MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY - County council has held a four-hour public hearing regarding a proposed gravel pit in the McDougal Flats area west of Sundre.
The hearing took place during a special council meeting on Sept. 15, held in person and on Zoom.
The proposal is to redesignate 121.22 acres of agricultural district land to aggregate extraction/processing district and to redesignate an additional 28.84 acres from agricultural district to agricultural district A2, all within SE 35-32-6-5.
The applicant and property owner is Didsbury-based West-Can Seal Coating Inc. The bylaw received first reading on Aug. 11 and was advertised on Aug. 31 and Sept. 7.
During the Sept. 15 public hearing, the applicant said the project would benefit the county by generating economic activity and would be environmentally responsible.
“The application will not only create additional jobs, it will also allow us to remain a local company,” said Andrew Arnill, operations manager with West-Can. “What has been proposed is a first-class application that hits all the high-water marks that the county is looking for and falls in line with previous and current area structure plans.
“Mixed land us can and does exist. The county’s approval of this application will allow us to be more competitive and it is our competitiveness that allows us to employ more than 160 people locally.
“With your approval it will guarantee West-Can’s future within the county.”
The company plans to build a berm to alleviate possible noise concerns, he said.
As part of the application for redesignation, West-Can presented a number of related studies and reports, which were received by the county.
More than two dozen area residents submitted letters in opposition to the proposed redesignation. Concerns expressed in the correspondence included the possible cumulative impacts of noise, air pollution and traffic, impacts on groundwater quality and quantity, decrease of property values, and incompatibility with surrounding land uses.
“As residents that live in the near vicinity of the proposed redesignation, we don’t feel it is in the best interest of us or the surrounding residents that this redesignation be approved,” Bradley and Miranda Watkins said in one letter.
“We already deal with the ramifications from the other surrounding gravel pits and we don’t feel it needs to be intensified. An increase in traffic, dust, noise and the affect on water quality and quantity would diminish our quality of life that we have here.”
Ken and Marilyn Walker also submitted a letter of objection, writing in part: “Once again we are embroiled in a battle to preserve our rural lifestyle. The quality of life sought by rural residents reflects the sum total of many desirable attributes of rural living including peace, solitude, proximity to nature etc.
“These attributes are achieved and maintained by preserving land in its current state. They are destroyed forever by allowing industry to expand, not just by a few acres, but by quarter sections at a time.”
West-Can submitted a letter in response to landowner concerns, stating in part: “West-Can is committed to maintaining the highest possible standards for operating this site, and through several rounds and years of community consultation have taken every step possible to mitigate and alleviate concerns of local residents and previous council. We don’t view community consultation as a one and done, rather a work in progress.”
A number of letters in support of the application were also received by the county, including from Val Facey, who wrote: “Having worked for West-Can for 10 and a half years, I know that they will be very conscious of environmental concerns, noise concerns, dust concerns and will do everything in their power to ensure that there is a positive relationship with the residents.”
During the Sept. 15 public hearing, a number of people spoke in opposition to the application.
Area resident Robin Tudor called on the county to consider the cumulative impacts of the numerous gravel pits in the McDougal Flats area.
“The county has to look into the future,” said Tudor. “I know we have an ASP (area structure plan) but the ASP only looks at individual applications. This is getting to the idea of cumulative (impact). What is happening in the whole area? We’ve invested and we don’t want our investment to depreciate.”
Several people, including West-Can employees, spoke in favour of the application.
As well, Didsbury deputy mayor Bill Windsor also addressed the hearing.
“On behalf of Didsbury town council I am speaking to you neither favour nor opposed to this project. I am only speaking to relate Didsdbury’s own experience with West-Can Seal Coating. West-Can’s urban business location in Didsbury has proven them to be responsible, considerate corporate citizens,” said Windsor.
In his closing comments, applicant representative Andrew Arnill said the company would work to address possible noise, water, dust and other concerns.
“We are committed to being good industry partners,” he said. “West-Can wants to invest in the community. We are committed to maintaining the high possible standards. We welcome community feedback.”
After the closing of the public hearing councillors had an opportunity to make comments.
Coun. Al Kemmere said, “This application does comply with policy. I am presently in support of the application. This application has responded to many of the concerns that have been brought forward.”
Coun. Greg Harris said, “Is it fair for this applicant to bear the burden. I acknowledge that aggregate is such an important resource to this county (and) to jobs and the economy. From what I’ve heard and seen I’m going to support this application. I think this application should go forward.”
Coun. Duncan Milne said, “They’ve proven that they can be good corporate neighbours. I’m leaning toward giving them the opportunity to prove that they can do it properly.”
Coun. Dwayne Fulton said, “I think I can support this application. As time goes on gravel extraction can be done cleaner and (the land) can be returned back to a usable state.”
Coun. Peggy Johnson said, “My position is that Mountain View County created this conflict with their land use bylaw and municipal development plan years ago, and that creating another gravel is not going to lessen the conflict. It is going to increase the conflict.”
Reeve Bruce Beattie said he could not support the application.
Councillors passed second reading and deferred possible third reading until Sept. 29.
Division 5 Coun. Angela Aalbers did not attend the Sept. 15 special council meeting.
