Shaffers' say C&D amendments a no go, but council keeps process alive

BY KIRK STARRATT

Kings County Advertiser

What’s the point of going through the time, effort and expense of holding a public hearing for amendments to a development agreement if the applicants say - beforehand - they’d refuse to sign?

That was the question for Kings County council to consider at its February session.

Councillors could have given second and final reading to the original amendment package for the development agreement with Derrick and Barbara Shaffer for their construction and demolition (C&D) debris disposal operation; or, add amendments requiring third party water sampling, a substantial change that would return the matter to first reading.

The problem: the Shaffers told county staff they’d refuse an amended development agreement that demonstrates a lack of trust.

The Shaffers want to increase their operation to include an accessory transfer station, composting facility and contaminated soil disposal site. Council approved the original development agreement for a portion of the 38-acre North River Road property in 2003. The Department of Environment licenses the operation, including monitoring, reporting and contingency plans.

At the request of Councillor Janet Newton, council went in-camera for legal advice. Following the consultation with solicitor Don Urquhart, council returned to its horseshoe to hear the rest of a presentation from planner Ben Sivak.

Sivak said the applicants had told him they would not sign an agreement amended to require third party water sampling because of the cost, inconvenience, intrusion on DOE regulations and the lack of trust demonstrated by the proposal. The Shaffers have a $100,000 bond with DOE and hold environmental liability insurance.

Sivak said, given the applicant’s refusal, staff would recommend against amending the agreement. He asked if there would be any point to holding a public hearing if the applicants were not willing to sign. “If the applicant refuses to sign, it’s over, correct?” Councillor Dick Killam said. “Would we have to go forward to a public hearing?”

Urquhart said the applicants wouldn’t have to sign but, under the Municipal Government Act, if council gives first reading, the matter must proceed to a public hearing. Killam asked if the applicants would be charged the advertising fees for the hearing.

Community Development Services director Bill Butler said it’s a unique situation and it would seem unfair to ask the applicants to pay the fees for something they don’t agree with and won’t sign.

Councillor Wayne Atwater said it’s DOE’s job to protect the environment: council should be more concerned with land use. He urged his colleagues to vote in favour of the original amendments requested by the Shaffers and move on. The Shaffers are “not too retarded” to take their own water samples. “We could keep playing with this for days,” Atwater said. He asked his colleagues to imagine what it would be like to be the Schaffers, sitting in the audience listening to this debate.

Councillors Basil Hall and Eric Smith both said their main concern is the contaminated soil proposal. Hall said it was clear from the public hearing concern was the same.

Vote ins and outs

Council voted to defeat the original amendments.

Councillor Chris Parker moved the amendment requiring a qualified third party to handle water sampling. The motion carried.

Council then gave initial consideration to the amended development agreement, forwarding the matter to a public hearing.

Parker suggested, if the Shaffers sign the amended agreement, they would pay the associated fees but, if they didn’t, the county could pay. Hall said it seemed to him the matter could be solved with a simple question to the Shaffers. If they didn’t want to proceed, why take the matter to a public hearing?

Warden Fred Whalen said it would be nice to have the intent of the applicants in writing, even if it were just one line.

Here’s your answer “We don’t accept it,” Barbara Shaffer said from the gallery. She wrote on a piece of paper, signed it and presented it to Butler. “There’s your one liner.”

She said she didn’t need any time for sober second thought or even “drunken second thought.” Butler said the signed note indicated the Shaffer’s wouldn’t sign an agreement amended as proposed. “Are we open for business?” Atwater said. “Let’s shut up about it and go on to the next subject.”

Hall said there should be a timeframe for the Shaffers in case they’d like to reconsider. “‘No’ means ‘no,’ Mr. Hall,” Barbara said, questioning whether or not council was listening to them. “That’s the problem in this council. No one’s listening.”

Hall said he was only trying to help.

The following morning, Barbara Shaffer said a member of council could be making a motion of reconsideration sometime within the next two days for the original amendments that were defeated.