Caledon Town Council reject asphalt plant proposal in Bolton

February 21, 2019 · 0 Comments

Written By JOSHUA SANTOS

Caledon Town Council unanimously rejected an application for an asphalt plant in Bolton on Tuesday, Feb. 19.

Mayor and councillors criticized posts and comments residents made on social media providing their own commentary on the application.

“It is not appropriate for individuals to put things on social media that will hurt the applicant’s credibility,” said Ward 5 Regional Coun. Annette Groves. “I think it’s wrong. The applicant is a long-time businessman in the community. He has done a lot for the community. He has given a lot to the community. I certainly hope people will respect that.”

She thanked the community for coming out to the meeting, standing their ground and voicing their opinions and concerns but said it’s a decision that is not easy to make.

“You’ve elected us to work in your best interest,” said Groves. “We heard loud and clear, not just from the residents, but we heard from the business community as well.”

She cleared up a few inaccuracies stating that a donation from the applicant for a bocce ball court and youth centre did not guaranteed approval for the asphalt plant.

“We need to come together, not divided,” said Groves. “The applicant has been a big supporter of this community. Let us just be kind. You elected me to look after your best interests, to protect your safety, to keep you safe and to protect your quality of life.”

Mayor Allan Thompson provided his own two cents stating the applicant is a star business man in the community.

“He has every right under the constitution to exercise he’s right to bring something forward,” said Thompson. “This is what council is about and this is what the tough decisions are made about. I think as councillor Groves echoed, I know it can be emotional but we have to be respectful of everybody and what this company does for the community. He’s a big employer and a big giver to the community.”

This followed a last-minute effort by Jennifer Meader a lawyer at Turkstra Mazza Associates representing MJJJ Developments Inc. She asked council, again, to defer the decision of an asphalt plant for a month to allow her client an opportunity to thoroughly address comments from the public, staff and the Town’s peer reviewers.

She provided a review of events that transpired during a planning and development meeting, where she had to be a walk on delegate.

“I’ve been forced to return to make this request to you, yet again,” said Meader. “We have no guarantees that council will grant our request for a deferral, particularly not after how the matter was dealt with at committee.”

She explained her client made an application in July 18, 2018 and follow up months after in December. She said she was informed by Town staff that the comments from agencies would not be ready and that the matter would go ahead on Jan. 15.

Further she explained her clients followed up on numerous occasions and were able to provide comments on Jan. 18, three days after the public meeting at town hall was held.

The proposal was addressed in a town staff report, where they recommended council refuse it on Feb. 8. The report was to return to council on Feb. 12 with a vote on Feb. 19.

“That’s a very quick process, considering we received no feedback for six months and we have no time to respond to staff’s position on the application,” Meader said.

She provided memos in respect of planning comments, urban design comments, air quality comments, noise comments, geotechnical comments, transportation comments, architectural and urban design comments and site servicing comments.

“It’s a long list of comments that we put together on very short notice,” Meader said. “Unfortunately, the consultants were rushed in responding to these peer review comments, and would have benefited from substantially more time to thoroughly address the comments, to update the reports and update the planning instruments.”

She said it would normally take a few months to respond to comments of that extent. She said there’s no reason for her clients to be rushed and that they should be given an opportunity to respond to all issues raised, in respect to their studies and analysis.

“In general terms, all the consultants have confirmed that the comments received do not change their overall conclusions or overall recommendations,” said Meader. “Instead, all of the comments are minor and should be easily satisfied if given an opportunity to do so.”

Laywer asks for one-month deferral to allow client a chance to answer concerns

A lawyer representing an applicant’s proposal for an asphalt plant in Bolton has accused Caledon Council of an unfair process at a committee meeting.

MJJJ Developments Inc. have applied for official plan amendments and zoning bylaw amendments to construct a plant in south hill at 12415 Coleraine Dr.

Jennifer Meader, lawyer at Turkstra Mazza Associations, representing the applicant, requested that council defer the matter for at least one month to allow her client to respond to all comments from the public businesses and commenting agencies, which were received during a public hearing.

She was a walk on delegate at a planning and development meeting. This meant her issue was added to the consent agenda and did not have to be approached by council that day.

“It is disappointing how this matter has been dealt with procedurally,” said Meader. “I maintained that I complied with the Town’s procedural by law in requesting this delegation. The committee and clerk were well aware that I intended to delegate on my client’s application.”

Meader said the application for an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment were submitted to the Town on July 18, 2018 and deemed complete. In August and September, peer reviewers were engaged and then by December, they were asking about the status of the peer reviews and when they would receive their comments back.

She said her client advised staff that they needed those comments so they can address them before they proceed to a public meeting.

“In fact, a letter from the Town, dated July 24 of 2018 also suggested that this how the process will unfold,” said Meader. “It stated upon completion of departmental and agency review, a minimum of one month, and once all comments have been received, I will provide you with a summary of a comments letter, status update and when appropriate, schedule a public meeting in accordance with the planning act.”

She said the letter would have people believe they received comments and have had an opportunity to address them before a statutory public hearing was held.

“That was not the sequence of events that occurred,” said Meader. “The Town pushed the matter through a public meeting, first, then three days after the public meeting, we received the full set of comments. That was on January 18 of this year. That was three weeks ago.”

The Town and the peer reviewers had the applicant and supporting studies for several months, she said. They had the technical comments only for three weeks.

Her client received the town’s staff report, recommending a refusal of the application, on Friday evening. It also contained planning staff’s analysis of the application.

“We had no time to address staff’s position on this application,” said Meader.

She said the legislature has changed rules of engagement for planning act applications, so they can’t introduce new information after council decides on the application, which is expected in a week.

“I think there was a suggestion earlier that a public meeting has to proceed before comments are received, and with respect, that is not my understanding of the planning act, including any recent amendments to it,” said Meader.

“With respect, this is my client’s application. My client has followed all the requirements that have been imposed on him, produced all of the necessary studies, which were undertaken by leaders in their respective fields, and we are confident that those studies demonstrate that the development is appropriate and will not have any adverse impacts.”

She said her client should be given time to provide thoughtful and comprehensive responses to the recently provided comments. She said they deserve to have the application thoroughly assessed and given the full consideration it requires.

She also said her client, who’s a landowner and active member of the community, wants to build a state-of-the-art facility that is considerate of its surroundings and will enhance the local economy.

“I personally cannot comprehend any reason why the Town would want to push this application through a decision without giving my client a fair opportunity to respond,” said Meader.

Ward. 1 regional Coun. Ian Sinclair asked Town staff why council had not been notified of the applicant’s request for a delegation, so council could take the necessary steps to allow for a vote on a deferral at the meeting – which was delayed the following day due to a snow storm.

Town Clerk Amanda Fusco said staff received the request from Meader on a Monday afternoon.

“The delegation process, outlined on the Town’s website, ask that all delegation requests be submitted by 11:30 a.m. Monday morning,” said Fusco.

“The delegate was advised, in a response, that unfortunately the timeframe had passed and they were advised in writing that I encourage them to contact members of council, should they wish to speak. They could bring forward the motion, which was passed earlier this evening to permit the emergency delegation.”

Council has the opportunity to vote on the application, as is, with staff recommending they refuse the application at their next regular meeting. However, any member of council, can present a motion asking to defer the matter before a vote is held.