Tuesday, June 24 this is a public information session to review the servicing options for watermain and sewage servicing for the Mary Lake Estates subdivision. Session will be 6-8PM at King City library. Here is the notice which has been published in local papers.
Preliminary analysis and presentation was presented to Council 5/28 at a working session of the Committee of Whole. People who have followed the development process for other subdivisons may wonder why there is a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for this subdivision when other ones have not done so; it is happening as one of the alternative routes being assessed involves property which is neither part of the subdivisons being developed nor is it municipal property. This is a tough issue. The evaluation process looks appropriate: the evaluation of alternatives includes financial/economic consequences, impact on community, environmental impact and other.
I urge interested residents, particularly Kingscross Estate residents to attend in order to understand the choices; and as an opportunity to express opinions and/or ask questions. As indicated on the notice, if you can’t attend information boards will be made available at www.king.ca and you can forward your comments by email.
I have sent the following letter to the Mayor and Council.
Re: Municipal Services for the Mary Lake Estates Subdivision
On Tuesday, June 24, 2014, I attended the Public Information Centre on the Municipal Services for the Mary Lake Estates Subdivision.
I find it totally incomprehensible that the alignments for water mains to this subdivision include the apparently preferred option of one supply branch along 15th Avenue and the second one along Kingscross Drive and Lockhart Lane. Cole Engineering personnel in attendance at the Information Centre could not produce any convincing reasons why this route for a second water main should be chosen rather than having both mains follow 15th Avenue.
Although I am not directly impacted by this proposed choice, I have several objections to it because it is environmentally irresponsible and it is even costlier than the second proposal of bringing all water along 15th Avenue where trenching is already required for the primary water main.
1. The so-called “loop” idea of supplying a subdivision with two water mains for redundancy reasons makes sense only if these water mains both originate at the primary water source. In this case, there is only a single water main from the primary source along Keele Street up to Kingscross Drive where the “loop” would start. If this single water main fails, the “loop” is totally useless. One could even argue that this is the more likely scenario because this water main is older and possibly under much more stress as it supplies multiple developments already before reaching Kingscross Drive.
2. The entire Culotta – Mary Lake Estates Subdivision is to be built on the Oak Ridges Moraine which is already environmentally sensitive. Why would anyone propose a redundant water main through yet another environmentally sensitive area? The north end of Lockhart Lane is a sensitive wetland that would require de-watering during construction. This is an extremely undesired process in a wetland area.
3. Trenching along Kingscross Drive and Lockhart Lane comes with the inevitable risk of disrupting the natural gas, hydro, cable TV and telephone connections to all residences straddling this path and beyond. If the “loop” supply idea must be followed inexplicably despite point 1 above, it makes sense to split the Keele Street main at 15th Avenue and use the already required trench along 15th Avenue to lay two parallel water mains which is proposed as the second option. Cole personnel objected to this by saying that two parallel water mains have a higher probability of failing together if they are adjacent. This is utter nonsense. If water mains are installed below frost level, which they should be, there is absolutely no plausible reason why mains in close proximity to each other should fail together.
I very strongly urge you to reject this “preferred” option. It is technically seriously flawed, environmentally irresponsible and does not even make sense financially.
Sincerely,
Uli Rentsch, P.Eng.
urentsch@rogers.com
Hello Uli, Your comment/letter raises a number of very valid questions etc; I will ensure that our Staff sees it. I will post a link to see the information boards reviewed at the 6/24 meeting.