Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-178-89DN :, Rept. TOWN OF NEWCASTLE '11 MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, July 17, 1989 REPORT #: PD- 178 -89 FIE #: 89 -39/D, DEV 89 -44 SLJBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION APPLICANT: LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS (DURHAM) LTD. PART LOTS 11 AND 12, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE FILES: 89 -39/D, DEV 89 -44 RECOMMENDATIONS: 0. 39 File # w__5 Res. # 8y -Law # It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-178-89 be received; 2. THAT Official Plan Amendment Application 89 -39/D and Rezoning Application DEV 89 -44 submitted by Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd. be referred back to Staff for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report upon receipt of all circulation comments and technical information; and 3. THAT a copy of this Report be forwarded to the Region of Durham and the Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Assessment Branch and to the interested parties indicated hereto. 1. SUBJECT APPLICATION 1.1 Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd. has submitted an application to the Region of Durham to designate its existing landfill operation in Part Lots 11 and 12, Concession 3, former Township of Clarke, as a Sanitary ...2 r-- 4. r) J I U REPORT 0D.: PD-178-89 9&QE 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ Landfill in the Regional Official Plan. This application has not been formally circulated due to incomplete technical reports. 1.3 &rezoming application submitted to the Town of Newcastle seeks an appropriate zone for the same lands to recognize the existing operation and to permit additional landfilling on the site. The subject site is indicated on the Key Map attached hereto (Attachment 0o. l). 2. EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE OPERATIONS 2.1 The site subject of the official Plan amendment and rezoning applications has a total area of 25 ha, and is occupied by 2 landfill cells / (Attachment 0o. 3). Only the northern cell currently receives waste, the southern cell is closed. An area of 8.1 ha is oocceotIy licensed by the Ministry of the Environment as n sanitary landfill to receive non-hazardous residential, commercial and industrial solid waste. Most of the landfill waste apparently comes from the Region of Durham, with the remainder coming from communities to the north and east. Waste is accepted up to o maximum rate of 816 tonnes per week. Based on the present rate of waste disposal, Laidlow estimates that the site will reach capacity by December 1989. 2.2 The two landfill cells are currently bisected by two Trans-Canada natural gas pipelines. Laidaw'a proposal involves rerouting the two pipelines to the south of the closed landfill cell and using the lands consequently made available (0.6 ha) for the placement of waste (Attachment 0o. 3). It is Laidlaw's intent to extend the life of the present site for 7 years by continuing to operate with the current pezmiaonble disposal rate plus an allowance for a 10 percent increase in weekly tonnage to permit for market expansion. Total waste proposed to be deposited in the iufilIiug area over that year period is 3I2,000 ./ / ! PAGE 3 3.1 The subject lands are currently designated 'Permanent Agricultural Reserve' and 'major Open Space' in the Durham Regional official Plan. The lands associated with Graham Creek, which traverses the northern portion of the site, are designated 'Hazard Lands'. 3.2 By-law 84-63 similarly zones the subject site as 'Agricultural (A and A-1)1 and 'Environmetal Protection (EP)' to correspond with the designations in the Regional official Plan. 3.3 To the north of the subject site is an auto wrecker and scrap recycling operation, while wooded areas and crop lands lie to the west. The site is bounded on the south and east by the lands subject of Laidlaw's expansion application. 3.4 According to information provided by Laidlaw, the subject site has been used for landfilling since 1953. The existing operation therefore predates both the Durham Regional official Plan and By-law 1592 of the former Township of Clarke, and is currently functioning as a legal nonconforming use. However, in order to permit the additional landfilling operations on the site being proposed by Laidlaw, amendments to the Durham Regional official Plan and the Town of Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By-law are required. 4. APPLICATIONS TO THE MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Laidlaw is seeking relief from the Ministry of the Environment's policy to designate private waste disposal management facilities under the Environmental Assessment Act (E.A.A.). Laidlaw wishes to proceed directly to the approvals and a hearing under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act (E.P.A.). ...4 4.2 These two pieces of legislation differ substantially with regard to the amount of information required of a proponent. An E.A.A. application requires the submission of an Environmental Assessment Document which describes in detail the proposed project, its predicted impact on the natural and man made environments and social, economic and cultural conditions, and any necessary mitigative measures. Proponents are expected to consult with the public and government agencies before submitting an Environmental Assessment Document. Proponents are also required to examine alternative technologies and in public sector cases,examine alternative sites. It is not clear whether private sector proponents can be required to examine alternative sites since they do not have expropriation powers. With an E.P.A. application, the proponent is only required to submit a document which describes the proposed project in sufficient detail to the Director of Approvals to allow him to make his decision on the proposed under taking. A review of the environmental impacts need only take into account the impacts of the proposed project on the natural environment. As well, there is no legal requirement for public consultation. 4.3 Laidlaw has stated that, in as much as the proposal involves landfilling between the two existing landfill cells, it is unlikely there will be any negative social impacts or additional leachate generation. As of the writing of this report, the ministry of the Environment has yet to release its decision on Laidlaw's request for an exemption. Laidlaw has indicated it will not be submitting this application under the E.P.A. until the Minister's decision on the exemption request. 4.4 For purposes of clarification, it is worth noting that Laidlaw is currently pursuing two separate proposals for its landfill facility in Clarke Township. The proposal which is subject of this report is commonly referred to as the 'Infill' proposal. Laidlaw has also submitted a separate application to the Ministry of the Environment for V-1 1 71, J I "". P * i• NWIMM approval of a major expansion to the existing landfill site which is intended to extend the site's life by approximately 20 years. Laidlaw is required to submit separate official plan amendment and rezoning applications on its expansion proposal. These applications will also be processed pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, including public notification. 5. CIRCULATION COMMENTS 5.1 Town Staff has advised Laidlaw that a full analysis of the infill proposal must be submitted, including transportation impact, social impact, economic impact and impact on the natural environment in order to properly evaluate the rezoning application. At this point, only some of the necessary supporting documentation has been received. As a result, Staff have withheld circulation of the application. 5.2 Laidlaw has indicated that it will be submitting a total of nine supporting technical documents as follows: - Development, Operations and Closure Report - Transportation Impact Assessment - Dust Impact Analysis - Visual Impact Assessment and End Use Planning - Government Consultation Report - Hydrogeology - Noise Impact Assessment - Public Consultation Report - Social Impact Assessment Report As of the writing of this report, only the first five above-referenced documents had been submitted. M 41 .4 REPORT NO.: pp_178 -89 PAGE 6 6.1 In accordance with departmental procedures and the requirements of section 34 of the Planning Act, the appropriate signage was posted on the subject site. As well, Public Notices were mailed to all landowners within 120 metres of the subject lands and to various other parties who have indicated an interest in the subject proposal. 6.2 Laidlaw held a public open house on February 14, 1989, at the Orono Town Hall at which some initial information in respect of the proposed infill project was provided. As well, Laidlaw distributed a newsletter regarding the proposal to residents in the vicinity of the existing landfill. A second newsletter was distributed in March 1989, which responded to a number of questions raised at the public open house. 7. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 7.1 To date, the Town has received copies of three letters written by Town residents and rcitepayers groups to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment expressing concern with the environmental effects of the Infill Project and the proposed rerouting of the pipeline. The letters requested that the proposal not be exempted from the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. A letter was submitted to the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office by the Committee of Clarke Constituents which requested that the proposed rerouting of the pipelines be subject to the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process. 7.2 Two other letters from landowners in the vicinity of the subject site expressed concerns with the possible impact of toxins released from the landfill site on the quality of Graham Creek and on adjacent agricultural lands. 4jj -% 8.1 A brief discussion of some of the major issues to be considered in reviewing the proposal is provided below: 8.1.1 Site Development Operations and Closure - Laidlaw proposes to develop the site in 3 phases with the end result being a single mound as indicated on Attachment No. 4. Site operations are proposed to continue much the same as the present. The Environmental Protection Act requires a proponent to commit to a financial assurance package to ensure that the landfill site will be properly maintained and monitored for a period of 25 years after closure. The costs associated with the financial assurance program relate to site closure, and post closure monitoring and maintenance costs. Laidlaw proposes a financial assurance package of approximately $1.3 million (1989). 8.1.2 Transportation Impact - Laidlaw proposes to maintain the existing access to the landfill site located on Stapleton Road (road allowance between Lots 12 and 13) approximately 1 km south of the 4th Concession Road. Based on the currently licensed weekly tonnage for the existing landfill, a maximum of 48 trucks per day use the site. With the 10 percent increase in the licensed tonnage requested by Laidlaw in conjunction with the Infill Proposal, Laidlaw estimates that this daily maximum will increase to 53 trucks. Impacts to be considered include deterioration to area roads due to continued heavy truck traffic, and the potential for conflicts with local traffic and school buses. 8.1.3 Hydrology and Hydrogeology - Effective leachate collection and monitoring are essential components of the proposed Infill Project in order to minimize adverse impacts on ground water and Graham Creek. LaidIaw proposes to install 2 Ieaobate collection pipes which will direct the tlmv to the existing collection system to the existing Rapid Infiltration Basins. Groundwater and water from Graham Creek will need to be monitored regularly to ensure the effectiveness of the Ieanbate collection system and to provide early warning of any potential problems. Laidluw is in discussion with the Region of Durham and the Ministry of the Environment regarding the feasibility of treating Iemubote from the site at the sewage treatment plant in Newcastle Village Four sediment ponding locations are proposed to serve the complete Infill area to reduce sediment contribution to Graham Creek from run ( off from the site. Other means of controlling sedimentation include ditching, straw bales and vegetation on finished slopes. 8.1.4 Dust Impact - In order to effectively minimize dust generated from site operations, it will be necessary to specifically identify which aotivitea are dust generators. For example, wind erosion from exposed surfaces, the movement of cover material and vehicle operations on unpaved roads are all potential sources of dust. Appropriate mitigative measures need to be developed to minimize the adverse impact of dust on area residents. 8.1.5 Impact on the Biological Environment - Laidlaw maintains that" in as moob as the existing landfill site is already highly disturbed, the impact of the proposed IotiII Project on the biological environment will not be significant. The extent of the expected impact needs to be documented. As well" the impact on the off-site biological environment resulting from continued site operations, including noise and dust, needs to be evaluated. 8.1.6 Noise Impact - It will be necessary to identify the sources of noise related to site operations, the expected levels of such noise and the daily distribution of noise occurances. Appropriate mitigative measures must then be devised. Noise will be generated by a variety of sources, including trucks entering and leaving the site, and the ...9 - F,�7 J|/ operation of machinery on-site. The noise environment along designated access routes will also need to be evaluated. Laidlaw maintains that the acoustic environment surrounding the existing site and along access routes will increase marginally. 8.1.7 Visual Impact - The extent of visual change from the proposed Infill and the potential visual intrusion to nearby residents needs to be identified. Accordingly, effective measures will need to be developed to reduce this visual intrusion during the site's active life and after closure. 8.1.8 Social and Economic Impact - The impact on residents in the area of the infill project and along truck access routes from continued and increased site operations is of critical significance to the evaluation of Laidlaw's proposal. 9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This Staff Report was prepared to facilitate the requirements of the Planning Act. Staff scheduled this Public Meeting on the Laidlaw "Infill" Proposal on the basis that the supporting documentation would be submitted promptly. However, in as much as Staff have not had the benefit of reviewing all of the supporting documentation or the agency comments, it is recommended that the matter be referred back to Staff for further processing. At such time as the supporting documenting is reviewed and agency comments have been received, it is recommended that a further Public Meeting be held on this matter prior to Staff formulating a recommendation to Council. ...10 Respectfully submitted, -6 m�-L' I Franklin Wu' M.C.I.P. Director of Planning & Development JAS*DC*FW*]p *Attach. July 6, 1989 RUIUM Recommended for presentation to the Committee ' #E1Lawrence Kotseff Chief Administrative officer INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE NOTIFIED OF COMMITEE AND COUNCIL'S DECISION Mr. M. J. Pullen Ma. Dorothy Simon [aidIawWaate Systems Ltd. 73 Garrard Road 3410 South Service Road - Whitby, Ontario LI0 3K4 Box 5057, Station A Burlington, Ontario L7R 3Y8 Mc. D. J. Scott President 00r. J. D. Kennedy Committee of Clarke Constituents Marshall Macklin Monaghan ITd. Box 128 375 Duncan Mill Road, Newcastle, Ontario LOA IB0 Don Mills, Ontario M3B 2Y1 Mr. Charles Boatovoky Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment Branch 250 Daviaville Avenue, 5th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4B I82 Mrs. Helen MacDonald R.R. #I NewtmovilIe, Ontario L0& 1J0 James Wright and Marley Wright 135 MacPherson Avenue Toronto, Ontario M5R 1W8 I � o I � I i I 1 I 1 0 � I I � - I - z z M3 I w i J I 1 I U) M MAP Attachment #1 00.Oc, ..... 1 I i I z O w U z O U M z O N N w U z O U Dev.89 -44, O.P.A. 89 -39/D 5 � � } BORROW AREA - Attachment #2 Existing Newcastle Landfill Site LEGEND ® BUILDING r , EXISTING LANDFILL (APPROX.) off =- LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM APPROX. LOCATION OF SITE ROADS "1130 CONTOUR= METRES (A.MS.0 Q O W - - -- PROPERTY BOUNDARY BORROW AREA 0 0 rr PROPERTYBOUNDARY .............................................. / •� / 1 SEDIMENTATION - -- --- -- --'j55 - `� \�� CREEK POND , - - - -- _ _ - - - - - -- rho — \ OFFICE SHOP EXISTING;- ���^ 1 RAPID INFILTRATt N SIN NO. 1 .NANO i*-EXISTING\ \ I RAPID INFILhRATION 198.­5 A1 �I _ / ` I I� I BASIN NO -z / l�l 1 ;� i� \ \, ` \ 1 'ice \ `- �``i �!� -�/ i,. 1 ` / • / � i� ^� PIPELINE EASEMENT , TRANS — NORTHERN INTER _ PROVINCIAL. � v f'!F'EL1niF` .......... PIPELINE \1 � 1 1 � LEGEND cl) 30m EASEMENT---"',,--- ASEMENT /'- / ) �SEMENT - -- 160- -- EXISTING CONTOUR �� - `"` ""`:�`✓ CEMENT \ --195— PROPOSED CONTOUR Attachment #3 PROPOSED I NFI LL AREA PROPOSED REROUTED Proposed Final Contours, Newcastle Landfill Infill Project PIPELINE EASEMENT 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 \ \, :` APPROXIMATE ORIGINAL GRADE SCALE HORIZONTAL - 1:2000 VERTICAL -1:1000 Attachment #4 Cross - Section B -B SECTION B -B PROPOSED LIMIT 198.5m EXISTING ELEVATION 173m (MRS. ) HELEN MAMONALD R R 1 Nemonville, Ontano LOA 1JO (4 16) 983 -9667 G.P. & A. - July 17, 1989 Town of Newcastle Your Worship, Members of Council: RE: Report #PD- 178 -89, File # #89 -39/D, Dev 89 -44 Laidlaw Waste Systems - Garbage Dump As you know, dumping has taken -place at the Laidlaw site since the early 1950's. This was during a time when,all over rural Canada, local farmers had a section in the "back forty" (often near a stream embankment, or in an old gravel pit in which water was hit) and they often permitted neighbours to dump old junk and other household types of waste. Consumer goods were not as abundant as they are today, and people just didn't throw away as we tend to do today. Toxic household cleaners, batteries,etc. were virtually non - existent by today's standards. Baking soda, vinegar, water and elbow grease were the most common cleaners of the day. Over time, along with some household waste, old car batteries, paint and paint thinners, used motor oil, pesticides and chemical fertilizers, furniture, appliances, etc., continued to be dumped at these makeshift dumps. It wasn't until the early 1970's that Ontario became the first province to legislate garbage disposal in terms of dumpsite criteria, etc. under the Environment Assessment Act. Until that time, literally thousands of small rural unregulated dumps were in existence through- out the province - one of which was the Hale site (now Laidlaw). Up to this point, ignorance and a lack of a better solution had allowed this practice to continue. During the 1970's all of those unregulated dumps should have been closed. Nobody knows what really went into them. Unfortunately, many remained open, and were licensed, such as the Hale Dump. It is well- known that the former owners committed numerous infractions of their license for which they were charged. Unfortunately, the Ministry of the Environment was not successful in revoking their license. Today, I am here to address Laidlaw's request for re- zoning of agricultural lands in order to recognize the existing dump and further- more, to permit increased dumping in the 'Infill' area. ...2 G. P. & A. - July 17, 1989 Page 2 It appears to me that over time this garbage dump has continued to operate, although common sense would dictate that it should never have been initially utilized as a dump, and that it should be permanently closed. In reviewing Attachments #1, 2 & 3, of today's report I note that the site is bisected not only by a Trans Canada natural gas pipeline, but also by A and A -1 land designation. It is immediately adjacent to an area designated Environment Protection, and is bounded by Graham Creek. There have been numerous complaints of polluted water, garbage in the fields, cattle which miscarry. Again, common sense dictates that this site is inappropriate. With regard to the Trans - Canada pipelines, you are aware that requests have been made to the National Energy Board and the Federal Environment Assessment Review Agency (FEARA) for full Environmental Assessment of the relocation of the pipelines. In February of this year I wrote to Trans Canada regarding some of my concerns regarding the relocation of the pipelines. At that time I forwarded La.idlaw's information brochure. In its reply, Trans Canada expressed concern that Laidlaw had been somewhat misleading. This is but one illustration of why I have little faith or trust in Laidlaw. To illustrate further, here I am this morning, my children with a sitter. I would much rather be with them. There are also many other concerned citizens here today - homemakers, people who have taken time off work, off holiday time. And, according to Report PD- 178 -89 Laidlaw is not prepared for this meeting. In May 1988 I attended the meeting held at the Region of Durham to which Laidlaw requested Official Plan amendment (which, incidentally had been denied in June, 1984). They were, again, denied in May 188, at which time they were also unprepared. I recall in February of this year that Laidlaw hastily held an Open House in Orono - on Valentine's Day - a total disregard to our family lives. I'm surprised they didn't hold it over Christmas: Misrepresentation, unpreparedness, disregard of area residents - do these words identify your idea of a good local- corporate citizen? Laidlaw is in the business only to make a profit. I am of the opinion that municipally owned /operated dumps (where primary accountability is to the taxpayer, and not the shareholder , is the only way to go. ... 3 G. P. & A. - July 17, 1989 Pane 3 There is no question in my mind that this site is environmentally inappropriate. There is no question in my mind that this site is socially inappropriate. In section 4 -3 of Report PD- 178 -89, it states in part that: "Laidlaw has stated that .... it is unlikely there will be any negative social impacts or additional leachate generation ". Firstly, this statement is not even backed by supporting documents as these were apparently not available at the time of the writing of this Report. Secondly, "unlikeliness" is not good enough for those of us who reside in the area, drink water from local wells, farm the land, or raise livestock. Finally,.. if this site were looked at as a previously untouched location for a new garbage dump, it would never get beyond the preliminary stages, I am sure. If you recall, last summer Metro Toronto identified four potential locations in the Town of Newcastle for its new dump. N -4 (at this location) was dropped in the very early stages as being inappropriate. The bottom line - neither rezoning nor Official Plan amendment should be permitted. In December, 1989 the dump shall reach capacity, and I believe that we should witness the closing chapter of this ill - conceived location as a garbage dump. 1.j SUBMISSION TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE JULY 17, 1989 I would like to thank The Committee for the opportunity to comment on the application by Laidlaw Waste Systems for rezoning of its landfill operation in Clarke Township. I am here on behalf of The Committee of Clarke Constituents to express our strong opposition to this application. As a community volunteer organization we have over 250 members and as recently as last year collected over 1,000 signatures on a petition that opposed the expansion of this landfill site. We are the people most directly effected by this landfill operation. Problems with this site go back to the early seventies. One of the first local residents to voice his concerns was Ian Tyson who lived adjacent to the site. Ian eventually moved away and there have been many others in the intervening years who left our area because of this dump. Six years ago, the C.C.C. was formed by local residents, to oppose this dump and we have been actively involved ever since. Since not all the application reports from Laidlaw are available for review, we will not comment in detail on the application today. However, we do feel it is important to express our views on what Laidlaw is attempting to do to our community. Members of the G.P.A. Committee are aware of the long and sordid history of this site, and I will not dwell on the long list of environmental problems our community has had to endure over the years. Beginning in 1953, this site was originally a small scale local junk yard located on an old gravel pit. However, in 1971, it was licensed to become a landfill site by The Ministry of Mines and Resources. It has grown progressively larger ever since. In all that time, this site has never been 'zoned' for a landfill operation, nor has it ever undergone a proper environmental assessment by The Ministry of the Environment. It is still officially designated by the Region as a "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" and "Hazard Lands" and by the Town as "Agricultural" and "Environmental Protection ". Its unofficial status is euphemistically referred to as "legal non - conforming" use! - (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one.) THIS LANDFILL SITE IS THERE BY DEFAULT. The representatives from Laidlaw are now asking you to legitimize this accident of history and environmental mistake. Their purpose in asking for this belated rezoning is to allow them to further expand their operation. In order to pursue their "Infill Project" the land must be rezoned and the official plan changed to allow the dumping of an additional 312,000 tonnes of garbage over the next 7 years. When Laidlaw purchased this property they knew then that it was close to its licensed capacity, so they immediately applied for a 100 acre expansion. In 1988 this proposal was denied by Town Council and the Region. The Ministry of the Environment had also designated their current application under the Environmental Assessment Act. Therefore, in order to prolong the life of this illegitimate site (while their new Main Expansion proposal is being reviewed), Laidlaw proposed the "Infill Project" as recently as January 1989. Initially, they asked The Ministry of Environment for a 3,000 tonne per week allowance. This was quickly reduced to a request for less than 1,000 tonnes per week as soon as they realized that the larger allowance would increase the likelihood of the Infill site being designated under the lengthy Environmental Assessment Act. It makes no difference whether the Infill takes 3,000 or 1,000 tonnes per week. We are still talking about 312,000 tonnes of garbage. The rate of dumping is irrelevant, the effect on the environment will be the same. Laidlaw has resisted the designation of the Infill under the Environmental Assessment Act even though ....over - 2 - the Town of Newcastle, the Region of Durham (and our Committee), have asked the Minister of the Environment for an E.A.A. designation. And yet, they publicly profess to have our environmental interests at heart. Over the past 6 years, two attempts at expansion have been denied by the Town of Newcastle and the Region of Durham for environmental reasons. These current requests for the "Main Expansion" and the "Infill Project" for an interim expansion are the latest attempts. The site has not changed. It is still environmentally unsafe. The only thing that has changed is the vast amounts of money Laidlaw has poured into these applications. The financial payoff to Laidlaw, if they are successful, is enormous. Laidlaw has taken a gamble. They purchased this site because there was a landfill operation already there. It was unsafe and there by default, but it was there. Laidlaw is counting on the fact that it can use its huge financial resources to convince the regulators and authorities that it can be safely expanded. It was viewed as a better business risk and more expedient than starting fresh with a new, environmentally sound site and seeking the necessary approvals. The real stakes in this gamble are our environment and the quality of our lives. If they are successful, the future of our community may be reduced to a one line entry in Laidlaw's Annual Report. In summary, our Committee opposes the rezoning of this site because: - 1. The site is not environmentally suitable for a landfill operation. On the contrary, the evidence indicates it is environmentally sensitive. 2. The current landfill site has never been subjected to a full environmental review. If it had been, we are convinced that there would never have been a landfill operation there. 3. The continued operation of the site will continue to have a negative social impact on our community. 4. There is no justification for rezoning the site from its original designation as "agricultural ". This area is and should remain an agricultural area. Laidlaw has indicated that the current site will finally reach capacity in December 1989. When that happens, this site should close and stay closed. It should end an unfortunate chapter in the history of Clarke Township and the Town of Newcastle. Respectfully submitted, David Scott, President Committee of Clarke Constituents