County settlement agreement with Picton Terminals made public
Administrator | Aug 08, 2024 | Comments 6
Shipping containers at Picton Terminals shown in this photo from Terminal – Picton Bay Facebook
Terms of settlement between Picton Terminals and the municipality were made public this afternoon. (Click here to read the 19-page document)
Council settled a legal dispute with Picton Terminals in a closed session in June which is now legally-binding, and caused much grief from citizens citing lack of public consultation and transparency, and some warnings of legal action.
Mayor Steve Ferguson and council agreed at a special meeting late Wednesday to make the documents public and sent to the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte in advance of a meeting. The bylaw for the terms of settlement goes to the Sept. 10 council agenda; then will be signed.
Shocking more than a dozen members of the public in attendance to speak to the issue, council announced at its July 23 meeting the agreement had been accepted by Picton Terminals.
The settlement agreement proposal came about as a result of the County’s lawyers advising council the municipality stood little chance of winning in its effort in the courts to regulate Picton Terminals, along with associated high legal costs that would be incurred.
In a brief statement at the July meeting, Ferguson stated the matter of negotiations and discussions with Picton Terminals has been an on-going process that has engaged the public for a number of years, including three different councils.
At its June 25 meeting, seven councillors approved the draft terms of settlement, and directed legal counsel to seek similar approval from Picton Terminals.
“The municipality does not have the authority to interfere with activities that are, at their core, shipping and navigation, but that does not mean that Picton Terminals has a blank cheque on how it operates in our community,” said Ferguson. “Council decided to address the widest range of community concerns, some of which would not be possible through litigation.”
Voting in favour were councillors Chris Braney, Sam Grosso, Brad Nieman, Bill Roberts, David Harrison, Roy Pennell and Corey Engelsdorfer. Opposed were councillors Kate MacNaughton, Janice Maynard, Phil Prinzen, Phil St-Jean, John Hirsch and Mayor Steve Ferguson. Councillor Branderhorst was not present.
Council in 2020 unanimously denied Picton Terminals’ application for rezoning the 24 White Chapel Road site to allow a Great Lakes cruise ship port destination and additional storage.
Picton Terminals appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal but withdrew that appeal in 2021.
The current law means Picton Terminals has a legal non-conforming use on its properties to engage in the trans-shipment of bulk products, like iron ore, aggregates, salt, farming and steel products. The current law prohibits Picton Terminals from storing and shipping containers on its properties, yet their presence has been recorded showing containers stacked on top of the escarpment.
Picton Terminals has claimed that “all ports in Canada are regulated by the federal government”, “that shipping and navigation is a power wholly within the jurisdiction of the federal government”, and “the County has no legal jurisdiction to regulate the port”.
In May last year, the County and Picton Terminals had agreed to engage in discussions that could lead to a negotiated settlement with “hope to avoid a costly and protracted legal battle”.
Filed Under: Local News
Hi, John. Please reach out to the County Conservancy at countyconservancy@gmail.com
I’m sure they would value your perspective.
Here is a focused review of legal precedents specifically related to port operations and their interactions with municipal zoning bylaws. These cases underscore the legitimacy of Prince Edward County’s authority to regulate land use at Picton Terminals and provide a solid basis for NOT settling with Picton Terminals, and instead opposing any unauthorized operations, particularly expansions. If counsel is not willing to leverage these precedents in court, why not?
1. Key Legal Precedents Involving Ports and Municipal Zoning
Ottawa v. Seaway Terminals (1989): This precedent directly involves port operations and their interaction with municipal zoning laws. The City of Ottawa enforced its zoning bylaws against Seaway Terminals, a port facility, despite arguments that federal jurisdiction over navigable waters should take precedence. The court upheld Ottawa’s zoning restrictions, asserting that municipal bylaws could coexist with federal regulations as long as they did not directly conflict. This case is highly relevant to Prince Edward County’s situation, affirming the municipality’s right to impose zoning controls on port operations when environmental and public safety are at stake.
Vancouver (City) v. North Fraser Harbour Commission (1996): In this case, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dealt with zoning restrictions imposed by the City of Vancouver on land used by the North Fraser Harbour Commission, a port authority. The court ruled that while port operations fall under federal jurisdiction, the municipality retained the right to enforce zoning bylaws that did not interfere with the port’s primary functions. This ruling supports the position that Prince Edward County can enforce its zoning bylaws on Picton Terminals, particularly where such enforcement pertains to land use and environmental protection, rather than the port’s shipping operations.
Montreal v. Terminal Yards Inc. (2003): The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the City of Montreal’s right to apply zoning restrictions to land adjacent to port operations. Terminal Yards Inc. argued that its activities were essential to port operations and thus exempt from municipal control. However, the court ruled that the zoning bylaws were valid as they regulated land use rather than maritime operations directly, reinforcing municipal authority in areas adjacent to ports. This case demonstrates that zoning laws can be enforced in port contexts, particularly when they address broader land use and environmental concerns.
Halifax Port Authority v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) (2007): This case involved the Halifax Port Authority’s attempt to expand its operations in ways that conflicted with municipal zoning bylaws. The court found that while the port authority had some federal protections, the municipality could enforce zoning laws that did not impede the port’s federal mandate. This decision illustrates the balance between municipal and federal jurisdiction and supports the argument that Prince Edward County can enforce its bylaws as long as they do not interfere with federally regulated shipping activities.
Prince Rupert Port Authority v. Prince Rupert (City) (2015): In this case, the British Columbia Supreme Court dealt with zoning disputes between the Prince Rupert Port Authority and the City of Prince Rupert. The court ruled that the municipality could enforce zoning bylaws on land leased by the port authority, provided that these bylaws did not conflict with the port’s essential operations. This precedent is particularly relevant to Prince Edward County, as it highlights the municipality’s ability to control land use even in the context of port operations.
These legal precedents establish that municipalities have the authority to enforce zoning bylaws on port operations, particularly when these bylaws pertain to land use, environmental protection, and public safety. The courts have repeatedly affirmed that municipal regulations can coexist with federal jurisdiction, provided they do not directly impede the core functions of port operations.
Given this legal framework, it is incumbent on the Prince Edward County Council to not acquiesce to a settlement that undermines its zoning authority. The investment in defending these principles will yield long-term benefits by preserving the County’s ability to protect its environment, regulate industrial activities, maintain control over land use, and most importantly do all of that for the benefit of residents within its jurisdiction.
Council must reconsider the proposed settlement and pursue all available legal avenues to enforce our zoning bylaws against Picton Terminals. If legal counsel isn’t confident, find legal counsel that is. The community’s interests must be our highest priority, and we must not shy away from defending them. Even if the legal fight is a loss, the fight will have been worth it given the potential gain of winning the fight, which will set precedent and impact the environment for future generations.
It did not take long.
click on link
https://www.quintenews.com/2024/08/15/massive-expansion-for-picton-terminals/
A lot of money spent and very little gained. One item that makes sense, the capture of run off water. Many years ago Essroc down the road spend in the range 5 million to capture every drop of water on their property and direct it to their old quarry to prevent any run off into the bay. This water is filtered then reused in the plant. At this point that plant uses no bay water for their operations just the stored water in the old quarry. I remember this information from public tours that the cement plant use to have every summer.
Here’s a summary courtesy of ChatGPT:
Key Provisions
Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO):
The settlement requires the issuance of a Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing by December 26, 2024. The MZO will define the land uses permitted on the property, including planned expansions.
If the MZO is not issued, the agreement will automatically terminate.
Development Agreement:
Upon issuance of the MZO, Picton Terminals will enter into a development agreement with the County, which will regulate its operations to minimize disruptions to the local community, ensure environmental stewardship, and maintain a good relationship with the County.
Environmental Commitments
The settlement includes several significant environmental commitments designed to mitigate the impact of the terminal’s operations on the surrounding environment. Here’s a detailed breakdown:
Dust Management:
Picton Terminals is required to implement a dust management system. This system aims to reduce off-site dust impacts caused by traffic, loading, unloading, and storage of goods on the property. The dust management system will be based on industry best practices and will be monitored and updated as necessary, based on operational experience.
Stormwater Management:
Stormwater on the property must be managed according to a plan approved by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. The stormwater management report will be updated as needed, and the terminal’s operations must comply with all Environmental Compliance Approvals issued by the Ministry. This ensures that runoff from the site does not negatively impact local waterways or the surrounding environment.
Environmental Management and Spills Prevention Plan:
Within six months of the settlement, Picton Terminals must develop an environmental management and spills prevention plan. This plan will be developed with the involvement of the Quinte Conservation Authority and must be approved by the County.
The plan will include training for employees and ensuring that all necessary equipment is available on-site to handle spills. It will identify Source Water Protection requirements and ensure that the spills protection plan is consistent with these requirements, thereby safeguarding local water resources.
Prohibition on Hazardous Goods:
The settlement prohibits the shipment of garbage, nuclear waste, and substances listed on the Toxic Substances List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to or from the property. An exception is made for substances on the list that are part of consumer products intended for retail or wholesale sale. This provision aims to prevent the terminal from becoming a conduit for hazardous materials that could pose significant environmental risks.
Emergency and Fire Management Plan:
Picton Terminals must develop an emergency and fire management plan within six months of the settlement. This plan will be created in consultation with the County’s Fire Chief and will include measures such as emergency response equipment, fuel storage protocols, emergency vehicle routes, and communication procedures during an emergency.
The plan will be reviewed and updated annually, ensuring that the terminal is prepared to handle emergencies that could otherwise lead to environmental damage.
Lighting and Noise Management:
The terminal is required to install exterior lighting that directs light downwards, minimizing light pollution and its impact on adjacent properties. The use of exterior lighting will be limited outside of operating hours, reducing the disturbance to wildlife and the local community.
Protection of Natural Areas:
Picton Terminals commits to protecting the natural environment, particularly the cliff faces and vegetated areas along the shoreline. The terminal will not make alterations to the shoreline or the vegetated areas within 30 meters of the water’s edge without approval from the Quinte Conservation Authority or other relevant authorities.
The agreement also requires the maintenance of existing vegetated areas, and any expansion of operations will necessitate the development of a buffering or berm plan to be approved by the County. This ensures that the natural landscape is preserved and that any new development is screened from the surrounding area.
Community Involvement and Monitoring:
A public committee will be established to include representatives from Picton Terminals, the County, and up to three local community members. This committee will meet every four months to address community concerns and keep the public informed about terminal operations.
Picton Terminals will also be required to maintain a log of complaints related to its operations and take steps to resolve these issues, further ensuring accountability and responsiveness to environmental and community concerns.
19 pages of legal garble! What does it really mean?