Anyone hoping for quick passage of a fill bylaw will have to wait a bit longer.
Town council again delayed passage of a revised fill bylaw.
On Feb. 21, Erin planner Sally Stull was at council with what she described as modest changes to the town’s site alteration bylaw. She said it is coming into the season where people are seeking permits.
The town has held two public meetings on the issue and “there has been a lot of comment, but not a lot of input on what you wanted to change.”
Stull drafted a bylaw that lays out moderate changes that would primarily affect large fill applications. Any project for greater than 2,000 cubic metres, would require direct council approval and public notification would be provided to abutting property owners and owners along the haul route.
Stull said the authority in the bylaw still does not apply to permits requested through local conservation authorities, which issue their own fill permits to property owners in their jurisdictions. She said the changes would provide council with the authority to deny or approve large fill applications and provides for the notification to area property owners.
“It would provide the public the opportunity to come out to a meeting regarding an application.”
The last proposed change to the bylaw was over increases to fees, which would largely reflect the amount of public input required. Costs rise significantly when dealing with large operations, Stull said.
Those projects have to get over the hurdle of being approved before a permit would be issued, she said.
Stull said deposit costs are based on the amount it would cost to grade the site, place the topsoil, then hydro seed the site.
The fee was estimated at $3.50 per square metre to grade and place material. It would be $1.25 per square metre to hydro seed the site and an additional $0.25 per square metre for soil erosion control measures [which also related to movement by the trucks].
The deposit on a two hectare (five acre) site would be roughly $100,000, she said.
Councillor Barb Tocher pointed out the deposit is just a security.
“If they follow through with what was originally proposed, they get their money back.”
Stull agreed.
Councillor Josie Wintersinger asked how that protects the municipality from accepting big piles of fill.
Stull said the bylaw includes that it does not allow for the creation of more than an 8% grade across any property.
“You could not create a mountain by means of a site alteration permit, unless you are in the CVC area – they have no requirements on that.”
Mayor Lou Maieron said that from the public meetings, the concern is not with small applications, but with larger ones with thousands of loads and roads being damaged. He said some of those were projects approved by the conservation authorities.
He considered the fees excessive to penalize small operators who wants to bring in a small amount of fill, while larger operations will still be able to make money and interfere with roads and quality of life.
Maieron said new fees penalize residents who simply want to bring in 50 to 100 loads of fill once in a while. Once the number of loads moves from 11 to 200, permits are required and fees increase substantially – double for residential, triple on a farm, and the tipping fee rises from $0.10 to $1 per cubic metre.
He asked the bylaw be deferred to give a chance for additional public comment.
Tocher noted council spent a lot of time determining what the load cutoffs should be – for small, medium and large projects. She said, “Fifty loads of contaminated fill under someone’s driveway is just as dangerous.”
Stull pointed out aggregate from a licensed pit is deemed clean and considered a virgin product. She said while the bylaw could in theory apply to materials simply being relocated on a property, it has not been enforced, and likely the town would not be advised of it by the property owners.
And, she said, most complaints received by the town are nuisance based – where trucks are on the road. There have been no applications under 3,000 cubic metres.
Maieron countered if the town is not going to charge people for moving fill on their own property, that should be removed.
Stull said she would act – if there is a complaint.
Maieron said, “My biggest beef is that people were not upset with the small operations; the issue was with the big guys and we seem to be punishing the guy wanting to put in a driveway or do a small project.”
Tocher said it is still less expensive than buying material.
Stull said there have been no fill permit applications for small projects. Only the big companies are interested in fill permits where there is a revenue to be generated.
Councillor Deb Callaghan said small sites need to be addressed in the bylaw. “What happens if it is contaminated and doesn’t have a permit; there is nothing we can do.”
She later asked, “Can we refuse an application with no reason?”
Stull said, “Absolutely.”
She said an applicant could challenge the bylaw in court, “but there is no appeal process on the denial.”
She explained the challenge would need to be based on if the bylaw contravenes something in the Municipal Act or the Highway Traffic Act – “but they could not appeal the decision.”
Brennan said “And all the bylaw says is that over a certain limit the applicant must come to council. In essence, this could literally stop large fill projects in the town.”
Maieron said three weeks ago, he was contacted by the Orangeville Banner because Dufferin County is starting to experience a lot of truck action.
“You can tell them we’ve had our fill,” Brennan said.
The report on the fill bylaw was deferred for further discussion at a council and staff meeting.
