HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin-8-96 AddendumMeeting:
Date:
Report #:
Subject:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
:1 . CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY 1 1
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
JULY 21 1996
ADDENDUM TO REPORT 8-96
File #:
ST. MARYS CEMENT
Recommendations:
File #--� r
Res.
By -Law #
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. That Addendum to Report ADMIN. 8-96 be received for
information; and
2. That Report ADMIN. 8-96 be lifted from the table and
recommended to Council for approval.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1. On April 22, 1996, Council approved Resolution #GPA -265-
96, which reads as follows:
Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Novak:
THAT Report ADMIN -8-96 be tabled to allow for the Chief
Administrative Officer to liaise with St. Marys Cement, The
Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the Port Darlington
Community Association Inc. Ratepayers.
1.2. As directed by Council, staff held a public meeting to hear
the concerns of St. Marys Cement, The Waterfront Regeneration
Trust, The Port. Darlington • Community Association Inc.
Ratepayers, and all other interested parties regarding the
recommendations as reported in Report Admin -8-96. This meeting
was advertised in the Canadian Statesman and was attended by
approximately..sixty interested parties.
2. MEETING -STRUCTURE
2.1. The public meeting was chaired by the Chief Administrative
Officer of Clarington and attended by the Director of Planning
and Development, the Public Works Director, and the Municipal
Solicitor in order to answer any questions that the residents
RECYCLED PAPIER
PAPER RECYCLE 1201
THIS IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
may present, as well as explaining the process followed in
drafting Report ADMIN.8-96.
2.2. The meeting commenced with the Director of Public Works making
a presentation explaining the process that was followed in
reaching the staff recommendation proposing the Cove Road
Route as the preferred access to Cedar Crest Beach Road,
should Council agree to exchange Waverly Road with St. Marys
Cement for wetlands in the Westside Marsh area. Mr. Vokes
stated the following:
The "Berm Route" was eliminated because:
*
the berm would be 45 metres wide to ensure sufficient
setbacks from the extraction area and the
marsh,
resulting in a 12 acre reduction of marsh area;
*
1,050 metres of new road would be built at a considerable
cost, a minimum of $600,000 over the two
other
alternatives;
*
the effects of salt or other de-icing materials
on the
marsh is a concern;
*
safety is a concern;
*
a creek crossing would still be required.
The
"Ramble" and "Cove" routes were examined as shown
in the
Trust's
report but were also modified. These modified
routes
were
eliminated because:
* the bridge and the approaches were twice as long, acting
as a causeway and would have greater environmental
effects;
* the cost would be $200,000 more than the "Cove route";
* cost of constructing a new road would be great;
* the "Ramble route" is an indirect route.
The "Cove route" was chosen because:
* it is a direct route;
* environmental impacts are minimized;
* Cove Road already exists, therefore no new roads will be
built, and there will be less disturbance of the natural
environment;
* it was not chosen because it is the cheapest route.
1202 . ,
3. QUESTIONS FROM THOSE IN ATTENDANCE
3.1. Following the presentation a number of questions were asked
from the floor prior to taking comments on the report from
those in attendance.
The following questions and responses took place:
3.2 Q Why Staff's report did not discuss the proposal as a
package. If one piece is omitted, such as the relocation
of the stone -crusher, the intent of the proposal will no
longer be met.
A Staff -noted the municipality agreed to participate in the
process but did suggest that it may be difficult for the
municipality to participate financially. Staff does not
agree that if one piece of the proposal is omitted, it
will not work. The report provides Council with some
options rather than an "either/or" situation. As it
stands now, the package is very "pricey" for the
municipality.
3.3 Q Had Staff examined the environmental impacts of the
modified routes,
A Staff did not carry out specific environmental impact
studies on any of the routes other than reviewing the
environmental activity carried out by the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust. Once Council decides on the access
route to Cedar Crest Beach, staff will build on the
environmental impact information provided by the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
3.4 Q What the width of Cove Road would be and the expected
impact on Cove Road community.
A Staff reported that the road width would be similar to
what exists at the present time. Negligible or no
ditches are proposed rather than curbs,, gutters and catch
basins. There will be little disruption of the trees
along the road. There will be little change in
elevations of Cove Road, except at the approaches.
3.5 Q What will happen at the intersection of Cove Road and
West Beach Road;
Would stop/yield signs be required;
Will the hedge at 103 Cove Road be removed;
What will happen with the post boxes
What would happen if the municipality did not give
1203
Waverly Road to St. Marys,
A Staff noted the municipality would improve the
intersection, including visibility. The post boxes may
be relocated. Once Council has indicated they will
proceed with the proposal (or part of the proposal) the
municipality will spend money on detailed designs.
3.6 Q Had staff examined the continuation of Liberty Street,
A Staff indicated that the Official Plan requires a grade
separation over CP Rail at Liberty Street, but it may not
be built for a number of years. It may proceed when
development starts in the Port Darlington community.
3.7 Q Why would the municipality allow the stone crusher to
relocate to West Beach Road,
A The Director of Planning advised the meeting that he did
not have the Official Plan document at hand and therefore
could not comment on the zoning of the West Beach Road
site, but would address the issue in the report to
Council.
Since that time the Director of Planning has advised that
the area north of the Cove Road community, west of West
Beach Road is owned by St. Marys Cement and is zoned
"Extractive Industrial Exception (M3-1)" which allows a
cement manufacturing plan in addition to all the uses
allowable under the general 11M3" zone. "Extractive
Industrial (M3) " zone allows, among other uses, aggregate
stockpiling and processing. Therefore, stone crushing
operation is permissable. However, a transportation
depot is not permissable.
We understand the current operation at Waverly Road
consists of stone crushing, aggregate stockpiling, Redi -
mix manufacturing and storage of transport trucks, and
the property is zoned "Extractive Industrial Exception
(M3-2)". Therefore, if the identical operation were to
relocated to the M3 zoned land, truck storage uses would
not be permissable and would require rezoning.
12 1 4
4. COMMENTS FROM THOSE IN ATTENDANCE
Generally, the comments made by those parties in attendance
can be grouped into seven categories as follows:
4.1 The lack of the environmental assessment by the Trust or the
municipality prior to recommending the Cove Road route to
Council.
4.2 Concerns that the municipality will not participate in finding
an alternative location for the CBM stone crusher.
4.3 The increase in traffic flows on Cove Road, West Beach Road
and in the Port Darlington area.
4.4 Level crossing at Port Darlington Road.
4.5 Concern over longer response time from emergency vehicles to
reach the far end of Cedar Crest Beach Road.
4.6 The appearance of the reconstructed Cove Road.
4.7 The Waterfront Regeneration Trust report should be adopted as
a package. Any piecemeal adoption of the report would destroy
the integrity of the document.
5. STAFF COMMENTS
5. In response to the comments put forth by those in attendance,
we are presenting the following:
5.1 Should Report ADMIN. 8 - 96 be approved by Council, staff
would then recommend the environmental assessment comments
made by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust in their report of
the West Side Marshland and build on those comments so that
any final recommendations to Council would cover the
environmental issues.
5.2 The Waterfront Regeneration Trust report stated that the CBM
stone crushing and Redi -Mix operation on Waverly Road would be
transferred to an industrial area provided by Clarington
within two years of an agreement.
Staff is recommending in Report ADMIN. 8-96 that the
municipality does not participate in the issue of relocating
the stone crushing operation and providing an industrial
location for that use. This recommendation was made for two
reasons. Firstly, the cost to provide such a site would be
onerous on the municipality, and secondly, unless such a site,
together with Waverly Road, be of equal value to the wetlands
that would be transferred to municipal ownership, the
municipality would be in a position of making a grant to a
1205
private corporation, which we believe would be contraryto the
Municipal Act. However, if con
sideration is to be given to
such a move, we would recommend that a legal opinion be
obtained from the municipal P
p solicitor in this regard.
5.3 Most certainly if the Cove Road access route replaces Waverly
Road, there will be increased traffic y
flows on Cove Road, West
Beach.Road and the general Port Darlington area.
5.4 In addressing the question of providing a level crossingat
the railroad tracks at Port Darlington
Road, this again would
be a major cost to be financed by one or all of the
participating parties and is not addressed in the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust report.
5.5 The response times from emergency vehicles have been addressed
by the Clarington Fire Department and seem to be at an
acceptable level.
5. 6 Although there is a concern about the appearance of the final
reconstruction of Cove Road, the plans concerning the
reconstruction are in keeping with the present rural setting.
5.7 Although some of the residents in attendance made theP oint
that the Waterfront Regeneration. Trust report should not be
adopted in a piecemeal fashion, and if not adopted as a
package, should not b e adopted at all, staff is of the
opinion that this is not necessarily a reasonable approach to
take, given the fact that the overall object of the exercise
is.to save as much of the marshlands as possible. If it is
the overwhelming opinion of the residents in the area that the
location of the stone crushing plant could be a "deal -breaker"
in implementing an agreement, we would then see the situation
return to where it was prior to the Waterfront Regeneration
Trust being invited to participate in this project. At that
point it would be up to St. Marys to decide whether it wished
to proceed with the permits to mine the marshland and it would
be up to the municipal Council to decide whether it would
oppose such a move by St. Marys. In the opinion of staff, too
much has been accomplished by the Watef rout Regeneation Trust
to fall back to a position of confrontation between the
municipality and St. Marys Cement.
1206
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Staff is of the opinion that Report ADMIN. 8-96 should be
approved at this point in time to allow staff top roceed to
carry out property evaluations, environmental evaluations,
etc. and be in a position to report back to Council in
September of 1996 with a final recommendation as to both the
cost of the construction of an alternative access to Cedar
Crest Beach Road, and how any financial participation on
behalf of the municipality can be carried out without a
detrimental effect on the municipal assessment.
Respectfully submitted,
W. H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
WHS:nof
1207
THE CORPORATION OF THE TONIN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
Meeting: GENERAL-PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: APRIL 22 1996
Report #:AIBJM 1 N 0
_ F�:
Subject: S T . MARYS CEMENT
Recommendations:
File # �C� � • ��
Res. # GP F
By-Law #
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the -
following •
1. That Report ADMIN. 8-96 be received for information;
2. That Council advise all interested parties that the
Municipality will not provide an industrial location for
the transfer of the CBM stonecrushing and ready -mix
operation;
3. That Council agree that, should the ownership of Waverly
Road be passed over to St. Marys Cement, as recommended.
in. the Waterfront Regeneration Trust's Report and
Recommendations on the Westside Marsh, the alternative
road access to Cedar Crest Beach be "The Cove Road
Route as described in the aforementioned report;
4. That the Chief Administrative Officer, with appropriate
staff, be directed to commence negotiations with any
property owners that hold land designated in the "Cove
Road Route's in order to obtain ownership on behalf of the
Municipality so that construction may commence sometime
in the future;
5. That the Chief Administrative Officer commence
negotiations with St. Marys Cement and any Government
body that may participate in the construction costs of
the Cove Road Route, in order to- identify any cost to the
Municipality;
G. That a report be brought forward to Council identifying
the results of all negotiations, and the recommended
source of funding that would not result in an adverse
effect on the municipal tax levy, should the municipality
be called upon to participate financially in the
RECYCLED PAPIER
PAPER RECYCLE
THCS IS PRJNTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1208
construction of the Cove Road Route access to Cedar Crest
Beach;
7. Upon completion of the foregoing, assuming that any
financial contribution on behalf of the municipality does
not have an adverse effect on the municipal tax levy,
Clarington agrees to participate in the Implementation
Committee as recommended in the Waterfront Regeneration
Trust Report of November 1995; and
8. That this report, together with Council's actions, be
forwarded to the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, St. Marys
Cement Company, the Port Darlington Community Association
Inc., as well as those interested parties to this issue.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 In November of 1995, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust
delivered their Report and Recommendations on the Westside
Marsh. This report came forward as the result of a request
from the Municipality of Clarington and St. Marys Cement
Company to the Waterfront Regeneration Trust to assist in
finding a solution to several outstanding issues surrounding
the operation of St. Marys in the area of the Westside Marsh,
as well as the proposed mining of the marsh itself.
1.2 In preparing the Report and Recommendations, the Waterfront
Trust presented an Interim Report in June, 1995, recommending
the formation of work groups of stakeholders to assist in the
preparation of a "Plan" that would address the numerous issues
surrounding the St. Marys operation in the Westside Marsh
area. After numerous meetings, the Trust presented their
report that recommended that St. Marys continue to quarry a
portion of the Westside Marsh, while "a major portion of the
existing Westside Marsh will be retained including the habitat
most important for fish, birds, plants and animals. The Marsh
will be nearly two thirds of its present size, and new habitat
will be provided in order to, achieve no net loss overall. As
much as possible of this habitat will be created on site, and
any shortfall will be made up by augmenting habitat in nearby
marshes."
2. ST. MARYS' INVOLVEMENT
2.1 As described in a letter from St. Marys to Council, dated
January 9, 1996, the "Plan" called upon St. Marys to do the
following:
a) To "freeze" 36 licensed acres of limestone so as to
preserve the existing marsh thereon. As partial replacement of
limestone, St. Marys would receive the Waverly Road right of
way.
1209
b) To transfer ownership of the 37 acres adjacent to Cedar
Crest Beach known as the south buffer. The end result is
expansion of the naturalized area from the original 37 acres
to 73 acres.
c) To transfer St. Marys lands on West Beach Road now zoned
"Extractive Industrial" for parkland, with the result that
there would be adjacent to and including the Marsh over 100
acres of parkland and natural area. The consequences of the
foregoing are as follows:
i) It removes the potential for CBM ready -mix, the
stonecrushing operation and Hutton Transport being
relocated to the West Beach Road property.
ii) It eliminates any future potential for St. Marys to
pursue an expansion to its quarry on this abutting 36
acres now zoned "Extractive Industrial".
d) To relocate the CBM stonecrushing and ready -mix operations
from Waverly Road to a suitable new location supplied by the
Municipality of Clarington within two years of the agreement.
}
There are costs associated with the move, and, while these
operations ultimately would have to have been moved, the two-
year requirement consumes capital at an earlier date.
e) To dedicate to the Municipality of Clarington three parcels
of land totalling 13.5 acres over and above the 37 acre parcel
directly north of Cedar Crest Beach Road.
f) To bear the cost of the diversion of Westside Creek around
the licensed area. There is a significant additional cost,
estimated to be in excess of $2.5 million, to St. Marys to
implement this recommendation given the longer route and
larger volumes of overburden required to be excavated.
3. MUNICIPAL INVOLVEMENT
3.1 The Regeneration Trust's Plan calls upon the Municipality of
Clarington to do the following:
a) Clarington will Close and transfer to St. Marys about 4
acres of Waverly Road thereby allowing the Company access to
limestone under Waverly Road and 12 acres of its own land; St.
Marys, at its own expense, will relocate the Waverly Road
portion of the Westside Creek east and then south into the
Westside Marsh.
b) Clarington will provide access to Cedar Crest Beach by a
bridge and road connection to West Side Beach Road.
c) Within two years of the agreement, Clarington will provide
an industrial location for the transfer of the CBM
stonecrushing and ready -mix operations.
1210
4. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
4.1 The Waterfront Regeneration Trust recommended three steps to
implement the Plan:
a) establishment of an Implementation Committee;
b) formal applications by St. Marys to the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans with a full proposal, based on this
integrated plan; and
c) following approval in principle of St. Marys' application
by DFO, the Implementation Committee should commence
coordination of the integrated steps in this plan, including
the necessary permits and approvals.
5. MUNICIPAL ACTIONS
5.1 Upon receipt of the Regeneration Trust's Plan, Council
directed Staff to identify potential costs against the
Municipality should the Plan be carried out as proposed. It
should be noted that when the Regeneration Trust introduced
its interim report in the summer of 1995, requesting
participation from the stakeholders to assist in the drafting
of the final report, Staff advised the Trust that they were
participating in the committee process on the clear
understanding that no financial commitment could be made on
behalf of the Municipality, given the budgetary restraints
that the Municipality was facing at that time. Since then,
Provincial cutbacks of Transfer Payments have resulted in even
greater pressure on the municipal budget.
5.2 Over the past few months Staff has obtained an Impression of
Value of the Waverly Road property as well as attending a.
number of meetings with both St. Marys and the owners of the
properties that would be affected by the construction of the
proposed alternative routes to Cedar Crest Beach, in an
attempt to identify costs that would be directed towards the
Municipality in the Regeneration Trust's Plan.
5.3 Staff has also requested Ontario Hydro to give consideration
to making available a portion of their Darlington NGS site for
the relocation of the CBM stonecrushing operation, as
recommended in the Plan. We have now been advised by Hydro
that such a proposal was not in keeping with their future
plans. We would recommend that Clarington not participate in
providing an alternate site for this operation.
12ji
6. IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
6.1 Prior to Clarington.'s commitment to the Implementation
Committee, it is imperative to clearly identify the potential
cost exposure to the Municipality, and ensure that the
municipal tax levy is not adversely affected by any financial
involvement on Clarinca ton' s behalf.
6.2 Upon reviewing the three proposed alternative routes to
service West Beach Road, should the ownership of Waverly Road
be transferred to St. Marys, staff would recommend the Cove
Road Route. The attached map identifying the three proposed
routes indicate the pr=vately owned lands that must be crossed
for construction purposes. A preliminary cost of acquiring
such land on the Cove Route, plus the cost of building the
road and bridge, would be between 1.5 and 2.2 million dollars.
6.3 It is recommended that staff proceed to negotiate the purchase
of private lands to accommodate the construction of the Cove
Road Route, as well as continue to identify any potential
financial assistance from other levels of government, and St.
Marys Cement Company.
6.4 Once staff reports the outcome of these negotiations to
Council, identifying any financial involvement on behalf of
Clarington, as well as a source of funding that would not
adversely affect the municipal tax levy, Council may then
commit to participate in the proposed Implementation
Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
W. H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
WHS : no f
att.
121L
RAiLWA
N �
WEST SME cmc
owMM
"
' ®
H1rDA0
1 _
out
t t
New Parkland ` 1
i a1 I
j
/ BERM' ROUTE 1
1{NIt1{{{11/INI{{1{{fltt{ft{�Nll{fl{I{INf/ltllllllt{Nltift ;
of �,cnoK
urn
144414111 oil
r �V
WOCfD UPLAND 1
FORM KM 1 �
0
!
•
U
,{{s{s{s u{{B{ �{{N�,118fu{u{{{l (...J
vim S=
a
. o
Q�
�
•
= moo �ROUTE �
t�
t
LAKE ONTARIO
ROAD CROSSING
'mileOPTIONS,
®�®
a
• ,�
LEGEND
®
itat»ituttft»ttttt)tit ROAD AM/OR CROSSING
e �
Date: Nov. 1995