So just a small taste of what may come (let's pray not) if there a bunch of trucks rolling around the Katherine/Letson/Rivers Edge Drive area of the bridge.
This morning -- my morning commute was met with 5 ...FIVE... big trucks hauling gravel down Rivers Edge Drive turning right on Katherine Street. I had to wait as one pulled out and maneuvered it's way down our narrow street. Clouds of dust billowed up to the point where I could not see the full sized light coloured pick up truck coming my way trying to make it's way past the gravel truck. The gravel trucks had to park and wait for each other to pass as they were too big to fit side by side on our street. I followed one, two were waiting at the top of Rivers Edge Drive. One was waiting to turn left onto Rivers Edge Drive and another was coming across the 86 at the lights wanting to turn on to Rivers Edge Drive. Five trucks!!! I sure hope this project finishes before we add the chaos of school buses in September. This whole scene was a matter of 7 minutes!
I'm still highly concerned about the choas this could create down at the Crowsfoot.
LB
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Gravel pit applicant opposes peer reviews
Gravel pit applicant opposes peer reviews
Published - Aug 13th, 2009 By Gail Martin Independent Editor
A gravel pit applicant is facing an additional $30,000 in costs, if he meets the requirements under the township’s new OPA 13.
That’s the message that David Sisco from IBI Group, brought to Woolwich Township council chambers on Aug. 11. Sisco is representing landowner Bob Hunsberger, whose land is being reviewed for the proposed Hunder gravel pit.
Sisco told councillors that in all of his years working on gravel pit applications, he has never had any of his reports subjected to peer reviews. Yet, in this current application, the township is asking for seven of the reports to be peer reviewed.
“I’m somewhat bewildered at why a separate peer review is required,” said Sisco, who noted that most of the reports will be reviewed by other agencies, including the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of Natural Resources.
“We are somewhat frustrated, and perhaps somewhat at odds with the peer review requests,” said Sisco.
Dan Kennaley, township director of planning and engineering, told councillors that peer reviews are required based on the size and complexity of pit applications, and also provide an extra level of “check and balances” to reports provided by consultants hired by gravel pit applicants.
“Bias may creep into work done by consultants,” Kennaley noted.
He said that while the Region does review the reports provided by consultants, it has a fundamentally different approach than that of the township, in that the Region accepts the professional credentials of the consultant as sufficient justification for the validity of the report.
In other words, the review that the Region completes on gravel pit applications stops short of a peer review, in which calculations are verified, and conclusions are either verified or questioned.
“I believe peer reviews are an important part of the planning process,” said Kennaley, who also noted that, should an application go to the Ontario Municipal Board, planners are expected to have reviewed applications to a greater level than simply accepting reports at face value.
Councillor Mark Bauman asked Kennaley whether the Hunder pit would be facing a different scenario, one with fewer peer reviews, if the original studies had been conducted by consultants listed on a pre-approved list developed by township staff.
“They probably would still be (peer reviewed,)” said Kennaley. “Regardless of whether consultants are on a list of per-qualified consultants, a peer review is a very important step that needs to take place.”
Township CAO David Brenneman reminded councillors that they had agreed to the process involved, when approving OPA 13, which was developed when the township became aware of how many gravel pit applications were pending.
He noted that there have been some “growing pains” since the new approach has been taken, which has caused some delays in the process for applicants.
In the end, mayor Bill Strauss advised township staff to work with the applicant to resolve the issues, but councillors made no move to waive the requirements for the peer reviews.
Published - Aug 13th, 2009 By Gail Martin Independent Editor
A gravel pit applicant is facing an additional $30,000 in costs, if he meets the requirements under the township’s new OPA 13.
That’s the message that David Sisco from IBI Group, brought to Woolwich Township council chambers on Aug. 11. Sisco is representing landowner Bob Hunsberger, whose land is being reviewed for the proposed Hunder gravel pit.
Sisco told councillors that in all of his years working on gravel pit applications, he has never had any of his reports subjected to peer reviews. Yet, in this current application, the township is asking for seven of the reports to be peer reviewed.
“I’m somewhat bewildered at why a separate peer review is required,” said Sisco, who noted that most of the reports will be reviewed by other agencies, including the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of Natural Resources.
“We are somewhat frustrated, and perhaps somewhat at odds with the peer review requests,” said Sisco.
Dan Kennaley, township director of planning and engineering, told councillors that peer reviews are required based on the size and complexity of pit applications, and also provide an extra level of “check and balances” to reports provided by consultants hired by gravel pit applicants.
“Bias may creep into work done by consultants,” Kennaley noted.
He said that while the Region does review the reports provided by consultants, it has a fundamentally different approach than that of the township, in that the Region accepts the professional credentials of the consultant as sufficient justification for the validity of the report.
In other words, the review that the Region completes on gravel pit applications stops short of a peer review, in which calculations are verified, and conclusions are either verified or questioned.
“I believe peer reviews are an important part of the planning process,” said Kennaley, who also noted that, should an application go to the Ontario Municipal Board, planners are expected to have reviewed applications to a greater level than simply accepting reports at face value.
Councillor Mark Bauman asked Kennaley whether the Hunder pit would be facing a different scenario, one with fewer peer reviews, if the original studies had been conducted by consultants listed on a pre-approved list developed by township staff.
“They probably would still be (peer reviewed,)” said Kennaley. “Regardless of whether consultants are on a list of per-qualified consultants, a peer review is a very important step that needs to take place.”
Township CAO David Brenneman reminded councillors that they had agreed to the process involved, when approving OPA 13, which was developed when the township became aware of how many gravel pit applications were pending.
He noted that there have been some “growing pains” since the new approach has been taken, which has caused some delays in the process for applicants.
In the end, mayor Bill Strauss advised township staff to work with the applicant to resolve the issues, but councillors made no move to waive the requirements for the peer reviews.
Monday, August 10, 2009
FORE!!!
First Annual Kissing Bridge Golf TournamentSeptember 20, 2009
How YOU Can Help
Please help to make our 2009 Golf Tournament a success. It takes a lot of dedication, time, and financial support to ensure a great event. Please invite your friends, family, and co-workers to enjoy a day of golf!
All Sponsors are Welcome!
West Montrose Residents' Association Inc.1245 Rivers Edge DriveWest Montrose, ONN0B 2V0
For more information contact:
Pat Boucher golf@bridgekeepers.ca
Registration Form PDF
How YOU Can Help
Please help to make our 2009 Golf Tournament a success. It takes a lot of dedication, time, and financial support to ensure a great event. Please invite your friends, family, and co-workers to enjoy a day of golf!
All Sponsors are Welcome!
West Montrose Residents' Association Inc.1245 Rivers Edge DriveWest Montrose, ONN0B 2V0
For more information contact:
Pat Boucher golf@bridgekeepers.ca
Registration Form PDF
Well Record Request
Individual Well Record-- form A
This is the link for the form if anyone would like to have their information on their well.
The Ministry is required to have this for all drilled wells-- on file.
http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/FormDetail?OpenForm&ACT=RDR&TAB=PROFILE&ENV=WWE&NO=012-1806
Hope this helps!
LB
This is the link for the form if anyone would like to have their information on their well.
The Ministry is required to have this for all drilled wells-- on file.
http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/FormDetail?OpenForm&ACT=RDR&TAB=PROFILE&ENV=WWE&NO=012-1806
Hope this helps!
LB
From the Elmira Independent
Residents in Woolwich Township are gearing up for a fight.
An unprecedented number of gravel pit applications — five in total — have come forward to the township.
Two, in particular, are cause for concern — one proposed by Capital Paving, near the village of West Montrose, and one on the Hunsberger and Snyder properties near Conestogo. The total property area for the pit would be 411.6 acres, of which 218 acres would be licenced.
The Capital Pit would comprise 102.7 acres, of which 94.5 would be licenced.
Three more pit applications are also underway — an expansion of an existing pit on Middlebrook Road, an expansion of the Sandy Hills Pit near Floradale, and a pit on Jigs Hollow Road, between Winterbourne and Conestogo.
Residents claim that these gravel pits, if approved, will negatively impact their way of life, through increased truck traffic, noise and loss of enjoyment of property.
There are also concerns about the environmental impact of the pits, particularly the Capital Paving pit, which proposes digging below the water table to get access to some of the aggregate.
The question is, can these pits be stopped? And should they?
After all, according to the Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, every Ontarian uses 14 tonnes of stone, sand and gravel each year.
On the organization’s website, www.theholestory.ca, it states that “our industry only produces as much stone, sand and gravel (also known as ‘aggregate’) as the market demands. In fact, we’re using aggregate faster than we can develop available supplies for the future. The projected consumption of stone, sand and gravel in Ontario for the next 25 years is 4 billion tones — and the majority of it is for public infrastructure.”
Aggregate is used for road and highway construction, including asphalt and concrete. That aggregate has to come from somewhere — and Woolwich Township is a rich source.
However, local residents are concerned, and have valid reasons for those concerns.
Tony Dowling, a spokesperson for BridgeKeepers, a group that is concerned about the Capital Paving application, said he has been in contact with other groups that have tried to oppose gravel pits.
It can be a long, draining process, one that requires money, time, and a concerted effort.
Coalition Caledon, which opposed gravel pits in their area, fought for 12 years, and spent $875,000 in the effort. Similar groups have raised similar amounts of money — with limited success.
Essentially, said Dowling, “unless you have a clear reason for the pit not to happen other than NIMBY (not in my backyard,) you are going to have a gravel pit.”
Dowling and his group claim that their opposition is not NIMBY-inspired. They have very real concerns about how the gravel pit would impact the “Covered Bridge experience,” as well as how the increased traffic of gravel trucks in the area would impact local pedestrians, including that of conservative Mennonites. They are also concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the pit, which proposes to dig under the water table as part of its plan.
Ric Holt, of Gravel Watch Ontario, a local grassroots organization based in Elora, said it is extremely difficult to fight gravel pits.
And, because most opposition comes from neighbours to the pit, it can become an intensely personal fight.
“They’ve got you where you live,” said Holt. “This is your home, where you drive, and where your kids play.”
Holt said a recent battle against a proposed gravel pit outside of the village of Inverhaugh ended badly for those who were opposed to the pit.
“People just moved out when they lost (to the OMB).”
In March of this year, a settlement was reached at the Ontario Municipal Board between Centre Wellington and the applicant, The Murray Group, even though an active citizens group, Pilkington East Residents Association, opposed the pit.
Residents in Conestogo are also raising the alarm about the proposed Hunder Pit, which would be located on the corner of Katherine Street and Hunsberger Road, just outside the village of Conestogo.
Keri Martin Vrbanac, president of the Conestogo-Winterbourne Residents association, attended the public meeting put forward by the Ministry of Natural Resources held on May 4.
At the time, Martin-Vrbanac was not convinced that traffic will not be a problem, considering the high volume of truck traffic that Conestogo already experiences on Sawmill Road, which runs right by Conestogo Public School.
“There are safety concerns already with traffic on Sawmill Road,” said Martin-Vrbanac. “And the Crowsfoot Road intersection has always been a disaster waiting to happen.”
Indeed, residents in Conestogo have already been working with the school board to improve the safety of students crossing the busy regional road, and increased gravel truck traffic — an estimated 12 truck trips per hour — is something that would only add to the problem.
These are some of the concerns facing Dan Kennaley, the township’s director of planning and engineering.
There are two approval processes that gravel pits have to go through. One is through the Ministry of Natural Resources, in which applicants face a lengthy pre-approval process before the application is presented to the public.
An application, if it meets the minimum technical standards as outlined by the Ministry of Natural Resources, is then able to proceed to a 45-day notification and consultation period. During this period, comment from the public is welcomed.
If objections are received, the applicant “works towards resolving the concerns/objections,” according to Deb Schwier, aggregate technical specialist with the MNR. If the objections are not resolved, a final report is submitted, giving the objectors 20 days to respond.
If they fail to respond, it is deemed there is no longer an objection. If there are still objections, the application is forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board for a ruling.
The second process is to get the proper zoning from the municipality, which in this case is Woolwich Township.
Gravel pit applications come in to the township, for locations that are already recognized as aggregate resource areas, through information kept by the Region of Waterloo.
Areas listed on the Region’s mineral aggregate resource area map, however, are not “designated” aggregate.
“It’s not a designation, but an understanding that there is a potential supply of gravel in the area. It’s not a guarantee,” said Kennaley, who added he has never seen this many gravel pit applications in such a short period of time. “I’ve only been here a year and a half, but we’ve never seen this many pits, or the amount of land included in all the pit applications. We’ve never seen this before.”
Kennaley, in anticipation of processing multiple pit applications, ushered through an official plan amendment at the township that requires more information from gravel pit applicants, including traffic and noise studies.
“The whole idea (of OPA 13) is to put us in a better position to evaluate these applications. We want applicants to understand more specifically what we are looking for, what reports and studies are going to be required.”
Kennaley said that while the township is required to look at and review each application, it doesn’t mean they will necessarily be approved — or get everything they ask for.
In May, a spokesman for the Hunder pit, David Sisco, noted that there are advantages to “local” gravel being extracted close to areas where new construction is slated to take place, such as in Waterloo Region, where an estimated 250,000 new residents expected to settle in the region.
“You want to be environmentally conservative, and you don’t to have to take (the gravel) all over the place,” said Sisco.
Kennaley, however, pointed out that this argument doesn’t always look at the whole picture.
“(Applicants) don’t necessarily pick the next best place to get gravel,” he said. “They pick a place where there is gravel, and a willing seller.”
The township’s job, then, is to look at each application and do an extensive review, looking at planning and environmental issues, as well as the concerns expressed by residents and neighbours to the proposed pit.
“It’s not unusual at all for an application to be influenced by community groups having input into the process,” said Kennaley. “I don’t want anyone to think we are resigned to having to support any of these applications.
“We’re obliged to look at our applications in a proper manner; part of that means, at this point, to keep a very open mind.”
Zone changes for gravel pits can take a great deal of time. Kennaley said it can take anywhere from six months to a year to process gravel pit applications.
And, at the end of that time, whether gravel pits are approved or not, there is the likelihood of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing — the final court of appeal for municipal planning.
Unless there are valid planning arguments against a pit, it is likely that a gravel pit will receive approval at this level, although there may be restrictions placed on size, extraction rates, and measures to reduce noise and traffic impacts.
However, according to Holt, there can even be more concerns once a pit ceases operating, years down the road, since rehabilitation of gravel pits seems to be spotty, to say the least.
“We did an analysis, and we found that less than half of the land being disturbed is being rehabilitated,” said Holt.
However, according to Schwier, gravel pit operators are obligated to rehabilitate their pits.
“A licence can not be surrendered until final rehabilitation has been completed or in the case of a draft plan approval for a subdivision, the licence may be surrendered before final development takes place,” said Schwier.
She said that most pits are filled with water and become lakes or large ponds.
Recently, area residents got a first-hand view of how gravel pit rehabilitation is indeed possible. In June, the Grand River Conservation Authority officially launched the Snyder’s Flats Rotary Forest, where a former gravel pit is being transformed back into a natural landscape. The area will include walking trails and restored forest and grasslands, over a 240-acre area near Bloomingdale.
Pits must also comply with many regulations, said Schwier, including the completion of annual Compliance Assessment Reports, ensuring that they are operating under standard operating conditions.
Holt, however, contends that these self-reporting methods are suspect.
That, combined reduced inspection staff also makes it difficult to ensure gravel pits are operating within the parameters specified under ministry guidelines.
“I have an email from the ministry that says pit sites are inspected once every seven years. In the meantime, they are doing self-monitoring,” said Holt.
As for Dowling, his BridgeKeepers group is keeping an active eye on the process, and continuing to inform residents of their concerns, both through a Facebook page, and by having a presence at local events, including the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival.
“We have to keep getting the message out there,” said Dowling. “You need to get the message out within our own community, that there are four or five gravel pits that will be around the village,if approved.”
An unprecedented number of gravel pit applications — five in total — have come forward to the township.
Two, in particular, are cause for concern — one proposed by Capital Paving, near the village of West Montrose, and one on the Hunsberger and Snyder properties near Conestogo. The total property area for the pit would be 411.6 acres, of which 218 acres would be licenced.
The Capital Pit would comprise 102.7 acres, of which 94.5 would be licenced.
Three more pit applications are also underway — an expansion of an existing pit on Middlebrook Road, an expansion of the Sandy Hills Pit near Floradale, and a pit on Jigs Hollow Road, between Winterbourne and Conestogo.
Residents claim that these gravel pits, if approved, will negatively impact their way of life, through increased truck traffic, noise and loss of enjoyment of property.
There are also concerns about the environmental impact of the pits, particularly the Capital Paving pit, which proposes digging below the water table to get access to some of the aggregate.
The question is, can these pits be stopped? And should they?
After all, according to the Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, every Ontarian uses 14 tonnes of stone, sand and gravel each year.
On the organization’s website, www.theholestory.ca, it states that “our industry only produces as much stone, sand and gravel (also known as ‘aggregate’) as the market demands. In fact, we’re using aggregate faster than we can develop available supplies for the future. The projected consumption of stone, sand and gravel in Ontario for the next 25 years is 4 billion tones — and the majority of it is for public infrastructure.”
Aggregate is used for road and highway construction, including asphalt and concrete. That aggregate has to come from somewhere — and Woolwich Township is a rich source.
However, local residents are concerned, and have valid reasons for those concerns.
Tony Dowling, a spokesperson for BridgeKeepers, a group that is concerned about the Capital Paving application, said he has been in contact with other groups that have tried to oppose gravel pits.
It can be a long, draining process, one that requires money, time, and a concerted effort.
Coalition Caledon, which opposed gravel pits in their area, fought for 12 years, and spent $875,000 in the effort. Similar groups have raised similar amounts of money — with limited success.
Essentially, said Dowling, “unless you have a clear reason for the pit not to happen other than NIMBY (not in my backyard,) you are going to have a gravel pit.”
Dowling and his group claim that their opposition is not NIMBY-inspired. They have very real concerns about how the gravel pit would impact the “Covered Bridge experience,” as well as how the increased traffic of gravel trucks in the area would impact local pedestrians, including that of conservative Mennonites. They are also concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the pit, which proposes to dig under the water table as part of its plan.
Ric Holt, of Gravel Watch Ontario, a local grassroots organization based in Elora, said it is extremely difficult to fight gravel pits.
And, because most opposition comes from neighbours to the pit, it can become an intensely personal fight.
“They’ve got you where you live,” said Holt. “This is your home, where you drive, and where your kids play.”
Holt said a recent battle against a proposed gravel pit outside of the village of Inverhaugh ended badly for those who were opposed to the pit.
“People just moved out when they lost (to the OMB).”
In March of this year, a settlement was reached at the Ontario Municipal Board between Centre Wellington and the applicant, The Murray Group, even though an active citizens group, Pilkington East Residents Association, opposed the pit.
Residents in Conestogo are also raising the alarm about the proposed Hunder Pit, which would be located on the corner of Katherine Street and Hunsberger Road, just outside the village of Conestogo.
Keri Martin Vrbanac, president of the Conestogo-Winterbourne Residents association, attended the public meeting put forward by the Ministry of Natural Resources held on May 4.
At the time, Martin-Vrbanac was not convinced that traffic will not be a problem, considering the high volume of truck traffic that Conestogo already experiences on Sawmill Road, which runs right by Conestogo Public School.
“There are safety concerns already with traffic on Sawmill Road,” said Martin-Vrbanac. “And the Crowsfoot Road intersection has always been a disaster waiting to happen.”
Indeed, residents in Conestogo have already been working with the school board to improve the safety of students crossing the busy regional road, and increased gravel truck traffic — an estimated 12 truck trips per hour — is something that would only add to the problem.
These are some of the concerns facing Dan Kennaley, the township’s director of planning and engineering.
There are two approval processes that gravel pits have to go through. One is through the Ministry of Natural Resources, in which applicants face a lengthy pre-approval process before the application is presented to the public.
An application, if it meets the minimum technical standards as outlined by the Ministry of Natural Resources, is then able to proceed to a 45-day notification and consultation period. During this period, comment from the public is welcomed.
If objections are received, the applicant “works towards resolving the concerns/objections,” according to Deb Schwier, aggregate technical specialist with the MNR. If the objections are not resolved, a final report is submitted, giving the objectors 20 days to respond.
If they fail to respond, it is deemed there is no longer an objection. If there are still objections, the application is forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board for a ruling.
The second process is to get the proper zoning from the municipality, which in this case is Woolwich Township.
Gravel pit applications come in to the township, for locations that are already recognized as aggregate resource areas, through information kept by the Region of Waterloo.
Areas listed on the Region’s mineral aggregate resource area map, however, are not “designated” aggregate.
“It’s not a designation, but an understanding that there is a potential supply of gravel in the area. It’s not a guarantee,” said Kennaley, who added he has never seen this many gravel pit applications in such a short period of time. “I’ve only been here a year and a half, but we’ve never seen this many pits, or the amount of land included in all the pit applications. We’ve never seen this before.”
Kennaley, in anticipation of processing multiple pit applications, ushered through an official plan amendment at the township that requires more information from gravel pit applicants, including traffic and noise studies.
“The whole idea (of OPA 13) is to put us in a better position to evaluate these applications. We want applicants to understand more specifically what we are looking for, what reports and studies are going to be required.”
Kennaley said that while the township is required to look at and review each application, it doesn’t mean they will necessarily be approved — or get everything they ask for.
In May, a spokesman for the Hunder pit, David Sisco, noted that there are advantages to “local” gravel being extracted close to areas where new construction is slated to take place, such as in Waterloo Region, where an estimated 250,000 new residents expected to settle in the region.
“You want to be environmentally conservative, and you don’t to have to take (the gravel) all over the place,” said Sisco.
Kennaley, however, pointed out that this argument doesn’t always look at the whole picture.
“(Applicants) don’t necessarily pick the next best place to get gravel,” he said. “They pick a place where there is gravel, and a willing seller.”
The township’s job, then, is to look at each application and do an extensive review, looking at planning and environmental issues, as well as the concerns expressed by residents and neighbours to the proposed pit.
“It’s not unusual at all for an application to be influenced by community groups having input into the process,” said Kennaley. “I don’t want anyone to think we are resigned to having to support any of these applications.
“We’re obliged to look at our applications in a proper manner; part of that means, at this point, to keep a very open mind.”
Zone changes for gravel pits can take a great deal of time. Kennaley said it can take anywhere from six months to a year to process gravel pit applications.
And, at the end of that time, whether gravel pits are approved or not, there is the likelihood of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing — the final court of appeal for municipal planning.
Unless there are valid planning arguments against a pit, it is likely that a gravel pit will receive approval at this level, although there may be restrictions placed on size, extraction rates, and measures to reduce noise and traffic impacts.
However, according to Holt, there can even be more concerns once a pit ceases operating, years down the road, since rehabilitation of gravel pits seems to be spotty, to say the least.
“We did an analysis, and we found that less than half of the land being disturbed is being rehabilitated,” said Holt.
However, according to Schwier, gravel pit operators are obligated to rehabilitate their pits.
“A licence can not be surrendered until final rehabilitation has been completed or in the case of a draft plan approval for a subdivision, the licence may be surrendered before final development takes place,” said Schwier.
She said that most pits are filled with water and become lakes or large ponds.
Recently, area residents got a first-hand view of how gravel pit rehabilitation is indeed possible. In June, the Grand River Conservation Authority officially launched the Snyder’s Flats Rotary Forest, where a former gravel pit is being transformed back into a natural landscape. The area will include walking trails and restored forest and grasslands, over a 240-acre area near Bloomingdale.
Pits must also comply with many regulations, said Schwier, including the completion of annual Compliance Assessment Reports, ensuring that they are operating under standard operating conditions.
Holt, however, contends that these self-reporting methods are suspect.
That, combined reduced inspection staff also makes it difficult to ensure gravel pits are operating within the parameters specified under ministry guidelines.
“I have an email from the ministry that says pit sites are inspected once every seven years. In the meantime, they are doing self-monitoring,” said Holt.
As for Dowling, his BridgeKeepers group is keeping an active eye on the process, and continuing to inform residents of their concerns, both through a Facebook page, and by having a presence at local events, including the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival.
“We have to keep getting the message out there,” said Dowling. “You need to get the message out within our own community, that there are four or five gravel pits that will be around the village,if approved.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)