By William Crooks
Local Journalism Initiative
The monthly council meeting of Barnston West, held on July 8 and presided over by Councillor Virginie Ashby in the absence of Mayor Johnny Piszar, quickly moved into a robust first question period dominated by concerns from the public about a proposed quarry project. Nearly 50 local residents attended – packing Way’s Mills’ beautiful, wood-finished community hall – eager for answers.
Opening remarks and agenda
Ashby started the meeting by welcoming the unusually large crowd, a testament to the public interest in the issues at hand. “We don’t usually see so many people attending a council meeting in Barnston West,” she remarked. The agenda for the meeting included the adoption of the minutes from the previous meeting, ongoing municipal affairs, and two periods for public questions.
Public consultation and zoning modifications
The first question raised concerned the necessity of a public consultation for the quarry project. A resident pointedly asked, “Is there an obligatory public consultation before implementing a quarry… at the site?”
In response, General Director Sonia Tremblay elaborated on the process for zoning modifications, stating, “Usually, when we make a change to zoning regulations, it’s either to align with an MRC amendment or in response to a citizen’s request where we see the need for minor adjustments.”
She explained that the administrative process for zoning changes is quite extensive, taking about four months and involving two project phases with a public consultation in between. “There is always a public consultation between the two phases of the project,” she emphasized.
Council’s decision-making process
Residents were keen to understand the timeline and the council’s stance on the quarry project, especially since it was not listed on the current agenda. One resident queried, “Did the council make a decision on the quarry project in the last meeting, and why is it not on today’s agenda?”
Ashby clarified that the absence of the mayor and a key councillor influenced the decision to delay the discussion. “We had mentioned that it might not be tonight because we weren’t sure if everyone would be present,” she noted. “It wasn’t ideal to discuss such a significant topic without the full council.”
Direct impacts and information gaps
A resident who owns property directly opposite the proposed quarry site voiced significant frustration and concern about the lack of clear information. “I am directly affected, and I don’t clearly understand the project’s scope. I need a more transparent explanation of where we stand,” he stated.
The resident also brought a photograph showing the current state of deforestation at the proposed site, questioning whether the work was authorized. “I don’t know if this deforestation was done with a municipal permit or if it’s part of agricultural development,” he said.
Clarification on quarry project process
Tremblay provided further details on how zoning change requests can originate. “A request can be deposited by a citizen to the municipality, which then undergoes a lengthy process that includes the first and second project phases and a public consultation,” she explained. “The council examines the request to determine if there are grounds for modification, which involves collaboration with the MRC.”
Residents expressed concerns about the council’s previous discussions on the quarry project and the apparent delay in decision-making. “We had mentioned that the quarry project might not be discussed tonight due to the absence of key members,” Ashby reiterated.
Environmental and social concerns
Environmental and social impacts of the quarry were major points of concern for many residents. One property owner detailed his apprehensions about noise, environmental degradation, and the potential decrease in property values. “With the proposed quarry right in front of my property, I am worried about the noise, dust, and impact on my property’s value,” he shared.
Ashby acknowledged these concerns, emphasizing the council’s commitment to considering both regulatory compliance and social acceptability. “It’s crucial to have all the information and ensure that the project’s benefits outweigh any negative impacts on our community,” she said.
Council’s evaluation and future discussions
Several residents asked about the timeline for the council’s decision on the quarry project. “Given the complexity and the need for a thorough review, we’re aiming to discuss it further in our next working session,” Ashby explained. “We need to have all council members present and well-informed before making any decisions.”
The council reassured the public that their concerns were being taken seriously and that the project would not proceed without thorough evaluation. “If the council decides not to move forward with the project, it won’t advance to the MRC level,” Ashby noted.
Transparency and communication
Residents requested better communication and transparency from the council regarding the quarry project. “Will there be updates on the project’s progress?” one resident asked. A council member assured that updates would be provided and encouraged residents to attend future meetings for continuous engagement.
After over 20 minutes of discussion, Councillor Ziv Przytyk addressed the gathering passionately, emphasizing that a formal process needed to be followed, and, since the council had not seen a lot of the relevant information on the quarry proposal, they could not answer everyone’s questions yet.
He urged everyone to be patient and let the meeting continue, promising more information would be available in the months to come. One resident thanked him for his words and the council for letting the community air its concerns. There was a round of spontaneous applause. Nearly every resident then left the meeting, letting the council continue on to regular business. The meeting was adjourned at roughly 8 p.m.