to view/download all the details

Transcription

THE CORPORATION
OF THE
CITY OF TIMMINS
PROJECT FILE REPORT
Class Environmental Assessment Study
For an Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard
Date:
August 24, 2015
Prepared By:
Patricia Becker, M.E.S.
P Becker Consulting
THE CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF TIMMINS
Engineering Department
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS TISDALE YARD
The City of Timmins has completed a Schedule B, Class Environmental Assessment (EA) project to address
the problem of needing to update and improve service to area residents by the Public Works Tisdale Yard by
having an updated building, fueling area, lay down area and storage area. The Class EA project was
conducted in accordance with Schedule B requirements of the Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal
Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011). The
existing Public Works Tisdale Yard’s current location requires major work to update the existing building and
address physical issues with the site. The existing building was built in the 1940’s and has started to
deteriorate. The existing site is also situated in the flood zone which tends to result in flooding of the property
and building in the spring making it challenging to continue to provide service to area residents.
The current project and the public and agency consultation identified the following as the preferred alternative
solution (as shown in the figure below):
To develop a new Public Works Tisdale Yard site at 6075 King Street in Porcupine, Ontario
A Class EA Project File Report documenting the study process and the preferred alternative solution has been
prepared and is available for public review at the following locations during normal business hours:
City of Timmins, Engineering Dept.
236 Algonquin Boulevard East
Timmins, ON P4N 1B3
Hours: Mon-Fri: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Phone #: (705) 360-2600 ext. 4843
Timmins Public Library, C.M. Shields Centennial Branch
99 Bloor Avenue
South Porcupine, ON P0N 1H0
Hours: Mon: 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. & 6:00 p.m. to 8:00p.m.
Tue-Wed: Noon to 8:00 p.m.
Thu-Fri: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sat: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Phone #: (705) 360-2623 ext. 8590
A copy of the Project File Report will be posted on the City of Timmins’ website (www.timmins.ca). Interested
persons should provide written comments to Pat Seguin at the City of Timmins or Patricia Becker (P Becker
Consulting), at the following addresses:
Pat Seguin, P. Eng, Manager of Engineering
City of Timmins
236 Algonquin Blvd. East
Timmins, ON P4N 1B3
Phone: (705) 360-2600 ext. 4855
Fax: (705) 360-2680
Email: [email protected]
Patricia Becker, MES
P Becker Consulting
Phone: (416) 529-3613
Fax: (905) 713-1237
If concerns regarding this project that cannot be resolved through discussions with the City of Timmins, a
person/party may request that the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change make an order for the
project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a “Part II Order”). A Part II
Order request must be received by the Minister at the address below no later than September 28th, 2015. A
copy of the Part II Order request must also be sent to Mr. Patrick Seguin at the City of Timmins (at the address
above). If there are no Part II Order requests received, the proposed works may proceed to the design and
construction phases as outlined the Project File Report.
The Honourable John Wilkinson
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change
77 Wellesley St. W. – 11th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2T5
Issue Date: August 28, 2015
Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With
the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
14 Lady Diana Court
Gormley, Ontario L0H 1G0
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
Email:
905-713-2837
416-529-3613
905-713-1237
[email protected]
August 24, 2015 Patrick Seguin, P. Eng. Manager of Engineering Corporation of the City of Timmins Timmins, Ontario Dear Pat Seguin: Re: Project File Report Class Environmental Assessment Study for an Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard P Becker Consulting is pleased to submit our Project File Report for the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study for an Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard. Completed as a Schedule “B” Class EA, this report documents Phase 1 and 2 of the Municipal Engineers Association’s (MEA) Municipal Class EA process, including a description of the problem/opportunity, identification of alternative solutions, inventory of the natural, socio‐economic and cultural environment, consultation with the public and stakeholders, and evaluation of alternative solutions resulting in a preferred solution with identified impacts and mitigation measures. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, P Becker Consulting Patricia Becker, MES Project Manager Project File Report
Class Environmental Assessment Study for an
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Table of Contents Table of Contents Transmittal Letter Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.1 Purpose of the Project .............................................................................................. 1‐1 1.2 Description of the Study Area ................................................................................... 1‐1 2.0 Needs Assessment and Justification ............................................................................ 2‐1 2.1 Problem/Opportunity Statement ............................................................................. 2‐1 3.0 Overview of the Municipal Class EA Planning Process ................................................. 3‐1 3.1 Municipal Class EA Schedules ................................................................................... 3‐2 3.1.1 3.1.2 Schedule B Classification ....................................................................................................... 3‐3 Part II Order ........................................................................................................................... 3‐3 4.0 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 4‐5 4.1 Natural Environment ................................................................................................ 4‐5 4.2 Social‐Cultural Environment ..................................................................................... 4‐5 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 Service Area ........................................................................................................................... 4‐6 Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 4‐6 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 4‐10 4.3 Technical Environment ........................................................................................... 4‐10 5.0 Identification of Alternative Solutions ....................................................................... 5‐12 5.1 Description of Alternative Solutions ....................................................................... 5‐12 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 Alternative Site 1 – Evans Street (Do Nothing / Existing Site) ............................................. 5‐14 Alternative Site 2 – Ferguson Road at Crawford Street ....................................................... 5‐15 Alternative Site 3 – Bruce Avenue at Goldmine Road ......................................................... 5‐16 Alternative Site 4 – Legion Drive At Hellen Avenue ............................................................ 5‐17 Alternative Site 5 – Intersection of Duke, Gervais & Falcon Streets ................................... 5‐18 Alternative Site 6 – 6075 King Street ................................................................................... 5‐19 6.0 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions ............................................................................. 6‐1 6.1 Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................... 6‐1 6.2 Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................................... 6‐2 7.0 Preferred Solution ....................................................................................................... 7‐1 8.0 Identification of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 8‐1 8.1 Property Requirements ............................................................................................ 8‐1 8.2 Social‐Cultural Environment Impacts ....................................................................... 8‐1 8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4 August 24, 2015
Traffic ..................................................................................................................................... 8‐1 Public Notification ................................................................................................................. 8‐1 Generation of Excess Materials ............................................................................................. 8‐1 Noise, Dust and Vibration Control ......................................................................................... 8‐1 i
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Table of Contents 8.2.5 Encountering of Unknown Archaeology Remains ................................................................. 8‐2 8.3 Natural Environment Impacts .................................................................................. 8‐2 8.3.1 Erosion and Sediment Control ............................................................................................... 8‐2 8.4 Permitting Requirements ......................................................................................... 8‐3 9.0 Public and Agency Consultation................................................................................... 9‐1 9.1 Notice ‐ Public Comment Invited .............................................................................. 9‐1 9.2 Public and Agency Comments .................................................................................. 9‐1 9.2.1 9.2.2 Public Comments Received ................................................................................................... 9‐1 Agency Comments Received ................................................................................................. 9‐2 9.3 Notice of Study Completion ...................................................................................... 9‐2 9.4 Aboriginal Communities Consultation ...................................................................... 9‐2 9.4.1 First Nations Comments and Responses ............................................................................... 9‐3 LIST OF TABLES Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Evaluation Criteria................................................................................................ 6-2 Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Sites 1 to 3 ............................................. 6-4 Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Sites 4 to 6 ............................................. 6-7 Summary of Comparative Evaluation and Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Sites 1 to 6 ....................................................................................... 6-10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Figure 3.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4 Figure 7.5 August 24, 2015
Study Area ............................................................................................................ 1‐2 Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process ................................................ 3‐2 Land Use in Porcupine and South Porcupine ....................................................... 4‐7 Zoning in South Porcupine ................................................................................... 4‐8 Zoning in Porcupine ............................................................................................. 4‐9 Alternative Site Locations .................................................................................. 5‐13 Site 1 Existing Site & Layout ............................................................................... 5‐14 Site 2 Proposed Site & Layout ............................................................................ 5‐15 Site 3 Proposed Site & Layout ............................................................................ 5‐16 Site 4 Proposed Site & Layout ............................................................................ 5‐17 Site 5 Proposed Site & Layout ............................................................................ 5‐18 Site 6 Proposed Site & Layout ............................................................................ 5‐19 Proposed Public Works Tisdale Yard Site ............................................................. 7‐1 Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Site & Preliminary Concept Layout ............ 7‐2 Property Zoning ................................................................................................... 7‐4 Surrounding Area Zoning ..................................................................................... 7‐5 Aerial of Proposed Public Works Tisdale Yard Site & Conceptual Layout ........... 7‐8 ii
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Table of Contents APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C August 24, 2015
Notifications Public and Agency Contact List Public and Agency Correspondence and Comments iii
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard 1.0
Introduction Introduction The Corporation of the City of Timmins (Timmins) has undertaken a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to consider updating the Public Works Tisdale Yard. The existing Public Works Tisdale Yard’s current location requires major work to update the existing building and address physical issues with the site. The existing building was built in the 1940’s and has started to deteriorate. The existing site is also situated in the flood zone which tends to result in flooding of the property and building in the spring making it challenging to continue to provide service to area residents. 1.1
Purpose of the Project The purpose of the project is to improve service to area residents from the Public Works Tisdale Yard by having an updated building, fueling area, laydown area and storage area and a works yard that is accessible all year round. 1.2
Description of the Study Area The City of Timmins covers approximately 3,210 km2 making it one of the largest cities in Canada from an overall land perspective. Given the size of the City there will need to be more than one public works yard to service the distribution of the population. The existing Public Works Tisdale Yard services all areas within the City of Timmins located east of Schumacher (including Porcupine, South Porcupine, Hoyle, Connaught and Barbers Bay). The service area will remain the same and given the large overall size of the City of Timmins, the site for the Public Works Tisdale Yard will need to be located within a study area that extends east of Schumacher. The study area is focused on the larger urban areas of the communities of South Porcupine and Porcupine where sites for a public works yard are likely to be found as well the larger communities requiring servicing. August 24, 2015
1-1
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Introduction Figure 1.1 Study Area Study Area
N
August 24, 2015
1-2
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Needs Assessment and Justification 2.0
Needs Assessment and Justification The existing Public Works Tisdale Yard provides services to area residents east of Schumacher. Due to the size and geographic distribution of the population in the City of Timmins it is necessary to have more than one Public Works Yard. 2.1
Problem/Opportunity Statement These needs result in the following Problem/Opportunity Statement: How to update and improve service to area residents by the Public Works Tisdale Yard by having an updated building, fueling area, laydown area and storage area. August 24, 2015
2-1
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Overview of the Municipal Class EA Planning Process 3.0
Overview of the Municipal Class EA Planning Process This Class EA planning process, which follows the Municipal Engineers Association’s (MEA) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document, takes into consideration the protection of all aspects of the natural, social and economic environment as well as long‐term planning for the mitigation of any adverse effects during both construction and commissioning. The Class EA process also includes consultation with the Public, Aboriginal Communities, Government Agencies, local interest groups and review bodies to obtain input and feedback and to ultimately attain general acceptance for the preferred alternative. There are five (5) phases depicted in the Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process, which include: 
Phase 1: Definition of the problem(s) and opportunities related to the project. This includes discretionary public consultation to review the problem/opportunity/need for the project. 
Phase 2: Identification of alternative solutions and selection of a preferred solution based on a thorough evaluation of the options against a set of criteria. Phase 2 includes a detailed inventory of the natural, social and economic environment as well as the identification of any adverse impacts/effects and associated mitigating measures. Public consultation is held to review the problem/opportunity as well as all alternative solutions in an attempt to gain feedback leading to the selection of the preferred solution. 
Phase 3: Identification and assessment of alternative design concepts for the preferred solution. The preferred solution selected in Phase 2 is expanded on in Phase 3 to include detailed design concepts. A second public consultation event is held to review the alternative design concepts in an attempt to gain further feedback leading to the selection of the preferred design. 
Phase 4: Preparation of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) documenting all phases and components of the Class EA process. The ESR is placed on public record and a notice of completion is filed. 
Phase 5: Implementation of the project works, including complete contract drawings and tender documents followed by construction and commissioning. The complete Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process is shown in Figure 3.1. August 24, 2015
3-1
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Figure 3.1 Overview of the Municipal Class EA Planning Process Municipal Class EA Planning and Design Process 3.1
Municipal Class EA Schedules The Class EA document categorizes projects into one of four (4) possible schedules depending on the project’s complexity and the nature and significance of potential adverse effects on the environment. The schedule under which a particular project falls determines the specific planning and design phases that must be adhered to. The four (4) schedules are: 
Schedule “A/A+” projects are generally limited in scale and usually consist of minor operational/upgrade works. These projects usually have minimal adverse impacts on the environment and may go ahead without further assessment once the problem is reviewed and a solution is confirmed (i.e., after the completion of Phase 1). Schedule “A+” projects require the extra step of notifying stakeholders prior to proceeding with the implementation of the project. 
Schedule “B” projects have the potential for some adverse environment effects and must accordingly proceed through Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the planning and design process. Alternative solutions to the problem must be identified, all impacts to the natural, social‐cultural and/or economic environment must be inventoried and a preferred solution selected through consultation with the Public and government review agencies. The project file must be completed and put on public record for a 30‐day public review period prior to proceeding to implementation. August 24, 2015
3-2
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Overview of the Municipal Class EA Planning Process 
3.1.1
Schedule “C” projects are the most complex and require a more detailed study, public and agency consultation and documentation. These projects have the potential for significant environment effects. A Schedule “C” project must complete all five (5) Phases of the planning and design process. An ESR must be completed and put on public record for a 30‐day public review period prior to proceeding to implementation. Schedule B Classification The scope of work for assessing new service facilities is characterized as a Schedule “B” project within the MEA’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment document. Per Appendix 1 – Project Schedules of the document, these are characterized as: 
New service facilities (e.g., patrol yards, storage and maintenance facilities, parking lots for service vehicles). As such, this study is being conducted in accordance with the approved requirements for a Schedule “B” Municipal Class EA, which requires the completion of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the planning and design process. Consultation between the proponent and affected or interested stakeholders early in and throughout the process is a key feature of EA planning, which provides opportunities for the exchange of information by which decision‐making may be influenced. In addition, one of the primary goals in effectively consulting stakeholders is to resolve issues proactively to avoid controversy, which could ultimately lead to a Part II Order request (discussed below). In a Schedule B Class EA there exists two mandatory points of contact with the public and review agencies. The first point of contact follows the proponent’s identification of the recommended alternative solution. It is at this point, through invitation for public comment and input that an opportunity for stakeholders to assist in the selection of a preferred solution exists. The second point of contact consists of the Notice of Completion of the planning process, which completes the screening requirements for Schedule B projects. Once completed, the final Project File Report will be available for the mandatory 30‐day public review period by interested members of the public and agency groups. 3.1.2
Part II Order In the event that an affected agency or other interested party has a concern that cannot be resolved through discussions upon completion of the Project File Report, individuals may request the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change or delegate to issue a Part II Order under the Environmental Assessment Act. A Part II Order is a mechanism by which the Minister or delegate is requested to render a decision regarding the elevation of the EA (prior to proceeding with the proposed undertaking) to either a Schedule C or an individual EA. All Part II Order requests must be submitted to the Minister or delegate within the 30 calendar day review period and copied by the requester to the proponent at the same time that they are submitted. Once a Part II Order is received, the proponent is advised of the receipt of the request by the Minister or Environmental Approvals Branch (EA Branch), whereby the August 24, 2015
3-3
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Overview of the Municipal Class EA Planning Process proponent may make a submission to the EA Branch addressing the issues raised in the request. Following the request, the EA Branch must carry out a review, consider both sides of the argument, and make a recommendation to the Minister or delegate. The Minister reviews the request and study information and makes one of the following decisions: 
Deny the request; 
Refer the matter to mediation; or 
Grant the request and require the proponent to comply with Part II of the EA Act (complete a Schedule C or an Individual EA) Members of the public having concerns about the potential environmental effects of a project or the planning process being followed, have a responsibility to bring their concerns to the attention of the proponent early in the planning process, when the proponent has greater flexibility to accommodate changes in the project development and the process. August 24, 2015
3-4
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Existing Conditions 4.0
Existing Conditions The study area extends to cover off the communities located east of Schumacher. The community of Porcupine is located on the eastern end of Porcupine Lake and is the easternmost part of the City’s urban core. South Porcupine is located southwest of Porcupine and is on the west end of Porcupine Lake. There are also three small communities within the rural portion of Timmins that are located east of Schumacher which are Hoyle, Connaught and Barbers Bay. These three small communities will be serviced by the Public Works Yard but are too small and remote to be part of the study area for consideration of siting of the Yard. The description of the existing conditions is focused on the study area and not the service area since the alternative solutions to the problem will be sited within one of the large the communities of Porcupine or South Porcupine. 4.1
Natural Environment The study area’s natural environment was characterized by vegetation and vegetation communities, aquatic features, fisheries, and designated sensitive areas. Schedule B2 of Timmin’s Official Plan (2010) identifies the area at the north end of Porcupine Lake as a Mineral Extraction Zone. The remainder of the study area is comprised of Mineral Development Zone. Around Porcupine Lake on the north end, portions of the west edge, south edge and the lower west end (near Goldrush Street) are Provincially Significant Wetlands. In addition in South Porcupine around the South Porcupine River and Porcupine River are Provincially Significant wetland areas. In Porcupine, there are Provincially Significant Wetlands around Shallow Lake and the Porcupine River and along Bob’s Creek. There are Locally Significant Wetlands identified east of the intersection of Crawford Street and Ferguson Road in South Porcupine. These wetlands are along the watercourse and ponds that are located near Ferguson Road and the point where the gas line intersects the road. The Porcupine River, South Porcupine River, North Porcupine River, Bobs Creek and a tributary of the South Porcupine River are located in the study area near Porcupine Lake. These watercourses have coldwater fisheries within them. The watercourses also have regulated floodplains within Porcupine and South Porcupine. The area around the existing Tisdale Yard is within a floodplain for a tributary of the South Porcupine River. The floodplains are designated in the Zoning By‐laws as “hazard” lands. 4.2
Social‐Cultural Environment Based on the Schedule A2 of Timmin’s Official Plan (2010), the study area consists largely of the communities of Porcupine and South Porcupine. The urban areas are comprised of Employment Areas and Neighbourhood Areas. The remaining area is identified as Resource Development. August 24, 2015
4-5
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Existing Conditions 4.2.1
Service Area The existing Public Works Tisdale Yard currently services the communities east of Schumacher in the City of Timmins. The City of Timmins covers a large geographic area and includes urban and rural areas. The service area for the existing yard and the updated yard will cover the same area that the existing Tisdale Yard covered. This includes the communities of Porcupine and South Porcupine and the small rural communities of Hoyle, Connaught and Barbers Bay. 4.2.2
Land Use Land use is based on the Official Plan (2010) and Figure 4.1 shows the land use for the communities of Porcupine and South Porcupine. The following was taken from the Official Plan and shows the colour coding for the figure: The communities of Porcupine and South Porcupine largely have a land use designation of Neighbourhood Areas with some limited Employment Areas. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 provide the general zoning within the study area. The Neighourhood Areas (NA) are largely low residential density with some institutional areas (e.g. schools). Highway 101 passes through the area and thus the Employment Areas (EA) are largely comprised of Highway Commercial zoning and some light industrial. There are also hazard lands (HAZ) located along the Bob’s Creek, Porcupine River, South Porcupine River and tributaries and Porcupine Lake, Bob’s Lake and Shallow Lake. August 24, 2015
4-6
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Existing Conditions Figure 4.1 Land Use in Porcupine and South Porcupine August 24, 2015 4-7
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Existing Conditions Figure 4.2 Zoning in South Porcupine August 24, 2015 4-8
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Existing Conditions Figure 4.3 Zoning in Porcupine August 24, 2015 4-9
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Existing Conditions 4.2.3
Transportation The study area consists of South Porcupine and Porcupine which are developed urban areas around Porcupine Lake. The transportation network links these communities and is a key component for siting of a public works yard. Areas that have easier access to arterial roads/highways would be preferred for the service vehicles to more efficiently service the residents within the entire service area. The study area is comprised of arterial roads, collector roads and local roads. Highway 101 East (extending east of Gervais Street) is a provincial highway that is the key link to the entire service area by reaching the remote smaller communities. Access to highways and arterial roads provides more efficient service to the remote areas of the service area. The arterial roads within the study area consist of: ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Highway 101 Bruce Avenue Evans Street Maln Street King Street Portions of Tisdale Street and Dunn Avenue Some key collector roads that move traffic throughout development/urban areas in the study area include: ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
4.3
Legion Drive Crawford Street Ferguson Drive Moore Street Golden Avenue Florence Street Queen Street Gervais Street North Earl Street Technical Environment The existing Public Works Tisdale yard requires some major work to its existing building and site to update the yard. The existing building was built in the 1940’s and over the years has now started to deteriorate. The current shop is located on Evans Street. This property currently has one main building, one warehouse, Quonset hut and fueling station. The main building hosts its offices, lunchroom, August 24, 2015 4-10
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Existing Conditions shop and parking for their fleet. They are also utilizing the Whitney Shop for parking their fleet as the current one is not large enough to accommodate all of their fleet. The property on Evans Street is located in the flood zone and every spring this site floods and requires sandbagging around doorways and such. Since the property and building tends to flood this makes it difficult or near impossible to work from this location and keep providing service to the area residents. In turn this flooding and water damage causes havoc to the structure and is creating structural damage. The structure of the main building is now in some much needed repair as the structure of the building is starting to fail. Some walls are starting to collapse and are presently being re‐supported to maintain this building. Based on the state of this building, the building would need to be rebuilt and built up to eliminate the flooding issues. However, due to this site being in the flood zone no fill can be brought in and this site would always endure this flooding on an annual basis. August 24, 2015 4-11
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Identification of Alternative Solutions 5.0
Identification of Alternative Solutions 5.1
Description of Alternative Solutions To address the problem of updating and improving service to area residents by the Public Works Tisdale Yard, the project entailed looking at the existing site and potential alternative sites that could accommodate an updated building, fueling area, laydown area and storage area. To improve service to area residents the sites needed to be located in Porcupine/South Porcupine area. The existing site and the following five sites were identified: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Evans Street, Porcupine (Do Nothing / Existing Site) Ferguson Road at the intersection with Crawford Street, South Porcupine Bruce Avenue at the intersection with Goldmine Road, South Porcupine Legion Drive at the intersection with Hellen Avenue, South Porcupine Intersection of Duke, Gervais and Falcon Streets, Porcupine 6075 King Street, Porcupine The six sites were comparatively evaluated to identify the preferred site. The approximate location of the six alternative sites is shown in Figure 5.1. A more detailed location of each alternative site is shown in the sections below with a proposed layout for each site. The “Do Nothing” alternative consists of the existing site. The actual ‘Do Nothing’ would involve leaving the site as is and would not address the problem statement of needing an updated building, fueling area, laydown area and storage area. The Do Nothing was modified to incorporate the existing site and to include updating the existing building and is considered to be Alternative Site 1 in the comparative evaluation. August 24, 2015
5-12
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Identification of Alternative Solutions Figure 5.1 Alternative Site Locations 5
2
6
4
N
3
1
August 24, 2015
5-13
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Identification of Alternative Solutions 5.1.1
Alternative Site 1 – Evans Street (Do Nothing / Existing Site) The existing Public Works Tisdale Yard is located on Evans Street. This property currently has one main building, one warehouse, Quonset hut and fueling station. The main building hosts its offices, lunchroom, shop and parking for their fleet. The City also utilizes the Whitney Shop for parking their fleet as the current one is not large enough to accommodate all of their fleet. The “Do Nothing” alternative consists of the existing site. The Do Nothing alternative would utilize the existing site as is. However, Alternative Site 1 takes the Do Nothing (which does not address the problem statement) and modifies it by updating the existing structures. The property on Evans Street is located in a flood zone and every spring this site floods and requires sandbagging around doorways and such. In turn this flooding and water damage causes havoc to the structure and is creating structural damage. The structure of the main building is now in some much needed repair as the structure of the building is starting to fail. Some walls are starting to collapse and are presently being re‐supported to maintain this building. Considering the state of this building, the building would need to be demolished, rebuilt and built up to eliminate these flooding issues. However, due to this site being in the flood zone no fill can be brought in and this site would always endure this flooding on an annual basis. Figure 5.2 Site 1 Existing Site & Layout August 24, 2015
5-14
Project File Report
Alternative Site 2 – Ferguson Road at Crawford Street The Ferguson Road site located at the corner of Crawford Street and Ferguson Road in South Porcupine is currently a vacant lot owned by the City. There are no municipal services (water or sanitary) or hydro or fibre present on site. Figure 5.3 shows the location of Alternative Site 2 and the possible layout to accommodate the facilities required for the Public Works yard. Figure 5.3 Site 2 Proposed Site & Layout August 24, 2015
5-15
Project File Report
Alternative Site 3 – Bruce Avenue at Goldmine Road The Bruce Avenue site located at the corner of Bruce Avenue and Goldmine Road in South Porcupine is currently a vacant lot owned by the City. There are no municipal services (water or sanitary) or hydro or fibre present on site. Figure 5.4 shows the location of Alternative Site 3 and the possible layout to accommodate the facilities required for the Public Works yard. Figure 5.4 Site 3 Proposed Site & Layout August 24, 2015
5-16
Project File Report
Alternative Site 4 – Legion Drive At Hellen Avenue The Legion Drive site located at the corner of Legion Drive and Hellen Avenue in South Porcupine is currently a vacant lot owned by the City. There are no municipal services (water or sanitary) or hydro or fibre present on site. The site would require the extension of Legion Drive to reach the site. Figure 5.5 shows the location of Alternative Site 4 and the possible layout to accommodate the facilities required for the Public Works yard. Figure 5.5 Site 4 Proposed Site & Layout August 24, 2015
5-17
Project File Report
Alternative Site 5 – Intersection of Duke, Gervais & Falcon Streets The site is located in Porcupine on a triangular shaped lot at the intersection of Duke, Gervais and Falcon Streets and currently has an existing shop owned by the City as well as tennis courts and a baseball diamond. The site has municipal services (water or sanitary), hydro and fibre present on site. Figure 5.6 shows the location of Alternative Site 5 and the possible layout to accommodate the facilities required for the Public Works yard. Figure 5.6 Site 5 Proposed Site & Layout August 24, 2015
5-18
Project File Report
Alternative Site 6 – 6075 King Street The site located at 6075 King Street in Porcupine is currently a privately owned shop for sale. The property for sale currently has two industrial buildings and one warehouse on it. The front building includes a large shop with bay boors at each end with a pass through to the dome. The second building is a 6,058 sq. ft. shop 40’x150’ including a mezzanine; the shop has in‐floor heating, 5 overhead doors, and a heavy duty 3 phase electrical and ventilation system. Both buildings are serviced on municipal systems (water and sanitary) and the site consists of a large lot. Figure 5.7 shows the location of Alternative Site 6 and the possible layout to accommodate the facilities required for the Public Works yard. Figure 5.7 Site 6 Proposed Site & Layout August 24, 2015
5-19
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Evaluation of Alternative Solutions 6.0
Evaluation of Alternative Solutions This section documents the decision‐making process used by the Project Team to evaluate the six (6) sites for the Public Works yard. The evaluation criteria and rationale for relative ranking are included. Taking the existing environment into consideration, the alternative solutions (sites described in Section 5.0) were comparatively evaluated using a descriptive or qualitative assessment based on criteria developed within the following categories (representing the broad definition of ‘environment’ as described in the EA Act): Natural Environment – having regard for protecting the natural and physical components of the environment (e.g. air, land, water and biota) including natural and/or Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Social‐Cultural Environment – having regard for residents, neighbourhoods, businesses, community character, social cohesion, community features, historical/archaeological remains, and heritage features. Technical Considerations – having regard for the technical suitability/longevity and other engineering aspects associated with the alternative solutions. Financial Considerations – having regard for the cost implicating items associated with the alternative solutions. 6.1
Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria were developed to assess the alternatives, to identify the potential environmental effects and distinguish the advantages and disadvantages between alternatives. The criteria reflect all components of the environment in the area around each site, the alternative solutions being considered, the problem/opportunity being addressed and the Class EA requirements. The criteria include the social, cultural, and natural environments and technical and financial considerations. The evaluation criteria described below in Error! Reference source not found. were used to comparatively evaluate the alternative solutions and identify a recommended solution. The evaluation of each alternative solution is completed below to determine the recommended alternative solution (site). August 24, 2015
6-1
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Table 6.1 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria Criteria Measures Natural Environmental Impacts Natural Heritage Features Proximity to Natural Heritage Features (e.g., vegetation, wetlands and woodlands) Valley Lands and Floodplains Valley Lands and Floodplains located on‐site or adjacent Watercourses Number and impacts to watercourses located on‐site or adjacent Social‐Cultural Environments Land Use Compatibility Compatibility with surrounding land uses (e.g., zoning and surrounding site uses) Cultural Heritage Features or Sensitive Land Uses Presence on‐site or adjacent to cultural heritage features or sensitive land uses Impacts to Residences/Businesses Impacts to Residential Properties and/or Businesses due to proximity to site Technical Considerations Existing Structures and Suitability Presence and condition of existing structures and suitability of structures for Public Works Yard use User Access for Service Vehicles Ability for Service Vehicles to access and utilize site Existing Site Services Type of water and sewer servicing existing on‐site (municipal, well or septic) Site Size and Future Expansions Site size at least 19,500 sq. m. and ability of site to accommodate future expansions Physical Site Characteristics Soil conditions and topography Stormwater Management Site grading to address stormwater management considerations Financial Considerations Estimated Capital Costs Estimated capital costs to develop site (e.g., building, servicing, site works) Land Acquisition Costs Potential for land acquisition 6.2
Evaluation Methodology In order to evaluate the proposed alternative solutions, each of the criterion presented in Error! Reference source not found. were assessed as applicable in a descriptive manner rather than a quantitative manner. A numerical or weighted ranking system was not used, the evaluation concentrates instead on the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative to identify the best possible solution. Set weightings of criteria were not specifically assigned, however, all evaluation criteria are not necessarily equal and professional judgement and knowledge of the area and issues will be used to define and understand preferences. For each criterion and for each possible alternative, the potential effects on the environment (natural, social, etc.) were identified. The evaluation is based on the relative advantages and August 24, 2015
6-2
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Evaluation of Alternative Solutions disadvantages of the potential environmental effects for each alternative taking into account the natural and social‐cultural environments as well as technical and financial considerations. Reasonable mitigation measures were then identified to avoid or minimize any potential negative effects. The selection of the preferred alternative is based on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the net environmental effects, including the results of applying mitigating measures. The ranking of each alternative solution relative to the specific evaluation criteria was conducted using a colour coding system comprised of green, yellow and red, designed to be indicative of preferred (green) to least (red) preferred. The comparison of each criterion was made horizontally (within a category such as natural environment) between the alternatives and then vertically (between categories such as natural, technical environments) to derive the recommended solution. A summary row is provided where the alternatives are compared against each other within the four (4) categories of natural, social‐cultural, technical and financial environments. The summary rows are then compared to determine the recommended alternative solution based on all aspects of the environment. The alternative solution which demonstrated the greatest number of “preferred” boxes and/or the fewest “least” preferred boxes relative to their potential environmental effects would likely be the preferred alternative but this was dependant on the extent of potential effects and whether they could be mitigated. The comparative evaluations for each set of alternatives are provided below. The comparative evaluation was undertaken using the evaluation criteria to compare all six sites against each other. Due to the physical size of the table the information has been broken down into two tables (Tables 6.2 and 6.3) with Alternative Sites 1 to 3 evaluated in Table 6.2 and Alterative Sites 4 to 6 evaluated in Table 6.3. A summary table (Table 6.4) is provided to show the overall rating of each alternative site for the four criteria categories. An overall rating is then provided in Table 6.4 of the six Alternative Sites and a description of the advantages and disadvantages of each site are outlined to better understand the overall rating. August 24, 2015
6-3
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Table 6.2 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Sites 1 to 3 Rating: Preferred
Less Preferred
Least Preferred
Evaluation Criteria Site 1
Evans Street (existing site)
Site 2 Ferguson Road at Crawford Street
Site 3
Bruce Avenue at Goldmine Road
Natural Environment Presence of Natural Heritage Features Presence of Valley Lands and Floodplains Impacts to Watercourses Summary August 24, 2015
 Existing works yard with no natural  Site has tree cover throughout with heritage features present on‐site existing road passing through the centre of the site  Provincially Significant Wetland located on east edge of site extending from  Locally Significant Wetland located north Porcupine River to Porcupine Lake and east of site  Floodplain zone extends on‐site and site  Site is located entirely outside of floodplain typically floods during spring and wet weather conditions  Site is largely gravel with some scrub brush present  Watercourse (Porcupine River) extends around the site on north and east sides  Porcupine Lake is located east of the site  Watercourse present east of the site that is contained within defined ditch that passes under Bruce and Golden Avenues  Site floods in spring and requires sandbagging around doorways, which has caused structural damage to buildings  Presence of floodplain means no fill can be brought in to alleviate flooding  Watercourse and small ponds located nearby to the north and east of the site but site is located outside of floodplain  Locally Significant Wetland located along watercourse and ponds  Tree cover and watercourse and associated wetland north and east of the site  Site is located entirely outside of floodplain  No natural heritage features or watercourses on‐site 6-4
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Site 1
Evaluation Criteria Site 2 Ferguson Road at Crawford Street
Site 3
Social‐Cultural Environment Land Use Compatibility  Site is an existing works yard and would continue to be compatible with surrounding land uses  Site is located within resource development area (Official Plan)  Site is zoned Resource Development – Rural Hazard (RD‐Haz) since it falls within the floodplain  Site is located within resource development area (Official Plan)  Gas line located south of site  Hydro line located north of site  Site is zoned Resource Development – Rural Use (RD‐RU) and could be re‐zoned  Similar land uses are present in the surrounding area  Site is located within resource development area (Official Plan)  Trailhead for the Rotary Trail is located at the proposed south entrance to the site and the trail passes on the south edge of the site  Site is zoned Resource Development – Rural Use (RD‐RU) and could be re‐zoned Cultural Heritage Features or Sensitive Land Uses  No cultural heritage features present on‐ site  No cultural heritage features present on‐ site  No cultural heritage features present on‐ site  Retirement home (Spruce Hill Lodge) is located 75 m from the site Impacts to Residences and/or Businesses  Located on an arterial road  Located on a collector road  Similar land uses result in minimal impact to area  Bruce Avenue is an arterial road with Goldmine Road a collector road  Residences are 300 m away from the site  Close proximity to highways minimizes driving through residential areas  Site is zoned hazard and is difficult to re‐
develop  Site could be re‐zoned and is compatible with existing land uses  Spruce Hill Lodge is located 75 m from site but residences are 300 m away and site is close to highways  Site is currently a vacant lot  Site is currently a vacant lot Summary Technical Considerations Existing Structures and Suitability August 24, 2015
 Main building, warehouse, Quonset hut and fueling station exist on‐site  Main building needs to be demolished since it was built in the 1940’s and has structural damage (walls collapsing) from yearly flooding of site  Site could not be re‐developed due to floodplain extending on‐site 6-5
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria User Access for Service Vehicles Site 1
 Smaller site size results in utilizing of Whitney Shop for fleet parking Existing Site Services  Site has existing municipal services (water and sanitary) Site Size and Future Expansions  Site is of suitable size to accommodate new building, fueling area, laydown area and storage area but no room for future expansion  Difficult to continue using existing building during construction of new building Physical Site Characteristics Stormwater Management Considerations Summary  Site is in flood zone and no fill can be brought on‐site to address flooding issues  Site requires fill and re‐grading due to flooding and for stormwater management  Existing buildings need to be demolished and could not be re‐developed due to floodplain extending on‐site Financial Considerations Estimated Capital High capital costs for site including:
‐ demolish existing structures and re‐build Costs ‐ Site requires fill to address flooding issues ‐ Permits could not be obtained for re‐
building on existing site due to floodplain present and past flooding issues Land Acquisition Costs Summary August 24, 2015
 No land acquisition required since site is owned by the City  Permits could not be obtained for re‐
building on existing site due to floodplain present and past flooding issues Site 2 Ferguson Road at Crawford Street
Site 3
 Site is located on collector road but requires going through residential areas to reach highway  No municipal services (water or sanitary) are present on‐site and no hydro or fibre  Would require septic system  Site is of suitable size and could accommodate the new building, fueling area, laydown area, storage area  Site has room for future expansion  Close access to highways which minimizes driving through residential areas  Granular pits and truck routes close to site  No municipal services (water or sanitary) are present on‐site and no hydro or fibre  Would require septic system  Site is of suitable size and could accommodate the new building, fueling area, laydown area, storage area  Site has no room for future expansion  Site has road passing through centre and is relatively flat  Backfill of the site is required  Site is flat and is largely a gravel area  No services present on‐site and site is a vacant lot  No municipal services present on‐site, site size has no room for future expansion and site is a vacant lot Approx. $3.92 Million with capital costs for site including: ‐ building ‐ watermain & sanitary (septic) services ‐ utilities (hydro, and fibre) ‐ site works: relocate Quonset Hut, relocate fuel tanks, fence granulars and clear site  No land acquisition required since site is owned by the City Approx. $3.65 Million with capital costs for site including: ‐ building ‐ watermain & sanitary (septic) services ‐ utilities (hydro, and fibre) ‐ site works: relocate Quonset Hut, relocate fuel tanks, fence and granulars  No land acquisition required since site is owned by the City  Site is costly to construct buildings and to provide services  Site requires building and services but some structures are present on‐site  Backfill of the site is required 6-6
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Table 6.3 Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Sites 4 to 6 Rating: Preferred
Less Preferred
Least Preferred
Evaluation Criteria Site 4
Legion Drive at Hellen Avenue Site 5
Intersection Duke, Gervais & Falcon Streets Site 6
6075 King Street Natural Environment Presence of Natural Heritage Features  Site is covered in trees and scrub brush  Site is cleared and has existing shop, tennis courts and baseball diamond located on the site Presence of Valley Lands and Floodplains  Site is located entirely outside of floodplain  Site is located entirely outside of floodplain  Site is partially cleared for existing buildings and parking area  Site is surrounded by tree cover to the east, south and west  Provincially Significant Wetland located west of the site on Porcupine Lake  Site is located entirely outside of floodplain Impacts to Watercourses  No watercourses present on‐site or nearby  No watercourses present on‐site or nearby  No watercourses present on‐site or nearby  No watercourses or natural heritage features present on‐site  Tree cover on east, south and west portions of site (which could be avoided by using central portion of site) Summary  Trees and scrub brush present on‐site August 24, 2015
6-7
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Legion Drive at Hellen Avenue Intersection Duke, Gervais & Falcon Streets 6075 King Street  Site is near residential, industrial and commercial buildings  Ontario Northland Railway right‐of‐way is adjacent to the south limit of the site  Site is located partially within employment area and neighbourhood area (Official Plan)  North portion of site by King Street is zoned Employment Area – Highway Commercial (EA‐CH) and the remainder is zoned Neighbourhood Area Low Residential (Second) Density (NA‐R2‐h)  Re‐zoning is not required if central portion of site is used  No cultural heritage features present on‐site Social‐Cultural Environment Land Use Compatibility  Site is located within neighbourhood area (Official Plan)  Gas line located on north side of site  Site is zoned Neighbourhood Area – Residential Low (Second) Density (NA‐
R2‐h) and requires re‐zoning  Site has recreational facilities on‐site (tennis courts and baseball diamond) that would have to be removed for site development  Site is located within neighbourhood area (Official Plan)  Railway right‐of‐way located south of the site  Most of the site is zoned Resource Development – Open Space (RD‐OS) and a portion of the west side is zoned Neighbourhood Area – Institutional (NA‐IN) and would be difficult to re‐zone Cultural Heritage Features or Sensitive Land Uses Impacts to Residences and/or Businesses  No cultural heritage features present on‐site  No cultural heritage features present on‐site  Located off collector road  Residential homes are located nearby (approximately 140 m from the site)  Duke Street is a collector road and Duke and Falcon Streets are local roads  Residential homes are close to the site (within 20 m) Summary  Residential homes are within 140 m of the site, the surrounding area is residential and could be difficult to re‐
zone  Residential homes are within 20 m of the site, recreational facilities present on‐site would have to be removed and re‐zoning would be difficult  North side has residential homes on King Street and is part of the urban area of South Porcupine  Located on an arterial road (highway)  Could utilize central portion of site to minimize impact on school and residences near west side and residences north of site  Central portion of site minimizes impact on residential areas and is compatible with surrounding uses and utilizes existing commercial use Technical Considerations Existing Structures and Suitability August 24, 2015
 Site is currently a vacant lot  Existing shop would need to be re‐
developed and expanded  Existing building will require an addition 6-8
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Site 4
Legion Drive at Hellen Avenue Evaluation Criteria User Access for Service Vehicles Existing Site Services Site Size and Future Expansions Physical Site Characteristics  Site requires construction of a road  No municipal services (water or sanitary) are present on‐site and no hydro or fibre  Site is of suitable size and could accommodate the new building, fueling area, laydown area, storage area  Site has room for future expansion  Site is undeveloped Stormwater  Site is undeveloped Management Considerations Summary  No municipal services present on‐site, is a vacant lot and requires construction of a road Site 5
Intersection Duke, Gervais & Falcon Streets Site 6
6075 King Street  Requires travelling through employment and  Highway access only (King Street) residential areas to reach highway  Site has existing municipal services (water  Site has existing municipal services (water and sanitary) and sanitary)  Site is of suitable size and could accommodate the new building, fueling area, laydown area, storage area  Site has no room for future expansion  Site is flat with tennis courts, shop and baseball diamond on‐site  No backfill is likely required  Site is of suitable size and could accommodate the new building, fueling area, laydown area, storage area  Site has room for future expansion  Central portion of site has been developed for a commercial operation with flat topography  No backfill is likely required for central portion of site  Site has municipal services but no room for future expansion  Existing buildings could be used with just an addition required, site can accommodate future expansion and has municipal services on‐site Approx. $3.57 Million with capital costs for site including: ‐ building ‐ site works: relocate Quonset Hut, relocate fuel tanks, fence, replace tennis courts and baseball field and granulars Approx. $2.10 Million with capital costs for site including: ‐ purchase land ‐ building extension ‐ site works: relocate Quonset Hut, relocate fuel tanks, fence, and granulars  No land acquisition required since site is owned by the City  Site requires building and services but some structures are present on‐site  Site is privately owned and land and buildings would need to be purchased  Site needs to be purchased but overall costs are low due to existing services and condition of existing buildings Financial Considerations Estimated Capital Costs Approx. $4.50 Million with capital costs for site including: ‐ building ‐ watermain & sanitary (septic) services ‐ utilities (hydro, and fibre) ‐ site works: relocate Quonset Hut, relocate fuel tanks, fence and granulars Land Acquisition  No land acquisition required since site is Costs owned by the City Summary  Site is costly to construct buildings and to provide services August 24, 2015
6-9
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Table 6.4 provides an overview of the summary rows from Tables 6.2 and 6.3. In addition, there is a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative sites on the environment. Table 6.4 Summary of Comparative Evaluation and Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Sites 1 to 6 Evaluation Criteria Site 1 Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Evans Street (existing site) Ferguson Road at Crawford Street Bruce Avenue at Goldmine Road Legion Drive at Hellen Avenue Intersection Duke, Gervais & Falcon Streets 6075 King Street Advantages  City owns the Site  Room for future expansion  Site can be re‐zoned  Similar land uses in the area Disadvantages Advantages  City owns the Site  Residential homes are 300m from Site  Site can be re‐zone  Close to highways no need to always drive through residential areas  Granular pits and truck routes close by Disadvantages  Spruce Hill Lodge within 75m of site  Backfill of the Site is required  No sewer and water at the Site  No room for future expansion Natural Environment Social‐Cultural Environment Technical Considerations Financial Considerations Overall Rating Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages  City owns the Site  Site is the existing works yard  Sanitary and water on the Site Disadvantages  Existing buildings need to be demolished and re‐
built  Site floods annually and requires fill to reduce flooding issues  Site could not be re‐
developed due to floodplain extending on‐site  All services would need to be brought into the Site  No sewer, water, hydro or fiber at the Site  Backfill of the Site is required Advantages  City owns the Site  Room for future expansion Disadvantages Advantages  City owns the Site  Sanitary and water on the Site Disadvantages  Residential area with homes approximately 140m from the Site  Could be difficult to re‐zone  Site requires a road  No sewer, water, hydro or fibre at the Site  Residential homes close to the Site, within 20m  No room for future expansion  Residents will lose baseball diamond and tennis courts if they are not replaced  Site will be challenging to re‐
zone Advantages  Room for future expansion  Location is move in ready  Re‐zoning is not required  Existing Sanitary and water on the Site  Area is large enough to use it for various purposes (i.e., snow dump) Disadvantages  Addition needed on existing building  Highway access only at the present time August 24, 2015
6-10
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Preferred Solution 7.0
Preferred Solution The Preferred Alternative Solution is to develop a new site at 6075 King Street in Porcupine, Ontario. The site has been an industrial and equipment maintenance complex for over 20 years. Most recently the site was used as an industrial property for the maintenance and assembly of mining equipment. However, historically the site was used as a maintenance garage for a drilling company. The property/site is located on the south side of King Street approximately 75 meters west of the Ontario Northland Railway right‐of‐way. The property that contains the site is irregular in shape with approximately 350 feet of frontage and several acres in size; approximately 50% of the property is undeveloped. The property is larger than required for the Public Works Yard. Figure 6.1 shows the site boundary and the portion that is proposed to be developed at this time as the Public Works Yard. The portion of the site that is undeveloped and has tree cover will remain in this condition providing a buffer between the proposed use and the existing surrounding land uses (in particular the residential properties on the south side of King Street and the school on the west side of the site). It is anticipated that only the central portion of the site will need to be developed to accommodate the Public Works yard and for future expansion. Final layout and design details will be resolved during the detailed design stage of the site’s development but preliminary design considerations are discussed below. Figure 7.1 Proposed Public Works Tisdale Yard Site August 24, 2015
7-1
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Preferred Solution Figure 7.2 Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Site & Preliminary Concept Layout August 24, 2015
7-2
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Preferred Solution Official Plan Designations Based on Schedule ‘A’ of the City of Timmins Official Plan (2010), the north portion of the property is designated as Employment Area (EA) and the remainder and surrounding area to the south and west has a Neighbourhood Area (NA) designation. The property is within the Mineral Development and Mineral Extraction area identified by Schedule ‘B’. The property is within the One Kilometre Mine Hazard buffer indicated in Schedule ‘C’ – Natural and Human Made Hazards. Schedule ‘D’ of the Official Plan indicates the property is accessed via an arterial road, namely King Street. Zoning and Surrounding Land Use The property consists of three pieces (or property) at or adjacent to 6075 King Street. The City of Timmins Zoning By‐Law (2011) was reviewed to identify the property zoning. The main property (north portion) proposed to be largely used for the Public Works Yard is zoned EA‐CH (Employment Area – Highway Commercial) and is approximately 2.58 acres in size. The highway commercial zoning has permitted uses such as light manufacturing, a utility yard and a service shop. The portion to the east of 6075 King Street is split between EA‐CH (Employment Area – Highway Commercial) for the top half and the bottom half is zoned NA‐R2‐h (Neighbourhood Area – Low Density Residential Second Density ‐ holding). The southern portion of the property (undeveloped portion) is NA‐R2‐h (Neighbourhood Area – Low Density Residential Second Density ‐ holding) and is approximately 11.54 acres in size. Storage from site 6075 King Street has overlaps onto part of this portion of the property. The black site boundary shown in Figure 6.3 is comprised of the three parcels combined together. The portion proposed to be used for the yard is largely the central portion of the entire property and has a civic address of 6075 King Street. There is a school located across from the west side of the site. There is a recreational trail west of the site near Carlos Avenue and Dixon Street. The trail then extends south along the edge of Porcupine Lake. The recreation trail is for non‐motorized vehicles as identified in Schedule ‘D’ of the Official Plan. The property is bordered on the west by a school and residential properties, north by residential properties, on the south by the railway right‐of‐way and undeveloped lands and on the east by undeveloped lands and a retail gas station. The site is a commercial property that was formerly used as a shop for a drilling company and a mining equipment repair and manufacture shop. The company, built, maintained and stored and serviced off‐road equipment as well as mining and construction equipment. August 24, 2015
7-3
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Preferred Solution Figure 7.3 Property Zoning August 24, 2015
7-4
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Preferred Solution Figure 7.4 Surrounding Area Zoning Service Area The proposed new Public Works Yard will continue to have the same service area as the existing Public Works Tisdale Yard. The service area will be the communities within the City of Timmins located east of Schumacher. The proposed site on King Street is located in Porcupine and the existing site is located in South Porcupine, approximately 5 km apart. The service area covers areas east of Schumacher, which includes both Porcupine and South Porcupine and the location on King Street is located within the service area. The site is located on King Street (which is a continuation of Highway 101 East) providing highway access to the service area and is geographically located such that it can efficiently service Porcupine and South Porcupine along with additional communities in the eastern portion of the service area (Hoyle, Connaught and Barbers Bay). August 24, 2015
7-5
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Preferred Solution Municipal Services A watermain exists along King Street and passes in front of the site and extends beyond the property. There is a hydrant located on the east side of the property and the buildings have existing municipal water service. Sanitary sewer exists and runs along King Street in front of the site, extending beyond the property. The buildings on site have existing municipal sanitary service. Storm sewers exist on King Street with a catchbasins located east and west of the site on King Street. Roads King Street is an arterial road and Queen Street is a collector road. The remaining roads in the surrounding area are designated as local roads. King Street is a continuation of Highway 101 East and is a 4‐lane road. It is not anticipated that traffic issues will occur with the use of the property and its location on King Street. While most of the vehicles leaving the site will turn left, the road is 4‐lanes at that point in time with low traffic volumes and a posted 50 km per hour speed limit and the vehicles should be able to make the turn. Physical Site Characteristics The entire site has no unusual topographic, hydrogeologic or geologic conditions that were found during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Site Assessments that were conducted in August 2014. Approximately 50% of the property is undeveloped and the site for the yard is proposed to be in the central portion of the property leaving a large portion of the property undeveloped at this time. There are no watercourses, ditches or standing water present on the site during dry season. The south portion of the property, nearest the railway right‐of‐way is low‐lying and potentially swampy. However, during the summer months the area is typically dry. Existing and Future Structures There are four structures on the property, which include the original shop and office, the new shop and office, the seacan warehouse and Quonset hut style garage. The new and old shop and office are pre‐engineered structures with a cement footing and poured concrete pad and the buildings are steel clad. The seacan warehouse is a series of seacans assembled together to make a parts warehouse. The Quonset hut style garage is a portable tarp style temporary structure used for storage with a gravel floor. There are several storage tanks located on the site that were used to hold fuels, waste oils and antifreeze. The City would need to construct an additional building, fuel station, new Quonset hut and storage area. The property is of sufficient size to accommodate this additional development August 24, 2015
7-6
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Preferred Solution and future expansion and continue to maintain a portion of the property as undeveloped to provide a buffer between the site and the adjacent residential lands to the west. August 24, 2015
7-7
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Preferred Solution Figure 7.5 Aerial of Proposed Public Works Tisdale Yard Site & Conceptual Layout August 24, 2015
7-8
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Identification of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 8.0
Identification of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Based on the results of the alternative evaluation, the preferred site may result in some negative impacts that are considered manageable with the appropriate mitigation techniques. The impacts and mitigation measures for each are discussed in the sections below. In most cases, impacts will be limited to the period of construction. 8.1
Property Requirements The property is privately owned and the City will need to purchase the site to develop it as the new Public Works Tisdale Yard. 8.2
Social‐Cultural Environment Impacts 8.2.1
Traffic The impacts to traffic will be minimized during construction. The main impact to traffic will be the increase in construction traffic for delivery of material and equipment and haulage of spoils. Construction signage will be posted on the impacted roads to make motorists aware of the construction. Impacts to traffic during operation of the site are not anticipated to change from the previous use of the site. While most of the vehicles leaving the site will turn left, the road is 4‐lanes at that point in time with low traffic volumes and a posted 50 km per hour speed limit and the vehicles should be able to make the turn. 8.2.2
Public Notification Public notification should occur in advance of construction to ensure that area residents are informed. Adjacent residents and community services should be notified directly of impending works. 8.2.3
Generation of Excess Materials The proposed works are likely to require some excavation and filling. Various types of materials, including asphalt and soil may be generated during these project activities which will require appropriate management (e.g., the potential for wind erosion on soil stock piles). All excess and unsuitable materials generated during construction should be managed appropriately. Any contaminated wastes should be taken to an approved waste disposal site and transported by a licensed waste disposal carrier as per the operational constraint for the management of contaminated materials. The Contractor should be required to manage all waste materials generated by construction activities in accordance with all provincial and federal regulations and approval requirements. 8.2.4
Noise, Dust and Vibration Control There may be temporary impacts to nearby residential and commercial areas during construction of the public works yard on the site. Noise disturbance will be limited by ensuring August 24, 2015 8-1
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Identification of Impacts and Mitigation Measures that construction takes place during normal working hours and complies with the local noise by‐law. There will be some noise impacts during operation of the site as service vehicles move around the site. During operation of the site as a Public Works yard, the potential sources of noise impacts include the sound of back‐up beepers on the vehicles and banging tailgates. The trees in the undeveloped portion of the site will generally be maintained to the east and west of the site on the remaining portion of the property. This will serve as both a visual buffer and will help to reduce some noise impacts. As well, the existing site was previously used for commercial operations that had shifts throughout a 24‐hour period. It is anticipated that the majority of the noise from the proposed service operations will be during the day. There will be use of the site during 24‐hour periods throughout various times of the year (e.g., storm events, emergency situations) but this will be less extensive then the previous use of the site. Material handling, such as excavation, loading and hauling presents the most significant sources of dust during construction and operation of the site. Dust will be controlled through construction and operation obligations, as required. To prevent air quality impacts associated with construction and service vehicle exhaust fumes, emission control devices on equipment should be functional and effective and new or well‐
maintained heavy equipment and machinery, preferably fitted with muffler/exhaust system baffles and engine covers, should be used. 8.2.5
Encountering of Unknown Archaeology Remains In the unlikely event that unknown archaeological remains are encountered during construction, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services shall be contacted immediately. 8.3
Natural Environment Impacts 8.3.1
Erosion and Sediment Control Mitigation measures will be used for erosion and sediment control (ESC) to prohibit sediment from impacting adjacent vegetation communities. To address these principles, the following mitigation measure is proposed: 
All surfaces susceptible to erosion should be re‐vegetated through the placement of native seeding, upon completion of construction activities in order to stabilize exposed or disturbed soils. This measure should be incorporated into the initial detailed design drawings and contract specifications. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be implemented to mitigate potential disturbances from construction activities. This plan should illustrate the location and details of all ESC measures proposed. A maintenance and inspection schedule should also be included in the ESC Plan. August 24, 2015 8-2
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard 8.4
Identification of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Permitting Requirements No permitting requirements are anticipated at this time, however should additional permitting requirements be identified, they should be sought during the applicable project phase (e.g. detailed design). August 24, 2015 8-3
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Public and Agency Consultation 9.0
Public and Agency Consultation A key feature of the Class EA process is to ensure effective communication with the general public, agencies, Aboriginal Communities and other stakeholders throughout the project. To meet the Class EA consultation requirements for this Schedule B study, steps were taken to ensure effective communication throughout the project with the public, agencies and other stakeholders. The overall strategy has been to entertain any and all reasonable forms of communication received from the public, government agencies and other stakeholders and to review, consider, integrate (as appropriate), file, and respond in a reasonable timeframe. Copies of notifications and letters distributed, as well as the list of regulatory agencies and project stakeholders are provided in Appendix A. Correspondence between the project team and stakeholders concerning the project is provided in Appendix B. Comments received from the public are provided in Appendix C. 9.1
Notice ‐ Public Comment Invited A Notice was published in the Timmins Press newspaper on July 24, 2015 and August 18, 2015 inviting public comment on the Class Environmental Assessment for the Public Works Tisdale Yard. The July 24, 2015 notice was published in the Timmins Press on the municipal page. “Your Municipal News ‐ Timmins” is a weekly guide to information and updates from the City and is published on Friday’s. The Notice was hand delivered on July 23, 2015 to those residents and businesses located adjacent to and nearby the King Street site. A map showing the properties where the notice was hand delivered is provided in Appendix A. The Notice was also emailed to the relevant agencies and stakeholders identified for this project on July 24, 2015. A copy of the email and the list of agencies and stakeholders are included in Appendix B. 9.2
Public and Agency Comments 9.2.1
Public Comments Received Emailed comments were received from three residents and a business owner. 1. One resident contacted the City in late July 2015 to indicate they were in favour of the proposed site. 2. Another resident met with Pat Seguin, Manager of Engineering (Timmins) on August 5, 2015 and followed up with an email on August 7, 2015 noting concerns related to: ‐ Requesting in the future to having more than 2 weeks time to provide comments ‐ Requested written down as to what the expansions are and concerns over expansion being behind his residence ‐ Requested a large enough buffer area be created to address this issue ‐ Concern with more noise than at present August 24, 2015 9-1
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Public and Agency Consultation 3. & 4. Emails were received by one other resident (August 21, 2015) and a business owner (August 6, 2015) and both had concerns with the site related to: ‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Impacting health and safety High operating costs Location affecting efficiency for service vehicles Impacting future development (residential) of the site Impacts to commerce Impacts to revenue Impacts to aesthetics of the area The emails and associated responses are included in Appendix C. 9.2.2
Agency Comments Received The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), EA Coordinator for the Northern Region provided comments on August 12, 2015. The MOECC provided comments related to the following: ‐
‐
‐
‐
Consultation with First Nation and Métis Communities Land Use Compatibility Public Notices – Publication Further Notification The MOECC’s letter and associated response are provided in Appendix B. 9.3
Notice of Study Completion The Notice of Study Completion will be sent out to agency and stakeholders in August 2015. Recipients will include all agencies, public that provided comments from the previous Notice and previously identified stakeholders. The Notice will be placed in the Timmins Press twice during the week of August 24, 2015 and will be hand delivered to the same residents and businesses that received the Notice inviting public comment (delivered on July 23, 2015). 9.4
Aboriginal Communities Consultation First Nations Consultation is a mandatory part of the Municipal Class EA process. The following initiatives have been undertaken to notify and consult with Aboriginal Communities on the Class EA: 
The consultation process consisted of ensuring that any potentially affected Aboriginal communities were first and foremost included on the stakeholder contact list (Appendix A). Communities identified by both the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada for previous Class EA projects in the City of Timmins, were included in the current study’s stakeholder list. August 24, 2015 9-2
Project File Report
Updated Public Works Tisdale Yard Public and Agency Consultation 
Each of the potentially affected Aboriginal Communities included in the agency contact list, was sent all mail notices to ensure that they were kept apprised of the Project’s progress and methods for providing input. 
The Project Team responded to all feedback received, addressing any concerns raised. 
Documented all correspondence and kept updated the Aboriginal Community contact list. 9.4.1
First Nations Comments and Responses No feedback was received from any Aboriginal Communities during the Study. All correspondence with Aboriginal Communities has been included in Appendix B. August 24, 2015 9-3
Appendix A
Consultation Notices
• Notices Inviting Public Comment
• Notices Hand Delivery Map
• Newspaper Notices
The Corporation of City of Timmins
PUBLIC COMMENT INVITED
Study Background
The City of Timmins is undertaking a project to address the problem of needing to update and improve service
to area residents by the Public Works Tisdale Yard by having an updated building, fueling area, lay down area
and storage area. The existing Public Works Tisdale Yard’s current location requires major work to update the
existing building and address physical issues with the site. The existing building was built in the 1940’s and has
started to deteriorate. The existing site is also situated in the flood zone which tends to result in flooding of the
property and building in the spring making it challenging to continue to provide service to area residents.
To address the problem the project will entail looking at potential sites for the Tisdale Yard to accommodate an
updated building, fueling area, lay down area and storage area. The project is being conducted in accordance
with Schedule B requirements of the Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (Class EA) document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011).
Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A comparative evaluation of alternatives was undertaken by comparing the existing location (Do Nothing
alternative) against 5 potential sites. The following site criteria were used to evaluate the 6 sites: minimum
parcel size of 19,500 sq. m., physical characteristics, user access for service vehicles, available services and
utility access, compatibility with surrounding land uses and estimated costs to develop the site as a Public
Works yard.
The following 6 sites were evaluated:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Evans Street, Porcupine (existing site)
Ferguson Road at Crawford Street, South Porcupine
Bruce Avenue at Goldmine Road, South Porcupine
Legion Drive at Hellen Avenue, South Porcupine
Duke, Gervais and Falcon Streets, Porcupine
6075 King Street, Porcupine
Recommended Alternative Site
Following completion of the comparative evaluation the recommended alternative is the site located at 6075
King Street (across from the intersection of King Street and Seguin Street) in Porcupine. The site currently has
two industrial buildings and a warehouse located on it. The site is preferred based on the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The lot is large enough to accommodate both future expansion and additional municipal uses (e.g.,
snow dump)
Site has municipal services (sanitary and water)
Site and existing buildings are move-in ready
Re-zoning of the site is not required and site had a commercial use as a drilling company and mining
equipment repair and manufacture shop
Lowest costs to re-develop site to meet Public Works yard needs
Development of site has minimal potential for adverse environmental effects (no watercourses present
or other natural or cultural heritage features present)
The site is larger than the minimum site size identified for the Public Works yard. Based on the site size
required, it was determined that only a portion of the site will be required for the yard. The approximate portion
of the site to be used for the Public Works Tisdale Yard is shown in the figure below.
Consultation
This Notice serves to advise of and obtain input on the ongoing Schedule B Class EA study that is being
conducted and the recommended site for the Public Works Tisdale Yard.
The City is seeking input from the public on the recommended site for the Public Works Tisdale Yard. Please
contact one of the following if you have any questions or comments on the project. Comments must be
received by Friday August 7, 2015 by one of the following:
Pat Seguin, P.Eng.
Manager of Engineering
Tel: (705) 360-2600 Ext. 4855
Fax: (705) 360-2680
Project Consultant
P Becker Consulting
Tel: (416) 529-3613
Fax: (905) 713-1237
Next Steps
Following completion of the comment period on the recommended alternative site, the next steps in the Class
EA process will be finalization of the Project File Report followed by issuance of the Notice of Completion.
Issue Date: July 24, 2015
Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With
the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record.
Properties Receiving Hand Delivered Notice Inviting Public Comment Note: Properties shaded in black received a hand delivered copy of the Notice Inviting Public Comment on July 23, 2015 for the Class Environmental Assessment for the Public Works Tisdale Yard July 24, 2015
Notice
Employment
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Position
Labourers (Full-Time)
Comp. #
PWE-2015-14
Closing Date
Notice
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
City of Timmins Public Works Sanitation Department
July 31, 2015
For detailed information regarding the above-noted
position and directives on how to apply, please visit
the City of Timmins website at: www.timmins.ca
Only those selected for an interview will be contacted.
Although we may have your application on file,
you must re-apply for a specific competition.
Pour de l’information enfrançais, veuillez appeler le
360-2600, poste 2312.
Accommodations for persons with disabilities are available
throughout the recruitment process upon request.
WE ARE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
NOTICE
Dear Residents,
With summer upon us and many people enjoying
outdoor activities with their pets it seems fitting to
remind residents that The City of Timmins has in
place a by-law regulating dogs and their owners
which states;
Every Guardian not being a blind person or
disabled person shall immediately remove and
dispose of any excrement left by their dog.
Let’s all do our part to keep our sidewalks, trails
and parks clean. That’s not to mention avoiding the
$110 fine that could come with failing to comply with
this by-law.
If you would like to obtain a copy of this by-law, it can
be found on-line at http://portal.timmins.ca/portal/
en/timmins/onlineservices/by-lawsonline under the
heading, “Regulate, Register and Impound Dogs.” You
can also contact the enforcement services department
at city hall by telephone at (705) 360-2614 or by email at
[email protected] for your own copy.
COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE
Please be advised the next regular
scheduled Council Meeting will be
held on August 10th, 2015.
Blue Recycling Cart – What Goes In?
The “Recycling Processing Centre”, which processes
the City of Timmins recycling materials, has informed the
City that there is a large amount of contamination in the
recycling. The Public Works Sanitation Department will be
conducting an audit of the Blue Carts throughout the City
in order to examine quantities and better inform residents
on what can be placed in Blue Cart.
Acceptable Items in Blue Box
Glass
Empty Aerosol Cans
Empty Cans
Plastics
1, 2, 4, 5
Coated Drink Boxes
Empty Styrofoam
Newspaper
Plastic Bags
Pizza / Cardboard
The Corporation of
City of Timmins
PUBLIC COMMENT INVITED
Non – Acceptable Items
No Wood/
Construction Materials
No Clothes
No Black Garbage
Bags
Old Paint/Chemicals
Grass clippings/
Yard Waste
Electronics
Asphalt or
Concrete
Auto parts /
Metal
Rubber/ Vinyl
hoses
Electrical
Wiring
Learn more about your recycling collection system at
www.timmins.ca
ISOLATION/LAST
TRAIN TO COCHRANE
Gunhild Hotte
Study Background
The City of Timmins is undertaking a project to address the problem of needing
to update and improve service to area residents by the Public Works Tisdale
Yard by having an updated building, fueling area, lay down area and storage
area. The existing Public Works Tisdale Yard’s current location requires major
work to update the existing building and address physical issues with the site.
The existing building was built in the 1940’s and has started to deteriorate. The
existing site is also situated in the flood zone which tends to result in flooding
of the property and building in the spring making it challenging to continue to
provide service to area residents.
To address the problem the project will entail looking at potential sites for the Tisdale
Yard to accommodate an updated building, fueling area, lay down area and storage
area. The project is being conducted in accordance with Schedule B requirements
of the Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
(Class EA) document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011).
Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Sites
A comparative evaluation of alternatives was undertaken by comparing the
existing location (Do Nothing alternative) against 5 potential sites. The following
site criteria were used to evaluate the 6 sites: minimum parcel size of 19,500 sq. m.,
physical characteristics, user access for service vehicles, available services and
utility access, compatibility with surrounding land uses and estimated costs to
develop the site as a Public Works yard.
1. Evans Street, Porcupine (existing site)
2. Ferguson Road at Crawford Street, South Porcupine
3. Bruce Avenue at Goldmine Road, South Porcupine
4. Legion Drive at Hellen Avenue, South Porcupine
5. Duke, Gervais and Falcon Streets, Porcupine
6. 6075 King Street, Porcupine
Following completion of the comparative evaluation the recommended alternative
is the site located at 6075 King Street (across from the intersection of King Street
and Seguin Street) in Porcupine. The site currently has two industrial buildings
and a warehouse located on it. The site is preferred based on the following:
• The lot is large enough to accommodate both future expansion and additional
municipal uses (e.g., snow dump)
• Site has municipal services (sanitary and water)
• Site and existing buildings are move-in ready
• Re-zoning of the site is not required and site had a commercial use as a drilling
company and mining equipment repair and manufacture shop
• Lowest costs to re-develop site to meet Public Works yard needs
• Development of site has minimal potential for adverse environmental effects
(no watercourses present or other natural or cultural heritage features present)
The site is larger than the minimum site size identified for the Public Works yard.
Based on the site size required, it was determined that only a portion of the site
will be required for the yard. The approximate portion of the site to be used for
the Public Works Tisdale Yard is shown in the figure below.
Consultation
This Notice serves to advise of and obtain input on the ongoing Schedule B Class EA study
that is being conducted and the recommended site for the Public Works Tisdale Yard.
The City is seeking input from the public on the recommended site for the Public
Works Tisdale Yard. Please contact one of the following if you have any questions
or comments on the project. Comments must be received by Friday August 7,
2015 by one of the following:
July 8th - August 30th 2015
Timmins Museum:
National Exhibition Centre
325 Second Ave. Timmins, ON
705-360-2617 www.timminsmuseum.ca
Pat Seguin, P.Eng.
Tel: (705) 360-2600 Ext. 4855
Fax: (705) 360-2680
Project Consultant
P Becker Consulting
Tel: (416) 529-3613
Fax: (905) 713-1237
Next Steps
Following completion of the comment period on the recommended alternative
site, the next steps in the Class EA process will be finalization of the Project File
Report followed by issuance of the Notice of Completion.
Issue Date: July 24, 2015
Information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act. With the exception of personal
information, all comments will become part of the public record.
Timmins
Press
Daily
The
e- edition -
Daily
Press ( Timmins) - 18
2015 - Page # 16
Aug
BB •
THE DAILY PRESS •
A°1. T I M M I N S
The Corporation ofDepartment
City of Timmins
PUBLIC COMMENTS INVITED
The
a project
to
the
address
problem of
needing to
building, fueling
area,
down area
lay
and storage area.
The existing Public
S-,•
a.;, .
Works Tisdale Yard's current location requires major work to update the existing building
issues
the site. The existing
building
was built in the
deteriorate. The existing site is also
situated
in the flood
and address physical
and
has
tends to
started to
result
in
flooding
of
with
the property
and
a.
1940' s
zone which
k1: "
i
to continue to provide service to area residents.
To
the
address
Yard to accommodate
area.
The
the
problem
is
project
project will entail
building, fueling
an updated
being
looking
area,
conducted in accordance with
lay
down area
Schedule B
and storage
requirements of the
1.-
1"
1
14 .
i
1
wi
r.,
•`!
Municipal Engineers Association' s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment( Class EA)
t
1,14%,
A
e
comparative evaluation of alternatives was undertaken
location( Do Nothing
were used
alternative) against
to evaluate the 6
5
potential sites.
i
it .-
Evaluation of Alternative Sites
and
by comparing
the existing
The
site criteria
sites: minimum parcel size of
following
19, 500 sq.
1
t-,
l
l- 11l 41
f
d
fill,
d
i
1• l• l
i°.
document( October 2000, as amended in 2007& 2011).
Identification
1
t,
ti,
r, ,- ,'
I
/
d
i
for the Tisdale
at potential sites
r
Ic
in the spring making it challenging
building
111'
Ma
r
A_
update and improve service to area residents by the Public Works Tisdale Yard by having
an updated
11.
lyr
Timmins is undertaking
of
III ]
4;i11 ;
Background
City
TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 201
BLAST: Pipe bomb explodes near major shrine
Engineering
Study
Page 1 of 1
1
1
it
r'
t
s
r
,,,,,,,,;,
-,
I
c -
m., physical
characteristics, user access for service vehicles, available services and utility access,
compatibility with surrounding land uses and estimated costs to develop the site as a
Public Works yard.
1. Evans Street, Porcupine( existing site)
2. Ferguson Road at Crawford Street, South Porcupine
3. Bruce Avenue
4. Legion Drive
5. Duke, Gervais
Goldmine Road, South Porcupine
at
at
Experts work at the site of a blast Monday in central Bangkok. A bomb on a motorcycle exploded on
Hellen Avenue, South Porcupine
Monday just outside a Hindu shrine in the That capital, killing at least 18 people, including foreign tourist
media reported, in an attack the government said was a bid to destroy the economy.
Falcon Streets, Porcupine
and
6. 6075 King Street, Porcupine
Following completion of the comparative evaluation the recommended alternative is the
site located at 6075 King Street( across from the intersection of King Street and Seguin
Street) in Porcupine. The site currently has two industrial buildings and a warehouse
located
on
it.
site
on the
preferred
The lot is large enough to accommodate troth
botolfuture
future expansion and additional
municipal uses( e- g., snow dump)
Site has municipal services( sanitary and water)
Site and existing buildings are move- in ready
Re- zoning of the site is not required
and site had a commercial
q
company and mining equipment repair and manufacture shop
Lowest
costs to re- develop site
Development
of site
has
to
meet
Public Works
minimal potential
The
site is larger than the minimum site size
JEliff MP=
use as a
yard.
Yard is
shown
The
present)
identified for the Public Works
approximate portion of the site to
used
yard.
Based
for the Public Works Tisdale
in the figure below.
i
1
1 '
^•'^
FIT-
J'• -
be
-r
l) 1rr1'- - 1f(_
r
A
I 1
1t'„
1
111
1-
II_,;
LL
++
RF1J
bomb exploded Monday within
a central Bangkok shrine that is
Monday's bombing has no equal
in recent history, though- Thailand
ocha, the former army chief wit
orchestrated the May 2019 cou
among the city' s most popular
is no stranger to violent attacks. A
was closely monitoring the viii
people and injuring more than
genry by southern Muslim Sep-
surrounded by five-star
hotels
malls
dead tar from the capital. In Bang-
tourist spots, killing at least 16
jR'¢
and upscale
shopping
-I ;
recent months, with the juni
the improvised explosive device
Police said the bomb was made
scattered body pans across Rach-
with a pipe wrapped in cloth.
constitution that will allow son-
aprasong intersection, spattered
blood, blasted windows and
burned motorbikes to the metal.
Police
said i t was too
determine the motive.
type of emergency ode to t a ke--
Suddenly there was a big
voted, low the Y aim to harm our
boom, and the whale room just
economy and vve wiU hunt them
year.
a>•êw
wt.,..•
"
dmvrtr
ousted as prime
minister
n
r la
l
p
Last week, Thaksin posted
The bomb detonated at Erasan
Shrine. which is dedicated to
the Hindu god Brahma, but is
extremely popular among Thai-
message on YouTube urging It
followers to reject the draft cot
stitution because he said it w:
undemocratic. The draft cha
next to the shrine.- The whole
land' s Buddhists as well as Chi-
building just shook. My four stu-
nese tourists. Although Thailand
next month by a special Nation.
is predominantly Buddhist, it has
enormous Hindu Influence units
Reform Council. If It passes, it
supposed to go to a public refe
depicts
a scene of shock and their
despetition: people
religious practices and language.
endunt around January.
lives and crying amid the debris.
star hotel, is at the intersec-
sion is the annual military pet
ambulance. frantically pounding
city. Throngs of tourists come
two leaders— Prime Ministe
were
hysterical."
An emergency worker in an
a^•^••••^ n.^^
place of an electedgovermnent.
Stirring the pot has been exile
former Prime Minister Thal
sin 5liinawatra, who was ouste
in a 21100 coup- It was his siste
Yingluck Shinawatra who w:
the
1, N••
soon to
We still don' t know for sure
who did this and why,- Deputy
Prime Minister Pravvit Wongsuwon told reporters." We are
trot sure if it is politically moti-
rwming for
f=..."-- •
protests. Tensions have risen i
making clear that it may not hot
elections until 2017 and wants
Video shortly after the blast
-
of its opponents and bannln
months.
dents
V--- _
kok politically charged riots cen-
led dissent, arresting hundret
tred on this very intersection in
ing" said Pim Niyomwan, an
English instructor working on the
eighth floor of the building right
L___J_---
r
At the same time, the militat
government has tightly contro
2010 killed more than 90 over two
wrecking ball on top of our ceil-
y
anon.
aratists has left more than 3, 000
With a powerful flash caught
Ishook.
like someone dropped a
t
said.
on security video and a boom
pers.
wowl
Filipino, Somyot
more- than- decade- long incur-
100 across a hectic Intersection
lt exploded during evening rush
hour as the area was filled with
tourists, office workers and shop-
i
n„
L-i.1. 1 U
previous government. Anus
Kunakorn, secretary of lb
National Security ouncil. sal
heard blocks away, the blast from
1t
WIN
i,
As a single, devastatin blow to
and a
RANC: KOK,' Thailand— A this Southeast Asian metropolis, Prime Minister Prayuth Char
on the site size required, it was determined that only a portion of the site will be required
for the
political protests against tin
tee. The dead included Chinese
t1MlIMIt01N0011 NfAa1011
Associated te
environmental effects( no
heritage features
emergency medical rescue cen-
drillingg
yard needs
for adverse
watercourses present or other natural or cultural
bo m hi ng
kills
least
a'
chest of a victim.
No one immediately claimed
responsibility for the bombing.
The
shrine, adjacent
to a
five-
Lion of two major arteries in the
ter is supposed to be voted o
Another source of recent ter
motion list, with the junta' s to
there to pray at all hours, light-
Praywh and Deputy Prime Mir
hug incense and offering flowers
purchased from rows of stalls
interPrawlt— widelybelieve
to be supponing different sand
http:// eedition. timminspress. com/ epaper/ services/ OnlinePrintHandler. ashx?issue= 6321201...
8/ 18/ 2015
-..--.
_ —
_ -
•°^
Appendix B
Agency / Aboriginal Consultation
• Email Inviting Comment
• Agency Mailing List
• MOECC Comments
• Response to MOECC Comments
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Pat Becker [email protected]
Comments Invited - City of Timmins Public Works Tisdale Yard (Schedule B Class EA)
July 24, 2015 at 4:53 PM
[email protected]
There seemed to be a problem with the previous email and the first paragraph was cut-off and the attachment some couldn’t open. I am resending the email with a new attachment and I apologize if you are receiving this twice and there were no issues with the version you
received.
Patricia Becker
P Becker Consulting is assisting the City of Timmins in undertaking a project to address the problem of needing to update and improve service
to area residents by the Public Works Tisdale Yard by having an updated building, fueling area, lay down area and storage area. The existing
Public Works Tisdale Yard’s current location requires major work to update the existing building and address physical issues with the site.
To address the problem the project will entail looking at potential sites for the Tisdale Yard to accommodate the updated building, fueling area,
lay down area and storage area. The project is being conducted in accordance with Schedule B requirements of the Municipal Engineers
Association’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011).
The attached Information Notice provides additional details on the project and invites comments on the project. The purpose of the
Information Notice is to serve as consultation on the alternatives and comparative evaluation process and the recommended alternative
solution. The date for submission of comments is Friday August 7, 2015. All comments received will be reviewed and incorporated into the
Project File Report, which is being developed to meet the requirements of the Schedule B process.
Please review the Information Notice attached, which was posted in the Municipal News and delivered to nearby residents and businesses for
public review.
You may either provide your comments directly to myself and/or the City of Timmins, as per the contact information provided in the Information
Notice. In addition, if you have any questions or issues please feel free to contact me directly.
Thanking you in advance for your participation in the process,
Project Manager
P Becker Consulting
14 Lady Diana Court
Cell #: 416-529-3613
Fax #: 905-713-1237
City of Timmins
Information…4 2015.pdf
On Jul 24, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Pat Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
To address the problem the project will entail looking at potential sites for the Tisdale Yard to accommodate the updated building, fueling
area, lay down area and storage area. The project is being conducted in accordance with Schedule B requirements of the Municipal
Engineers Association’s Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) document (October 2000, as amended in 2007 & 2011).
The attached Information Notice provides additional details on the project and invites comments on the project. The purpose of the
Information Notice is to serve as consultation on the alternatives and comparative evaluation process and the recommended alternative
solution. The date for submission of comments is Friday August 7, 2015. All comments received will be reviewed and incorporated into
the Project File Report, which is being developed to meet the requirements of the Schedule B process.
Please review the Information Notice attached, which was posted in the Municipal News and delivered to nearby residents and businesses
for public review.
You may either provide your comments directly to myself and/or the City of Timmins, as per the contact information provided in the
Information Notice. In addition, if you have any questions or issues please feel free to contact me directly.
Thanking you in advance for your participation in the process,
Project Manager
P Becker Consulting
14 Lady Diana Court
Cell #: 416-529-3613
Fax #: 905-713-1237
<City of Timmins Information Notice PW Tisdale Yard_Jul 24 2015.docx.pdf>
Stakeholder List for Class Environmental Assessment for Public Works Tisdale Yard
Mr.Ms.
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Company
Address 1
Address 2
City
Prov
Post Code
Phone
Phone
Fax
Email
Notes
Date Information Notice
Sent by
Fax
Email
Notes
Sent by
FIRST NATIONS AGENCIES / ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES
Mr.Ms.
First Name
Last Name
Name
Job Title
Mr.
Sunil
Bajaj
Mr. Sunil Bajaj
Manager
Mr.
Ms.
Chief
Chief
Chief
Chief
Chief
Chief
Chief
Chief
Chief
Chief
David
Glenda
David
Walter
Dwight
Murray
Alex
Anita
Kevin
Keeter
Jason
Marcia
Pickles
Restoule
Babin
Naveau
Sutherland
Ray
Batisse
Stephens
Tangie
Corston
Gauthier
Brown Martel
Mr. David Pickles
Ms. Glenda Restoule
Chief David Babin
Chief Walter Naveau
Chief Dwight Sutherland
Chief Murray Ray
Chief Alex Batisse
Chief Anita Stephens
Chief Kevin Tangie
Chief Keeter Corston
Chief Jason Gauthier
Chief Marcia Brown Martel
Team Lead
Director
Last Name
Name
Job Title
Address 1
Address 2
City
Prov
Post Code
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development Canada
Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs
Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs
Wahgoshig First Nation
Mattagami
Taykwa Tagamou Nation
Flying Post First Nation
Matachewan First Nation
Chapleau Ojibwe First Nation
Brunswick House First Nation
Chapleau Cree First Nation
Missanabie Cree First Nation
Beaverhouse First Nation
Métis Nation of Ontario
Company
Environment -‐ North 25 St. Clair Ave. East, 8th Floor
Toronto
ON
M4T 1M2
Consultant Unit
Aboriginal and Ministry Relationships Branch
R.R. #3
P.O. Box 99
R.R. #2, P.O. Box 3310
Box 1027
P.O. Box 160
P.O. Box 279
P.O. Box 1178
Box 400
174B Highway 17E
P.O. Box 1022
347 Spruce Street South
160 Bloor Street East, 9th Floor
160 Bloor Street East, 9th Floor
Toronto
Toronto
Matheson
Gogama
Cocnrane
Nipigon
Matachewan
Chapleau
Chapleau
Chapleau
Garden River
Kirkland Lake
Timmins
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
M7A 2E6
M7A 2E6
P0K 1N0
P0M 1W0
P0L 1C0
P0T 2J0
P0K 1M0
P0M 1K0
P0M 1K0
P0M 1K0
P6A 6Z1
P2N 1Z1
P4N 2N2
416-326-4757
416-326-4053
705-273-2055
705-894-2072
705-272-5766
807-887-3071
705-565-2230
705-864-2910
705-864-0174
705-864-0784
705-254-2702
705-567-2022
416-325-1066
416-325-1066
705-273-2900
705-894-2887
705-272-5785
807-887-1138
705-565-2585
705-864-2911
705-864-1960
705-864-1760
705-254-3292
705-567-1143
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Company
Address 1
Address 2
City
Prov
Post Code
Phone
Fax
Email
Notes
Sent by
Fax
Email
Notes
Sent by
33 First Street
Highway 101 East
Fox Lake Reserve
Bell's Point
26 Station Road North
416-954-4328
Emailed - July 24, 2015
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Mr.Ms.
First Name
PROVINCIAL AGENCIES
Mr.Ms.
First Name
Last Name
Name
Job Title
Company
Address 1
Address 2
City
Prov
Post Code
Phone
Mr.
Eric
Doidge
Mr. Eric Doidge
Ministry of Transportation
Northeastern Region
447 McKeown Avenue, Suite 301
North Bay
ON
P1B 9S9
705-472-7900
[email protected]
Ms.
Kathleen
Hedley
Ms. Kathleen Hedley
Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
135 St Clair Avenue, 1st Fl
Toronto
ON
M4V 1P5
416-314-7241
[email protected]
Ms.
Ellen
Cramm
Ms. Ellen Cramm
Regional Director
Director
Environmental
Assessment
EA Planner/EA
Coordinator
Northern Region - Sudbury Office
12th Fl, 199 Larch Street
Sudbury
ON
P3E 5P9
807-475-1205
807-475-1754
[email protected]
Ms.
Carroll
Leith
Ms. Carroll Leith
705-235-1507
705-235-1520
[email protected]
Ms.
Coral
Ethier
Ms. Coral Ethier
Change
District Manager
Change
Regional Advisor Ministry of Citizenship, Industry and Trade
[email protected]
Ms.
Corrinne
Nelson
Ms. Corrinne Nelson
Regional Director Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mr.
Randy
Pickering
Mr. Randy Pickering
District Manager Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Ms.
Lynn
Buckham
Ms. Lynn Buckham
Regional Director
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Job Title
Company
Northern Region - Timmins District Office
301 St. Paul Street, 9th Floor
Northeast Region - South Porcupine
Northeast Region - Timmins
Northeastern Municipal Services Office
Ontario Gov't Complex, 5520 Hwy 101 East, PO Bag
South Porcupine
3080
St. Catherines
South Porcupine
3090
ON
P0H 1H0
ON
L2R 7R4
ON
P0H 1H0
ON
P0H 1H0
705-235-1325
ON
P3E 6A5
705-564-6858
City
Prov
Post Code
Phone
Fax
Email
Timmins
ON
P4N 8R5
705-360-2660
705-360-2692
[email protected]
South Porcupine
3090
Suite 401, 159 Cedar St
Sudbury
705-235-1153
705-564-6863
LOCAL AGENCIES
Mr.Ms.
First Name
Last Name
Name
Mr.
David
Vallier
Mr. David Vallier
Agency Contact List
General Manager Mattagami Region Conservation Authority
Address 1
100 Lakeshore Road
Address 2
Notes
Date Notice of
Commencement & PIC #1
Sent by
Last Updated: July 24, 2015
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Cramm, Ellen (MOECC) [email protected]
City of Timmins Schedule B Project - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Tisdale Public Works Yard
August 12, 2015 at 4:11 PM
[email protected]
A"n:%Patricia%Becker,%P.%Becker%Consul6ng,%%Project%Manager
%
Hello%Ms.%Becker,
%
Further%to%our%telephone%discussions%of%last%week,%a"ached%are%MOECC%Northern%Region%comments%on
the%aboveHnoted%project.%I%will%followHup%by%providing%a%scanned,%signed%version%of%these%comments,
but%as%I%am%having%computer%challenges%today,%it%may%be%a%day%or%two%before%I’m%able%to%provide%this.
%
Thank%you%for%the%opportunity%to%comment%on%this%project.%Please%call%if%you%have%ques6ons%or%wish%to
discuss%these%comments.
%
Regards,
%
Ellen
%
Ellen Cramm, MCIP, RPP
Environmental Planner/EA Coordinator
Technical Support Section, Northern Region
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Telephone: (807) 475-1728 Toll Free: 1-800-875-7772
Fax: (807) 475-1754
[email protected]
%
%
City of Timmins MCEA
Schedule B… 12 15.doc
14 Lady Diana Court
Phone: 905-713-2837
Cell:
416-529-3613
Fax:
905-713-1237
Email:
[email protected]
August 24, 2015 Ellen Cramm EA Coordinator MOECC, Northern Region 435 James St South, Ste 331 Thunder Bay, ON P7E 6S7 RE: MCEA for City of Timmins Public Works Tisdale Yard Update Dear Ms. Cramm Thank you again for providing comments on a tight timeline for the City of Timmins, Class EA project for the new Public Works Tisdale Yard. Consultation with First Nations and Métis Communities We have undertaken consultation with the First Nation and Métis Communities by inviting comment on the process and the recommended alternative solution and sending this to the communities that were identified for the project related to the upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant in Timmins. The next step in the consultation will be through circulation of the Notice of Completion for the project. The recommended site is located on a privately owned property that has already been developed as an industrial and equipment maintenance complex for over 20 years. Most recently the site was used as an industrial property for the maintenance and assembly of mining equipment. However, historically the site was used as a maintenance garage for a drilling company. Given the existing land use it is unlikely that the First Nation and/or Métis have an interest in the property. Land Use Compatibility Land use compatibility is one of the criteria used to comparatively evaluate the six alternative sites. This includes consideration of surrounding land uses. This is also discussed during the description of the preferred solution and includes consideration of potential impacts on adjacent land uses. Public Notices – Publication The Notice inviting public comment was posted in the newspaper on July 24, 2015 in the Timmins Press in the municipal section. The second notice was published in the Timmins Press on August 18, 2015. In addition the notice was hand delivered to adjacent and nearby residences and businesses on July 23, 2015. Further Notification As requested, you will be provided with a copy of the further notices. It is anticipated that the Notice of Completion will be the next notice for this project. Page 2 of 2 We thank you for your comments and if you require any further information please feel free to contact us directly. Sincerely yours, Patricia Becker, MES Consultant Project Manager P Becker Consulting Cell : 416‐529‐3613 Appendix C
Comments from Public
• Letter Aug 6/15
• Email Aug 7/15
• Letter Aug 21/15
• Responses to Public Comments
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Joseph Sangiuliano [email protected]
Public Works Tisdale Yard
August 6, 2015 at 9:06 PM
[email protected], [email protected]
Pat$/$Patricia,
$
Re:$Class$Environmental$Assessment$for$Public$Works$Tisdale$Yard
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$City$of$Timmins,$Ontario$$$$$$$$$$$
$
Please$find$a0ached$my$comments.
$
Kind$regards,
Joe
$
Joseph'Sangiuliano
FABWELD'CONTRACTORS'LIMITED
1:400$Crawford$Street
South$Porcupine,$On$P0N$1H0
$
FABWELD CONTRACTORS LIMITED
400 Crawford Street, Unit 1, South Porcupine, On P0N 1H0 Tel. 705 235-3077
August 6, 2015
Mr. Pat Seguin, P Eng
The Corporation of the City of Timmins
Timmins, Ontario
via Email
Subject: Class Environmental Assessment for Public Works Tisdale Yard
City of Timmins, Ontario
Dear Sir,
In response to your request of July 24, 2014 in the Daily Press for public input on the above subject
matter please note my comments and views as follows:
The majority of the public work effort is in the residential communities of Tisdale and Whitney Township
areas west of the Porcupine River commonly known as South Porcupine and Porcupine Pottsville areas.
It is my opinion that the proposed 6075 King Street location will compromise:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Health & Safety
Operating Costs
Efficiency
Future Development
Commerce
Revenue
Aesthetics
To elaborate:
1. Health & Safety
Accessing the highway, for the most part, from the proposed King Street location, without traffic lights
poses a health & safety risk to the entire fleet. In particular, operators would have to make a decision to
cross or merge into the oncoming traffic.
The South Porcupine / Pottsville Areas have two traffic lights assessing the highway safely.
2. Operating Costs
/…2
-2Since the majority of the work effort is in South Porcupine additional mileage to get to the work areas
from the King Street facilities will result in additional fuel consumption, increased wear & tear on motor
vehicles and equipment as well as added wages and possibly overtime costs to perform the same
amount of work being presently being done from Evans Street.
3. Efficiency
Productivity for the majority of the fleet would be reduced by the necessity of having to travel to and
from the King Street base to South porcupine.
The main building is too narrow and will prove inefficient to Public Works Operations. Not having the
facilities under one roof would compromise maintenance operations and highly likely will require
additional staff.
4. Future Development
The additional land purchases proposed in the King Street option, behind and between the residential
areas compromises deferred residential development in this much needed area.
5. Commerce
The King Street highway frontage has a commercial appeal to other commercial and light industrial
business owners and companies who wish to relocate and or set up shop in the Timmins area. The City
of Timmins should not be in a position to reduce these opportunities by taking away prime commercial
real estate.
6. Loss of Revenue
Acquiring the King Street properties would be a loss of municipal tax revenue and subsequently a
burden placed onto the taxpayers.
7. Aesthetics
The King Street facilities are made up of many types of structures. These include an old building with
compounded additions & improvements, a relatively new (8 year old) building, two or three fabric
structures and sea containers. Not aesthetically pleasing at the doorstep to the City of Timmins.
Recommendations:
The Evans Street location has worked effectively for decades virtually under one roof. In my opinion the
proposed King Street location provides an ineffective solution for the short term with long term
consequences.
/..3
-3The City of Timmins should lead by example in quality, architecturally and functionality optimizing its
use of space and options for future requirements.
Development of the Crawford Street option, situated in an industrial area with no threat to present or
future housing, should be given further consideration. It has great potential that would benefit the City
of Timmins and its taxpayers for the long term.
Sincerely,
FABWELD CONTRACTORS LIMITED
Joseph Sangiuliano, MAATO
CC: Patricia Becker, MES
Luc Duval, P Eng , City of Timmins
14 Lady Diana Court
Phone: 905-713-2837
Cell:
416-529-3613
Fax:
905-713-1237
Email:
[email protected]
August 25, 2015 Mr. Joseph Sangiuliano, MAATO Fabweld Contractors Limited 400 Crawford Street, Unit 1 South Porcupine, ON P0N 1H0 Subject: Class Environmental Assessment for Public Works Tisdale Yard, City of Timmins, Ontario Dear Mr. Sangiuliano: We thank you for taking the time to review and provide comments on the proposed Public Works Tisdale Yard Class Environmental Assessment (EA) information. We have provided a response to your comments in the letter dated August 6, 2015. 1. Health & Safety Consideration was given to the location of the site and the type of roadway and it was recognized that many of the vehicles exiting the site would be turning left. King Street has low traffic volumes in the area and while it is a four-‐lane road the posted speed limit is 50 km per hour. In addition, the previous uses of the site had vehicles exiting the site on a regular basis with few issues. Based on this it was not considered that a Public Works Yard at this site would result in significant traffic issues. 2. Operating Costs The service area for the Public Works yard will be the communities east of Schumacher, which is the same as for the existing Evans Street yard. The majority of the population is located in the communities of South Porcupine and Porcupine but there are also additional communities to the east (e.g., Hoyle, Connaught and Barbers Bay) that will also be serviced from the Tisdale yard. Since the proposed site is located within Porcupine (only 5 km from the current site and within one of the large communities to be serviced), it is not anticipated that the operating costs will vary much from those incurred at the existing Evans Street site. 3. Efficiency As noted above the vehicles will travel to South Porcupine but also to communities located further east. The existing building can be used but will require an addition to meet the Public Works yard needs. The costs of the addition were considered a disadvantage for this site and were factored into the evaluation. However, this alternative has the lowest estimated capital costs since the site is not vacant, the building is move-‐in ready and the site has municipal services (water and wastewater) which reduces the costs compared to the other potential sites. Page 2 of 2 4. Future Development As noted in the Notice Inviting Public Comment and the Project File Report, the City is proposing to utilize the central portion of the site which is largely zoned Highway Commercial. The residential portions would remain generally as is and would serve as a natural buffer between the site and the adjacent land uses. 5. Commerce The zoning of the site for commercial permits uses such as a utility yard and a service shop which means that re-‐zoning is not required. While this will utilize a commercial site it will be compatible with land uses in the area. 6. Loss of Revenue The estimated capital costs of purchasing and developing this site are the lowest of the alternative sites. This will off-‐set some of the lost municipal tax revenue by utilizing this site as a Public Works yard. 7. Aesthetics The site will be cleaned up and a new addition put on the existing building. As well, some of the structures and storage areas will be located away from King Street in the south portion of the site (towards the railway right of way) minimizing the visual impact to King Street properties. The undeveloped land will remain providing a natural visual buffer as well to the site. Recommendations As further outlined in the Project File Report, the existing Evans Street site is located within the floodplain and is often flooded in the spring which has resulted in ongoing operational issues and water damage to the structure and creating structural damage. Given their current state, the existing buildings would have to be demolished and re-‐built but this is challenging given the floodplain location and the fact that this limits fill be brought onto the site. The Do Nothing alternative and upgrading of the site were both considered in the evaluation but these were least preferred alternatives. The proposed site at Ferguson Road-‐Crawford Street was evaluated but was least preferred largely due to the high capital costs to develop since the site is currently vacant and does not have any servicing on site. As you noted one of the advantages of the site was that it could be re-‐zoned and is compatible with the existing land uses. However, when considering all aspects of the environment (natural, social-‐
cultural, technical and financial) this site was one of the least preferred options. Once the Notice of Completion is filed for the project we invite you to review the Project File Report. Sincerely yours, Patricia Becker, MES Consultant Project Manager From:
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 01:56 PM
To: Patrick Seguin
Subject: tisdale yard -porcupine
king st porcupine thank you for meeting with
me on wednsday aug 05 2015. i really appreciated you
making time for me. i feel like a fish out of water commenting on
this issue as i still am not sure of development and expansion other
than the few details available. if possible in the future would it be
possible to get something on paper as to expansions and more than
2 weeks to comment i am concerned with expansion eventually
being right behind my home...perhaps a large enough buffer area
could be created for this issue... i am also concerned with more
noise than at present time...ex..late at night. banging of tailgates.
my other concerns are very minor... thank you for your time. 14 Lady Diana Court
Phone: 905-713-2837
Cell:
416-529-3613
Fax:
905-713-1237
Email:
[email protected]
August 25, 2015 King Street Porcupine, ON RE: Comments on Public Works Tisdale Yard Class EA Dear : We thank you for taking the time to review and provide comments on the proposed Public Works Tisdale Yard Class Environmental Assessment (EA) information. We have provided a response to your comments in your email dated August 7, 2015. Publication of the Notice Inviting Public Comment on this project is the initial consultation undertaken to meet the requirements of the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) Class EA process. The purpose of this consultation activity is to obtain input on the comparative evaluation and selection of the recommended alternative solution. For this project this entailed reviewing the information on the evaluation of the potential six (6) sites for the Public Works Tisdale Yard and to confirm whether the public had any input on this process and/or the recommended alternative (Site 6 – 6075 King Street, Porcupine). The next step in the process was to develop the Project File Report and to document the Class EA process including the comparative evaluation process and selection of the recommended alternative, based on public and agency input. As well, the report includes a discussion on the conceptual layout of the proposed yard. For this second consultation activity, there will be additional time provided for public and agency input on the preferred alternative. The Project File Report is now complete and a Notice of Completion will be issued shortly providing 30 calendar days for the public and agencies to submit comments on the Class EA process and the preferred alternative site. A copy of the Notice of Completion will be posted twice in the Timmins Press and forwarded to the public that received a hand-‐delivered copy of the previous Notice and anyone providing comments on the project to-‐date. As such you will be forwarded a copy of the Notice of Completion which outlines both how to access the Project File Report and how to provide comments. Given the close proximity of some residences and commercial establishments on King Street it was agreed to maintain portions of the site in their current “undeveloped” state. This provides an opportunity for the trees to provide a natural buffer between the site and these residences and commercial operations and to reduce the visual impact and some of the noise issues associated with the site. The Project File Report provides additional information on the proposed site layout and will confirm that the City is planning on utilizing only the central portion of the site for the Public Works Yard. Page 2 of 2 There is the potential for additional noise (e.g., tailgates, back-‐up noise) to occur on the site on a per day basis. However it is not anticipated that the site will operate 24-‐7 or to have additional regular shifts, which was the case for the previous use of the site which operated with shift work. Based on this while there may be some days with additional noise, there will be numerous days when no additional sound will be heard at the site. Once the Notice of Completion is filed for the project we invite you to review the Project File Report. Sincerely yours, Patricia Becker, MES Consultant Project Manager 21 August 2015
Mr. Pat Seguin, P.Eng
City of Timmins
Timmins, Ontario
Subject: Public Works Tisdale Yard, Class Environment Assessment
Dear Mr. Seguin,
I am contacting you today to provide my input on the proposed future site of the Tisdale Public Works
yard for the purpose of your Class EA process.
I have reviewed all locations listed on the article and have found none to be suitable for the new site,
except for the Ferguson Road at Crawford Street location. This location is far superior to the other
locations on the table for many reasons.
You’ve advised the public in this article that the 6075 King Street Porcupine site is currently the “top
pick”, however I feel this would NOT be the best option, when you consider Public Safety, Future
Development, Efficiency, Cost of operating, Potential revenue and Commerce, and the Aesthetics.
Firstly, we must always consider safety of the public paramount. By putting the Works Yard on the
highway through Porcupine, you risk the safety of everyone travelling this route, as well as your
Employees who work at the proposed site. They will have to pull out onto a busy highway with large
dump trucks and plows, merging with haul trucks, school buses and transports, in a school zone,
nonetheless. By using the Ferguson/Crawford location instead, you aren’t around any heavy traffic at
all, except for the odd charter bus and light vehicle. There is no high risk to pedestrians and school
children, etc.
Secondly, the future development of this area will be hampered, as this is prime real estate for a
commercial business to move in and get exposure to the public. A location with high visibility to the
public always appeals to business owners trying to earn a living and serve the public. On the other end
of development, you propose on taking away a lot of land that could easily be used for residential areas
for new housing to keep up to the demands of the region to expand. Ferguson/Crawford already has
Veolia and BMI in that corner and it would be best suited in this area, as there is currently very little
housing and business in this area. You wouldn’t have to worry about community stakeholders
complaining about nuisance noise, dust, heavy traffic, etc. At King Street, you would continually hear
complaints from neighbours.
While we’re discussing “business”, think about the City’s loss of tax revenue if you use this location for
Tisdale Works yard. Plus the cost of purchasing this location is a lot higher than the Ferguson/Crawford
location. If a business were to move into this location instead, the city would be making money off the
prime real estate! Same would apply if 50 houses get built in behind this location in the future.
When you look at cost of operating, I took another good look at the property on King and noticed there
are many buildings - some new, some old – and while the office space might be suitable for any clerks
and supervisors you have in the office, the shop buildings would not be large enough for the Public
Works maintenance activities. The shop isn’t wide enough to hold your fleet. It doesn’t make sense to
have separate building to maintain your fleet. You would have to split up your tools and staff in two
buildings, or essentially have more of each tool and employee to work two shops. If you intend on
building a larger shop and knocking their current one down, then this is also an added cost to this
location. The Ferguson/Crawford location is all under one roof and has offices, as well as several large
shop bays, and large bay doors that could easily fit your fleet and tools. There have been many
businesses in this location before with heavy mobile equipment.
Additionally if you move the Works Yard to the King Street location, you’re moving your fleet further
away from their service zone. This would also potentially add extra travel time to your fleet, increasing
wear and tear, and additional overtime and exhausting to your crews. It’s on the fringe of their zone,
whereas Ferguson at Crawford would be central to their zone and make the feeling of “going back and
forth” less of an annoyance to employees, maintenance staff, and the taxpayers paying for this upkeep.
Finally, you need to consider the curb appeal of our city. We already have some areas of town that are
less than attractive and putting a Public Works Yard on our main thoroughfare would not help beautify
our city at all. It would most certainly decrease housing prices in the vicinity, hurting your community
stakeholders. It would add dust, noise and additional vehicular heavy traffic in the area that no one
wants and potential home buyers would shy away from. Public Works is a 24-hr operation and I am
sure those living along King do not want to hear trucks coming in and out all night long.
Ferguson/Crawford is further away from residential areas and it would be tucked away where dust and
noise would not matter so much since it’s surrounded by more forest that would dampen the noise and
spread of dust.
In conclusion, after reviewing both the King Street, it’s a no-brainer to me that this should NOT be your
top pick. It may be “newer” with some perks, but it is not a wise decision in the best interest of safety,
future development, and in the end, the City and taxpayers money. As a current resident of Ferguson
Road myself, I have no issues with the city works being moved to Ferguson/Crawford. This is by far the
best decision and I will vote on that!
If you are interested in speaking with me more on the issue, please contact me at home
or via email
.
I thank you for your time in considering the opinions of the residents of the community and best of luck
on the decision ahead!
Sincerely,
Cc: Patricia Becker, MES
14 Lady Diana Court
Phone: 905-713-2837
Cell:
416-529-3613
Fax:
905-713-1237
Email:
[email protected]
August 25, 2015 (Via email) Subject: Class Environmental Assessment for Public Works Tisdale Yard, City of Timmins, Ontario Dear : We thank you for taking the time to review and provide comments on the proposed Public Works Tisdale Yard Class Environmental Assessment (EA) information. We have provided a response to your comments in your email dated August 21, 2015. 1. Consideration was given to the location of the site and the type of roadway and it was recognized that many of the vehicles exiting the site would be turning left. King Street has low traffic volumes in the area and while it is a four-‐lane road the posted speed limit is 50 km per hour. In addition, the previous uses of the site had vehicles exiting the site on a regular basis with few issues. Based on this it was not considered that a Public Works Yard at this site would result in significant traffic issues. The Ferguson Road-‐Crawford Street site did rank slightly higher in the evaluation on this issue since it is located on a collector road, however it will require the vehicles passing through residential areas to reach the highway. 2. As noted in the Notice Inviting Public Comment and the Project File Report, the City is proposing to utilize the central portion of the site which is largely zoned Highway Commercial. The residential portions would remain generally as is and would serve as a natural buffer between the site and the adjacent land uses. There is the potential for additional noise (e.g., tailgates, back-‐up noise) to occur on the site on a per day basis. However it is not anticipated that the site will operate 24-‐7 or have additional regular shifts, which was the case for the previous use of the site which operated with shift work. Based on this while there may be some days with additional noise, there will be numerous days when no additional sounds will be heard at the site. 3. The estimated capital costs of purchasing and developing this site are the lowest of the alternative sites. This will off-‐set some of the lost municipal tax revenue by utilizing this site as a Public Works yard. The zoning of the site for commercial permits uses such as a utility yard and a service shop which means that re-‐zoning is not required. While this will utilize a commercial site it will be compatible with land uses in the area. Page 2 of 2 4. The service area for the Public Works yard will be the communities east of Schumacher, which is the same as for the existing Evans Street yard. The majority of the population is located in the communities of South Porcupine and Porcupine but there are also additional communities to the east (e.g., Hoyle, Connaught and Barbers Bay) that will also be serviced from the Tisdale yard. Since the proposed site is located within Porcupine (only 5 km from the current site and within one of the large communities to be serviced), it is not anticipated that the operating costs will vary much from those incurred at the Evans Street site. 5. The existing building can be used but will require an addition to meet the Public Works yard needs. The costs of the addition were considered a disadvantage for this site and were factored into the evaluation. However, this alternative has the lowest estimated capital costs since the site is not vacant, the building is move-‐in ready and the site has municipal services (water and wastewater) which reduces the costs compared to the other potential sites. 6. The site will be cleaned up and a new addition put on the existing building. As well, some of the structures and storage areas will be located away from King Street in the south portion of the site (towards the railway right of way) minimizing the visual impact to King Street properties. The undeveloped land will remain providing a natural visual buffer as well to the site. The proposed site at Ferguson Road-‐Crawford Street was evaluated but was least preferred largely due to the high capital costs to develop since the site is currently vacant and does not have any servicing on site. As you noted one of the advantages of the site was that it could be re-‐zoned and is compatible with the existing land uses. However, when considering all aspects of the environment (natural, social-‐
cultural, technical and financial) this site was one of the least preferred options. Once the Notice of Completion is filed for the project we invite you to review the Project File Report. Sincerely yours, Patricia Becker, MES Consultant Project Manager

to view/download all the details

Transcription

Similar documents

The First Ever Soccer Game at Harbor Yard

roll-off dumpster services

140 South Road, Pepperell

112 200 Klahanie Drive, Port Moody, BC Asking

1004 Meadow Ave. Priced to sell at $415,000! Three bedroom home

Pages 31-35 - Springfield

Orange County Water Wise Lifestyle March 13, 2016

Sudoku

Faulkner flyer 020712.cdr

Classifieds - Fairfield Bay News