Is there another route, as County Road 91 process continues?

 In Letters, Opinion

Wanting to understand why Clearview is proposing to close the road past the Walker quarry, I spoke to Walker Industries executive vice president Ken Lucyshyn. He assures me that Walker will not be mining the quality rock under that road.
Understandably residents are upset by quarry trucks, however closing the road to the public still leaves the Walker quarry trucks using the road.
Blue Mountain Watershed Trust tells me that though they have asked, they too haven’t been answered. The iTrans Traffic analysis carried out for Walker prior to the quarry hearing concluded that the existing roads could handle the new quarry traffic.
Clearview would like a permit to upgrade and reroute traffic to 26/27 Sideroad.
Why is County Road 91 to be closed requiring rerouting?
There is another pre-hearing conference to establish dates for the Environmental Hearing Board to hear Clearview’s appeal on Feb. 24. Who’s counting. I am told this is the 14th conference.
Is the public paying for these conferences without being told why the road might be closed?
This issue first came to my attention about 10 years ago. Much may have changed since then and the Clearview CAO who might have had answers retired in December.
My question is, should Clearview once again be denied the permit to upgrade 26/27 Sideroad, are they obligated to close County Road 91 through earlier negotiations or risk a lawsuit?
Might mediation between the parties bring us a less costly solution?
Clearview, what is the reason, and why is it you aren’t telling us?
Heather Baker,

Recent Posts

Leave a Comment