HomeMy WebLinkAboutADMIN-11-97w ~`
` ~ s
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting:
Date:
Report #:
Subject:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION
APRIL 7 1997
ADMIN.11-9F3ile #:
ST. MARYS CEMENT AND THE WESTSIDE MARSH
File # d~ ~ ~~
Res. # ~ ~-~ -9~
By-Law #
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report ADMIN. 11 - 97 be received;
2. THAT Council extend its appreciation to the Honourable David Crombie and
staff of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust for their past involvement in
the Westside Marsh retention project;
3. THAT the Honourable David Crombie and staff of the Waterfront Regeneration
Trust be requested to continue in assisting St. Marys Cement in their
efforts to negotiate lands from Ontario Hydro in order to accommodate the
proposed project;
4. THAT Council advise the Honourable David Crombie and the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust that Council will not take a position on relocating the
stone crushing plant on the lands presently owned by Ontario Hydro
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station until such time as a final decision
has been made pertaining to the siting of the ITER Project;
5. THAT Council authorize the payment of invoices from Totten Sims Hubicki
for their work to date and that payment of such invoices be obtained from
the Pits & Quarries Reserve Account #2900-00018-X; and
6. THAT Council direct staff to negotiate with St. Marys Cement regarding a
financial package to cover the cost of the Cove Road project in order to
deed Waverly Road to St. Marys Cement in exchange for the lands presently
owned by St. Marys as identified in the Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Report of November 1995.
1. BACRGROIIND
1.1 At its meeting of March 24, 1997, Council received a deputation from the
Honourable David Crombie, Commissioner of the Waterfront Regeneration
Trust, who presented a status report following Council's request of the
Trust for assistance in resolving a number of issues related to St. Marys
Cement's plans for mining the Westside Marsh.
1.2 Council will recall that at its meeting held on July 8, 1996, it passed
the following resolution:
z
"THAT the issue of an industrial location for the transfer of the CBM
stone crushing and ready mix operation be referred to the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust for review and report back to the Municipality and that
the Municipality reiterate to the Waterfront Regeneration Trust that it is
not in a financial position to pay for or donate industrial land;
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 Addendum to Report ADMIN-8-96;
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" in order to obtain ownership on behalf
of the Municipality so that construction may commence sometime in the
future;
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;
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 construction of the Cove
Road Route access to Cedar Crest Beach;
THAT 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."
2. PIIRPOSE
2.1. The purpose of this report is to update Council on the follow-up
activities that have taken place since Council's above-mentioned
instructions, as well as to provide comments and recommendations on both
the past and future efforts of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust in this
matter.
3. REVIEW AND CObIDfENT
3.1 Following Council's instructions of July S 1996, Staff proceeded to meet
with representatives of St. Marys Cement to commence negotiations for the
closing of Waverly Road, in order to exchange same with St. Marys for a
large portion of the Westside Marsh lands, as identified in the
Regeneration Trust's Report of November, 1995.
In order to continue public access to Cedar Crest Beach Road, once Waverly
Road is closed, Council agreed to take public ownership of Cove Road and
1221
3
build a bridge over the creek to connect the two roads at that point.
The implementation of Council's decision involved:
• negotiate to acquire the necessary lands to build the Cove Road Route.
• undertake a scoped environmental study and engineering study to determine
the final design and location of the bridge crossing.
• identify the construction cost and funding sources.
The following developments have taken place relating to the Cove Road
connection:
a) Environmental Impact Studv (H.I.S.)
The Environmental Impact Study (E.I.S.) was completed by Bird and
Hale in November, 1996. In summary, the report does not identify
any overwhelming environmental impacts as a result of the bridge
locationand preliminary design. Instead, the report identifies the
potential impacts and recommends a number of mitigative measures to
reduce or eliminate the potential impacts. Copies of the E.I.S.
Report are available in both the Planning and Public Works
Departments. Copies of the E.I.S. Report were made available to all
residents who expressed the need for copies at the Phase 1 Public
Information Meeting.
b) Cove Road/Cedar Creat Beach Connection
Once the E.I.S. Report was finalized and did not indicate any
overwhelming barriers to the project, Totten Sims Hubicki proceeded
to refine the preliminary road design drawings and update the
preliminary cost estimates. This work was completed before the end
of November, 1996. For investigation purposes, Spur Roads A and B
were added to the project. Electrical and telephone servicing
proposals for the local residents have not been resolved by the
respective utility companies to this date. The preliminary cost
estimate for the proposed bridge and associated road construction
remains essentially unchanged at $1,445,000. Attachment No. 1
includes a key map, typical road cross-section, preliminary bridge
sketch and preliminary cost estimate.
c) Property Requirements and Evaluations
Through December, 1996, and early January, 1997, property
requirements were determined and land appraisals were completed.
Dependent on the finalization of certain servicing costs and
1222
4
property negotiations, the project cost is still estimated to be in
the range of $1.SM.
3.2 Proiect Information Meetinos
A two phase public information process was deemed appropriate for this
project.
Phase 1 - Public Information Meeting
Inform the public that the E.I.S. is complete and discuss its findings
with consultants and staff present.
Phase 2 - Public Information Meeting
Deal with the location and design of the road on the east side of the
crossing.
Notice of the Phase 1 meeting held on February 18, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. was
hand delivered to area property owners and to the Chairperson of the Port
Darlington Association. The second public meeting, Phase 2, will be
advertised in the local newspapers and will occur when final detailed
engineering drawings have been completed.
4.0 PHASB 2 - PIIBLIC INFORMATION MEHTING
4.1 The Phase 1 Public Information Meeting was held on February 18, 1997, at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The meeting was well attended by
residents of Cove Road, Cedar Crest Beach and the West Beach Road areas.
In the opinion of staff present at this public information meeting, all
questions were answered to the general satisfaction of those residents
present. Subsequent to the meeting, one written submission was received
from a resident who was unable to attend the Phase 1 Public Information
Meeting. Our consultant has drafted a response to this letter and staff
is satisfied with the explanation given by the consultant in response to
concerns raised by this individual resident.
Numerous concerns were raised by residents with regard to the
Environmental Impact Study, preliminary bridge/road designs, and the
format of future public meetings and reports to Council. The nature of
these questions/concerns are summarized as follows:
a) 8nvironmental Impact Studv
• Wetland design;
• Mix of report information based on literature review and
1223
5
minimal field work;
• Effect of recent tree clearing on natural habitat;
• Effect of new roadway lighting on bird populations; and
• Impact of bridge on herpetile breeding.
b) Preliminary Bridce/Road Deaian
• Potential for services in new road corridor (i.e. watermain,
sanitary sewer and natural gas);
• Preservation of boulevard trees on existing Cove Road;
• Height of bridge above the water surface;
• Location of bridge abutments;
• Length of bridge;
• Impact of the reconstructed Cove Road on existing houses at
the bottom of the hill on existing Cove Road;
• Signage with regard to the proposed one-way bridge;
• Problems with respect to fishermen and swimmers at the new
bridge;
• Emergency vehicle access;
• Approvals required from C.L.O.C.A.; and
• Potential washout of new bridge structure;
d) Future Public Information Neetina and Reports to Council
• Invitations to the Phase 1 Public Information Meeting were
delivered by hand by Public Works Roads Division staff; and
• The Phase 2 Public Information Meeting will be scheduled once
final bridge and road design drawings have been completed.
Such drawings will only be prepared if staff has been
successful in negotiating agreements, to the satisfaction of
Council, with St. Marys Cement Company and other adjacent
landowners.
5. AUTHORIZATION FOR FUNDING TO TOTTHN SIN3 HUBICRI
Report ADMIN-24-96 (Attachment No. 3) authorized Bird and Hale Limited to
complete an Environmental Impact Study (E.I.S.) of the Westside Marsh at
a cost of $25,000 to $30,000, financed from the Pits and Quarries Reserve
Account #2900-00018-X. At this time, no authorization was requested to
cover costs of the preliminary design of the bridgeand road to be carried
out by Totten Sims Hubicki. In addition, costs have also been incurred
for geotechnical investigations and surveys in connection with the road
connection through the Westside Marsh. Similar to the E.I.S. Report, it
is appropriate that the preliminary designs, geotechnical investigations,
and legal surveys, totalling approximately $13,000 at December 31 1996, be
1224
6
financed from the Pits and Quarries Reserve Account #2900-00018-X.
Council is respectfully requested to approve the financing of these design
expenditures through the Pits and Quarries Reserve Account.
6. FUNDING SOURCES
6.1 As stated, the financing cost of the Cove Road entrance and bridge is
estimated to be in the area of 1.5 million dollars. This would pave the
way for a land exchange between St. Marys Cement and the Municipality of
Clarington covering Waverly Road and the marshlands as identified in the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust Report of November 1995. The land exchange
as recommended would not involve any additional monies changing hands
between the two parties.
6.2. It is recommended that the estimated cost of the Cove Road project be
divided equally between St. Marys and the Municipality of Clarington.
Such an agreement would call upon Clarington providing approximately
$750,000 of funding.
6.3. In order to finance such a commitme
on the municipal tax levy, it is
consideration to the following:
Pits & Quarries Reserve
Roads Capital Reserve Fund
Total Funding Requirement
nt without having a detrimental effect
recommended that Council give
$375,000. (Present Balance $500,000.)
$375,000. (Present Balance $600,000.)
$750,000.
The above has been discussed by the Deputy Treasurer and the Manager of
Engineering, who concur with the recommendations.
7. RHLOCATION OF CBN STONH CRIISHING PLANT
Brief Historv
7.1 In the aforementioned resolution of Council, dated July B 1996, Council
referred this matter to the Waterfront Regeneration Trust for review but
reiterated that it is not in a financial position to pay for or donate
industrial land for the location.
In its search for a suitable site to accommodate the relocation, the Trust
identified a 10 hectare site south of Highway 401 near the east limit of
the Darlington Generating Station. Said land is owned by Ontario Hydro.
As a result, the Trust contacted the Station Manager who referred the
1225
7
matter to the Darlington Site Planning Committee. (This Committee is
primarily made up of citizen volunteers with a mandate to review and
recommend to Ontario Hydro various land use and environmental management
issues pertaining to the Station property).
The Site Planning Committee reviewed the request from the Trust, and at
its meeting held in December, 1996, rejected the Trust's proposal of
relocating the CBM stone crushing plant onto the Generating property.
This apparently prompted Commissioner David Crombie to appear before
Council on March 24, 1997.
7.2 Comments
The writer would like to offer the following observations for Council '.s
consideration on the issue of the CBM plant relocation.
a) In the course of locating or relocating any business, one would
expect that a comprehensive site search report would be undertaken,
including detailed evaluation of all potential sites. The writer
has no knowledge of such a report. That being the case, the
identification of the Ontario Hydro land as the choice location
leaves many unanswered questions. Council should be cautious in
endorsing the Ontario Hydro site without being satisfied that there
are no other alternative sites. In addition, Council has been a
strong supporter of the ITER project that may be located within the
Darlington Generating Station property. It is therefore recommended
that until such time as the siting decision of the ITER project is
made, Council should not comment on the question of relocating the
stone crushing plant to Hydro lands.
b) A stone crushing plant on the Darlington property is not a permitted
use under the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law. To
endorse the Darlington property for the CBM plant will pre-empt the
due public process required for the Official Plan and Zoning
Amendments.
c) Regardless of whether or not the Hydro site is the ideal site, this
should be a matter best addressed between St. Marys Cement and
Ontario Hydro. This suggestion is consistent with the July 1996
resolution of Council that it is not in a financial position to pay
for or donate any industrial land to assist in the relocation of the
CBM plant.
1226
8
d) The main objective of the entire exercise is to save the Westside
Creek Marsh from mining. The writer is convinced that this can be
achieved without the need to relocate the CBM plant. Saving the
marsh is an obvious priority for all parties and the Municipality
should concentrate its effort in achieving this goal and not be
caught up with the issue of CBM plant relocation which is obviously
facing some hurdles.
e) Residents have expressed concerns that failing a satisfactory
relocation solution, St. Marys Cement will relocate the CBM plant to
West Beach Road on property currently owned by the Company. The
property at West Beach Road is currently zoned "Extractive
Industrial Exception (M3-1)" which allows aggregate extraction
including stone crushing, screening and washing. The current uses
at the CBM plant would be permissable at the West Beach Road
location with the exception of the xutton Transport component which
is not a permitted use under the "M3-1" Zone. Should St. Marys
Cement proceed with such a relocation plan including Hutton
Transport, a rezoning application will be required. If such a
rezoning application is submitted, it will be reviewed within the
context of conformity to the Clarington Official Plan as well as
other planning criteria such as land use compatibility,
environmental impact etc.
The designation of the St. Marys Cement property bounded by West Beach
Road and Waverly Road is designated "Special Study Area #2" in the
ClaringtonOfficial Plan. Section 17.3.2. states in part:
".... Upon completion of various technical studies and the
acceptance of a preferred solution, the Municipality will amend the
Official Plan accordingly. Notwithstanding Section 17.11, the
interim use of lands will be governed by the existing Zoning By-
law."
It should be noted that "Special Study Area #2" has been deferred for
consideration by the Region of Durham and therefore the Clarington
Official Plan, as it applies to this area, has no legal status.
To the best knowledge of the writer, St. Marys Cement has not stated
categorically that it will move the CBM plant to the Westside Beach Road
area, nor has it confirmed any time table for relocation. As far as the
Municipality is concerned, the "Study" referred to in the Official Plan is
done through the works of the Regeneration Trust. In this regard, the
land at West Beach Road is identified by the Trust Report as part of the
1227
9
new parkland to be conveyed to the Municipality in exchange for Waverly
Road. Upon a satisfactory agreement being reached with St. Marys Cement,
the land at West Beach Road will be designated as "Waterfront Greenway"
and will be zoned to conform to this designation. A separate planning
report will be forwarded to Council at a later date to endorse the
"Waterfront Greenway" designation.
8. FUTURE ROLH OF THH WATERFRONT REGENHRATION TRVST
8.1. During The Honourable David Crombie's submission to Council of March 24,
1997, Mr. Crombie offered the services of the Trust in assisting St. Marys
in their ongoing negotiations with Ontario Hydro. In particular, these
discussions would pertain to obtaining lands in the Hydro Corridor to
redirect the creek to accommodate the recommended program, as well as
continuing to assist St. Marys in negotiations with Hydro for the
relocation of the stone crushing plant.
8.2. Mr. Crombie made it clear that he was looking for Council's support on
both of these projects. Staff has met with representatives of Hydro
regarding the lands needed to redirect the creek, and would encourage the
involvement of the Trust in these negotiations. However, for the reasons
stated above, it is recommended that Council does not take a position on
the relocation of the stone crushing plant to Hydro lands until such time
as a decision is reached on the siting of the ITER project.
8.3. It should be noted that the past efforts of Mr. Crombie and the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust in regards to saving the Westside Marsh have been
invaluable and Council should extend its appreciation to Mr.Crombie and
his Staff for a job well done.
9.
9.1. Upon the approval of this report by Council, Staff will proceed to meet
with St. Marys Cement in an attempt to reach agreement on the matters
addressed.
9.2. Once a financial agreement is reached between the parties, staff will
proceed to negotiate for the lands needed to complete the Cove Road
project.
9.3. Completing a financial agreement and obtaining the necessary lands in
question, staff will then proceed to construct the Cove Road project and
bridge.
9.4. All of the above will be carried out in a timely manner with reports back
to Council seeking final approval of each step along the way.
1226
Respectfully/~su'b~mitted,
W. H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
WHS:nof
att.
10
1229
ATTACHMENT lil TO REPORT ADMIN. 11-97
~ coNSTRUCnoN
- SODDED SWAI.E
O.G.
---~ - - -
~m SUB-DRAIN
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTfON
N.T.S.
+ 3.Om LANE WIDTH ON ROADS A & B
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ~~ NOVEMBER 1996
totten sins hutacki associates CEDAR CREST BEACH ROAD, COVE ROAD DRaECr Na.: 12-10490
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS AND ROADS A & B DWG.Na.:
5130nam Streel, P.Q Bae 9lq Caban9, thluic R9A IW4 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION D-1
m ^
=o •
O
Z ~
m ~ ~
~
_ _ O'
~ y +-~-
1 ~ -1-
N
CN
~
~
~-
1
•
~ E
y (
p
f
l zµ ~
mo
~o ~
I
3 ~ 9° o~ -
Id C
i ~ f.
i°n
a C7
~ _ n
r o`c
a _
Z ~m
o ~ a~ 4~
9 (A ° x i
2 ~ I^
m ~ Ho
' I
~ ~
2 Gf
y ~+ c~ s
>o
a y rn _
~m -
~~
m
o
nD =E ~
o~ <n
~~
m
r--~
0
8
N6#~1~
0 6~~ns
An
W n
N ~ m
3 ~
mD
N a A
~~~n
a : m m
2 n N
CD o m -~
xl C N m
O K y, m
m ~ m n
n~s~
y _a° D A
m~i°n
2 z o O
D y m
H r A
~ mo
m ~~
m
e
N
~ we
ff b"
~ R
'0 0
j m
°r ~- H
~n W ~o
O O c3
y c3
Z
O o
O
~a
I I
' '
~ ~
A
~
\~ ~ 0 ~/
I 1
n°
Im= n
I°
o C
WESTS/OE °0 2_
MARSH OUTL ET ~
~
D
mr
O ~
~ 3 ~
n~
D
~
'" Z p
~ ml
o Z FC OW
° i ~
i r ~
m
D
i A
Z
i A ~
8 -'~
o p
~~
I y'. Z
ra
mN ~
---
~ _
I °
-___ _- -
/~ 8 ~
g ~ 8
o ~°~
im
~
o o
~_..__ ~
~c _
l
° i
~~ ~ o
::$ ... Rf
i~~ v $fi
V
. S
o
.m
rn
0
Z
ao
0
Z
O
Q'
U
WN
~ ¢
Og
~ W
W W
~ U
W
Up
(n
w
Q
W
H
O
U
Q
Z
J
W
a
0
0
0
0
O
N
f'~ p
O !:
K ty
z 0
°
._.:....: O.: o
~' °o
~' vi
a
a:
w:
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
~ N
O R~+
f. x
F w
o
a
~
I' p
>~
F °
~
r .;
`~ O
0
.
+ a o
~ v
0
0
0
a ~ a °o_
~
~ h
W
a'
n N
>~ r
i ~
O ~
U
z
O~
a
O
x °
O
~~..
o
~
a°fk E c°•)
0
4 ~ ~
»
O
W
0
0
N o
o
~ W E N
W
~
U ~
W
WV~
3
m 0
o
N
~ ~ ~
z ~
O
~'
"~w E rn
rU7 ~Q E ~ ~
~ ~ F O
y
f W...
3
N O
N O
N O
~U
O ~
N r
(0
Y O
U ~
4 U
3 N
L O
N d
E
a
c
w
0
0
0
K~ pi- Z
W = N O ~ N
¢ ~ w p ~ U N
~ W ^ ¢ O ~
~ 2 J ¢
D¢ w a~ w o
oW W~oyQ w
W~ U O Q O~ ~
U O
~ O d' W
W
N Z Z
w
Z p
w? C7 Z tq
O W W U
~>a'~w
W
m
w U
Z ¢
0
Oa ~
d w=
2r-.~ H
N
z N
W~ a
w
2 r~~ N
N Z O o N O
O
¢U ~
2
LLK z
O
U F
-Z
~a7
a
¢°
LL
m< w
o~
o
Z w qa
O Z ¢¢ 0 0 0 2 ~ y
U¢
00 U O O p~ Z
r=w(nwa3
~
°w
z
J N p
H N
Z m
2 p ~
Q w
W w ~
U
~O~F
O
I- ~
z ¢
O
p
N Q
°o z
v
i°~
¢oN o~3z
g.U
LL
W o
Z v
~_~
Z w>
¢> ~ a a Q
a a w ~
w O
¢~
O~
~O
~ ~
¢ N
u~0¢
~~ O ¢
~
a r
~ o N a
N
O
w Z
U
~ w=
~ U
Z
a~c
i a~W~¢~
~~
U3
w z
F v '
~Um 1
-
Z
¢ D ¢ ¢ u) U
Z
U
Q O
OfO
~
~
~
0
Z
U
}
X 2 0 K
Z
2
~ U' Z O O ~ Z F
Q 0
~ Z~~ ¢
c W Z
~ K
¢ m n
> ¢ ~ F ~ a N
o c~
LL O m a U
~
~ a¢ a O
' o
u
° U
w w
O s
z ;
e
3
3
1232
ATTACHMENT 4k2 TO REPORT ADMIN. 11-97
THE CORPORATION OF THE MONICIPALITY OF CI~fYNGTpN
REPORT
.Meeting:
Date:
Report #:
Subject:
GENERAIy PUF2POSE AND 'ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
JULY 2~ 1:996
ADDENDUM TO REPORT 8-96
File #:
ST. MARYS CEMENT
Recommendations:
File # _~,_T_
..Res."#
ey-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
1233
may present, as well as explaining .the process followed in
drafting Report ADMIN.B-96.
- 2.2; The meeting commenced with the.DiYector.'of'Public. Works makiiYg
'a presentatoh;explairzing. the` process thaE' was '.fol3owe.d in.
''. .. reaching the staff re'commendation''proposng the 'Cove'`R,oad
-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. ermined 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.
1234
3. QUESTIONS FROM THOSE IN ATTENDANCE
3..1,.. Fol],owing the presentat.i;on a number of ..questions weYe.ask'ed
f'Y'Om 'the.'.floor prior to taking comments. on the `..report:from-.
those in atteiidanCe. _
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
1235
Waverly Road to St. Marys..
A Staff noted the municipality would improve the
., intersect ion, ..including risibility.-: The:po.at'.boxes may
'. be relocated. :..:Once Council..-:has indicated they will
proceed with `the proposal~(or.:part-of the propQSal)'thee
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 "M3" 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.
1236
i~
4. COMMENTS FROM THOSE IN ATTENDANCE
Generally, the. comment s. made. by those parties in attendance.
can be grouped into seven categories, as follows:.
- 4.1 The lack of the environmental assessmenE 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
1237
private corporation, which we believe would be contrary to the
Municipal Act.- However, if consideration is to be given to
such a move,:- we would recommend .that a :legal opinion be.
obtained from the "municipal: solicitor in. this regard':'. - -
5.3 Most certainly.f the Cove Road access route replaces. Waverly.
Road, there will be increased traffic flows on Cove Road,. West
Beach Road and the general Port Darlington area.
5.4 In addressing the question of providing a level crossing at
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 the point
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 Watefront Regeneation Trust
co fall back to a position of confrontation between the
municipality and St. Marys Cement.
1238
6.
6.1 Staff is of the opinion that Report ADMIN. 8-96 should be
approved at .this. point in time to a],low.staff to. proceed td.
..carry out property evaluations, environmental .evaluations, .
"etc. and be in'a position:.to report back .`to Coaneil '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,
~9~~^~
W. H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
WHS:nof
1239
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT -
Meeting: - GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRI~TION :COMMITTEE
Date: APRIL 22 1996
Report #: ~~ F~#:
Subject: ST. MARYS CEMENT
Fle# J/~~:5~ .. .. ..
Res. # ~' -fib>'~ b
By-Law #
Recommendations:
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;
~. 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" 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;
5. 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
....:~®..~~,. 1240
!~~
construction of the .Cove Road Route access to Cedar Crest
Beach;
7. Upon completion of the foregoing, assuming. that any
financial contribution oil behalf of the municipality does
not have an,advers.e 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. BACICGROUND
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 Clalington 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
-ollowing:
To "freeze" 36 licensed acres of limestone so as to
preserve the existinc marsh thereon. As partial replacement of
limestone, St. Marys would receive the Waverly Road right of
i•;ay .
1241
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 Seach.Road how-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.
?'arys, at its own expense, will relocate the Waverly Road
portion of the Westside Creek east and then south into the
:;estside Marsh.
~) Clarington will provide access to Cedar Crest Beach by a
w.ridge and road connection to West Side Beach Road.
c) Within two years of the agreement, Clarington will provide
an industrial lccation for the transfer of the CBM
stonecrushing and ready-mix operations.
1242
Y~
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.
S. 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
a~tempt 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.
3243
t
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 mot adversely affected by any financial
involvement on Clarinc~on's behalf.
6.2 Upon reviewing the three proposed alternative routes to
service West Beach Road, should she 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 privately 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 potentia7_
financial assistance from other levels of government, and St.
Marys Cement Company.
6.4 Once staff reports the outcom=_ 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 participa~e in the proposed Implementation
Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
i^i. H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
WHS:nof
att_
1244
~ ~~
~p'rv`-~ ~y.WAr
fN'"
U~~ w~wrm~i °t~
~ ~ ~~8~ ~Hrono
i ~
'~ Nea Pnzklaad 1~ 1
`• 1
i 1
l ~ (/1.
'eErzu~ w.,.,~ i / ,
O
\O
~ 1 ~ \
~~~. ~
t
O
C Ili
T
v
a
~esr me ...a ................__. _ _
arms ~ _.__Tri.-._._._.-. G
1 ~~
o
a 6 e a e
e
e
®® RoV(E m
~r
,.~
Ike
3
v n. 1
a
a
a
. a
a
y F~ ~ ~ ~.0
+ O ~
`+`~t~ ~~O®~g a6
~Qo LAKE ONTARIO
e
o~
~~®A ROAD & CROSSING
,fl~~°0 OPTIONS
LEGEND
uunuwman°um ROAD AND/OR CflOBSINO
12 4 5 Date: Nov_ 1995
~c ~ '~ ATTACHMENT 103 TO REPORT ADMIN.11-97
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWTt OF-IVew~,-ASr~~- - - - _-
REPORT
Meeting:
couNCIL
File #
Date: July 29 1996 Re$. #
Repoli #: ~M- 24-96 File #: By-Law #
Subject:
ST. MARYS CEMENT - ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following;
1. THAT staff be authorized to engage consultants to conduct an environmental
impact study;
2. THAT the funds required be drawn from the Pits and Quarries Reserve,
account #2900-18-X;
3. THAT the cost for the study be included in the final costs to be
identified for cost sharing with St. Marys Cement;
4. THAT the recommendations resulting from the impact study be reported back
to Council for direction; and
5- THAT St. Marys Cement be notified of the study, and be requested to share
in the cost of the study.
BACKGROUND:
1• Report Admin. 8-96 identified the process for responding to the Waterfront
Regeneration Trust recommendations regarding St. Marys Cement property.
As identified in that report, staff was to build on the environmental
assessment comments and bring final recommendations to Council on these
issues.
2- Staff, in order to prepare a comprehensive report to address the issues,
have drafted a terms of reference for an environmental impact study to
help identify issues and propose potential resolutions to the problems for
Council to consider.
3. The Pits and Quarries Reserve account is recommended as the source of
financing for the study which is estimated to be approximately $25,000 -
$30,000. The balance in the Reserve is approximately $600,000. It is
anticipated that the costs will ultimately be cost shared with St. Marys..
4. Staff propose to identify the firms capable of performing the study, and
engage the appropriate firm. Due to the special nature of the work
required, it is not considered appropriate to tender for these services.
Respectful s m'tted,
w. H. St c e1 ~~
Chief Administrative Officer
~;s~`~~`~o;:a4 12 4 h
~~
n ~~_
Wy -
n ~ =9 _
n y
_ ~ ~o
C = F
n _Q
W n n
D ~ r
V!
5 y
Z O
2 d
y m
r
> f*I
'" D
o-
o ~
Z
e--~
N~~glp
o s t
LIAc
w om
N <O
3 n ~
N ~ y m
V
D ? m m
~ a F N
m o m '~
'~ r Nm
O < NRt
~ r o D
m mn
D ~ ~ _
~ a a ~
-i n y O
m y r D
z °z o0
D ~m
ti r ~
~ m o
m ~ ~+
m
~, ~~€
w
J~
; , i E
,
Y
i
i I°
~ _ - -_-~
I~
iYESTS/QE
MARSH OUTL ET i
r
~~
^' Z FLOW
°o I
I
I.a
~ a
ms
I m~
°
'/+ P
O
~ Im
p
9
a o
;, n
x
o
o
,
°v
I °s'
^
~ ~
z a n
:o
0
i