Mayor reveals past dealings with Hillsburgh pit owner during heated meeting

ERIN – A well-attended Erin council meeting on June 11 took an unexpected turn when Mayor Michael Dehn acknowledged a prior business relationship with the owner of the company behind the Hillsburgh gravel pit fill project.

The revelation  prompted some residents to ask why the mayor did not declare a conflict of interest during the approval process.

The exchange followed several delegations regarding two council motions related to the pit rehabilitation project at 9516 Sideroad 27.

Speaking on behalf of the Erin Citizens’ Coalition (ECC), Karen DeRooy asked Dehn why he had not disclosed his relationship with Jay Fieger, owner of 1772853 Ontario Inc., as a pecuniary interest.

“I just know him because he rehabbed my parents’ pit,” said Dehn.

“Did you not at any point consider declaring that a conflict of interest?” asked DeRooy.

Dehn said he managed paperwork and oversight related to rehabilitation work on his parents’ gravel pit while they were retiring.

“I had three different companies that I had to monitor for my parents, so I took care of the paperwork for them as they were retiring,” said Dehn. “It’s a rehabilitation program for the pit, which was required.”

(The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act requires municipal council members to declare a pecuniary conflict interest when they themselves – or their company/employer, spouse or a family member – stand to gain or lose financially from a decision. A declaration is not required for having previous interactions with a company.)

The pit rehabilitation project near Hillsburgh  will permit roughly 5.36 million cubic metres of fill to be imported into the former gravel pit over a period of 10 to 15 years, generating up to 150 truck trips daily. 

The mayor’s comments came after a lengthy series of delegations urging council to revisit the project and agreement, with some community members calling for council to rescind the contract entirely.  

Delegates voiced concerns about groundwater contamination, truck traffic, public consultation and the long-term environmental consequences of importing fill into the site.

“This issue has tremendous impact to the community, and it has a lot of cause for concern,” said Marieke Wevers during her delegation. 

She called the possibility of contaminated fill entering the site “highly, highly concerning.”

“We’re only 12,000 people, we’re not Toronto,” she said. “We don’t have the resources to handle a toxic site.”

DeRooy later praised councillor John Brennan’s motion to review the township’s site alteration agreement but argued the review must include the agreement already signed by the town.

“The confusion is real,” she said, referring to ongoing public concerns surrounding the project and its requirements.

According to DeRooy, a petition opposing the project, put forward by the ECC, has now gathered more than 600 signatures.

Water Watchers Ontario campaigns and communications director Dani Lindamood warned council about the risks of the fill industry and the possibility of groundwater contamination.

“We’re here because there’s a threat to water emerging here and we hope to illuminate both the gravity of this threat and inspire protective action from you,” Lindamood said.

Lindamood also questioned the practice of placing fill in pits where extraction below the water table has occurred, stating contamination below the water table is difficult, costly and time-consuming to remediate, calling it a “forever project.”

Councillor Bridget Ryan asked staff for clarification on whether below-the-water table mining had occurred on the property. 

Director of infrastructure and environmental services David Waters told council that while the pit licence permitted extraction below the water table, he could not confirm whether such activity had occurred.

However, according to a report shared with council from staff on July 18, 2024, “The site is also licensed to extract sand and gravel from below the water table, which has resulted in a pond that has a surface area of approximately 9.6 ha and a depth of four to five metres.” 

Residents also raised concerns about truck traffic, water monitoring and public safety.

Erin CAO Rob Adams defended the municipality, stating the town will have more oversight over the project now than it would have if the rehabilitation was approved by the province alone. 

“They (council) faced the challenge that it would be fairly easy for the pit operator to go to the ministry and get approval,” said Adams. “And the municipality would have little input over it.”

Following delegations, council passed a motion brought forward by councillor Jamie Cheyne, directing staff to engage with the pit owner to review the site alteration agreement for stronger water quality safeguards and to reduce the hours of operation to weekdays only. 

Council also passed a motion brought forward by Brennan directing staff to review public input regarding gravel pit rehabilitation in the town, in conjunction with staff research, and to consult with the appropriate provincial ministries to identify alternative methods to support future pit closures and rehabilitation. 

Brennan acknowledged other gravel pits within the town are aging, and similar situations could soon arise. 

Both motions were passed by a 3-2 vote, with councillors Ryan and Cathy Aylard opposed. 

Council also asked staff to send a letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), requesting they pause any rehabilitation approvals until council has had a chance to review comments and concerns presented by the public, as well as negotiate agreement terms with the pit owner.