Mayor lays out “facts” on 26/27 SR

Clearview Township Mayor Doug Measures has released a statement on the proposed improvements to the 26/27 Sideroad, hoping to set the record straight as the township heads into a hearing in the fall.
“I am releasing this statement today to ensure that the public has all the facts and understands what is at stake at the upcoming hearing before the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (NEHO), not just for the residents of Clearview, but for residents in the Town of The Blue Mountains, the Municipality of Grey Highlands, and other individuals and businesses that travel between Grey and Simcoe Counties,” writes Measures.
The letter was published on Tuesday, after receiving an endorsement from council to release the statement by way of a 5-2 recorded vote taken at the March 22 meeting.
“The whole objective of this was to set some facts out there so that the members of the public who, of course, we represent, that they have the facts coming from this administration,” said Measures during the meeting, saying the letter was vetted by township lawyers, staff and professionals.
He said that former CAO Steve Sage was the lead on the file that goes back more than a decade and many terms of council and now that he has retired, the township is without his background knowledge of the project.
“The facts that occurred through himself as well as our representatives from RJ Burnside, Mr. McNulty has also been very much involved in this project. I consulted with him on several occasions about the content of the facts that are in this letter,” said Measures.
The proposed upgrades to the 26/27 Sideroad stem from a 2006 application to expand the Walker Aggregates quarry in Duntroon.
Improvements to the sideroad were required as a result of a joint board hearing in order to facilitate the closure of the quarry portion of County Road 91 for sale to Walker Aggregates, after the road was downloaded from the county to the township and the road underwent improvements of its own.
All of the council discussions on the topic have taken place in closed session.
The Walker applications were approved in a final Joint Board Order, issued on July 17, 2014, confirming that these changes to the road network were required to address traffic and public safety issues, and that changing the road network was the preferred alternative when compared to upgrading County Road 91 to county standards as submitted in the 2009 Simcoe County engineering report, states the mayor.
“It is extremely important for the public to understand that, at the time the Joint Board was hearing the appeal and when it rendered its decision, the township had the authority to make the 26/27 road improvements within an existing road allowance without having to obtain a development permit from the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC). In other words, the township had complete control of the process and the work to be carried out within a road allowance that was under its jurisdiction, subject to acquiring typical engineering and environmental approvals and authorizations from other agencies,” writes Measures in the statement…“After the decision of the Joint Board, and without notice to the Township of Clearview or any other municipality within the NECP, on January 1, 2013, the province was persuaded to amend Ontario Regulation 828/90 so that a development permit from the NEC was required for the proposed work. An NEC development permit had never been required of Municipal Road Authorities to do works on publicly held road allowances prior to this.” 
With the conditional roadway bogged down in process, Walker Aggregates received permission to tunnel under County Road 91 in 2015 to proceed with the quarry expansion, which is well underway.
In 2015, NEC staff recommended conditional approval of the development permit application for proposed improvements to 26/27 Sideroad but the commission refused it on the grounds that the application did not provide adequate evidence that all options had been taken into consideration; a tunnel was not in place, or taken into consideration; development would offend the objectives of the NEP’s two most sensitive land use designations: escarpment Natural Area and Escarpment Protection Area; and that development would cause environmental harm, in particular to cold water streams and would damage steep escarpment slopes.
In 2020, the NEC decided to refer the 26/27 Sideroad application to a hearing, taking no position. This step is set out in the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act where there are objections to a proposed amendment, the commission is required to refer the matter to a hearing.
In conclusion, Measures says, “The NEHO, now scheduled for November of this year, will only make a recommendation to the NEC, which will, in turn, make a recommendation to the Minister of the Environment Conservation and Parks as to whether the development permit and the plan amendment should be approved. If the final decision is that Clearview’s applications fail, the township will be faced with a decision to close 26/27 Sideroad or leave the road in an unsatisfactory condition. Together with the closure of former County Road 91, as part of the Joint Board decision, there will be no acceptable east-west route available between Singhampton (County Road 124) and the Clearview/Blue Mountain boundary to Grey Road 19. 
“While the township is committed to do what it must to ensure its roads are safe and environmentally sustainable, at the same time, this simple road improvement exercise has obviously become a lightning rod for lingering resentment over the Joint Board’s approval of the Walker quarry expansion in June 2012 and a platform for some of our neighbouring municipalities to advance their concerns about much bigger regional transportation problems.
“The truth is, however, that even if they are successful and the township is prevented from fixing the 26/27 Sideroad, this will not reverse the approval of the Walker quarry expansion and will handicap, not advance, the prospects of a solution to our very real regional transportation issues.   
“I trust that this statement will help the public to understand our reasons for implementing and continuing the process of the improvements to Clearview Sideroad 26/27 and, perhaps, invite a dialogue with the NEC, our municipal neighbours, and any interested persons.”
Township lawyers recommended getting council approval before releasing the statement, prompting Monday’s vote.
Councillors Thom Paterson and Doug McKechnie were the two dissenting votes at Monday’s meeting, due to differing views and interpretations of the staement’s contents.
Paterson said he is bringing forward a notice of motion asking council to reconsider its position with regards to the work on 26/27 and the closing of 91, which will include the potential withdrawal of site specific policy amendment to the NEP and rescinding the ERT development permit application appeal.
“I think it’s timely,” said Paterson. “Much has changed since we had this idea put before us and I think it deserves the time I hope council gives it to see if this is the right position for this time, for this council, and for our regional partners financially, transportation wise and environmentally.”
The mayor’s statement also says, Clearview Township has spent more than $750,000 attempting to secure the necessary approvals from the NEC, and now faces expenditures of another estimated $250,000, just to continue its participation in the NEHO appeal.  
Ontario Land Tribunals is preparing for a lengthy process to hear and have scheduled a hearing for Nov. 8 to Dec. 17, with an additional pre-hearing conference on April 28.
To read the full text of the statement, visit clearview.ca.