Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
REPORTING · 5th December 2015
Walter McFarlane
A Quarry and Borrow Pit near the dump got a lot of attention by Cable Car residents when it first came to Council. Council further discussed it at a Committee of the Whole Meeting on Monday, November 30th.

Councillor Mario Feldhoff needed to ask the administration before he put a motion on the table.

“It’s my understanding that the APC and the report before us has basically indicated that they are in support of recommended approval of this current application and they talk about a southern pit. Is that the same southern pit that Mr. Oviatt indicated a few weeks ago that would be good for 10 or 15 years of the overall site?” asked Feldhoff.

He was told the Advisory Planning Commission toured the whole of the property. The Commission came to the conclusion that a three year Temporary Use Permit would be required.

Councillor Rob Goffinet expressed the APC talked about noise. They figured the noise and the dust would not be a factor. They made this decision following their tour and talking to the developer.

“I would think it would be in order if we asked the certain conclusions of the APC if anyone in engineering or planning would disagree with that. We were told that there were present sites in closer proximity to residential neighbourhoods at the moment doing this type of work then the location of this southern pit would be to the closest people in the residential neighbourhood of cablecar,” said Goffinet.

Goffinet explained the visual aspect would be a concern. However, it would be difficult to see by people going north out of town. Going south however, there could be visibility.

The other concern was if this was a traffic hazard. The report to Council laid out several ways to address this. Speed limits and acceleration/deceleration lanes would be able to control this.

Finally, there was the concern of un-tarped trucks. Goffinet told the Council expressed the tarping of trucks would have to be a prerequisite to Council not being opposed to this project. He said the trucks and highway would need to be swept to keep material from entering the highway.

Mayor Germuth expressed he talked the Ministry of Transportation and they will be looking at the number of cubic meters to be taken out of the pit. This will determine what kind of intersection will be there.

Germuth also expressed he talked to the proponent and he said it was obvious they would be asking the drivers to err on the side of patients and waiting for traffic to pass before pulling their slow trucks of gravel onto the road.

“If we do permit a use permit, I would be pushing for two years because we are the Council that put this through. If it turns out to be a miss, we, in our term get to take responsibility before our term is up to say: ‘It worked out’ and we renew it or ‘it didn’t work out’ and we don’t renew it,” said Germuth.

Councillor Mary Murphy asked about the restriction to access as people walk their dogs on the way to the Jumping Bridge. They were asking if there would be restrictions on this.

Goffinet said it was discussed. The old haul road would be upgrade and this would benefit the industrial operation to and from the pit. He said his discussion left it unclear as to the availability to the area for recreation.

Germuth said he had talked to a Cable Car resident who was concerned that when this was done, it was done. He replied saying this use permit is temporary. The proponent needs to make sure they do things by the book or the permit may not be renewed further down the road.

Councillor Mario Feldhoff moved a motion to support approval of the project subject to the conditions. It was seconded by Councillor Mary Murphy. He quickly made an amendment to limit the area to the southern pit.

“By limiting that area to the southern area, which was good for 10 or 15 years, would deal with many of the concerns of the Cable Car residents,” said Feldhoff.

He said they would also forward concerns about the traffic.

Councillor Larry Walker told Council he had done some math, which he hoped was correct. The amount of gravel they were extracting per day would amount to around 44 truckloads of gravel per day or 88 turns.

Goffinet pointed out they were not approving a project, they were commenting on a license of application on crown land. They should have a motion for what they are doing and not the end result. He expressed he would be uncomfortable doing any more then what they were being asked to do.

Council was told by City Planner, Gwendolyn Sewell they had three options, no objection to approval, no objection subject to conditions or recommendation of refusal.

Feldhoff proposed another amendment proposing they address concerns of safe entrance and exit. Walker asked about a recommendation that the speed along this portion of the highway be changed to 80 kilometres per hour.

Goffinet stated both lanes and speed would be considered by the Ministry of Transportation and he would leave the decision in their professional hands.

The amendment was carried.

Feldhoff proposed a third amendment that project would be limited to the southern area. He expressed the site was mapped out as a big site. He was told the concerns would be addressed and the area would be good for 10 to 15 years.

Council was told that the public would have access to the perimeter of this site, but would not be able to cross the quarry. There would be improvements on the haul road. They were also told at the moment, there was no one maintaining this road. The amendment was called and carried.

Goffinet moved an amendment to express concerns about surface water drainage south of the site. The amendment was called and carried.

Walker made an amendment to include the letters from the people of Cable Car with the letter of support to the ministry. Feldhoff expressed if they do include the letters, the ministry should be informed the information which was gathered was for the whole 36 hectares.

Walker added it bothers him, at the first meeting, the room was full of people who were opposed to the project, some in favour, but there was no one there that night.

“This is a difficult one,” said Feldhoff. “I believe that the way we’ve approached this will minimise the concerns expressed and maximise the opportunity to have this town grow. Through the additional process, assuming the ministry does approve it as indicated, we will have another kick at the can and it will not be rushed process to discuss a temporary use permit which gives residents another chance to tell us, we got it wrong or what the case may be when the time comes.”

He was told that staff has spent a lot of time with the public following the meeting two weeks prior. CAO Warren Waycheshen expressed they have addressed many concerns.

Goffinet expressed the proponent does not satisfy Council that they can measure up to the conditions, the Council could still say no to the whole thing.

The motion as amended was called and carried.
Speed limit? Ha!
Comment by FayEllen McFarlane on 5th December 2015
I think it is useless to try to establish an 80 km. zone in that section of the highway (or elsewhere, for that matter!) The speed limit now is 100 km., and how many vehicles do you think respect it? What percentage of traffic slows to 80 km. in the section from the curve by Hirsch Creek Park to the 60 km. section at the top of the hill? Speed limits mean NOTHING to a lot of the drivers around here!