Adam Prudhomme
Editor
The founder of an online group opposed to a proposed asphalt plant at 8205 County Road 2 in Greater Napanee presented some of his concerns to council during their virtual meeting on May 11.
Casey Wells, who lives near the site of the proposed plant, founded the Facebook group Greater Napanee Residents Against the Asphalt Plant, which is made up of 336 members as of Tuesday evening. Wells launched the group shortly after receiving a letter at his door from R.W. Tomlinson Ltd., which outlined the company’s intentions to amend Greater Napanee’s Zoning By-Law 02-22 to rezone a portion of the property to permit a permanent asphalt plant.
“This proposal caused great concern for those around us because not everyone received this notice on their doors,” Wells told council. “That notice went out April 12 and some noted that it wasn’t received until April 20.”
The proposal would allow for the plant to run up to 160 days a year, 24 hours a day producing an average of 80,000 tons of asphalt a year.
Wells went on to list concerns over potential fumes, nearby well-water contamination, increased traffic and noise if the plant were to be green-lit at that location, which he noted is 300 metres away from residential properties, 850 metres away from an incoming Palace Road condo development, 900 metres from the Napanee River, 1,500 metres from downtown Napanee and 1,700 metres from Southview Public School. Wells noted the decision could have a lasting impact on generations to come, as a quarry on the property would likely remain operational for decades.
“We are not an anti-asphalt group or an anti-development group as a whole,” said Wells. “It’s against the proposal in this location and what it means for all residents in Napanee.”
As of Tuesday evening, Wells’ online petition on Chage.Org titled Napanee says NO to rezoning for permanent Hot Asphalt Plant had over 1,270 signatures. He says those signatures are from both residents and people he had talked to who were considering relocating to Greater Napanee.
Council voted to note and receive Wells’ deputation.
Greater Napanee Mayor Marg Isbester noted a final decision on the matter won’t happen in the immediate future, but promised to hear from concerned residents as well as those who represent Tomlinson.
“There’s no way that we’re not going to let everybody have their say,” said Isbester. “With all this coming forward, we need to sit in a fairly neutral corner until we see everything come forward. (Wells’) group has done a great job in putting out a lot in a very short period of time.”
As the Facebook group has grown, so too has the feedback to council even prior to the meeting. Councillor Ellen Johnson welcomed the feedback, but encouraged people to include their address when offering input.
Deputy Mayor Max Kaiser noted council has been in contact with those who filed the re-zoning application.
“We have heard from Tomlinson,” said Kaiser to Wells. “They have every intentions of doing public meetings. I’m sure you’ll be keeping your ear to the ground and watching for those. They would much rather have a live, open arena full of a public meeting than have it verbally but it will go on none the less.”
Just prior to Wells’ presentation was a deputation from Mike Sewell, who requested council amend its zoning by-laws to redefine what is compatible in certain locations of the town. He argued by doing so, the town would have more control over the application process. Sewell has also been assisting Wells to advocate against the proposed plant.
“I don’t know that I know anybody that moved to Napanee because ‘wow, we’ve got great access to fantastic gravel. We can really get a lot of solar in the area. We really need to be there.’ I just don’t see it,” said Sewell. “There are legitimate concerns. So what I’m thinking is a couple of things. We need a public notification process that’s a little more clearly defined within our by-laws. It should be triggered by one of two things that come before us. One of those might be that has a project for what I consider to be high hazard, high harm potential. I would say right now I’m using language from the National Fire Code for what high hazard looks like. We could decide on those semantics but I think we need to identify clearly on what a high hazardous potential project is when it comes to community. And then also a second definition that we really clearly need to define is what does compatibility look like. What is it that we really want to be compatible to, what are our neighbourhoods really trying to define so therefor we could identify those things that are not compatible?”
Sewell pointed to ‘worse case scenarios’ such as the Richmond landfill, noting once a project gets approval from the Ministry of the Environment or Ministry of the Natural Resources, municipalities have limited input on the matter. He recommended the town bring in an outside consultant to develop the amended by-law.
Council voted to note and receive Sewell’s deputation.