The Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) hearing regarding a potential gravel pit near Balls Bridge has wrapped up for now, with the legal challenge to pick up again in December.
At the end of the proceedings on Friday, there was hope expressed that the matter would have a resolution by the end of 2025, as the controversial gravel pit has been in discussion for nearly five years.
Proposed by V.B. Sand and Gravel, the potential below-water table pit would be located on the land right next to the Fisher Pit. However, the citizens group Friends of Balls Bridge and Little Lakes (FOBBLL) has been a vocal opponent to the pit since it was proposed, saying it threatens the ecologically sensitive area and potentially the residents relying on well water.
An application to rezone the land from General Agriculture to Extractive Resources was originally filed with the Township of Ashfield-Colbourne-Wawanosh in June 2021. Facing public backlash, town council deferred making a decision on approval at a May 2022 meeting. The following month, an appeal to the OLT was launched by V.B. Sand and Gravel on the grounds that council failed to make a decision within 90 days.
The zoning decision is now in the hands of the OLT, but FOBBLL has retained environmental lawyer David Donnelly to argue against the pit. ACW Township also had legal representation at the 13-day hearing, which began on July 2 and ran until July 18.
Discussions across the days involved expert witnesses called by V.B. Sand and Gravel. Representation for FOBBLL also pushed to have evidence about the noise, dust, and disruption from the nearby Fisher pit included in the case, arguing that the scope of the review should not only focus on the subject lands given the similarities and fact that it's also owned by V.B. Sand and Gravel.
Ultimately, it was determined that for FOBBLL to present its full case, the hearing will continue on December 8.
The final day of the proceedings saw Donnelly cross-examine Denise Van Amersfoort, Manager of Planning at the County of Huron. Van Amersfoort spoke to the original planning application, and noted there were some changes she would recommend to the original bylaw based on the last few years and suggestions that came up during the process, notably the removal of a portable asphalt plant.
"I would have no objection to that being removed, I agree with (Alan Ramsey's) opinion that it has not been fully assessed or analyzed, nor do I believe the applicant is proposing one, so that would seem to be a reasonable adjustment," she said. "I would recommend that change."
When asked if she would change her opinion now on whether the land should be rehabilitated for agricultural purposes, knowing what she knows about provincial policy changes due to Bill 5, Van Amersfoort also said she might consider changing that outlook.
"I think when I reflect on the policy test, it's where agricultural feasibility can be restored. I think based on the fields, the size, the irregularity, I would be comfortable with the opinion that the agricultural rehabilitation is not feasible, and therefore an alternative use, such as the buffering of endangered species habitat or a natural environment use, would be acceptable."
However, when Donnelly asked if there was a by-law prepared including all the suggested changes that had come up during the hearing, Van Amersfoort confirmed there wasn't one.
The proposed pit would extract up to 500,000 tons of secondary aggregates, used for asphalt, concrete, road stone, and more, annually. If approved, it would become the 38th pit operating in ACW.