I am writing you to voice my discontent over the misuse of the Picton Terminals as a quarry. The evidence is undeniable. I want to know what you as our Council are doing to stop this illegal use. Loopholes be damned. I am in fact doing what the quarry is doing all these years. I am blasting you for allowing this to continue and for having allowed it to begin in the first place.
You have failed to enforce the bylaws, in fact you have failed us.
Martha Peterson, Picton
In October 2020, Council unanimously rejected a rezoning application for the expansion of Picton Terminals, with the overwhelming concern being the negative impact on the environmental health of the community.
Further, in a 10 to 3 vote just last year, Council decided to terminate negotiations and proceed with zoning bylaw enforcement via the courts.
Now a year later, Council, in discussions hidden from the public, decides by a narrow majority to reverse course and offer settlement terms to Picton Terminals. This close 7 to 6 vote is hardly a convincing endorsement of this change in strategy! On an issue of such significance, why wasn’t this private debate continued until a close to unanimous decision was reached?
One can only assume that in closed meetings some Councillors, but not a super majority, have concluded the County may not win in court. But the narrow vote emerging from confidential discussions surely weakens the County’s negotiating position. Further, how does County guarantee passage of a settlement once the public is fully informed?
The reasons for originally rejecting the expansion of Picton Terminals are even more valid today, but the stakes are higher, as the County’s authority to enforce zoning bylaws has now been challenged. Last year’s protests and the recent outpouring of opinion in response to Council’s closed meetings is plenty of evidence of the public support for the County pursuing its legal enforcement action.
Isn’t it better to risk an adverse court ruling while retaining close to 100% public support than to offer concessions in a settlement that has ZERO support from the community most impacted? (Picton Councillors voted against the settlement.)
Peter Bell, Picton
I am having difficulty understanding why people here in the County have so much of an issue with Picton Terminals.
If we read the history of the site, in the years when they were in full production there would have been 75 to 100 ships per season taking iron ore pellets to Bethlehem Steel in the US.
Some of these were the largest lakers at that time, around 700 feet long. As I live near the ferry I get to see a lot of boat traffic. There have been 5 cargo deliveries this year at the Terminals. Heidelberg Cement on the other hand has had 3 large lakers in so far this year and their own boat is in every week to 10 days. Funny we never hear about that.
Most of the material being shipped into the cement plant is piled close to the shore so during rainstorms I would assume that some of it must get leached into the bay.
Another concern mentioned is the blasting that takes place at PT. If you follow them on Facebook they tell you what days they are blasting and give a time frame. I believe the cement plant blasts regularly and I have never seen any advance notice of this. Funny isn’t it.
Apparently pollution at night at PT is an issue. Does this not hold true as well for the cement plant?
The firemen visiting the ship was an excellent idea as it gives them some idea what equipment would be available if an issue broke out. As far as fighting a fire on the ship that would be up the crew to handle. What would happen if the ship caught fire in the middle of the lake or ocean? Also it would be a huge liability to have large numbers of people board a foreign vessel.
In my opinion I believe PT must be operating under all of the sanctions set out by the Municipal, Provincial and Federal Governments. If not they would be shut down.
Gary Galway, Prince Edward County resident for 71 years
See it in the newspaper
-6° Light Snow
