Gravel pit applicant opposes peer reviews

Gravel pit applicant opposes peer reviews

Published - Aug 13th, 2009 By Gail Martin Independent Editor


A gravel pit applicant is facing an additional $30,000 in costs, if he meets the requirements under the township’s new OPA 13.
That’s the message that David Sisco from IBI Group, brought to Woolwich Township council chambers on Aug. 11. Sisco is representing landowner Bob Hunsberger, whose land is being reviewed for the proposed Hunder gravel pit.
Sisco told councillors that in all of his years working on gravel pit applications, he has never had any of his reports subjected to peer reviews. Yet, in this current application, the township is asking for seven of the reports to be peer reviewed.
“I’m somewhat bewildered at why a separate peer review is required,” said Sisco, who noted that most of the reports will be reviewed by other agencies, including the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of Natural Resources.
“We are somewhat frustrated, and perhaps somewhat at odds with the peer review requests,” said Sisco.
Dan Kennaley, township director of planning and engineering, told councillors that peer reviews are required based on the size and complexity of pit applications, and also provide an extra level of “check and balances” to reports provided by consultants hired by gravel pit applicants.
“Bias may creep into work done by consultants,” Kennaley noted.
He said that while the Region does review the reports provided by consultants, it has a fundamentally different approach than that of the township, in that the Region accepts the professional credentials of the consultant as sufficient justification for the validity of the report.
In other words, the review that the Region completes on gravel pit applications stops short of a peer review, in which calculations are verified, and conclusions are either verified or questioned.
“I believe peer reviews are an important part of the planning process,” said Kennaley, who also noted that, should an application go to the Ontario Municipal Board, planners are expected to have reviewed applications to a greater level than simply accepting reports at face value.
Councillor Mark Bauman asked Kennaley whether the Hunder pit would be facing a different scenario, one with fewer peer reviews, if the original studies had been conducted by consultants listed on a pre-approved list developed by township staff.
“They probably would still be (peer reviewed,)” said Kennaley. “Regardless of whether consultants are on a list of per-qualified consultants, a peer review is a very important step that needs to take place.”
Township CAO David Brenneman reminded councillors that they had agreed to the process involved, when approving OPA 13, which was developed when the township became aware of how many gravel pit applications were pending.
He noted that there have been some “growing pains” since the new approach has been taken, which has caused some delays in the process for applicants.
In the end, mayor Bill Strauss advised township staff to work with the applicant to resolve the issues, but councillors made no move to waive the requirements for the peer reviews.