By KEVIN BERGER, Local Journalism Initiative
RM of Corman Park councillors voted 5-3 at their October 28 meeting to deny a discretionary use application from the City of Saskatoon to establish a municipal works yard for the storage and drying-out of saturated soils resulting from potable water line and storm sewer repairs.
The municipal works yard, which would also be used for the storage of aggregate, would have been located in the RM at the southeast corner of the city, right next to Highway 16 and Patience Lake Road.
The yard would have utilized a 15-acre portion of the 105-acre parcel at that location, which is zoned as D-Agricultural District 2 (DAG2).
During a public hearing on the application at the September 23 RM council meeting, it was noted the yard would be used to dry clean fill soil and store it temporarily until it could be used as backfill material for utility excavation.
City of Saskatoon Engineering Manager Amanda Munshaw said the city requires these types of sites to maintain the water distribution network and keep water costs reasonable.
“This impacts the utility rates that are passed on to regional customers by SaskWater and other jurisdictions that purchase treated water from Saskatoon. So there is an indirect impact on the residents of Corman Park,” she said.
Munshaw indicated the city selected this site based on its minimal impact to future land uses and development in the area. As this parcel is expected to contain a section of the Saskatoon Freeway, Munshaw said the site and adjacent properties will be isolated from surrounding lands.
“This will significantly limit development opportunities due to the challenges of servicing and reduced development potential,” she said.
The proposed hours of operation for this yard were 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., with access to the site being controlled via a fence with a locking gate and keycard access.
The city also proposed establishing a berm with trees as a landscape buffer and a clay liner one metre above the water table, as recommended by a baseline environmental assessement of the site.
Seventeen landowners within a 500-metre radius of the site were contacted to gather input on the application. Four comment sheets and one letter were received in response, all stating their opposition.
A few of those residents were present at the September 23 hearing to voice their concerns, including Erin Linn and her husband Robert.
Noting they live east of the proposed site, Erin said they had significant concerns about noise from the site, which she suggested would contravene the RM’s noise bylaw.
“We will see the vehicles coming in,” she added. “We will hear the banging (of their tailgates).”
Erin also expressed concerns over contaminated materials being dumped at the site, noting the city had indicated they would not test all the soils coming in and instead rely on a database listing all known areas with contaminated soil.
“The city simply does not know if they are taking contaminated soils to the site unless they test every single sample coming in, and they are not prepared to do that,” she said.
Robert Linn said that the city’s assessment of the area having low development potential was entirely subjective, as speaking to 10 different developers would net you a variety of answers.
He suggested the city make use of another privately-owned site at the Floral Industrial Park roughly 3.6 kilometres away along the highway, which would not impact any local residents.
“Ratepayers don’t want to deal with the noise, dust and environmental pollution that goes along with something like this,” he said.
At the October 28 meeting, Division 4 Councillor David Greenwood put forward the motion to deny the application, noting that he would normally go along with something like this, but listening to affected residents had made him re-think his position.
Noting she had also reviewed the submissions from affected residents carefully, Division 8 Councillor Wendy Trask said she was also concerned about the yard being too close to nearby homes.
She also pointed out this area is farmland that reportedly yielded 70 bushels per acre last fall.
“I don’t think this is a right fit for this location,” Trask said.
Reeve Joe Hargrave, who voted against the motion to deny, said the projected three to five trips per day to the site would not result in residents being bothered by constant banging noises.
Division 2 Councillor John Saleski pointed out that was only an estimate by the city and not a guarantee, though Hargrave responded that if there was an issue with noise, they could take it up with the city later.
This graphic, which was included with the agenda package for the October 28 council meeting, shows the approximate location for the proposed municipal works yard.