4 council when it refused to approve the proposed development.8 In addition, the proposed development cannot be approved under the Planning Act unless the Tribunal finds, on the basis of the hearing record, that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the City’s OP, and otherwise respects principles of good planning.9 15. [...] While the Appellant presented witnesses from the MNRF and CRCA who appeared under summons, the Appellant failed or refused to call a witness from the MECP despite the Appellant’s considerable reliance upon the RSC/CPU process as the means for addressing outstanding concerns about the nature, details, efficacy, and implementation of the conceptual remediation plan for the subject property. [...] In the circumstances, it is unclear why the CRCA abandoned its well-founded opposition to the proposed development26 and now supports the destruction of the on-site PSW instead of insisting upon the timely cleanup and restoration of the PSW (e.g., ex situ remediation). [...] The first, Figure 8 in the 2019 XCG Phase 2 ESA, shows in the southern portion of the site the XCG “inferred groundwater flow direction” is to the east.56 In the north in the vicinity of the PSW, inferred groundwater flow direction is both to the east and to the west despite the lack of groundwater contour information for much of the wetland.57 47. [...] For the purposes of ensuring consistency with PPS Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the Appellant needed data on both horizontal and vertical gradients to evaluate contaminant movement arising from the proposal to grub, excavate, and cap the site, including the wetland.61 The lack of vertical hydraulic gradient information undermines the adequacy and reliability of the XCG hydrogeological characterization.
Authors
Mentioned Organizations
- Pages
- 33
- Published in
- Canada
