The future of a proposed waste transfer station at the Coniston Industrial Park is still up in the air, with the planning committee of city council deferring a decision until Jan. 26.
The deferral capped a lengthy public hearing at the Lionel E. Lalonde Centre in Azilda on Monday, at which several Coniston residents expressed their concerns.
Key to these concerns was its addition of 60 inbound trucks and 10 larger outgoing trucks per day, and a provision to allow for the facility’s handling of “hazardous” wastes.
“The residents of Coniston are naturally reacting to the words in the notice of public hearing,” Ward 9 Coun. Deb McIntosh said during Monday’s meeting, at which she said, “hazardous jumped off the page.”
Although not a member of the planning committee, McIntosh attended Monday’s meeting as the council representative for the area.
A great deal of insight can be gleaned from the hundreds of pages of background information provided to city council members and posted publicly to accompany Monday’s meeting, plus the answers to questions provided. However, several questions remain unanswered.
This includes, what, exactly is to be processed at the site, and where the waste classified as “hazardous” is coming from. Proponent Debbie Vandenakker, representing Coniston Industrial Park Ltd. and GFL Environmental Inc., said she didn’t know if it’d come from outside Greater Sudbury.
Further, is there an alternative route they can access to the Coniston Industrial Park? The current plan includes a Highway 17 access onto Second Avenue, proceeding south to Government Road, west to Edward Avenue South, southward into the area?
This route takes trucks straight through “the heart of Coniston,” area resident Joe Shaw said, noting that both inbound and outbound trucks take two-way trips meaning 140 trucks per day.
“I don’t understand how this can be minimal,” he said of the added traffic, arguing against the proponent’s dismissal of traffic concerns.
As for information regarding what kind of waste is making its way through Coniston, he said, “It’s like pulling teeth here getting information about what the waste is and what exactly is going on. Nobody knows.”
Area resident Martin Trudel was animated throughout the meeting, throwing his hands up in the air in frustrated gestures.
After the meeting, he told Sudbury.com that he’s happy to see the planning committee defer a decision to Jan. 26.
His key concern is the traffic issue.
“To get there, they have to endanger the community of Coniston,” he said. “These roads were never meant for these volumes.”
The hope is that by Jan. 26, the applicant will share more information with the residents of Coniston, planning committee chair and Ward 10 Coun. Fern Cormier said.
“For what it’s worth, we can’t force the applicant, but I do strongly encourage the applicant to engage with the ward councillor in the community between now and Jan. 26 in answering as many questions as possible and dealing with information requests from the councillor as well,” he said, citing “an enormous amount of questions” which need to be answered.
The solid and hazardous (liquid) waste management services and soil recycling facility would take shape in buildings on site, including some which were constructed without building permits issued, of which there are six.
“It is our understanding that the management of Coniston Industrial Park has been working positively with City staff to obtain proper permits,” according to a Land Use Planning Report prepared for the proponents by Planscape Inc.
This revelation raised city council members’ eyebrows on Monday.
“I, and the residents, do have safety concerns about an active operation that includes hazardous waste,” McIntosh said, adding that although the province has approved the application, “It’s taking place in structures without approved building permits.”
Moving forward with rezoning is the first step toward getting those building permits issued, city Planning and Growth general manager Kris Longston said, to which McIntosh responded, “We should all be getting building permits before we build something.”
Some operations are already taking place in unpermitted buildings, with the applications the planning committee deferred to Jan. 26 “part of a larger exercise by Coniston Industrial Park to bring all operations into compliance with the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and to obtain required building permits.”
Ward 4 Coun. Pauline Fortin later questioned what kind of oversight a company that didn’t think to apply for building permits would have when handling hazardous waste, noting “I just have concerns.”
On this front, area residents also raised a November 2021 incident in which a shipping container at GFL Environmental Ltd. exploded at Coniston Industrial Park, sending a strong smell of chlorine through parts of Coniston.
The facility is at the site of a former Inco smelter, which closed in 1972 and Vandenakker cited as representative of the area’s industrial use, which is befitting a waste transfer station.
Materials to be accepted at the site include non-hazardous waste, including blue box waste collected at the curbside, which will be held for transfer.
Although the proponent noted that this would all be done indoors, the Design and Operations Report submitted by the proponent notes that “wood waste, metal waste and aggregate” will be stored outside in covered roll-off bins.
“Hazardous soil for transfer only,” and “liquid industrial waste” will also be transferred into eight above-ground “vertical storage tanks” with a combined maximum capacity of 480,000 litres.
Despite provisions for hazardous waste, the report clarifies that “radioactive, pathological/biomedical, explosives and PCBs wastes will not be accepted at the site.”
“On an annual basis, the site is allowed to receive 100,000 tonnes of dry soil, 109,500 tonnes of solid non-hazardous waste and a maximum of 144,000 tonnes of all other waste including hazardous and non-hazardous waste.”
Prior to the committee making a final decision on the official plan and rezoning amendments to allow the transfer station to proceed on Jan. 26, McIntosh said she hopes all Coniston residents are better informed about what has been proposed.
“I know there are more and I think they would appreciate a public consultation with the consultant, with GFL, with the Coniston Industrial Park in attendance to ask and answer questions so they can fully understand,” McIntosh said.
The initial round of public consultation was limited to a statutory notice of application in a newspaper and a letter to landowners and tenants within 244 metres of the property.
During Monday’s meeting, several area residents noted that because trucks will cut through the heart of Coniston, the entire community will be affected and should have been better informed.
Although a Land Use Planning Report noted that the proponent’s representatives would reach out to McIntosh by email “advising of the project and offering to discuss any issues or concerns she may have,” as they feel “her input is valuable and representative of the constituents in the area,” McIntosh said she “received no communication whatsoever.”
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.