Current & Past Articles » General News

Resident raises concerns over recent planning meeting regarding Caledon Mega Quarry

February 12, 2026   ·   0 Comments

By Riley Murphy

Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Caledon resident Tony Sevelka’s past few years look a little different from what he had ever imagined when he moved to Cataract in 1999; never did he expect that his home would be subjected to a potential blasting quarry.

“We don’t want to move, we came up here to retire, enjoy our life [in] a tranquil environment,” says Sevelka.

On Jan. 29, a second Public Meeting was held regarding a proposed mega-quarry in Caledon, attended by over 100 people.

The Mega Blasting Quarry is proposed by Votorantim Cimentos/CBM (CBM Aggregates, the building materials division of St. Mary’s Cement Inc.) and raises issues for residents, including flyrock, dust, truck traffic, impacts on public health, damage to private wells, and more.

Among these concerned residents is Sevelka.

“When they showed up in October of 2019, all of a sudden I had to go learn about these things, and then I ended up being kind of an expert on fly rock,” says Sevelka, referring to when he first heard of the mega-quarry application. 

Over the years, he has published numerous articles and papers on issues surrounding the proposed mega quarry.

He has written hundreds of pages of documents detailing concerns and highlighting issues with the planning application.

Before the public meeting, Sevelka sent out a “Community Briefing Notice” to alert those in his email chain, filled with residents, planners, and Council members, about issues he felt were not addressed in the Application and Planning Justification Report.

His notice included points such as “no land-use compatibility assessment, no reference to the preservation of property values, no definition or assessment of ‘adverse effects’, no acknowledgment that the quarry is a noxious use, tourism and economic impacts not assessed,” and more.

Then, after sitting in on the second public meeting, Sevelka says many of his concerns were “absolutely not” addressed.

Among his numerous papers are several regarding property value and the impact this proposal would have on property. 

“It didn’t ever show that there was going to be a quarry where we would go, we would never [have] bought the place even with our limited knowledge,” says Sevelka. 

Following the public meeting, he sent a new email to his mailing list, titled “Response to January 29, 2026 Public Meeting and the Planner’s Presentation,” in which he also presented “Structural Shortcomings in the [Ontario Professional Planners Institute] OPPI Professional Framework: A Critical Analysis.”

In the 20 pages of objections, Sevelka details numerous issues, including limited accountability mechanisms and the absence of independence or conflict-of-interest safeguards.

Many residents during the public meeting also raised concerns that the oversight corporation will be run by Votorantim Cimentos, one resident saying it is essentially “putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.”

Sevelka says that OPPI’s Professional Code of Practice contains “no independence requirements and no conflict-of-interest safeguards.”

Adding that there is no obligation to provide objective or unbiased evidence, no requirement to disclose conflicts of interest, no requirement for independent peer review, and more.

“This allows planning reports to function as advocacy documents, rather than independent professional assessments,” says Sevelka in his report.

Summarizing his piece, Sevelka says that the OPPI framework has “significant structural shortcomings”.

In his report, he also lists issues arising from the public meeting held at the Alton Legion that night.

He says statements made at the meeting on Jan. 29 “raise significant concerns regarding accuracy, evidentiary support, and the treatment of land-use compatibility issues.”

Sevelka notes numerous issues, including limited mitigation for flyrock, limitations of the 500-metre blast notification protocol, repeated blasting, low-frequency vibration damage, and more.

During the meeting that night, planners presented the blasting procedure, which included “that those within 500m of the blast will be notified,” and that there will be a “prevention of flyrock from leaving [the] site.”

Many residents, along with Sevelka, noted the limited flyrock control and that the 500m range is not wide enough.

Ending his response, Sevelka states “that the proposed quarry and processing plant are not compatible with surrounding land uses under Caledon’s Official Plan, the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) or with real-world evidence.”

“This is one of the worst places in the world you could possibly pick to put that kind of operation, I’m blown away. I never thought they could possibly think that this was a good place for that,” Sevelka told the Citizen.

Following the public meeting, the Town of Caledon is now awaiting a staff recommendation based on feedback received and the technical and peer reviews. 

The recommendation will then be brought to the planning and development committee, and Council will make a final decision on the application.

Readers Comments (0)