Watchdog resident group Rocky View County Gravel Watch is taking considerable issue that council will be revisiting gravel pit applications this summer, ahead of the implementation of an Aggregate Resource Policy (ARP).
“Our point is that it’s not the residents’ fault that the county hasn’t developed an ARP yet … why should the gravel industry benefit from the delay?” said Div. 1 resident and watchdog member, Janet Ballantyne.
The group, with more than 300 members, is asking concerned residents to submit written responses to county administration by the June 14 deadline.
Council tabled an application made by Summit Aggregate Operations for a gravel pit along Big Hill Springs Road in June of last year, with the intention to see an ARP developed to guide all future aggregate applications.
A public hearing on the matter will be held in county chambers June 27.
The project has faced a number of delays following public consultations last winter and administration cannot confirm when a final ARP will be brought back to council.
“There is no certainty on when the ARP will be completed, therefore Summit has chosen to ask county council to rule on the original application,” said Amanda Bradley, communications adviser for the county.
“As such, county council must hear the application under current policies as they exist today, and make a ruling accordingly.”
Div. 9 (Cochrane Lake) Coun. Bruce Kendall said he is “terribly disappointed” that the ARP has not made it past the draft stage and is even more concerned that the inability of the county to reach a final ARP could move the decision to regulate into the hands of the province.
He said that council will see two other pit applications back in council this summer.
Keith Koebisch has lived on an acreage northwest of Highway 567 for 20 years and has opposed a number of applications for aggregate operations that have been struck down over the years.
Koebisch was taken aback to learn that gravel pit applications would continue to be heard by council prior to the ARP and said the alarmism created in the community with the notion of gravel pits becoming neighbours has become exhaustive.
“It’s really hurting our community … everyone is just hating living here,” said Koebisch. “It’s a continuous pressure we’ve been under that never goes away.”
The landowner said the existing nearby gravel pit operator on Big Hill Springs Road has been operational for at least 10 years and appears to be operating nowhere near capacity – bolstering the argument made by many residents living in divisions 8 and 9 that there simply is not a demand for gravel or a need for more pits in the region.
Rocky View Gravel Watch rewrote portions of the ARP with the intention to improve the performance standards included in the draft version of the gravel policy.
The group has taken issue with many parts of the draft – including perceived inadequate setbacks, a safeguarding clause and human health concerns of gravel pits near residential areas such as noise and air quality concerns.
Ballantyne said that their group has “bent over backwards” to provide feedback to help inform the ARP. She questions the legality of the county’s decision to move forward with gravel pit applications, given the wording of their own tabling motion last year.
The watchdog group is directing concerned parties to pen letters and emails to [email protected] and include “Bylaw C-7585-2016 – Summit Aggregate Application” in their subject lines.
