PUSLINCH – They call it Puslinch by Design – a Wellington County and Township of Puslinch initiative to determine where new industrial lands will be located in the township.
And the 75 or so community members who attended the public meeting at the Puslinch Community Centre on Feb. 26 ran the gamut from concerned, to worried, to downright suspicious about the proposed options and how it will alter life in the township.
While other municipalities are wrestling with residential growth and trying to attract businesses, with its access to Highways 6 and 401 and proximity to urban centres, Puslinch is a prime location for industry.
Puslinch is unique in Wellington County for its mix of agricultural land, protected greenlands, aggregate quarries, and residential clusters.
And there are already industrial sites in the township.
There is no urban centre though – just the hamlets of Arkell, Aberfoyle and Morriston. And Highway 6, with its traffic, noise and dangers to pedestrians, cuts Aberfoyle and Morriston in two.
Wellington County, in its municipal comprehensive review, identified that Puslinch needs 30 hectares more of industrial land and NPG Planning Solutions has been working on finding the ideal location in the township for such lands.
At the public meeting, NPG presented eight options under consideration. It really is a story about maps.
The presenters identified eight areas where the land mass was big enough, main transportation routes were available, and the geology and topography were conducive to construction.
Option A is at the north end of the township on Concession 7 and Maltby Road, north and east of the new Hanlon Expressway interchange. It is close to transportation hubs, to existing industrial lands and to Aberfoyle, but has many greenlands on the property and rolling topography could make it difficult to develop. Gross landmass is 61.68 hectares; net is 35.05.
Option B is at Sideroad 20 and Wellington Road 34, which is west of the Hanlon and fronts onto the new off-ramp. But it’s close to housing clusters and livestock farming, which require industry to be positioned a prescribed distance away. Gross landmass is 65.82 hectares; net 43.4 ha.
Option C is immediately north of Option B on Sideroad 20 and spans both sides of Concession 4. It is contiguous to other rural employment uses and has minimal greenlands on the property. But it is close to housing and livestock farming and is serviced by roads designed for lower traffic volumes. Gross 58.88 ha; net 58.03 ha.
Option D is south of the 401 and fronts onto Concession 7, which already handles truck traffic associated with aggregate operations. It is relatively flat and has few greenlands but is close to a residential cluster and livestock farming. Gross land 92.98 ha, net 86 ha.
Option E is also south of the 401 and east of Option D. It lacks road infrastructure and a large portion of land is owned by the Ministry of Transportation. For these reasons, Option E has been ruled out. Gross land 92.98 ha, net 86 ha.
Option F is on Gilmour Road and is close to existing industrial lands and road infrastructure. But it is also close to residential development and is less than 30 ha in size.
Option G is on the north side of Wellington Road 34 at Concession 7. While it is close to road infrastructure and has few greenlands constraints, it is close to housing clusters and livestock operations. It is also less than 30 ha in size.
Option H is in the same area on the south side of Wellington Road 34 at Concession 7 and has similar housing clusters and livestock operations in the vicinity. Gross 34.22 ha, net 30 ha.
Housing needs a minimum setback distance of 70 metres from industrial lands, while livestock operations and manure storage also have minimum distance separation (MDS) requirements, as set out by the province.
Mary Lou Tanner, president of NPG Planning Solutions, told the audience the company has not yet done a detailed analysis of each site and wanted feedback from residents to inform that stage of the project.
“There is no preferred option yet,” she emphasized.
Puslinch resident Justin Wilson hoped planners could increase the distance between residences and industrial sites to 300 metres rather than the 70m identified in the report.
He was told the province sets those distances and municipalities have to abide by them.
Wilson also noted Options B and C, when taken together, represent 180 acres of continuous farmland that would be a greater loss than losing smaller farms here and there.
He said Options A and D are the best for industrial land designation as D is close to aggregate operations and A would only impact one homeowner.
“To me they are the only two options that don’t affect rural clusters,” he said.
Another resident asked if there could be two smaller land masses designated for industrial use rather than one large one.
“There is that potential,” Tanner responded. “We’re not taking hybrid off the table; we will need to get to the deeper evaluation to see.”
Other residents worried about the impact industry would have on their well water, particulary in Options B and C where there are already challenges, one homeowner said.
There is no municipal servicing in Puslinch and industrial sites would have to install their own wells and septic systems.
Another woman told the Advertiser she’s worried about land speculation and that developers are buying up livestock farms in Puslinch to remove the MDS restrictions.
“Remove the livestock and you remove the barriers,” she said.
Earlier in the day NPG made the same presentation to council.
Councillor Russel Hurst was absent and councillor John Sepulis declared a conflict of interest because he lives in one of the identified option areas.
Tanner explained to council that a larger parcel of land is more attractive because is offers flexibility on land parcel sizes if and when businesses choose to locate in Puslinch.
It also makes it easier to plan roads and stormwater ponds if industries are co-located she said.
One of the options is sitting on the Paris-Galt Moraine, councillor Sara Bailey pointed out. She wanted to know when a hydrogeologist would look at the proposals and weigh in on an appropriate site in terms of drinking water.
“In my mind that proposal is not a good choice for that reason,” Bailey said.
Mayor James Seeley said the benefit of having industrial land in the township is that it will reduce the tax burden on residents, since “this will give growth to the township for years into the future.”
He didn’t like Option A because it would draw truck traffic through Aberfoyle, which is something the township is trying to prevent. Option E has already been rejected and option F is close to residential development, he added.
Seeley proposed putting a holding provision on those lands for now and doing a deeper analysis on the other options.
No decisions were made by council or at the public meeting.
NPG will prepare a report for council based on public feedback and then will proceed to the next steps of the analysis.
