How they voted: County Council, on whether to consider Springwater DM Don Allen’s motion
From the minutes of the February 25 2016 meeting of County Council. Note – the number after each councillor’s name represent the weight assigned to his or her vote, based on population. The weighted vote was 64-39 in favour, five votes short of the two-thirds majority Allen needed. The councillors voted 16 – 10 in favour (six were absent).
MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
Motion presented by Councillor Allen, January 26, 2016, regarding Organics Processing Facility (OPF)
The Warden advised that the timeline and process associated with the Organics Processing Facility had been approved by County Council in January 2014. The Warden advised that, prior to Council’s consideration of Councillor Allen’s motion, a resolution to reconsider the timeline and process related to the project was in order. The Warden advised that, in accordance with Council’s Procedure By-law, a motion of reconsideration required a two-thirds majority vote.
Resolution No. 2016-039
MOVED BY:Councillor Wauchope
SECONDED BY:Councillor Allen
THAT the timeline and process approved by Council associated with the Organics Processing Facility and the Materials Management Facility project be reconsidered.
Upon the question of Resolution No. 2016-039, it was DEFEATED both on a show of hands and on a recorded vote as two-thirds majority vote was required:
YEAS: Allen (Springwater) (4); Bifolchi (Wasaga Beach) (5); Burton (Clearview) (3); Clarke (Ramara) (3); Cornell (Tiny) (5); Dubeau (Penetanguishene) (2); French (Springwater) (4); Hughes (Oro-Medonte) (5); Keffer (Bradford-West-Gwillimbury) (6); Leduc (Bradford-West-Gwillimbury) (5); McKay (Midland) (4); Milne (New Tecumseth) (6); O’Donnell (Ramara) (3); Small Brett (Adjala-Tosorontio) (2); Walma (Tiny) (4); and Warnock (Tay) (3) – TOTAL – 64
NAYS: Burkett (Severn) (4); Cooper (Collingwood) (5); Deputy Warden Dowdall (Essa) (3); Hough (Oro-Medonte) (4); Little (Adjala-Tosorontio) (2); MacDonald (Essa) (3); Warden Marshall (Penetanguishene) (2); Ross (Midland) (3); J. Smith (New Tecumseth) (6) and Wauchope (Innisfil) (7) – TOTAL – 39
Absent: Cox (Severn); Dollin (Innisfil); Rawson (Tay); Sanderson (Collingwood); Smith (Wasaga Beach); Vanderkruys (Clearview);
It should be noted that prior to the meeting, Deputy Mayor Allen had been told he needed only a 50% majority. This was changed at the meeting. With an estimated 50 million out of taxpayers money to be spent on this project it will impact every taxpayer in Simcoe County. Also the chosen site is highly unsuitable. Get involved people. Springwater is under attack!
Why do you feel this site is unsuitable?
Hi Rodd
AWARE Simcoe examined this issue last year and we felt the best choice from the short list established by the County was the one at 540/528 Penetanguishene Road – the reasons are outlined in the following comments that we submitted to the County.
https://aware-simcoe.ca/2015/11/aware-simcoe-recommends-highway-11penetanguishede-rd-site-for-composting-site/
However we are going to take an in-depth look at the data that has now been made public supporting the County’s preferred site and will report back on this website.
Thanks for the explanation Kate. I read the article and it has some great points. There are a few things though that I think site C136 offers over site P083/P084.
– The C136 location has 84 ha. of land as opposed to the 17 ha. at the P083 site (plus P084?). The image released by the county reflects a facility that is 4.5 ha in area. I don’t see how a large buffer zone that is able to contain odours can be created on such a small site compared to that of C136. Also, the buffer zone (forest) is already in place at C136.
– Site P083/P084 is privately owned. There would have to be substantial cost savings involved with using land that is currently owned by the county.
– Although both sites would require re-zoning, P083/P084 is zoned as prime agriculture area (but not farmed) with some areas having medium vulnerability groundwater. I don’t know what the environmental impact of stripping topsoil and building on that land would be. Especially if there is an EP zoning on the property (per the Sandy Agnew article). The county has already committed to adding more trees than they will remove for the C136 site.
– Both sites are fairly central to the entire region and both have good accessibility to major roads. I would imagine though, that 210 trucks per day on Penetanguishene Road south of Hwy 11 would be more noticeable and inconvenient than on Horseshoe Valley Road. I would also wonder if that section of road was designed for that kind of truck traffic.
As far as the other items in the article, it looks like they would all apply equally to both sites. Just food for thought.
Thanks again,
Rodd
The fact that Simcoe County has spent almost a quarter of a million dollars to approve a site that is zoned agricultural is questionable, especially considering the choice of what technology will be used hasn’t even been made. It begs the question; Is Springwater Township requesting a business case to satisfy themselves it is somehow okay to rezone forest to industrial? Both the County and the Township are missing the point – the land is zoned agricultural. Who will ever hear a rezoning application without bias now? The County should only be proceeding on land that is already zoned industrial. The rating they used to point to the Springwater site seems to have been tailor made to make this County owned property come out #1. If the County does accept the direction of Springwater Township to complete a business case it is our sincerest hope the business case will include the price of purchasing land that is already zoned industrial.
Thanks for your comments Rodd
We view the new facilities as an opportunity more than a risk.
Other compost facilities operate without odour issues. A process that’s completely enclosed in a negative pressure building should never be an odour problem so this negates the need for large buffers.
Similarly the fully enclosed operation means there will be no leachate or runoff entering the groundwater. There will be significant amounts of stormwater runoff generated. However this also provides an opportunity to demonstrate relatively new Low Impact Development techniques which would infiltrate the rain water and virtually eliminate runoff into the creek. At the same time the unevaluated wetland on the lower end of the property could be enhanced to provide additional improved wildlife habitat.
The P083/P084 site has not been farmed for some time. The topsoil removed to build the facilities could be utilized in the remaining area on site to create demonstration farm/garden plots or used in urban areas for that purpose. It need not be lost.
Truck traffic is certainly an issue. 210 trucks coming into any site at the end of the day is an issue. Most of the growth scheduled for Simcoe County is in the south end which means more trucks would be coming from the south. The C136 site requires an additional 30km travel distance if coming from the south. It would seem prudent to examine locating a transfer station somewhere in the south end to eliminate most of the trucks coming from there, regardless of the site chosen.
The province has introduced the Waste-Free Ontario Act with two goals. 1. Zero waste in the province, 2. Zero greenhouse gases emissions from the waste sector. Reducing the distance travelled for trucks would contribute significantly to the second goal.
The cost to buy the P083/P084 site is a valid point. However we haven’t seen the full cost comparison done between the two sites, including the required road improvements.
We feel the new facilities should be a showcase for the advance toward a waste-free Ontario, not hidden back in the bush.
Regards,
Sandy A
Hello:
A quick response to your excellent letter.
1. Who is viewing this as a risk? I am unclear on why you would suggest this project would be viewed as anything other than a positive move for Simcoe County, no matter where it ends up.
2. At this point we don’t know what technology is to be used, therefore it cannot be stated that there will be no odour issues. Odour and traffic seemed to be the recurring concerns at the meetings. I think the people who have expressed those concerns should be heard and addressed.
3. If I understand correctly you are suggesting that land with EP status should be rezoned as industrial with the expectation that not only will there not be any runoff into the creek but the property could then “provide additional improved wildlife habitat”. Doesn’t turning EP land into Industrial land, removing topsoil, bringing in gravel, putting up a 4.5 ha building, paving and increasing truck traffic have exactly the opposite effect? Isn’t the purpose of providing an EP zoning to stop those things from happening?
4. Both properties are only about 15km from each other. The Midhurst Secondary plan is to provide substantial growth and there is lots of other growth expected north of Barrie.
5. As the county already owns the land everything is much easier and less expensive.
6. It doesn’t look like anyone is trying to hide this facility to me. I would say a showcase of leading technology in the middle of an environment that it is designed to help protect is pretty impressive. That applies to both sites.
7. It looks like the county has made their decision and it’s going to end up on Horseshoe Valley Road. I like your idea of using the property for the demonstration of environmentally friendly urban projects. The more we think outside the box like that, the better this facility will be.
Cheers,
Rodd