Apparently councillors here have not had their fill of discussing a proposed site alteration bylaw.
At the Feb. 29 council and staff meeting, planner Sally Stull again took councillors through proposed changes.
In the room were several residents concerned with the discussion.
On Feb. 13, Ed McKelvey and 16 others met with MPP Ted Arnott to discuss concerns regarding the dumping of fill within Erin.
Stull called her presentation a rehash of what was presented a week earlier. As a result of that discussion, Stull said a portion regarding site alterations contained in private properties was removed. Most of that proposed bylaw was unchanged, except for the fee schedule.
Where the amount is less than 2,000 cubic metres, the cost is $500 plus 10 cents per cubic metre.
Stull said the fee cannot go much below that since $500 is the basic review fee from the town’s consulting firm.
Applications of more than 2,000 cubic metres remain at $1,000 plus $1 per cubic metre.
Mayor Lou Maieron said if a person brought in more than 10 truckloads of gravel for a driveway or farm, “technically you’d need a permit.”
Stull said whether or not it came from a gravel pit, 12 loads would technically require a permit.
“If it was coming from a clean source,” she was uncertain of the need for a deposit.
Councillor John Brennan pointed out the definition of fill can be any material placed on land.
Council had concerns about asphalt coming with loads of fill. Councillor Tocher said asphalt has been a problem in the past because there were no regulations.
Stull said a 10 load limit provides some protection to the municipality.
Tocher said council’s objective is to determine what it would do with materials that are often used – such as pit run – from a local supplier.
She further defined the difference as materials the landowner is paying for, compared to fill from Toronto where landowners are being paid to accept material.
“How do we distinguish between the two?” she asked.
Stull said if material is coming from a pit, it would be considered virgin material and not require a soil analysis.
Maieron said he wants to make certain council is not making it too difficult for a small rural property owner just wanting to bring in a few loads of material or to fill a hole on their property.
Tocher had concerns with contaminated material regardless of the project size.
“I’ve seen cases in this municipality where very small loads of asphalt or shingles have been dumped in ponds, truckloads of clothing being dumped on properties. You want to capture those as well since they could be considered as fill.”
Stull said to date, the town has not dealt with small applications, only larger projects. Those would now need the direct approval of council.
Brennan believes the current version of the bylaw is capturing the projects council wants to deal with, and by lowering the fee on smaller projects, “it lowers the burden on projects which are not a problem.”
Brennan also said the bylaw does not affect permits issued on areas controlled through local conservation authorities.
Council was expected to discuss the bylaw further on March 6.
