Red Deer County extends to third public hearing for proposed gravel pit following heated debate

OPPOSED

Two strong opponents include local grocery store owners Jody and Chad Young, who live with their two children in a residence that would be fronting the proposed gravel pit within the 165 metre minimum requirement.

“My strong opposition to this application before you is because I want to protect our home for our children,” said Jody in tears.

“I have heard some council members speak of the unfairness for the applicant and how the applicant has the right to use their land as they wish. I understand that life isn’t always fair but where is the consideration for the unfairness in any of this to my family or the consideration for the pre-existing land uses? Why are our rights to living in a healthy environment and getting to live in peace in our own home seemingly being completely disregarded?”

She said her family has had to bear large legal costs, forego family vacations, lost trust in government, and she herself has had to leave her employment while experiencing physical ailments due to the added stress.

BACKGROUND

The conversation began in late 2019 when BP originally made the amendment request. The Youngs took the matter provincially where a judge for the Court of Queen’s Bench rendered the bylaw invalid in January 2022 due to the County’s breaching of procedural fairness duties, particularly regarding the public hearing.

In August 2022, Alberta Health Services discovered the Young family’s domestic water well was contaminated with lead and other harsh minerals, leading to the creation of a new well. Jody claimed the cause was from existing nearby gravel pits, which include the Red Deer County (Lozynski), Border Paving (Young), Border Paving (Totem), JT Setters (Hanniford), and the Hansen Pit.

READ: Alberta investigates family’s lead-contaminated water well near gravel mine

Various gravel pits in area. (Red Deer County May 2 council agenda p. 221)

Young claims that the County has not been transparent and withheld results from the Hydrogeological report of the Lozynsky Gravel Pit, as well as other information, leading her to request various documents through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The report, conducted by Tagish Engineering, which Councillor Christine Moore noted the County has used frequently in the past, stated that the contamination was caused by over-pumping of the nearby water well that allegedly was not meant to supply water for domestic use since its inception.

Jody asked BP if she could test water wells on their property but was declined.

Various county councillors like Moore raised concerns at the lack of responses available to residents and councillor questions.

BORDER PAVING

A new application was submitted by BP in 2022, with its fee waived by the County, with the original public hearing set for February 2023, and then postponed to May 2 with a 700-page council agenda, primarily containing documents from the Young family. The hearing extended to June 27 following further questions.

Jody accused BP of not conducting proper reclamations of lands, a process requiring companies to restore land to its natural ecosystem following extraction.

Speaking on June 27 on behalf of BP, county resident Roger Walls stated that while there are no timelines to completing reclamations, their company has had a good track record and put a five-year timeline on the project for the proposed site in its entirety, including reclamation.

He said the company operated 40 gravel sites, has 21 approved reclaimed properties, and others in the works.

Walls claimed the Youngs are displaying nimbyism and that their report attempts to “inundate” council to “overwhelm” them.

“We feel that they’re trying to put you in a position where you have no other choice to say no over our application,” he said.

He says BP has no intention of extracting from below the water table; others present at the hearing argued the water table was unavoidable.

Lastly, Walls added that the Youngs have indirectly benefitted from the sale of gravel and land for its purpose as their family, Dave and Lynette Young, who also opposed against the amendment, operated a gravel pit and sold BP land for $1.5 million. He claims that is how Jody and Chad Young obtained their property for one dollar.

Jody called the comments “slanderous”, as participants in the hearing called out and Councillor Moore questioned the relevance of the remark.

BP has stated they would extract gravel from the proposed area and haul the product to other sites for processing. Various residents voiced concerns from this including erosion, noise, dust, hours of operation, increased traffic, and road signage, among others.

Many residents also voiced opposition to using the lands for industrial development as it was designated an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) by the County in 2011, due to the proximity to the Red Deer River.

As required by the Land Use Bylaw, STRIX Environmental Consulting submitted an environmental review, claiming the site for the proposed gravel pit is mainly flat pasture and would not encroach on ESA features like canyons, steep slopes, and deciduous and mixed woodlands.

The public hearing was scheduled to continue on July 11.

by Alessia Proietti

Red Deer County extends to third public hearing for proposed gravel pit following heated debate

What's Trending