Erin Citizens Coalition hosts community information night

ERIN – The Erin Citizens Coalition (ECC) hosted its first community information meeting, outlining the group’s efforts to have town council rescind its decision to allow the Hillsburgh gravel pit in-fill project. 

Erin council approved the commercial fill project in January. The site, at 9516 Sideroad 27, operated as a sand and gravel pit for Strada Aggregates from 1999 to 2021.

The rehabilitation project will allow pit owner Jay Fieger to bring in 5.36 million cubic metres of fill over 20 years. It will see approximately 150 trucks per day arriving and leaving the site. 

Town councillors, the mayor and Wellington-Halton Hills MPP Joseph Racinsky were all invited to the meeting. Only town councillors Cathy Aylard and Jamie Cheyne were present. 

“We’re here tonight because we know that everyone in this room cares deeply about protecting our water, our roads, our environment and the future of our community,” said ECC member Jacqueline Guagliardi. 

“Tonight is about raising awareness and helping you better understand what has been approved at the Hillsburgh pit and why it should matter to all of us.” 

Guagliardi and her husband Paul shared a presentation with guests outlining community concerns, what the group has been working on and how other community members can get engaged.

The meeting follows a delegation from the ECC to council on May 14, which according to Guagliardi, only happened after the group sought legal advice. 

“Our coalition attempted to delegate to council, beginning in March, and was denied twice over the course of a month,” she said.

“We participated in an email chain exceeding 17 emails, only to be stonewalled. It ultimately took a letter from legal counsel for our delegation to be finally approved.”

In addition to concerns regarding traffic, road wear, safety and noise, the ECC also raised concerns about the length of the agreement, lack of signage, water quality and the monitoring of imported fill.

“Who would commit a town to a 20-year agreement that future council and residents will be forced to live with?” Guagliardi asked,  “especially when major concerns remain unresolved.”

It was suggested at the meeting that council should have used two-year terms, with options to renew or rescind the agreement at the end of each term. 

Guagliardi said the group is also questioning why the town did not require the pit owner to post public notice or development notice signage consistent with what is routinely required for smaller projects, such as a garden suite.

Town manager of planning and development David Waters told the Advertiser signage is not required by the town’s site alteration bylaw .

It “does not require signage to be posted on the property subject to a site alteration application.

“However, notice is required to be issued to area residents by the town to advise of a public meeting to present the application.  In accordance with the bylaw, notice was mailed to property owners within 120 metres of the pit, published in the Wellington Advertiser and posted on the town’s website.”

ECC members refute town’s claims about circulated notice.

“Most people living within 120 meters of the site did not receive the personal notification the town alleges to have sent,” said Guagliardi. “We’ve requested the notice of circulation and the mailing distribution list twice and we still don’t have it.”

Most of the ECC meeting was spent discussing the quality of fill for the site and potential impacts to the town’s water. 

“It doesn’t matter how much [contaminated fill] goes in there. If you look at contaminant concentration, aquifers can be contaminated by trace amounts of toxins,” said Paul. “A few 100 milligrams of chloride can render all of our water, most of our water, non-potable.”

According to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, “While a few hundred milligrams will not pose immediate toxic threats to human health, it can easily cross the threshold where water is classified as “non-potable” due to taste and pipe corrosion.”

The ECC says other contaminants from “dirty” fill such as heavy metals (lead, arsenic, mercury), petroleum hydrocarbons, asbestos and buried construction waste could pose serious health risks.

The group questioned how the pit would properly monitor incoming fill as the town has allowed the pit owner to contract his own personnel to test each truck load.

“I can’t imagine you look at the scope of this, that every single load is properly checked. This is why other municipalities don’t allow this. Simple as that,” said  Paul. 

The group questioned why “a great deal of trust is being placed in one individual who doesn’t even live in the community.”

Pit owner Jay Fieger previously stated to the Advertiser the intent of the project “is to complete a responsible remediation of a long-standing gravel pit using clean fill that meets all applicable environmental standards.”

ECC also questioned why the pit owner did not seek Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) approval for the project, resulting in no income for the town.

“If approval through the MNR was straightforward and achievable without municipal involvement, then why would a person approach the municipality and pay them significant tipping fees if they could have done it for free?” said Paul.

“These are fair questions about the due diligence that ought to have been performed by the town before approving the submission.”

To close the meeting, ECC members urged the public to write and submit letters to councillors, the mayor and town staff.

ECC members urged all residents looking for more information on the group and its efforts to visit the ECC website or its Facebook page.