It appears the only point on which Puslinch Township residents and Roszell Road gravel pit proponents can agree is that they will always disagree.
“At this point we feel nothing would satisfy the neighbours, unless we drop this application,” said Rob Stovel, a consultant for Preston Sand and Gravel Company.
“And Preston is not prepared to do that.”
Stovel came to Puslinch council on Jan. 21, along with Preston president Bill Kester, seeking approval of a zoning bylaw to permit gravel extraction on a 60 acre, triangular-shaped piece of land east of the Speed River and west of Roszell Road.
“We want to make sure the process moves forward,” Stovel said. He told council the zoning application conforms to the provincial policy statement, as well as the county’s official plan, and township guidelines.
He added the plan is a good one and “in the public interest,” although that statement led to several sneers and sarcastic laughs from residents in the packed gallery.
Before the meeting began, a group of residents sent a letter to council calling the pit proposal “a complete failure.” Many residents are fearful of the impacts that 120 to 300 trucks using the Concession Road 4 haul route every day will have on their way of life.
That concern is shared by councillors.
“There really isn’t a good, clear haul route,” said Mayor Brad Whitcombe. “What there is, is the best of a bad lot.”
Whitcombe condemned earlier statements by Stovel about neighbours being unwilling to compromise, which the mayor felt is an unfair characterization. “For the most part, residents have taken a very measured and thoughtful approach.”
Stovel stressed that a noise impact study prepared by Aercoustics Engineering shows the pit will be within provincial guidelines for noise, but councillors were not convinced.
“I don’t think you’re ever going to get over the social impacts,” councillor Dick Visser said. “I’m not in favour of this application; it’s as simple as that.”
Whitcombe wondered if by asking council to expedite the process Preston officials were really giving the township an ultimatum.
“What are you telling us?” the mayor asked. He wondered aloud if Preston was actually saying the township had “a finite window” to pass the bylaw before the company goes to the Ontario Municipal Board for a resolution.
Stovel replied only that Preston would really like the application to move forward, though he later acknowledged the zoning amendment is likely bound for the OMB. He said Preston may refer it to the board if council does not pass a bylaw, or residents could force a hearing if council does approve the zoning.
Councillor Matthew Bulmer said he is not impressed with the “confrontational” presence Preston representative Sherry Yundt has brought to the proceedings. He wondered why Preston is not more willing to cooperate and compromise, in particular with regards to different zoning approaches to “help share the risk” with residents.
“I’m not comfortable throwing the residents whole-hog into a blank cheque for you,” Bulmer told the Preston delegation.
Councillor Susan Fielding agreed with that statement.
“It would be just unconscionable for us to pass it now,” Fielding said of the zoning bylaw. She supported an earlier recommendation by Visser that Preston look into other options for the haul route, including negotiating a private road through adjacent properties to keep traffic away from nearby homes.
County planner Aldo Salis had suggested a different haul route formation, with the possibility of splitting traffic between a couple of roads.
However, Stovel said, “We believe Concession 4 remains the preferred option.”
Whitcombe said in light of new information received by the township, including some the day of last week’s meeting, council was not ready to pass a bylaw. In fact, a bylaw was not yet prepared for council’s consideration, he added.
Stovel replied a bylaw has been ready since March.
“[Salis] does our bylaws,” Whitcombe countered. He pointed out the bylaw to which Stovel was referring was written by Preston officials.
