Guelph-Eramosa council now has authority over and decision-making power on site alteration (fill) bylaw appeals.
At the Aug. 10 council meeting CAO Kim Wingrove presented a report to council citing the evolution of the fill business since the township’s bylaw was originally passed in 2010.
“Our current bylaw provides that an applicant for site alteration permit or affected by an order issued pursuant to this bylaw may appeal in writing to the property standards committee,” Wingrove said.
“The [committee] has the authority to hear an appeal and can either confirm, modify or rescind an order; alter or otherwise perform an action; provide an extension of time for complying with an order; decide to issue a site alteration permit where it had originally been denied by the bylaw enforcement officer … a number of powers there.”
According to Wingrove’s report, site alterations include the stockpiling of fill, the creation of berms, general alteration to the topography in the local area and the importation of non-native soils, including soils from development sites outside of the local area.
Because the use of fill has gone beyond the 2010 anticipated scope of use, Wingrove suggested council take on the appeals process.
“What we’re asking tonight is that we amend the site alteration bylaw to allow for the appeal function to fall under the authority of council rather than the property standards committee,” she said.
Mayor Chris White pointed out that when the original bylaw was put in place,it made sense to leave the appeals process in the hands of the property standards committee.
“Let’s say some guy from Guelph moves 10 truck loads and dumps it on a farm out here,” he explained. “So we go over and we deny him a permit but then the committee can look at it and do a bit of an analysis and it wasn’t that big an impact. It was almost a fence viewers or a committee of adjustment thing.
“Let them take a look at the technical side of it and let it flow.”
Originally the bylaw was put in place as a precaution if Erin (or another adjacent municipality) banned fill and Guelph-Eramosa was the next destination, White said.
However, the issue grew.
“When we’re dealing with subdivisions where stuff’s being moved around, when we’re dealing with impact and trucks and noise and all kinds of things that can come from fill that responsibility really rests with council,” he said.
Councillor Corey Woods asked whether the fill bylaw was going to be reviewed.
Currently the bylaw provides a permitting system that ensures new developments don’t result in significant changes in contour, changes to soil classes, environmental contamination and/or environmental degradation.
The abilities to control and regulate the fill industry include: requiring a permit, verifying specific contaminants, securities being given to the municipality for road damages and not following the permit regulations, source water protection and enforcement provisions, Wingrove’s report stated.
White said the fill bylaw is extensive as it stands.
“The bylaw we have today is pretty comprehensive so unless somebody sees another reason to change the bylaw proper, it gives us the teeth we need,” he said.
“But we just looked at that amendment piece or the appeals piece.”
Wingrove agreed.
“The language in our current bylaw I think is quite broad,” she said. “It allows us the ability to exercise authority, we may not have used that, it may be more of a process question rather than an issue with any of the language in the current bylaw as far as how specific you wanted to get…”
Though councillor Louise Marshall was absent, the amendment was approved.
