Dear Editor,
After reading the article on County comments on Woodland’s County’s gravel pit application, I would like to make the following comments:
For the past three years I have been to several county and community gravel pit meetings in regards to an application made by Stony Valley for gravel extraction and haul routes within the County of Barrhead. They were asking for a proposed 35 year project life span, 24 hours per day pit operations, 11 months a year and 12 hours per day hauling, seven days a week. They have now approved hauling to be 11 months a year, 12 hours per day and five days per week with no hauling on statutory holidays, and pit operation of 24 hours per day.
I still do not understand how any development can receive a 12 hour haul time. Following Alberta Transportation regulations, every truck driver is required to complete a half hour pre-trip inspection, a half hour post trip inspection and one hour service plus the travel time (example: hauling to Villeneuve one way is two hours travel time). So there is no possible way they can legally be hauling for 12 hours per day.
The County approved and approved again all of the aforementioned regulations at each appeal made by concerned residents of the affected area, as well as a petition submitted with more than 80 signatures.
One of the councillors was heard saying, “they should just shut up and put up with this as this is good for the County revenue” (even though it’s at the expense of County taxpayers and residents).
One of the concerns Coun. Troock had with the Woodlands development permit was the seven day hauling schedule and the effect it could have on tourism. My thoughts on this are that you have tourism resources which you fail to protect, maintain or endorse. County of Barrhead has little in place to protect any of the historical resources in their County or any other forms of attraction that promote tourism. A great example of these resources would be the Town/County swimming pool (a whole other story). What facilities are now left?
Through my research I have read all of the policies, guidelines and requirements for gravel development and extraction permits within the Counties of Woodlands, Lac Ste. Anne and Barrhead.
Woodlands and Lac Ste. Anne Counties have extensive guidelines and policies in place. As for the County of Barrhead, they are just developing and implementing policies and guidelines. In all counties monitoring seems to be an issue, where I also believe safety and traffic monitoring should be a top priority and be negotiated within the development permit. Once any developer reaches a provincial highway such as #33, no county has jurisdiction.
Farmer and gravel pit owner Bill Lee is glad to know he can haul hay one day without trucks on the road. Troock is not crazy about seeing trucks on Highway 33, seven days a week, 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. Well dear councillors, you approved an application that will affect a lot more people than you two. We anticipate a truck (either empty or full) going past our residence every eight minutes for 35 years. No one on council or Stony Valley could even explain how they came up with their county haul route. This route will affect more than anticipated. The proposed route takes Twp. Rd. 594, RR 64, Hwy. 18, Hwy. 757 (Sangudo), Hwy. 43 and Hwy. 37 (Onoway to Villeneuve) for loaded trucks.
The return route for empty trucks is Hwy. 37, Hwy. 43, Hwy. 764 (Cherhill), Hwy. 18, RR 64 and Twp. Rd. 594. What’s to stop them from hauling sand to Fort McMurray straight through the Town of Barrhead?
Bottom line here is that councillors are complaining and whining about the Woodlands development permit when they’ve done exactly the same thing to our county ratepayers. The ONLY difference is now it involves residences of two council members and their way of life. At least Woodlands has some form of policy control in place. So do councillors operate on sensibility or senility?
Delphi Stuber
