Volume 6 Questions

8/7/2019 Volume 6 Questions

1/6

AGRICULTURE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Chapters: Perth East; Wilmot West & Perth South

Questions

Submission

Volume

6


2/6

AGRICULTURE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Perth East, Wilmot West, Perth South

Chapters

R.R. # 2 TAVISTOCK, ON N0B 2R0Phone 519-655-2613


3/6

Categories of Questions and Comments

This paper categorizes the initial set of written questions and comments

received from ABC members. The questions and comments are groupedwithout attribution in order to streamline the list and eliminate duplication.

The purpose is to identify a short list of essential questions that need aresponse from MTO priorto our submission of a March 25th Brief, thereforean early response would be greatly appreciated.

The other categories identify issues that are fundamental to the planningprocess.

All Three categories of questions and comments are in this brief and allwillneed a response from the Study team & MTO, as soon as possible.

1) Specific Questions and Requests

These are questions ABC wants some very specificanswers via an exchange of letters and or emails withMTO for purposes of informing members priorto thedevelopment of our brief and the development of ourstrategy going forward. In some cases thesequestions have been posed to MTO before but without

satisfactory answers.

We need a response to this group of questions nolater than March 15 th .

2) General Questions and Requests

These are questions that are on our members mindsbut are more general and remain largely unanswered.These questions point to the issue of incremental

decision making that is the result of theenvironmental planning process. From day one, thecommunity has been asked to respond to proposalswithout complete and transparent information. TheEA process forces the community to respond topositions that are put forward without the opportunityto rethink these options when new more accurate

ii


4/6

information is provided in subsequent phases of thestudy.

3) Wider Comments and Concerns about the Planning Process

These comments are of wider significance. They maynot have been posed originally as questions butnonetheless they are evergreen issues.

1) How much land- in acres or hectares- is it estimated will be taken out ofclass 1, 2 and 3 agricultural uses if the newly proposed route is the final choice?

2) How much additional land is estimated to be taken out for all the required

north-south underpasses or bypasses?

3) What traffic counts will trigger:

i) The development of the proposed southern bypass around.Shakespeare

ii) The development of the proposed highway west of Erie Street andiii) Any redevelopment of the highway from New Hamburg to

..Shakespeare?

4) What specific information or formulas does MTO use to assess the cost toindividual owners of land for loss of business associated with the taking of

farm-land for highway development?

5) What formulas or processes does MTO use to address the costs to businessfrom the loss of land to highway development associated with existing nutrientmanagement plans?

6) What role do the owners of the railway (Goderich/Exeter) have in planningfor this project?

7) Did the consultants do a detailed inventory of agricultural producers, theirhome sites and extended producer sites along the whole proposed corridor tocomplement their study of traffic flow?

8) Who will lead the preliminary design for the provincial roadway process?Will there be PIC meetings throughout that process? Will individual propertyowners be invited to the table to give input during this design process before itis issued?

9) How does the MTO plan to allow for the movement of agricultureequipment and vehicles north and south should the newly proposed section ofhighway south of the rail line go ahead?

ii i

Specific Questions

and

Request

s


5/6

10) Upgrades have been mentioned by MTO staff for the stretch of Hwy 7 & 8east of Road 106 through to the railway overpass? What are these upgradesand how will they alleviate the number of accidents and fatalities on this part ofthe road?

11) The newly proposed route goes from a controlled access road (Lorne Ave. toShakespeare) to a road with limited access (Shakespeare to Nafziger Rd.) andthen back again. How will safety issues for these transitions be managed?

12) How will noise be managed for those residences and farms adjacent to theroadway around Shakespeare?

1) Will any existing north/south roads be closed?

2) Is MTO considering service roads along any of the January 2011 proposedroute?

3) How much land was purchased - in acres or hectares- in the past when theland was taken by MTO from Shakespeare to Stratford for the future highway7/8?

4) We understand that the Study Team has heard our concerns aboutcompensation to agriculture businesses when land is expropriated. But at theJanuary, 2011 PIC we observed that the 'old language' of compensation andexpropriation is still being used.

How does MTO plan to treat those affected businesses in a just manner forcompensation of loss of business and for the extra costs incurred to continueour business activityshould this route be chosen?

1) In 2010 we were asked to 'weigh' individual or corporate impacts and ABCasked how can anyone accurately do that? We were assured that reasonedassessment would take precedent over weighting sheets. The tabulated scoresand sensitivity analysis is, in our view, questionable. We urge you to removethe false implications from the finished report.

2) How can the Study Team decide on weightings and impacts when personsactually living on the highway route were never approached for reactions?

3) Our ongoing conviction is that building a major new highway in this corridoris a very backward step in light of the reality of dwindling oil supplies and theneed for high density populations to travel via public transit and not privatetransportation.

4) A few producers on the existing corridor have said they didn't mind thehighway coming in front of their property if, overall, the objective is for

iv

General Questions

and

Request

s

Wider Comments

and

Concern

s about

the

Plannin

g

Process


6/6

farmland to be saved. They are willing to make that sacrifice. But the new routewill use so much agricultural land that now they do not want to pay such a highprice and would prefer safety. There are just too many access points identifiedalong the stretch from New Hamburg to Shakespeare.

5) Other land owners east of Shakespeare say the route is chosen so lets dealwith it and get on with things. They want to know how they will becompensated, how the design of the highway will affect their business, and howlong this is going to take.

6) On our property a 60 m strip will be taken the full length of the farm and wewill lose about 10% of 120 acres and more than 10% of our workable 100 acres.To continue our grass-fed beef operations we will need to scale back our herdand will lose agricultural production. What options does MTO offerlandowners in this type of situation?

7) We would like also to suggest that we push Perth East council to get more

involved. They should be putting on public meetings to help get this importantissue right.

8) We are concerned about interruptions to systematic drainage.

9) Why is the Study Team afraid to host open question and answer meetings?

10) Why doesnt MTO let the community decide and present a plan to thegovernment?

11) How can the MTO use a plan that goes against the study mandate asidentified in report B sections 3.3.1- 3.3.2.?

12) The PIC format is not working! People cant learn from one another; we getdifferent answers and its not transparent for everyone. Even the media cantget the true picture of what is happening.

v

Volume 6 Questions

Documents

Transcript of Volume 6 Questions