About Land Use Compatibility…

About Land Use Compatibility Guideline (DRAFT), I want to ask Ministry think about:

1.Transitional land use between major industrial facility to sensitive land uses

The Guideline says lighter industrial uses would ideally be in proximity to heavy industrial uses.

As the Guideline defines:

Employment Area: areas designated in an official plan for clusters of business and economic activities including, but not limited to industrial uses, manufacturing, warehousing, offices, and associated retail and ancillary facilities (PPS).

If warehousing, offices, and associated retail and ancillary facilities are near sensitive land uses, sensitive land use will not be impacted by dust, noise, odor.

The problem is such transitional land uses with heavy industrial land use together in same employment area, they will be impacted by heavy industrial land use. And the Guideline does not mention MSD between heavy industrial facility and light industrial facility, or non-industrial commercial land uses.

I would like to see more detailed info about transitional land uses, including their MSD to heavy industrial facility.

People who work in warehousing, offices, and associated retail and ancillary facilities should not be impacted by heavy industrial dust, odor and noise too, since the air pollution affects their health.

2. There are some cases study examples in the Guideline, our case is special, which should be listed in the Guideline, in my opinion.

An asphalt plant is adjacent to a commercial property, no separation distance at all, also municipal residential zoned area is only 243m away, this asphalt plant set here after we have Environmental Protection Act and Land Use Guideline D.

Our area surrounding residential area are here in 1950s-1960s. A hospital set here in 1954, its separation distance to the asphalt plant site is 453m. In 1970s a steel company set on the site, this site zoning was changed from M2 to M3 for its use. In 1983, a senior home here, its separation distance to the site is 243m. In 1988 the steel company ended its business, the land for sale. In 1998 zoning bylaw allows building care taker live in, next door commercial property janitor lives in the property since 1998.The site land was used for movie, sport, etc. after 1988, until 1999 it was sold.

In 1990, Ontario already has Environmental Protection Act and in 1995 we have Land Use Guideline D, but both of City and Ministry allow the asphalt plant set and operate on the site without public consultation. This setting and operating are illegal, this is public members' opinion.

And since 1999, lots complaints, also several orders from Ministry, court fines, and community also has appeal for zoning issue which we wait 8 years still no hearing date, even in such situation, this asphalt plant still allow to run, based on damaging public health and environment, breaking all relevant laws.

Such case, Ministry and City should study, and give public an explanation. Why a breaking laws action can last 21 years and still on going?