th.
A discussion paper regarding accessory building sizes on Rural zoned land raised some interesting dialogue as to it’s content numbers. These number pertain to the size of a permitted building according to the lot size and were, 2 acres or less, 49×49, less than 5 acres but greater than 2 acres, 63×63 and 5 acres or more 80×80. Councillor Mankdelow asked where the three sizes came from, in the paper and why they were chosen.
Planning Head David Trotman replied that they were gathered from similar sized municipalities after studies were conducted. Councillor Mankdelow stated that numbers should not just be copied from other municipalities, to which Mr. Trotman replied that they had not been copied, but used as a guideline for the discussion paper. The response was a request for the validity of these numbers. David Trotman said that these numbers capture the majority of circumstances. To clarify, Mark Early said that this affects all residences in Mono and that the numbers were up to Council to determine. However, the supplied sizes were from similar sized municipalities by-laws. Most lots in Mono are over 5 hectares, therefore allowing for an accessory building to be 600 m2, or 80×80, which is the maximum size allowed. By definition, an accessory building is as follows,