Supplementary aggregate resources policy study not proceeding properly: Working group

January 18, 2024 · 0 Comments

Group worried process will not lead to objective, defensible new aggregate policies

By ZACHARY ROMAN

Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

A community working group providing input on the Town of Caledon’s supplementary aggregate resources policy study says it isn’t proceeding in accordance with the terms of reference set out for it.

Due to this, the group is worried Caledon will not be able to implement stronger aggregate policies by the time its Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) against new aggregate pits and quarries runs out.

In September 2022, the Forks of the Credit Preservation Group (FCPG) presented a report to Caledon Council which showed Caledon has the weakest aggregate policies out of the top ten aggregate producing municipalities in Ontario. Due to this, in October 2022, the Town implemented its ICBL, which was renewed for one year in September 2023.

The ICBL will be in effect until October 18 of this year, unless CBM Aggregates’ — a company that’s proposing a large blasting quarry in Caledon — November 2023 appeal of the ICBL renewal is successful.

The ICBL gives Caledon time to update its aggregate policies, and the Town’s supplementary aggregate resources policy study is part of that process.

Town staff, based on criteria set by Caledon Council, appointed a six-member Aggregate Resources Community Working Group (ARCWG) last May. Members were chosen due to factors like experience living near a pit or quarry, expertise in the aggregate field, and previous experience on a committee or task force.

The ARCWG consists of David Sylvester, Martin Bamford, John Emery, Jane Thompson, Neil Morris, and Cheryl Connors.

The ARCWG is tasked with working with Town staff on the supplementary study.

At this week’s Planning and Development Committee meeting of Caledon Council, Sylvester and Thompson both delegated to Council and expressed concern with the Town’s supplementary aggregate resources policy study process.

Ahead of the meeting, the ARCWG submitted a report outlining their concerns to Council, and it was added to the meeting’s agenda.

According to the ARCWG, there were two reasons it submitted a report: to inform Council that the supplementary study is not proceeding in accordance with the terms of reference (TOR) set out for it; and, to request that Council give appropriate direction to ensure the study is carried out in accordance with the TOR.

Additionally, the ARCWG said it hasn’t been able to carry out its function in relation to the study.

Phase One of the study was a comprehensive policy review which was to result in a background report that would be presented and discussed with the ARCWG. The group says it was never asked for input on the background report.

“This is a major function of the Working Group and was to inform the formulation of policy for presentation to Council. It has been completely ignored and bypassed,” reads the ARCWG’s report to Council.

The ARCWG said the background report prepared for Phase One of the study is flawed for a number of reasons, such as: it ignores advances in understanding and protecting the natural environment, water resources and human health and safety; and, that it’s “primarily a selective and inaccurate historic review of Provincial regulation of aggregate operations.”

Phase Two of the Town’s supplementary study is policy formation. Feedback from the ARCWG on the background report was supposed to inform policy formation, and it said this didn’t happen. The ARCWG was supposed to be involved in policy formation, and it said this has been skipped altogether.

“We have been given no opportunity to discuss issues of concern,” reads the ARCWG report. “ARCWG has attended four scheduled meetings so far at which we have been told what is to be in the policies…”

The ARCWG said there hasn’t been a draft policy recommendation report presented to Council (required in TOR) and therefore, said recommendation report has not been presented for public input at a public open house.

Stage Three of the supplementary study was to be presentation of new aggregate policies to Council with a recommendation to implement them. The ARCWG said this should not happen yet as the draft policies currently prepared actually weaken Caledon’s already-weak aggregate policies.

Due to the ARCWG’s numerous concerns, Thompson suggested a motion to Council, which was then unanimously supported.

The motion asked that Council receive the ARCWG’s report, refer it to town CAO Nathan Hyde, and then have the Town complete the supplementary study in accordance with the TOR for both the study and the ARCWG.

The ARCWG also asked the Town to direct staff to engage a project manager and environmental planner to lead completion of the study.

Ward 3 Councillor Doug Maskell said Caledon needs to respect the time and effort people have put into wanting to make Caledon’s aggregate policies better.

“We have one chance to get this right and this is it,” said Maskell. “This is something that can fundamentally transform our community… whatever resources we need to get this right, I’m supportive of that.”

Mayor Annette Groves said the ARCWG’s asks were very reasonable.

“We take this very seriously… this will have a serious impact on the community,” said Groves.

She said aggregate extraction can lead to negative short- and long-term effects like increased traffic, noise, and pollution. Groves said that’s why it’s important to get Caledon’s new aggregate policies right.

Caledon’s Manager of Strategic Policy Planning Steve Burke said on January 16 that the Town had retained a project manager with extensive aggregate expertise for the supplementary study file.