My primary concern is there…

My primary concern is there is existing, persistent noise coming from the current operations at 633 Coronation Drive, which has not been accounted for in this acoustics study submitted by the proponent 2683517 Ontario Inc. If approved, the two plants will be operating concurrently. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the evaluation should include the combined cumulative assessment of both plants operating together at 633 Coronation Drive.

I live a mere 500 meters from 633 Coronation Drive. I lodged two recent complaints to the City of Toronto and one to the Ministry of Environment regarding loud and persistent noise coming from the plant as early at 4:30 a.m. on Sept. 27 and again on Sept. 29. Banging, scrapping, clunking, pushing and vehicle back up sounds from bulldozers and backhoes kicking up large clouds of dust, awoke me on both of those early mornings. City of Toronto responded to say that the current facility at the site -- which, by the way is the same as the proponent, was fined $30,000 in 2019 for Environmental Protections Act Violations, including violating operating hours, waste volume and dust discharge.-- is exempt from City of Toronto noise bylaws as they currently have compliance approval through your Ministry. I am very concerned that if approved, the noise levels would be unbearable, particularly throughout the night-time hours. I strongly believe that night-time noise restrictions must be included in any compliance approval by the Ministry for the proponent operating at 633 Coronation Drive and that these be significantly more stringent that the those currently in place at the site. It’s one in the same person/company and they are a known and consistent noise and air polluter.

The proponent’s acoustic study is very alarming in that if the proponent is successful, nearby residents will be further disadvantaged by noise coming from both operations at 633 Coronation Drive. Ambient noise is very low during night-time hours, based on the April 2017 “Environmental Noise Study in the City of Toronto.” This explains why residents are so easily awoken, such as I articulated through my noise complaints mentioned above. The back-up alarms are particularly disturbing and easily interrupt a good night’s sleep. Add to that banging, bumping, scraping, dragging of materials by heavy machinery and you have a recipe for declining enjoyment of our nearby homes.

Also important to mention, the acoustics study does not take into account the noise of heavy trucks arriving and leaving the facility and running through our residential streets. Those trucks are very noisy and even worse so when they are operating empty.

As a nearby resident, I am extremely apprehensive about my rights and liberties to enjoy my property in peace, especially since the sound level indicated for truck loading/unloading on Table A on page 14 of Report A is an astounding 111 dBA. I would surely have to move at a great loss to my property value. We could see declines in home values throughout a 6 square kilometers of residential housing in the area.

I strongly urge reconsideration of the proponent’s proposal to an area closer to the 400 series of highways. Take a look at what other city’s have done, such a San Francisco. They have very little land to work with but have managed to place their biogas facility away from residential homes.