HomeMy WebLinkAboutClinton News-Record, 1986-02-26, Page 1'Clinton -N News4ecor
INCORPORATING-TIE MYTH l TAr%UARD.THE BA I FIEL 1 1 .
NO.9 121 YEARS
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26,1986
50 CENTS
Maitland C onservation
Authority approves budget
By Stephanie Levesque
The Maitland Valley Conservation
Authority (MVCA) has a $2.4 million budget
for this year with the Listowel conduit ac-
counting for $1 million.
The authority approved the 1986 budget at
its annual meeting in WroXeter on Feb. 19.
Phase seven of the conduit project has
been budgeted at just over $1 million. To
date, r3Iie provincial .Ministry of Natural
,R.esotirces has cote fitted a little more than
50 per cent to the project or$606,058. .
And, that has the town of Listowel con-
cerned because up until now, the ministry
has funded the conduit projects up to 85 per
cent. However, MVCA chairman Vince
'Judge of Listowel said the ministry is ex-
pected to come up with the rest of the fun-
ding sometime later.
"We are optimistic that we'll get the addi-
tional allocation we need," said Judge ad-
ding,°"We respect the concern of the town of
Listowel to not go ahead until we have all
the funding."
The town will pay $161,550 in a special levy
for phase seven.
A $100,000 erosion control project to
stabilize the bluffs at Goderich was a1sdap-
proved in the authority's budget.
Continuing" along the Lake Huron
shoreline, a $55,000 flood -erosion mapping
project will be undertaken this year in
Ashfield Township. The purpose of the map-
ping is to identify flood and erosion prone
areas along the lake.
Flood control in Harriston will also
receive a big boqst this year. Bridge
reconstruction and channel improvements
are to be undertaken in that town in the
eastern portion of the authority's watersh-
ed. This has been budgeted at $97,000.
A training wall along the Nine Mile River
just north of Goderich, will be constructed
as a study to find if it is effective in stopping
shoreline erosion. The project has been
budgeted for $7,500.
The budget for water and related land
management capital projects, the category
which the aforementioned projects are in,
total $1.48 million.
Besides needing more money for the
Listowel conduit project, MVCA intends to
go after the Ministry of Natural Resources
for .other funding. Two erosion control pro-
bects, one at Port Albert along the north
ank of the Nine Mile River and the other in
Wingham, have not yet received funding ap-
proval from the ministry.
The Port Albert project has been
budgeted at $88,000 and the Wingham pro-
ject is expected to cost $22,800.
Continual improvements have been plann-
ed at each of the authority's conservation
areas as well as the Maple Keys Sugar
Bush. These projects have been estimated
at a total cost of $35,600.
The authority will be going to its 33
municipalities for $216,540, up from $202,705
last year. Exactly how much each
municipality pays is based on equalized
assessment and information will be sent to
the municipal clerks by Mar. 1.
General revenue from MVCA's operations
is expected to bring in $177,200. That amount.
includes an estimated $6,000 in donations.
The rest of the budget, $1.8 'million will be
paid for by the province through the
Ministry of Natural Resources.
Besides the $1.8 million to be spent on the
water and related land management pro-
gram, the rest of the budget will be spent as
follows: -Administration has a budget of
$296,060. -Conservation and recreation land
management program has estimated total-
ing $67,348. -Operations and maintenance is
expected to cost $218,700. -Special programs
have been budgeted at$25,326.
Tuckersmith residents
upset over landfill sites
By Heather Mcllwraith site). It's our problem and we should have
TUCKERSMITH TWP. - The devalue- some input."
tion of properties adjacent to"We never even knew what sites were
the one that being considered until last week, when we
may eventually house thh e Seaforth- t a letter from the town," said Mr.
Tuckersmith landfill site seemed the main got
concern on February 18 at a discussionRhe landfilling
regarding solid waste management pro- 'Q
a meansaeries that
waste controlt questioned ned the
were hastily
grams for these two areas. as
The meeting, intended to bring the answered or dismissed entirely based on
the argument incineration had already
public up-to-date on the current en- been ruled out as too expensive an
vironmental assessment study and in par-- endeavour at this time for a community
titular the investigation of nine parcels of the size of Seaforth-Tuckersmith, and even
land in Tuckersmith which could house the if incineration were in place, a landfill site
site, drew a crowd of approximately 200.
Farmers in particular were upset at the
would still be required to house the excess
se
prospect of having the landfill site border- garbage.
sug-
gested, Incineration was, it was an alternative which could be
ing on their;,property, and suggested ter- resparcl�pc turtYlerti later_ on dhf i reapplied
' `'fain° -landowhers,'' after- agleam `. te' sell;°, ''� to the local Situation.
their property, plan to move away from °How many times do we have to invent
the situation, leaving their neighbors with the wheel," said Mr. Mitchell.
the "mess". "How many times must dollars be spent
"I think the adjoining landowners should over and over on proving landfilling is the
be compensated," said Jam McIntosh; of best solution for this area."
Tuckersmith aship. "Incineration itself causes problems. It
"They (some landowners) plan to sell is not the ultimate solution. Below a cer-
tain size it is not very economical either,"
said Mr. Mitchell.
•
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Budget reaches half million
Huron County's planning and develop-
ment department has approved a budget
of almost half a million dollars for1986,
County council will have a second
chance to look at the department's
estimates for the year when all depart-
ment budgets are considered in March.
The 1986 planning budget is up 5.28 per
cent from last year.
The planning and development budget of
$490,585 reflects salary increases of six per
cent. Salaries and benefits, totalling
$256,042 make up more than half of the
planning department budget.
The second major expense of the depart-
ment
epartment is production costs. Budgeted at
$69,706 for the year, these costs reflect the
printing of zoning bylaws, official plans
and maps for the municipalities in the
county.
The largest expense is for basineSS
61Included ihthiS
develop�ent set at $ z000.
is the cost of promotional odvet'tiaing of
Planning department
will use.
$55,000 from reserve
the county for economic development and
tourism
Staff training, equipment and other in-
ternal administrative functions take up the
rest of the budget estimates,
Huron .Coanty pays the largestof
.share
:e budget, However, the, estimate of
he is onl four per
;�ar1906+ ar F't to y
$848,048
p
cent' increase' over the county's share last
their whole farm and move out of the place
and leave their neighbors with the mess,
and I'm afraid of that," said Uwe Wisch,
also of Tuckersmith.
"I don't think you realize just how much
of a shock.this came to us last week when
we got the letter advising us of the site,"
said Don Reynolds.
Mr. Reynolds compared the proximity of
his lot to one of the proposed locations of
the landfill site, to the distance between
the railway line in Seaforth to Bob and
Betty's Variety Store on the town's main
street.
"Mr. Bell (a landowner) granted per-
missen for Hie to put up nay goat barn, but
he didn't tell us he was going to put up 25
acres for the landfill site. He's going to sell
the whole farm and the rest of us will be
stuck with the whole garbage," said Mr.
Reynolds.
Another concern voiced at the meeting
was that although garbage is being pro—
duced by both the township and Seaforth,
the township is being forced to bear the
responsibility of housing the landfill site.
"What was wrong with the lagoon site?"
questioned Matt Haney.
"The only thing against it was the
citizens. I think we should share the
wealth. The soil is right, transportation is
not a problem. I think it (the lagoon site) is
an ideal situation. Why does the country
have to deal/ with it (the garbage). Based
on the percentage use, they (Seaforth) are
putting up the garbage, why do they not
share it?" t
"The door should not be closed on it. It is
eady zoned as landfill. It is already set
up for liquid waste, we just have to set it up
for solid. We're already.halfway there."
Mr. Reynolds pointed out a number of
comments during the night by Chairman
Mike Mitchell, ,a lawyer from Stratford,
had suggested residents take responsibili-
ty for the garbage they produce.
"I suggest we do that," he said.
"I burn the paper out of my garbage,
take my newspapers to the Zurich boy
scouts for recycling, so the only things are
my javex bottles and cans that go to the
' Seaforth dump. Can you compare that with
someplace like Sills Hardware and Cana-
dian Tire, who are using the same dump?
Seaforth is using the dump for many com-
mercial uses."
In response to the questions about "shar-
ing the wealth" when it came to housing a
landfill site, Mr. Mitchell suggested it
might be the country's turn to house such a
thing as a dump. He likened the dump site
tothel' 'd_ manure stations around the
year.
The planning department will pull
Th
$55,000 out of its reserves to cover the
various projects being worked on this
year. Planning director Dr. Gary David-
son said the reserves are used to balance
the department's budget because the pro- :.
vince pays 85 per cent of the cost of the pro-
ject at the beginning, but the project takes
two to four yeas t�complete
The budget. also reflects an anticipated
revenue increase from consent' application
fees. The department expects to get $27,500
from the fees, because it • upped the in-
dividual fee from $300 to $500.
Provincial grants and other application •
fees account for the rest of the revenue.
Some of the work to be carried out by the
department this year includes 19,, zoning•>
plans at various stages, six official plans
at
11atiou$ stages and preparing an't
eonotin1e develop1rient strategy. K
Those questioning the safety of the water
system were assured thorough testing
would be undertaken, and if it turned up
the least suggestion of contamination, the
site would be abandoned. The health and
safety of the people in the area was, the
crowd was told, the number one criteria in
choosing the final landfill site. Regardless
of whether or not a site held up in all other
areas, it would be abandoned if there was
the slightest hint it would be unsafe.
In choosing the potential sites for a land-
fill, a committee made up of Bill Scott of
Seaforth, Bill. Price of Tuckersmith,
Carolanne Doig of Seaforth council, Alf
Ross of Seaforth council, George Cantelon
of Tuckersmith council and Bob Broadfoot
of Tuckersmith council, eliminated the
most unsuitable areas for the site by
reviewing the , considerations of public
health and safety, social environment and
natural environment of the whole
Township of Tuckersmith.
Public health and safety was slated the
prime concern in selecting a landfill site,
with the protection of groundwater and
surface water as essential. The impact on
nearby residences was given secondary
consideration, and initially only sites that
were 400 metres or more from any existing
residence or any residentially -zoned area
were to be considered. Third consideration
was given to the accessibility of the site to
the serviced area, and final consideration
was given to the impact on the agricultural
resources. The Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture and Food, for example
has advised that soil classified as Class 1,
2, 1-3T, in the "Canada Land Inventory,
Soil Capability for Agriculture" mapping
should not be investigated for landfilling
purposes;
Other criteria established as being the
minimur i acceptable for further in-
vestigation of a site were: Cultural en-
vironment (there must be no significant
heritage or archaeological resources on
the site), availability and site size (the site
must have a 20 -year minimum life - i.e. 20
to 30 acres.)
Based on this criteria and the agreement
to sell by property owners the Seaforth-
Tuckersmith Landfill Committee narrow-
ed the possibilities for the landfill site,
down to nine locations.
Those nine locations are the E. At-
tenberger property,' Lot 13 Con III LRS and
Pt lot 10 Con XI HRS; Joe McKenzie, Lot
lout _ 31 Con IV LRS; Kootstra Farms Ltd., Pt
area, which he said, are as unpleasant to Lot 36, 37, . and 39 Con I HRS; Harold
the townfolk as.a landfill site might be to Smith, Lo ►n III HRS; Robert Bell, W.
the country folk. Pt Lot 4 an ' 5 Con XII HRS; Robert Gem -
"Sometimes I'm sure the city folk would mell, Lot 3 and E. Pt Lot 4 Con VI HRS;
like to just say, boys, why don't you keep Leonard Lovell, West Pt. Lot 14 Con II
that stuff at home." LRS; John and Harry Swinkels, Lot 7 Con
Mr. Mitchell's comment provoked an VI SIRS and Ministry of the Environment,
already upset crowd, who came to ask Lagoon he nine ssites were ranked based on an
e.
questions but found those questions limited
to the tole of, the criteria used to choose , allocation of points for each of the con -
the landfill sites."' Sid'erations on, all of the potential sites.
"1 think e're beinga bit railroaded , That ranking left the Kootstra property
at
I thin �v _ e top `of the list with the Gein hell proper-
here,'" said fittgo Menhe�rer to a burst of til t p
applause. "We're paying for it (the landfill "lura to page 8
24