For the second time in almost three years, Guelph-Eramosa residents have expressed strong opposition to a proposed industrial subdivision at the corner of Highway 7 and Wellington Road 29.
Well over 100 people attended the most recent public meeting on Monday night at the Rockmosa community centre – and the two dozen residents who spoke were unanimous in their opposition to the proposal.
“There’s too much that we don’t know, and what we do know is far too scary,” said Laura Brown, who resides on Wellington Road 29.
She summarized the feelings of many residents when she expressed concern about the impact the 22-lot development could have on groundwater quantity and quality, and on local traffic volumes.
Yet five technical consultants hired by landowners David and Marlene Robertson said the project will not have a significant effect on traffic, ground or surface water, or the environment.
The Robertsons propose the creation of 22 industrial lots and a storm water management pond on 33 hectares with access onto Wellington Road 29. Each lot would include its own well and tertiary treatment system.
“We have a unique opportunity to do things right on this site,” said Jay Flanagan, of MTE Consultants Inc., who addressed hydrogeological issues on behalf of the applicants.
He said decreasing the number of planned lots from 30 to 22 means greater separation for wells and septic systems, which is a good thing. Flanagan also told the crowd the entire subdivision will use less than 10% of the water available on the site.
But many in the audience laughed when Flanagan suggested the proposed industrial development poses less risk to groundwater than the current agricultural use, due to the pesticides and fertilizer applied to the land.
Resident Tim Laing was one of many to publicly challenge that statement, insisting the proposal poses “a significant threat” to water quality in the area.
Laing, who made a presentation on behalf of the citizens’ group Friends of the Eramosa River Valley, said the area is very sensitive and vulnerable to groundwater threats.
Much of the property lies within a wellhead protection area, as identified by the province’s Source Protection Plan, and many of the uses prohibited in such areas are in fact listed as permitted uses in the proposed zoning bylaw, Laing added.
“It’s still a bad idea in the wrong place,” Laing concluded, alluding to recent changes to the proposal.
The land was designated rural industrial in the county’s official plan 15 years ago and there have been several changes to the proposal since the application was revised and re-submitted in October 2009 (the original application was submitted in 2004).
In addition to reducing the number of lots, those changes include:
– relocating the access road and lots to “establish an enhanced view of the [development] from Highway 7”;
– a revised list of permitted uses in the development; and
– updated design guidelines, including lot buffering such as berms, fences and/or trees, as well as specifying building location to block views of parking and storage areas.
But many residents said the changes are mostly “cosmetic” and do little to assuage their concerns. Several noted that septic systems deal with human wastewater only, and do not address chemical and industrial waste on the site.
“It’s a very dangerous idea,” said Bob Ralston, who questioned much of the information presented by Flanagan, including the depth of the aquifer and possible water usage on the site.
Ralston also questioned a traffic study and opined there could be as many as 1,000 people employed on the lands if the proposal is approved. But the applicant’s traffic consultant, Phillip Grubb of Paradigm Transportation Solutions, insisted that figure would be closer to 500 to 600.
Grubb’s presentation included the following information on traffic:
– about 450 to 466 vehicles accessing the property during the morning and afternoon peak hours, most of which would be employee vehicles;
– 95% of the traffic exiting the site would travel north on Wellington Road 29, with just 5% travelling south; and
– the traffic rating in the area, currently “very good to excellent,” would change only slightly to “very good.”
Several residents questioned Grubb’s numbers, particularly his 95-5 north-south figure and his assertion that Wellington Road 29 was not a particularly busy road.
“It’s a major traffic route from Fergus going to the 401,” said Bill Allen, who lives on the road.
Resident Dave Hogberg asked if the applicants submitted a noise study. The applicant’s planning consultant Nancy Shoemaker replied the Roberstons’ application was deemed complete by the township and a noise study was not required.
Township planner Bernie Hermsen, of MHBC Planning, said until the nature of the uses on the site are known it is very difficult to know anything about noise. He noted there are steps the municipality can take during the site plan stage to mitigate the impact of noise.
Hermsen also acknowledged a traffic study will never be 100% accurate.
“But it’s an estimate to give us a fair look at what to expect,” he told the crowd.
Resident Carolin Bot said both the Robertsons and the township are interested in the development to make money – and she wondered what it would take for the township to reject the proposal.
Mayor Chris White said the township can’t just say no without following protocol.
“There’s due process,” White said, admitting the process is “long and drawn out.” However, he stressed, “It’s not a tax grab by the township … this is not our proposal.”
Jennifer Osborn asked if there is a plan to deal with emergencies on the property, including possible fires or explosions.
Flanagan replied that officials with the Guelph Fire Department suggested each lot would have to be outfitted with its own in-ground cistern.
Osborn suggested cistern installation could further tax the sensitive bedrock in the area and she said the proposal should not proceed without an adequate plan to deal with chemical usage on the lots.
In addition to echoing the concerns of others, Eden Mills resident Charles Simon said the proposal, if approved, represents “a huge fiscal and legal liability” for the township.
Resident Ed Langevin compared residents’ seemingly unanimous opposition to the near-unanimous objection to a proposed mega quarry in Melancthon Township, which was withdrawn last month by the proponent due to a lack of support.
“I don’t notice any support for this,” said Langevin. “This is not a NIMBY (not in my backyard) thing.”
White thanked the crowd for its comments and said MHBC Planning will prepare another report on the proposal and council would consider its next step at that point.
The options could include a simple rejection or approval of the zoning bylaw amendment or a request for more information from the applicants, which could again place the proposal “in limbo,” the mayor added.
A few residents said they would like another public meeting if there are major changes to the plan, while an equal number of people expressed frustration that it seemed there was no end to meetings on the matter.
“At some point, it will come to an end,” said White.
Councillor Doug Breen quipped, “At some point I’d like to vote and get on with my life.”
Following the meeting White hinted at what many in the audience already suspected: regardless of what the township decides, the matter is likely headed to the Ontario Municipal Board for an appeal.
For more information on the proposed subdivision, including the reports presented at the Dec. 10 meeting, visit www.get.on.ca.
