PUSLINCH — Some Puslinch residents are concerned the township's updated fill and site-alteration bylaw is too restrictive on farm practices.
Presenting a one-year update on the bylaw at a Puslinch council meeting on Wednesday, interim-CAO Courtenay Hoytfox said the bylaw is required because Puslinch is positioned geographically to have "quite an influx of illegal fill coming into the township" and municipalities with "robust" regulations and bylaws are going to be "better positioned" come 2027 when an "influx" is anticipated.
In 2024, the township had 20 site alteration files processed or that are currently in-process under the current bylaw. Three contacted the township before work commenced; the remaining 17 were the result of complaints or bylaw enforcement.
Hoytfox said the township has had approximately 300,000 cubic metres of fill brought in through permits in 2024, although staff believes there were likely more that occurred without a permit.
"That's approximately 30,000 trucks travelling two ways on our road system that we're aware of associated with fill importation activities," said Hoytfox. "So it's a significant amount of wear and tear on our infrastructure, in addition to what we see from the aggregate ... (and) commuter traffic."
Resident Jayme Mast disagreed; delegating at the meeting to highlight what she called some "alarming disconnects" and suggesting the township "take a page out of Hamilton's book" and consider their site alteration and fill bylaw which has "specific exemptions" for low-impact rural activities like maintaining laneways and access roads with no permit.
Asking for lower fees and better farming protections, Mast said Hamilton's bylaw also distinguishes between commercial fill operations and agriculture property improvements which she called a "critical distinction" because it allows farmers to perform routine maintenance "without being treated like a large-scale fill operator turning a profit" at a community's expense.
"In its current state, (Puslinch's) site alteration bylaw does little to accommodate what should be considered routine activity on our local farms. ... This kind of policy is alarming to see in the least, especially for a municipality that claims to have a laidback country feel and deep respect for its agricultural roots," said Mast, claiming residents won't accept "poor law enforced by incapable interpreters."
Mast's concerns were reflected in the 23 replies to the township's site-alteration bylaw survey, with many comments touching on normal farm practices, high permit fees, complex documentation, permit requirements for small projects and over-regulation.
"I am just looking to level out an area to store/park my farming equipment and it seems almost impossible for a small-time farmer to do so with all the new changes that have been implemented," said one anonymous commenter.
Another comment suggested the township implement a tiered permit system to "further ease the process for agricultural landowners while still protecting the environment."
"Site alteration should be handled on a case-by-case basis instead of the cut-and-paste method that Puslinch staff and council continually use as their approach. Do a better job Puslinch," said another commenter. "As a contractor in the excavation business and a land owner of many generations in the township, it is quite apparent who the 'bad apples' are. Monetary fines and ridiculous restrictions should never blanket everyone."
Not all comments were against the bylaw, with some commenting on the importance of Puslinch's agricultural and watershed areas.
"We need to ensure we respect natural heritage features within the community...We cannot have dumping of excess soils on farmlands/wetlands," said another commenter. "This is something that will support the few today, but impact the many now and into the future. These excess soils could be contaminated. ... It is a risk that does not benefit the township."
In response to resident concerns about high permit fees, staff said it's "critical" that the costs and liabilities associated with site alteration work be borne by the property owners undertaking the work and not taxpayers.
As for the normal farm practices waiver, staff said its purpose is to screen proposals and help determine whether a permit or waiver is required. It's intent is to protect the community, the property owner and the environment.
Following a comment from Coun. Jessica Goyda, staff will review how small-scale projects are permitted and whether amendments should be made at the new annual review.
Isabel Buckmaster is the Local Journalism Initiative reporter for GuelphToday. LJI is a federally-funded program.
