Town gets $1.5 million for Hillsburgh bridge project

The Town of Erin has received a $1.5 million provincial grant that will cover more than half the cost of rebuilding the Station Street bridge in Hillsburgh.

The total cost of the project, which includes rehabilitation of the millpond dam, is estimated at $2.5 million. Design work will be completed this year, with tendering expected in the fall and the start of construction in the spring of 2019.

“The significant repairs being done to the structure will be of added value to the town as we continue to grow,” said Mayor Allan Alls.

Wellington County owns the water control structure in the 

Hillsburgh millpond dam, while the Town of Erin owns

 the earthen berm that supports Station Street.

Gooderham and Worts built the dam that created the 

Hillsburgh millpond in the early 1850s, with a new mill that 

shipped grain to what is now Toronto’s Distillery District. 

The Station Street bridge was built in 1917.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs approved the grant through the top-up component of the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF). The town applied for $1,576,988 in July last year, but the grant was not approved until the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change gave the project the green light.

“The OCIF grant is great win for the Town,” said CAO Nathan Hyde. Erin has been turned down for OCIF grants in recent years. The program provides long-term funding for small, rural and northern communities to develop and renew their infrastructure. 

The project was the subject of an environmental assessment that recommended preserving the millpond. Town council and Wellington County backed the EA result, but it was challenged by Credit Valley Conservation and others who preferred either decommissioning the pond, or creating a smaller, off-line pond. 

Town council was prepared to go ahead with the project without a grant, and had arranged $2.5 million in debt financing. Mayor Alls said he expects that debt will still be used to cover the balance of the cost.

He said the town might be able to reduce the cost of the project if sections of the dam’s foundation can be re-used. Construction will have to be timed to avoid disruption of trout hatching.

The bridge was built in 1917 and was first identified in 1971 as being in need of replacement. Although the dam had repairs and reinforcement after an outlet pipe failed in 2011, forcing temporary closure of the road, the province is insisting that the risk of failure be brought up to modern standards.

Meeting on Erin gravel pit expansion

A public meeting will be held at Town Hall on March 6, at 6:30 p.m., to provide updated information from the county planning department on the proposal to expand the Halton Crushed Stone gravel pit just south of Erin village.

Some residents of Aspen Court and the surrounding area have been urging town council to oppose the plan, or to obtain concessions from the company to reduce the impact of noise, water runoff, dust, traffic and visual appearance.

The current pit is set back 300 metres from County Road 52. The proposed 140-acre expansion of the extraction area would bring it closer (on both sides of Tenth Line), with the company offering to make the setback 60 metres instead of 30 metres.

Residents have posed a long list of questions to the company and the town. There remains uncertainty about why housing was allowed next to lands zoned for gravel extraction, and why the previous pit owners did not extract closer to the homes.

The current projection is to complete excavation in the area closest to the subdivision within five years, based on a rate of 400,000 tonnes per year, but HCS is not agreeing to any firm deadlines.

Other issues include the recycling and stockpiling of old asphalt and concrete on the site and the parking of trucks on the Tenth Line.

HCS proposes to reduce stockpile heights and increase berm heights, and to plant a mix of coniferous trees and shrubs. They will move the main processing area to 1.2 km from the subdivision and have agreed to some changes in the hours of operation. They are using strobe lights for safety instead of back-up beepers on trucks in the early morning hours.

In its application for a provincial license, HCS has included the possibility of temporarily closing the Tenth Line between the pit areas and mining the gravel in the road allowance. This would be the last phase and would require an agreement with a future town council. The town could be entitled to a large quantity of free gravel for road maintenance as part of such a deal.

Erin may enforce idling bylaw on 124

The Town of Erin is considering whether to enforce its idling control bylaw, in an attempt to force truckers to shut down their engines while they go into the Tim Hortons restaurant at the north end of Erin village.

Town council received a motion from its environment committee on Jan. 16 requesting that idling control signs be erected on a section of County Road 124 to educate drivers about the bylaw, and that “after a reasonable amount of time”, the town bylaw officer be directed to issue tickets.

Truckers often leave their engines running while they go into Tim Hortons.

The motion initiated by Heidi Matthews says highway trucks are breaking the bylaw “regularly and routinely on a daily basis”.

Council decided it needed more “clarity” on the matter, since the town cannot erect signs on a county road. A decision has been deferred until after Mayor Al Alls discusses the matter with county officials.

CAO Nathan Hyde said signs are not required for the bylaw to be enforced, since it applies in all areas of the town.

There was also discussion, but no decision, about whether trucks should be allowed to park (with engines off) on that section of road.

“I’ve been after the county, from the roads perspective, because I’m getting more concerned about the number of trucks parked on either side of that road,” said Mayor Al Alls.

“The shoulders are slowly sliding in towards the ditch. It also blocks good vision going around the corner there. It’s a screwed up intersection.”

Councillor Matt Sammut said he tends to agree with the motion, saying that idling “does impact the environment”. Councillor Rob Smith said if diesel engines cool off, they are more difficult to start up.

The idling control by-law, enacted in 2009, says it is illegal to allow the engine of a stationary vehicle to run for more than three minutes. There is a range of exceptions, but unless a truck must stay running to operate a refrigeration or heating system for cargo, idling outside a restaurant is normally not allowed.

The Municipal Act allows local regulation of matters that affect health and safety. The Erin bylaw asserts that vehicle emissions cause air pollution, resulting in a risk to respiratory health.

Erin truck bypass would cost more than $11 million

An updated estimate on the cost of a possible bypass to divert trucks north of Erin village was discouraging news for members of town council – and now they want an estimate on a bypass to the south.

A report from County Engineer Don Kudo said a recent review of the 17 Sideroad – Trafalgar Road route projects the cost at $10.7 million – a huge increase from the initial estimate of $2.6 million when the initial study was done in 1999 by Dillon Consulting.

Truck traffic in downtown Erin has been a problem for decades.

Because Trafalgar near 17 SR is on an incline, a bypass would have to include climbing lanes, through lanes and turning lanes. A new intersection would be needed on County Road 124 at the north end of Erin village, along with reconstruction and widening of 17 Sideroad.

The $10.7 million estimate does not include property acquisition, utility relocations, culvert replacement, a new bridge or design/engineering costs.

 “It looks like this has been created, to be blunt, so that it’s a no-brainer to say No,” said Councillor Matt Sammut, at council’s Jan. 16 meeting.

“Trafalgar is an acceptable road. I do understand the corner would have to be adjusted, and I understand that the corner of 124 would have to be changed. But nearly 11 million dollars, plus HST? I shake my head when I read this. 17 Sideroad probably would require some work.”

Mayor Al Alls said it would be “major” work, and a “struggle” because of the disruption to residents of 17 Sideroad. He speculated that once a cross-walk is installed this spring, truckers might be looking for alternate routes.

Councillor Jeff Duncan said he heard one merchant say he would be willing to hire someone at minimum wage to press the cross-walk button all day long. “That’s a lot cheaper than $10 million,” he said.

Sammut said the lack of a truck bypass is causing serious harm to the town.

“It’s this council and future councils’ job to create the best environment for businesses to grow. My guess is that if I asked a lot of shoppers, they’d say they don’t like darting in front of trucks. It absolutely impacts tourism. It’s not an enjoyable experience to walk downtown and every third vehicle is a tractor-trailer.”

The estimate for the northern bypass includes alignment shifts due to property conflicts and disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas.

 “I don’t think the figures are exaggerated,” said Als, predicting a bridge on 17 Sideroad would also have to be reconstructed.

Als said if the bypass route became a county road, the Town of Erin would have to take responsibility (and pay the costs) for Road 124 (Main Street) through Erin village.

The original cost estimate for a northern bypass was revised to $3.9 million in 2000. After that, when it became clear that a bypass would not be built in the near future, the county proceeded with reconstruction of Main Street downtown.

Alls said it would be less expensive to have a bypass to the south of the village. Trucks travelling west on Road 124 could turn south on Winston Churchill, then use Road 52 (Bush Street) to reconnect with 124 at the south end of the village.

Council agreed to request a cost estimate from the county for that route. Sammut immediately voiced concern. He lives in that area, where many residents oppose the proposed expansion of a nearby gravel pit.

“That’s a key cog for commuter traffic, and how much truck traffic is there from the pits – a significant amount,” he said.

“And now we’re thinking of adding further truck traffic? You’ve got four streets coming into the main road. You would have to adjust totally Bush Street coming up Main Street, because cars are flying around that corner. There’s no way it could work without significant adjustment.

“You want an uprising? You are risking an uprising at the south end of town already.”

Should rural Erin help pay for urban sewers?

As published in The Erin Advocate

When building a sewer system, the Servicing and Settlement Master Plan study emphasized the need to hook up all urban residents, to divide the cost into smaller portions.

Severe restrictions on how much treated waste will be allowed in the river, however, are limiting the total urban population to 6,000 people. Unless the Town can have the rules relaxed, “serviced” growth will total only 400 new homes.

Mayor Al Alls is looking for ways to raise that number, though he makes it clear that these are ideas that may or not be approved by Town Council or the Ontario government.

One strategy is to provide wastewater service to only the older homes and allow newer homes with good soil conditions to carry on indefinitely on septic systems. This would create three tiers of housing: rural (private wells and septics), urban partial (public water and private septics) and urban fully serviced (public water and wastewater).

Say for example that half the homes in the two villages were exempted from wastewater service. That would be about 800 fewer existing families sharing the cost, but presumably this would be offset by developers being allowed to build 800 additional homes.

Normally, the cost of a wastewater system – construction and on-going use – is paid only by the people who are actually hooked up, just like the water system.

But what if everyone in the town, including rural residents, helped to pay off that debt – maybe over 30 years? That’s what Alls suggested in a recent interview – again, just his own opinion.

“The way I see it, it’s a user pay system, but the initial construction and base of the system will be a Town-paid system,” said Alls. Several residents at last week’s public meeting objected to that idea, but the mayor did not respond in detail, saying only, “If it’s not affordable, we won’t build it.”

He points out that septic tank owners will benefit from having a local plant where tank pump-outs (septage) can be dumped. But even if there were a cost saving, it would be minor compared to a share of a huge loan payment.

The Town at large has already paid some $650,000 for the SSMP process and is looking at up to $200,000 more per year for the Environmental Assessment. Is that a precedent that can be extended to construction of a sewage treatment plant?

There are, of course, indirect benefits to a sewer system, if it provides desirable population growth and economic development. And it’s true that most people already pay for lots of government and school services that they don’t personally use.

That might not be enough to convince rural residents though, who are already paying for their own waste systems. What about new residents on serviced lots – will they have their full share of the sewer system cost included in the price of their homes, creating a huge cash flow for the Town? And what if we allow some new partially serviced subdivisions, where new residents would be paying for high-tech septic systems? Should all of these people also help pay for the wastewater system through their taxes?

There may be a scenario where extra contributions from rural residents, developers and new residents could help solve our wastewater problem, but the possibilities should be researched in the near future. The plan needs to be fair, in the public interest and legally defensible.

Town Council must ensure that a full analysis of financial options is included with the discussion of technology options in the next phase of the Environmental Assessment.

Greenbelt expansion could limit Erin’s future growth

As published in The Erin Advocate

In order to preserve farmland, woodlands, wetlands and ground water near the GTA, is there a need to lock down vast new areas of the countryside, including the western part of Erin, to drastically limit future development?

A coalition of environmental groups is advocating a major expansion of the Greenbelt, which already protects the eastern part of the Town of Erin, including the lands surrounding Hillsburgh and Erin village. Within the Greenbelt, most development is banned outside the fixed urban borders of hamlets and villages.

The Greenbelt is now under review by the provincial government and there is debate over how much protection is needed. In a tug of war between environmentalists and the development industry, the province has the difficult task of setting priorities, finding solutions and striking a reasonable balance.

Dark areas on the map show proposed local additions 

to the Greenbelt. Existing Greenbelt lands are to the east.    

On one hand, Ontario sees population growth as essential to the economy, and insists that counties and regions accept their share of new residents – mainly with denser concentrations. In 2006, 8.4 million people lived in the Greater Golden Horseshoe; by 2031 the number is expected to be 11 million, up 31%. Developers, and large cities already bursting at the seams, want the Greenbelt territory and restrictions reduced to allow for more growth.

On the other hand, the government also agrees with vast majority of residents who don’t want to see Southern Ontario covered with pavement.

The Greenbelt was intended as a barrier to urban sprawl, but development is now leapfrogging over it. Greenbelt lands are also threatened by new mega-highways, including the GTA West that will run from Vaughan to Caledon, Georgetown and the 401, and by the large-scale dumping of potentially contaminated soil as fill on farmland.

The Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation is quite happy with the recent report of a Coordinated Land Use Plan Review advisory panel led by former Toronto Mayor David Crombie. It backs growing the Greenbelt, which already covers 1.8 million acres, stretching 325 km from Rice Lake to the Niagara River.

Farmland and sensitive natural areas outside the Greenbelt already have some protection through provincial policies, conservation authority regulations and local official plans.

The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, which includes 115 groups such as the Wellington Water Watchers, is proposing to add almost 1.6 million acres to the Greenbelt. That would include river valleys in built-up areas, huge zones surrounding Barrie and Cobourg and significant groundwater sources throughout Waterloo Region and Wellington County.

The Waterloo, Orangeville and Paris-Galt Moraines provide the headwaters of the Grand River and aquifers for drinking water in Guelph, Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. The new water protection zones could be called the “Bluebelt”. For more information, go to Greenbelt.ca and Greenbeltalliance.ca.

“The County Planning department would like to understand the purpose of expanding the Greenbelt,” said Wellington Planning Director Gary Cousins.

“The Greenbelt was initially established as a separator between the GTA and what has been called the ‘outer ring municipalities’. It appears the purpose is changing based on providing higher levels of environmental and agricultural protection, but there are many protections already in place to achieve these purposes.”

Erin Councillor Jeff Duncan raised the issue at the December 1 meeting of Town Council, with a reminder that in 2004, part of Erin was unexpectedly placed in the Greenbelt without consultation or consent. Council had to make decisions about urban boundaries on short notice.

Duncan suggested that the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, funded by the provincial government, is releasing “trial balloons” to test reaction to the possibility of Greenbelt expansion.

“The Greenbelt has both negative and positive attributes to it, but our citizens and Town/County officials should be prepared to debate those issues,” he said.