Stoney Creek Update

[matt602]

The Egg and I got demolished? Weird. Did they move to a different location?

Content removed

[mattgrande]

Interesting. Any idea what's going in there?

[thistleclub]

Stop me if you think you've heard this one before.


Ministry mothballs Taro dump’s government inspector
(Stoney Creek News, Richard Leitner, Mar 14 2013)

Upper Stoney Creek’s Taro industrial dump won’t see the return of a government inspector to check loads going into the site as part of licence changes that now allow it to take waste directly from anywhere in Ontario. Geoffrey Knapper, district manager at the Ministry of the Environment’s Hamilton office, said inspections will instead continue to focus on owner Newalta Corp’s two transfer stations in the city’s north end. The ministry scrapped the on-site position, which was funded by Newalta at a cost of about $80,000 per year, in December 2011 and initiated a pilot project that saw inspectors do one random visit to the stations every three months.

Knapper said the company does its own inspections at Taro which are audited by the ministry. Newalta says it does at least five random inspections of the 1,666 loads the site receives on average each month. The government inspector did nine. “We found it worked,” Knapper said. “The inspections at both the landfill and our transfer stations did not show any environmental issues, so we’re satisfied that the strategy that we put in place is appropriate.”

The change is one of three amendments to Newalta’s operating licence for the dump, approved in July 1996 without public hearings despite vociferous community opposition. The site had only been allowed to accept waste from within Hamilton, but this included imported loads received at the transfer stations, located on Brant and Imperial streets. It can now also take up 750,000 tonnes of waste in any 12-month period, rather than just within a calendar year.

Unlike with the inspector’s position, Newalta had sought the latter two licence changes and conducted an environmental screening process last summer and fall that included sparsely-attended open houses. Knapper said the changes give Newalta greater flexibility while maintaining all existing rules on acceptable waste, which can only be what the province classifies as solid, non-hazardous waste – a designation that can include treated hazardous wastes.

Efforts to reach Stoney Creek Councillor Brad Clark for comment were unsuccessful, but he spearheaded a motion passed by city council last spring that demanded the on-site inspector be kept in place.

None of the amendments have been posted on the province’s environmental registry, which allows for appeals of the decisions.

Newalta communications director Greg Jones said little has changed from the company’s perspective and plans are underway to hire a third party contractor to do on-site inspections to address Clark’s concerns. “We continued to do at least five random inspections per month on our own, as we did previously while the inspector was in place,” he said. “We continue to follow the same rigorous operating procedures in terms of analyzing incoming materials to ensure they are acceptable for receipt, as well as ongoing monitoring of the conditions at the site.” Jones said the ministry found “no just opposition” to the other licence changes, which he said will reduce traffic and improve air quality by the transfer plants.

At open houses last year, Newalta said requiring imported loads to go to the transfer stations lengthened the haul route by 12.5 kilometres for about 35,000 trucks per year, the equivalent of 135 tonnes of carbon dioxide. It argued this made it less competitive because most other dumps have Ontario-wide service areas. According to the company’s annual report for 2010, the site received about 334,000 tonnes of outside waste from the transfer stations, out of a total of 560,000 tonnes dumped there.

Content removed

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by MeIsThomas

I don't think so, I think they went out of business.

They do have one on Upper James just South of Rymal.

[NortheastWind]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

They do have one on Upper James just South of Rymal.

There's also one on Garner Rd in Ancaster. Just before Wilson St.

Content removed

Content removed

[vinchops]

The drywall on the commercial developement on barton and fruitland are all up and they have started painting the walls. also around the doors they are using stone. it actually looks quite nice.

Content removed

[vinchops]

The former Carmen's paintball arena beside player's paradise is being converted into an Ultimate Exotics store. They have a Ferrari f430, Lamboroghini Gallardo, Maserati Grandturismo, Dodge Viper, and a Shelby GT500 which you can either test drive or preform in track days. ALSO!!! (yes it gets better!) every monday there are going to be holding car shows!! opens May 1st I have to admit, im pretty excited!

[thistleclub]

Eroding dreams on the shore near Stoney Creek
(Hamilton Spectator, Jeff Mahoney, April 29 2013)

In a way it’s worse than buying that proverbial swampland in Florida.

You can drain swampland.

But what’s happening in the Cherry Beach area of Stoney Creek, on the lakeshore near Millen Road, is like buying up property in the old city of Atlantis after it’s been submerged.

You can’t drain Lake Ontario.

Realtor Steve Ribaric takes me out to the “beach.”

He points out to the lapping of the lake immediately beyond us. Buildings used to stand there. People lived there.

The lot plan map says there are lots where he points. There should be. The city paid for them. But there aren’t. The de facto zoning? H2O.

All that property, once the playground of cottagers, is literally underwater, a big scoop taken out of the shoreline.

Soil erosion. Steve says we lose four feet of shoreline a year.

“The point from the original beachfront to the new, is well over 30 feet. In the last storm alone, at least four feet lost. There’s absolutely no protection.”

“It (the rate of beach erosion) is two to three feet a year, but he’s in the ballpark,” admits Steve Barnhart, manager of landscape architectural services for Hamilton’s public works department.

It’s a matter of “the position on the lake of that piece of shoreline and its exposure to wind and wave action and the material the shore is made of.”

The waste of tax money represented by the submerged property, acquired over the years to position the area for conversion to parkland, is one thing, says Steve the realtor.

But the erosion of the city property is compromising his client’s own efforts to keep back the lake. He represents the owner of a strip of land that runs between Cherry Beach Road and the shore, sandwiched between city-owned lots.

The client’s property, at the shoreline, is fortified by massive heaps of boulders and rocks and other materials piled up as a breakwater.

But beside his barrier, on city land? Nothing. The waves have their way.

“My client is about to lose his breakwall, and his house will be next,” says Steve the realtor. “They (city hall) are unresponsive, and he (the client) would like them to either put up breakwall protection or buy him out.”

Content removed

Content removed

[thistleclub]

Winona slams development
(Stoney Creek News, Mike Pearson, May 23 2013)

Winona residents shouted down a development plan that could see their community expand by 17,000 people over the next two decades.

More than 300 residents packed the former Stoney Creek council chambers on Thursday, for a community meeting hosted by Ward 11 councillor Brenda Johnson.

City planning staff will present a proposed secondary plan for the Stoney Creek Urban Boundary Expansion (SCUBE) for approval at a June 4 meeting. The SCUBE area is bounded by Fruitland to Fifty Roads and Barton Street to Highway 8.

The proposed plan will include realigning Fruitland Road and open up land for residential development throughout Winona, starting with the properties east of Fruitland Road.

But members of a citizens advisory committee said the proposed secondary plan going to the planning committee is not the plan they endorsed.

Cal Di Falco, advisory committee chair, said the plan threatens Winona’s small town character by allowing high density development, with stacked townhouse units up to six storeys.

“The plan you’re seeing here today has lost its way,” said Di Falco. “I can’t stand here today and support this.”

Residents expressed a litany of concerns, including the new placement of the Fruitland Road bypass.

Grant Cook, advisory committee vice chair, said the new bypass route would re-direct heavy truck traffic into a residential area at the corner of Barton Street and Sunnyhurst Ave.

Other residents were concerned by the impact of large scale development on property values.

Michelle Sergi, city manager of community planning and design, said the SCUBE area will be designed with a goal of 70 people and jobs per hectare, to ensure the community meets the guidelines of the province’s Places to Grow legislation.

Johnson plans to oppose the secondary plan when the document is presented to the planning committee.

“I’m not recommending this; the city (planning) staff is recommending this,” she clarified for the audience.

Content removed

[Breze27hunter]

The owner retired and was just tired of it, wanted to just spend time with grand kids. It will be an LCBO building.

[thistleclub]

Clark blasts Taro dump redesign as ‘mountain of crap’
(Stoney Creek News, Richard Leitner, June 6 2013)

Stoney Creek Councillor Brad Clark is warning neighbours of the Taro dump that they will be staring out at “a mountain of crap” if owner Newalta Corp. gets permission to raise its final grade by nearly a third at its highest point.

Clark lashed out at Newalta officials in several testy exchanges on Monday after they unveiled the proposal at a meeting of the community liaison committee for the site, rejecting their suggestions people won’t notice the difference.

The plan, which requires approval from the Ministry of the Environment, would see all dump elevations rise by 4.5 metres, raising the final grade from ground level to between 11.55 and 18.45 metres from the existing range of 7.05 to 13.95 metres.

In return for being allowed to pile waste higher, the company is proposing to limit the site to its existing footprint. This would scrap the original plan to expand it toward Green Mountain Road and create a new entranceway off Mud Street.

Clark said the proposal is all about saving Newalta money, calling it a “complete betrayal” of promises made to the community when the dump was approved in 1996 over the objections of 10,000 people who wrote letters of opposition.

He criticized Newalta for not raising the height issue with the city as it planned the new entrance and surrounding housing developments like Penny Lane Estates.

“I’m absolutely stunned that this suggestion is even being made,” Clark said.

“To just dump it like this is so irritating, especially given all the money that was invested in all these houses around here,” he said. “You think they want to see a mountain of crap?”

But Newalta communications director Greg Jones said the proposal will only result in a “slight increase” to the dump’s height while eliminating the nuisance from constructing five new waste cells on 18 hectares of land by Green Mountain Road.

The new design will also increase the distance between the dump and homes planned to the north by 275 metres, keep the Upper Centennial Parkway entrance and reduce leachate volumes going into the sewer because of a smaller waste footprint, he said.

“We’re not going to deny that this project will result in cost savings, but we believe there are a number of benefits,” Jones said, estimating the dump will remain open for another 10 years.

“Frankly, we don’t think that four and a half metres are going to make any difference to anybody,” he said. “We’d be able to keep the access where it is. We believe that not having an entrance across from Penny Lane Estates would be beneficial to those people.”

But Randy Valchuk, a community member of the committee, said the increase in height “does sound rather high” and could affect the view from neighbouring homes.

“You’re talking about pretty well a two-storey house (higher),” he said. “Some of those people, if it was cut down to a reasonable thing, they could probably see over the city. You might actually block their view.”

It could always be worse.

Content removed