The fate of Station Road and the local mill pond continues to pack an emotional punch for local residents.
Opinions were clearly divided among those attending the Jan. 29 meeting hosted by the Town of Erin at the Hillsburgh arena.
The community hall was near capacity as area residents came to hear an update on the situation of the state of the road, the earthen dam on which it lies, and the fate of the Hillsburgh pond which is encompassed by private property.
What became abundantly clear early on in the meeting, is that not a lot has changed since past discussions of the issue.
Road superintendent Larry Van Wyck explained the issues surrounding both the road and what is required for a permanent solution.
Mayor Lou Maieron said a question period would follow the report. “Tonight is an opportunity for the public to participate in democracy and express your views.”
Van Wyck said “The town has a problem created as a result of decaying infrastructure. It is not uncommon in the Town of Erin.”
He commented that the sidewalk has deteriorated to a point “… where it is hardly fit for safe use. We also have a bridge which is a substandard width for two-way traffic, pedestrian traffic and bicycles.”
Van Wyck explained there is also the matter of the abandoned mill race.
That structure has not carried water for some time and the south end outlet has been backfilled.
Since the condition of that structure is unknown, Van Wyck speculated it could result in the same kind of situation as last year when the road was closed for several months while council attempted to address road repairs.
He said there was an issue with the bridge culvert in 2011, which was replaced and repaired in 2012. At that time, approval for the work to get the road re-opened, included a condition that the repair work would be considered temporary and that a permanent solution be found.
Van Wyck said the approval states the town may need to undertake a municipal class environmental assessment to assist in determining the permanent solution.
“The dam currently does not meet 2011 engineering standards. The Ministry of Natural Resources will not let (the town) do anything without its approval, and that approval is contingent on bringing the earthen dam up to 2011 engineering standards.”
Van Wyck added the town has been granted until 2014 to complete the necessary work. He said if the town ignores the ministry condition, the Lakes and Rivers Act has provisions which could mean repercussions for the municipality.
He added the MNR has the ability to levy a fine of up to a $1 million; issue an order to repair it or complete the necessary repairs and bill the municipality
Van Wyck stressed “This problem is not new. In 1973 and subsequent years since, this structure has been identified for replacement.”
The bridge was built in 1917 and identified in 1973 to be replaced.
“Essentially we’re no closer to that than we were in 1973.”
He used photos to illustrate the structure “was never intended to carry vehicular traffic across its entire width.”
The north side of the bridge structure is significantly thinner than the south side, because the northern side was intended to be a sidewalk.
Instead, over the years, the road surface was built over the entire deck to accommodate traffic.
“However, it is not the worst bridge in the town of Erin,” he added.
One option would be to do nothing and to close the road, he said. While it would address road safety, Van Wyck said this option would not address the MNR condition to make the dam meet current standards.
Also, closing the road would have a negative impact on public, emergency access and there is a chance the MNR might require repairs to the dam regardless.
A second option is to decommission the existing dam, remove or replace the mill race, replace the bridge and reconstruct the road. The proposal included a water service line to west of the dam, a storm sewer and sanitary sewer pipe. Approvals would still be required by various agencies and require removal of the existing water control structure which is located on private property, he said.
Any work would require an agreement with the landowner or some form of legal right to enter the property.
The engineering estimate to complete the work with the dam decommissioned $2,145,795,
He noted the road work proposed would stretch from Trafalgar Road to the rail trail located along Station Road.
That cost for that work is $2,244,513.
He said various agency approvals would be required.
However, Van Wyck said it is questionable whether the MNR would approve the work if the issue of the existing water control structure (on private property) was not dealt with.
Citizen response
Resident Michael Flemming noted that early in Van Wyck’s presentation it was suggested that if the town did nothing, the MNR might step in and do the work and charge the town.
He questioned how the ministry would circumvent the private property issue “and why can’t we do that?”
Van Wyck said the MNR has the ability to force, or issue orders, that the town does not.
David Smith wanted clarification between the two options.
Van Wyck said decommissioning the dam would mean no pond on the north side of Station Road with only a stream while upgrading the dam would retain the pond.
But, Van Wyck said if the pond reverts to a stream, the bridge does not need to be as big.
Victor Bayko pointed out it appears it would cost less to upgrade than to decommission the berm.
Van Wyck stated there are different types of work required with each option.
He again stated that if the town attempted to rehabilitate the dam, “it is questionable whether we could get a permit without addressing the control structure (on private property).
However, instead of seeking to address each option as a combined set of costs, it seemed Bayko wanted to mix-and-match the costs of the different proposals.
Bayko added that to him, it seemed quite obvious in looking at the costs what option should be chosen.
Pauline Follett stood on the other side of the pond, as she argued why the pond should be no more.
“The name of the game, as far as I am concerned, is taxes.”
She argued against spending money on a pond which no longer serves a purpose and carries a significant liability in the event of a flood.
“I understand there is a group of residents who want what is called a pond retained.”
In her research, Follett said the pond was created to supply a head of water for a mill.
“There is no such thing as ownership of a pond. It is set out as a head of water or water right within the deed.”
She then asked what happens when the need for the water rights disappears – when the mill closes.
Follett stated that a deed from the 1920s states that the crown retained the right to the stream and a 10-foot wide area on either side of the stream.
Follett recommended that the contiguous landowners surrounding the pond work to purchase the land and form a holding company for the pond’s care and maintenance.
“My concern is the amount of money required to maintain a pond, now having no purpose, on private land. The town cannot afford to create a dam under the town’s road and assume that liability.”
She said the money borrowed required to do that work would equal 6% of the tax bill for 10 years.
Follett said the township has already spent $300,000 on a temporary fix.
In her opinion, the bridge should be repaired to an acceptable level for the safety of the residents and allow water to flow freely underneath which would not cost nearly as much as rebuilding the dam.
She also pointed out that several years ago when it was proposed to purchase the land, council chose not to
“The town has some of the highest taxes in the county and we cannot afford to borrow the money for the benefit of a few.”
While the pond represents history to some, Follett said “it is irrelevant to the majority of others.”
She said “if surrounding land owners are not willing to consider purchasing the land, the alternative is to return the stream to its original meandering path and let nature deal with it.”
Councillor Barb Tocher noted when a previous council discussed the issue, the intent at the time was to buy the pond property and give it to the CVC [Credit Valley Conservation], “because rightfully it is on their water system and they should be the caretakers.”
She noted in the late 1980s-1990s a millpond committee was created because the property was up for sale at the time. The mindset of council then was that this was a pond, and that the CVC was not going to step up to the plate, it would remain a pond.
The CVC informed the council of the day that if they were the owners they would reduce the pond down to a stream. Council did not want to see a stream there, so they refused to purchase it, Tocher explained.
“Yet here we are … looking at the same issue again trying to protect a pond that has been there over 100 years.”
“In retrospect, the pond probably should be in public hands to control it as an environmental feature and a public property.
Lloyd Turbitt generated a round of applause with the comment, “I am incredulous that anyone is even thinking of taking the jewel of Hillsburgh and getting rid of it.”
Turbitt asked what has happened to the proposed committee to investigate the feasibility of retaining the pond.
“I don’t think we’d be sitting here tonight if that committee had been struck.”
He said the community is still waiting for that committee, since he believed many of the questions raised would have been answered or in the process of being answered. He added that if council has chosen not to create the committee, residents should know why.
Though it was a packed house in the Hillsburgh arena auditorium, residents were concerned the town had not advertised the public meeting in local papers. The only advertising was a large sign on Trafalgar Road and on the town website. CAO Frank Miele explained that when the decision was made, it did not meet newspaper deadlines.
The information package including VanWyck’s report presented at the meeting is posted on the Town of Erin website.
