Adam Prudhomme
Editor
The passion that can only be exhibited in person was on full display at the Strathcona Paper Centre on Wednesday night as residents had their chance to voice objections to the proposed Tomlinson permanent asphalt plant.
Wednesday’s meeting was the third overall held on the topic but first to be held off line and in the same room. Though some in attendance called for another in-person meeting to be held on the matter, as of now the March 9 meeting represented the last formal occasion for residents to offer input ahead of the April 5 council meeting, where it’s expected town staff will deliver a recommendation to council and the application will be voted on.
Some 21 residents stepped up to the mic to outline their concerns to the proposed plant with mayor Marg Isbester and councillors Dave Pinnell Jr., Bob Norrie and John McCormack in attendance. Before the meeting Isbester noted two members of council-deputy mayor Max Kaiser and councillor Terry Richardson-were unable to attend due to COVID-19 exposure. Councillor Ellen Johnson announced prior to the meeting she would be unable to attend. The meeting was live streamed on the town’s YouTube channel for those unable to attend.
Since the matter was first brought to the public’s attention last spring, residents living near the site of the proposed asphalt plant at 8205 County Road 2 have raised concerns over increased noise, short and long term health, air quality impacts, traffic, ground water impacts, blasting, decreased property values and overall quality of life.
Of the 22 people to speak on the matter only one spoke in favour of the plant, that being R.W. Tomlinson vice-president Rob Pierce.
“Over the past year and a half we have worked diligently with the town, its peer reviewers and other external review agencies in responding and addressing any technical concerns or questions,” said Pierce. “As was outlined at the public meeting a couple weeks ago, there are no outstanding technical concerns from any of the expert peer reviewers working on behalf of the municipality or government reviewers. The reviewers who were qualified in their respective fields ranging from air quality to noise, to traffic, etc. have determined that the proposed plant is a compatible land use and meets provincial and municipal regulatory requirements.”
Pierce added additional approvals from the town and the Ministry of the Environment would be required should their application be successful.
“As noted the closest house to the proposed Tomlinson plant is more than 400 metres away,” said Pierce. “You did hear from several members of the public that the minimum setback distance should be one, or two, or three kilometres from the nearest house based on studies found online. While we acknowledge and sympathize with those concerns regarding appropriate location, these suggestions are not grounded in scientific evidence nor do they reflect the current regulatory environment in Ontario, or Napanee for that matter.”
A screen shot depicting the portable asphalt plant currently in use at 8205 County Rd. 2 in Greater Napanee. The site is a proposed location for a permanent asphalt plant by Tomlinson Ltd.
Pierce outlined what he felt would be the benefits to the community if the zoning application were successful.
“Setting aside the number of direct or indirect jobs that may be created, this plant will provide the town and its businesses and residents with a readily available supply of asphalt,” said Pierce. “Regardless of people’s position on asphalt plants, or even pits and quarries, communities do require asphalt for normal activities from road building, to maintenance to parking lots, public trails and outdoor recreation facilities. The simple fact is the further that these building materials have to travel, the higher the cost and environmental impact as a result of increased trucking and related greenhouse gas emissions. While we understand that some residents are still opposed to this proposal, we are also aware of local businesses who are supportive and recognize the importance of these types of uses to the local economy.”
Following Pierce it was the resident’s turn to state their case as to why they felt the plant should not be allowed to operate at that location.
“I don’t believe that despite all the evidence that’s been presented that scientifically it’s a worthwhile location for this plant to be located this close to residents and to busy streets that are already heavy traffic as well as the other environmental fallout that is impossible to contain no matter whether they stay within minimum standards or otherwise,” said Les Humphries.
“Why are we doing this?,” asked C.A. Cavers. “We have a lot of other things to do. You could talk about water run off, you could talk about EPA. It’s all there, it’s in writing. Tomlinson’s coming up with stats…I’m not a scientist, I’m not an engineer, but I’ve got common sense and I can read. Tomlinson has already proved that they’re not a good corporate citizen in Ottawa. In 2018 they went to arbitration and it took years. And then there was a suggestion by the AG of Ottawa to the city that they should blacklist Tomlinson and now we’re going to consider them?”
Isbester explained that the town had an obligation to entertain the application.
“We can’t stop anyone from putting in an application for any kind of a variance or a zoning amendment,” said the mayor. “Therefor we do have to entertain them. I do understand your concerns, but we are in a position where we do have to entertain it whether we agree or not and that will be council’s decision on (April) 5.”
When Brian Hughes stepped up to the podium he noted everyone who spoke on the matter was required to state his or her address, except for Tomlinson’s rep Pierce.
“I sense that he is not a resident of the town,” said Hughes, which was met by applause from those in attendance.
Hughes went on to explain he was there to speak on behalf of his two grandchildren.
“I personally can’t imagine a worse place for a hot asphalt plant,” said Hughes, noting his estimates have the edge of the quarry within 500 metres of the river, which is downhill from the site. “It virtually overlooks the town centre. It’s perched on a porous, highly faulted limestone plateau, which overlooks the Napanee River in close proximity.”
“I’ve seen it turn into residents having to sell council on why they should be voting against the plant,” added Dave Rogers. “Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t you be selling us on the benefits of the plant? What actual tangible benefits to the town and the residents does this have for us if it’s approved? I haven’t seen any. I haven’t heard any.”
When asked if it would be possible to have the issue added to the ballot for the upcoming municipal election in October Isbester noted she would direct staff to provide an answer. Following the meeting the town issued a press release stating under legislation it would be unable to include the question on the ballot. Municipalities are required to decide on a zoning by-law amendment within 90 days from application submission, otherwise the applicant can appeal a non-decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Council voted to receive the deputations with the matter currently scheduled to be next discussed at the April 5 council meeting.