Changes could be coming for new and expanding aggregate mine operations in Rocky View County (RVC).
A public hearing at a Special Council Meeting on Wednesday, June 18, covered potential amendments to the Municipal Development Plan and the Land Use Bylaw, which form the Aggregate Resource Plan (ARP) project.
In response to recommendations provided by the ARP Stakeholder Advisory Committee and concerns brought forward through public engagement, amendments to aggregate mining would include an establishment of application requirements and standardize requirements for noise, air quality, groundwater, and other impacts.
The policy amendments, known as Bylaws C-8633 2025 and C-8634 2025, would restrict aggregate development from being proposed within two kilometres of designated provincial parks and 1.6 kilometres of residential lands within approved area structure plans. That distance would be measured from the nearest residential land and not the ASP boundary itself.
Traffic related to aggregate development would also be directed to major haul routes only through the amendment.
It also proposes that new residential developments within 500 metres of an approved aggregate site be required to acknowledge the presence of that site on the proposed lots’ land title.
The amendments were circulated to all adjacent municipalities and First Nation bands, who indicated no concerns or objections. RVC also held four public engagement sessions in late February and early March regarding aggregate mining, as well as an online survey.
In his presentation to council, RVC Policy Planner Colt Maddock noted that the land use bylaw amendments don't specifically target a single aggregate mine in the county, but aim to mitigate further concerns.
He also specified that the 1.6 km buffer applied to new or expanding pits only, but relaxed application requirements could occur should an applicant demonstrate there are minimal concerns, are considered a Class Two operation, or take place on the East Agricultural Area on RVC-- which begins at Symons Valley Rd (772).
Division 6 Councillor Sunny Samra asked why that side of the county could see more relaxed rules.
Services director Dominic Kazmierczak responded that there were different stipulations from equipment and process.
"The quality of aggregate differs in the east and west," Kazmierczak said. "There's specifically sandier deposits in the north east."
Class One and Class Two pits differ in scope and scale. A Class Two pit is anything less than five hectares and would be a project completed in less than five years.
When it came time for the public to voice their opinions, more than 11 people-- many representing groups, families, or speaking on behalf of neighbours - took their turn at the podium to voice support for the bylaw. Each had five minutes as an individual or 10 minutes if they were speaking on behalf of others.
Kyle Patrician was the first to speak in favour of the change, opting to start his presentation by playing loud mechanical crunching noises on his phone while trying to speak to Council.
When Reeve Crystal Kissel said his point had been made and asked him to stop playing the noise, a loud applause was made by attendees in council chambers.
"In real life, I can't turn that off," Patrician argued. "That is what I listen to 24/7."
Patrician proceeded to play other clips recorded from his home that demonstrated noises coming from a nearby aggregate mine in the middle on the night.
"I'm for these changes because it's time we have standards that matter," Patrician said, arguing for ore policies and rules around noise control.
Darryl Cornish spoke about the potential dangers of water contamination due to destroyed aquifers during mining.
Susan Hall said she felt impacted as a landowner and in favour of the ARP.
Three people spoke in opposition of the amendment including gravel pit owner, Roy Copithorne.
Though he said he was not necessarily opposed to the entire document, he did have some concerns-- particularly the 1.6 km setback.
"If new neighbours move in, he shouldn't shut you down, he should go in knowing full well you are there," Copithorne said about residents coming to the area. "Rocky View would not function without gravel mining."
A representative from Quantum Place Developments, speaking on behalf of multiple pits in RVC, argued that these parameters would lead to operation shut downs.
They said many of the technical requirements would be impossible to follow, suggesting the setback be reduced to a 500 meter buffer instead of 1.6 km.
"Aggregate is a finite resource and this will reduce taxes and aggregate levies for the county," the representative said.
Maddock confirmed that no existing pits would be shut down under the amendments as the new policies would only affect new or expanding projects and previously granted applications would be grandfathered in.
Several letters and three videos were also submitted to Council in favour of the amendments, and one video from Hillstone Aggregates against.
The second issue addressed at the public hearing was the establishment of an Aggregate Site Inspector to monitor both active and inactive sites.
Maddock suggested up to four yearly inspections for active sites in his presentation and one inspection per inactive site.
He added that the County would hire this position through a third party and charge $2,800 per visit to the operator.
No such monitoring or inspection position has previously existed and duties would include investigating environmental concerns and noise compliances.
The County heard from three speakers in support of the idea and one against, the latter arguing this places an unfair financial burden on operators.
Cornish also spoke to this issue, suggesting drone flyovers be a part on the inspection to paint an effective picture of site standards.
Council unanimously accepted all submitted arguments and material for review, moving to return for another Special Council Meeting on July 15.
Aggregate mining has been a source of contention in RVC, with a public hearing resulting in a split decision last December over an expansion application for Burnco.
The company was ultimately taken to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal by many of the same concerned residents.
Hall, who spoke at the hearing, later commented that she and a group of agricultural operators believe that RVC is working with all parties to ensure that aggregate extraction activities, previously hidden behind seemingly impenetrable berms of dirt and industry obfuscation, are more transparent.
