A proposal to turn protected lands near Villeneuve into a gravel pit could threaten the Sturgeon River, county council heard this week.
County council held a public hearing on a request to rezone an L-shaped block of land east of Villeneuve from Environmental Protection to Resource Extraction Area. The site, located along Range Road 264 near the Sturgeon River, is currently home to a Lafarge Aggregates wash plant and has been used for gravel extraction activities since the 1960s.
Lafarge wants to dismantle the plant and mine the gravel under it within five years, said planning and development manager Collin Steffes. A corner of the site, however, may be used as a gravel storage site "for an indefinite period."
This land probably should not have been zoned for protection in the first place, said Coun. Ken McGillis, since it had been used for mining for decades. This land change would correct an apparent mistake and bring Lafarge's mine into compliance with the land use bylaw.
But this land is right next to the Sturgeon River, said area resident Karla Boddez.
"That screams environmental protection," she said. "A lot of neighbours thought the county actually stood behind that."
Residents Robert and Kathryn Lema opposed the proposal in a letter, noting that the land was zoned for protection in order to preserve the region's groundwater, trees and river.
Gravel mines in this region have previously caused landslides that blocked the flow of the Sturgeon, the Lemas wrote. "To change the designation from 'Environmental Protection' to 'Resource Extraction Area' with no restriction on how close to the river the extraction can occur is unacceptable."
Complex debate
While Lafarge does plan to run its mine 24/7, aggregage development manager Peter Lee said the mine and gravel storage site would be at least 300 metres from the banks of the Sturgeon. "We are not anywhere near the river."
The Lemas called for at least a 400-metre setback to minimize effects on groundwater and prevent landslides into the Sturgeon.
Lee and Lafarge spokesperson Jennifer Weslowski said that their proposal could reduce the amount of noise generated by the site, as they would be removing the wash plant and placing the crusher at the bottom of a pit (which could dampen its noise).
Boddez disputed that. "From our bedroom we can feel the room shake when they crush sometimes," and see large dust storms from the gravel mines in their yard. "I don't want this being sold as a better thing for the neighbours."
Stacy Maurier asked council to put the change on hold for a year until the region's gravel companies fixed ongoing noise and pollution problems. "The gravel isn't going anywhere. We can do this again in a year."
She and Boddez spoke of thick smog blowing off of what they said were illegal asphalt plants and being awoken by back-up alarms of trucks at 3 a.m.
"It's comical to me," Boddez said, as everyone she calls says those alarms aren't supposed to be used at night, yet no one takes responsibility for them.
The land use bylaw is supposed to ensure neighbours to gravel pits aren't impacted by their activities, Boddez said. "We are impacted every day, and we are asking for it to be within reason."
Council consideration
Gravel companies are not allowed to use back-up alarms at night in this region, said planning officer Aaron Hair. He and Steffes would look into increased enforcement of this rule.
Mayor Don Rigney took issue with the site being used for gravel storage "indefinitely," as that could inflict beeping and shaking on residents long after mining was complete. "Is that 25 years or forever?"
Coun. Tom Flynn said he wanted clarification on the site's hours of operations and setback from the river. He also wanted the area to be rezoned shrunk, as it included two regions that Lafarge planned to reclaim, not mine.
This proposal comes back to council for second reading June 26.
