Uneasy feeling

Concern lingers over Picton Terminals application

It was standing room only at Shire Hall on Thursday evening where a special planning public council meeting was held to discuss the Picton Terminals facility on Picton Bay. Picton Terminals is seeking a zoning bylaw amendment and site plan control agreement to allow the entire property to be used for transshipment operations, and a cruise ship operation.

Mike Keene, a land use planner with Fotenn Planning + Design, ran through the current facility and what the proposed changes would bring. The property itself is a 25-hectare piece of land with steep cliffs overlooking Picton Bay. In its past, the facility was used mostly for the export of iron ore from Marmoraton Mine. Keene explained that in 2006, the zoning was changed. “In 2006, the municipality updated its zoning bylaw and at the time the former owner wasn’t paying attention to the changes that were ocurring,” said Keene. This led to the use of the terminal becoming legal non-comforming. “The original use was lost in the bylaw,” said Keene.

The site currently contains a variety of facilities and services, including a deepwater dock, conveyors, outdoor stockpiling, packaging, and hauling. Shore cranes and mobile conveyors are also used on-site. Products prepared and loaded at the facility include dry bulk cargo such as road salt, aggregates, farming products and steel. The proposed amendment would allow the entire site to be utilized for the bulk storage of goods in association with the transshipment use and add a cruise ship tour operation. Keene explained that the Picton Terminals would like to bring Great Lakes Cruise Ships into Picton Harbour. “A port is something that can bring people in as well, so the hope is that we can also bring cruise ships to the dock to be bussed from the terminal out into the County for various opportunities.” He told council that according to the Provincial Policy Statement, the use would be appropriate, and that the protection of ports is of important provincial interest. Two 120-foot floating docks are being proposed to be located north and south of the existing docking facilities. One would dock the cruise ships with passenger capacity of approximately 450 people.

Councillor John Hirsch was not shy in bringing attention to Picton Terminals’ troubled past. He told his fellow councillors and the audience that he has no objection to people carrying out business in accordance with the zoning allowed for the property. However, he has environmental concerns. “It seems to me the track record Picton Terminals has in protecting the environment gives me serious reason to seek restrictions on the type of operations allowed and the type of materials that can be trans-shipped at the port,” he said. Hirsch is concerned that the application as presented contains almost no limitation on the types of material to be unloaded, stored on site and shipped at the port, with exception to not importing liquid fertilizer or handling garbage.

“At the very minimum there needs to be restrictions prohibiting materials which are potentially hazardous to the water of the bay, the air and the land in the vicinity of the port,” said Hirsch, citing the historical reports of excessive pollution from salt and cyanide runoff and dust. Hirsch asked a simple question of Keene. “Why, given the documented history, should we trust Picton Terminals to operate the port in an environmentally safe manner?” Keene explained there are ministries that monitor the site on a regular basis and ensure Picton Terminals is operating within environmental guidelines. “There are orders in place. There are processes in place. Having these documents in place and approved gives everybody clarity on regulation and assurances that the environment will be protected. Until that environmental compliance approval is approved, the ministry orders are how that site operates,” he said.

Picton Bay resident Diane Martin explained that Picton Terminals’ history makes it clear the company can’t be trusted. “They are not to be trusted. I see them as manipulative bullies who have moved into our neighbourhood and insist in meeting their own needs without any consideration for the rest of the community,” she said. Martin’s sentiments were echoed by Picton resident Teri Cobourn. “Unless I am wrong, my tax dollars are helping to enable an industrial operation that is polluting our harbour, threatening our drinking water source and compromising the very character of this very unique environment we share,” said Cobourn. She referenced the barge spill in March of 2017, which caused Picton’s drinking water system to be shut down, and cost the municipality nearly $600,000, of which only $394,000 was compensated from the Ship Oil Pollution Fund. She commended Save Picton Bay, calling it a nothing to gain, lots to lose situation “The members of Save Picton Bay have spent over $100,000 of their own and fundraised money towards safeguarding the harbour from further violations of its habitat and water resources,” said Cobourn.

Questions about Picton’s drinking water intake pipe were a hot topic. Picton Bay is shallow and the intake lies below a busy waterway, which may cause contaminents to be stirred up from the silt. Councillor Stewart Bailey asked if there was a plan to move the intake. Acting CAO Robert McAuley confirmed there had been a plan to relocate the pipe. “The environmental assessment was completed. The conclusion of that assessment was to move it further out into the Bay. But we now have a master water plan underway in association with the Wellington area, to examine using that supply as the Picton source,” he said. Quinte Conservation submitted a letter stating that the operations needs to be monitored closely. “Due to the high vulnerability of the drinking water intake, coupled with the numerous activities taking place on the subject property and surrounding area, the Source Protection department at Quinte Conservation is supportive of the greatest protection that can be purveyed on the subject property to ensure that no chemicals of concern leave the property and migrate to the intake and that no future drinking water issues are created.”

Councillor Ernie Margetson asked County Planner Paul Walsh the status of the PEER Review— a process by which the municipality retains qualified specialists to address matters which it might not have in-house expertise. Walsh admitted there is still a lot of work to complete. “It’s a draft but the request for proposal has been made. It still needs some work. We are going to have to coordinate with the other jurisdictions in terms of what is our purview and what is more of a provincial or federal purview.”

Public comments will be received and a PEER review will be completed. Following that, a staff report will be brought back to council at a future meeting.