Residents, businesses celebrate IRAC's quashing of Charlottetown asphalt plant decision

Some area residents and businesses are celebrating after theIsland Regulatory and Appeals Commission (IRAC) quashed adecision by the City of Charlottetown to allow an asphalt plant on Sherwood Road.

In thespring of 2019, city council made a change to allow for asphalt plantswithin two different areas of the city, including a portion of Sherwood Road. Last summer, CBC learnedChapman Brothers Construction had plans to puta portableasphalt plant on Sherwood Road, which would be the second asphalt plant in the area.

Residents called on the city to reverse the change, butcity council decided not to overturn the decision.A group of residents and businesses then took their appeal to IRAC.

On Wednesday, IRACreleased its decision, quashing the change made by the city. It said the city did not give enough notice about a public meeting held in March of 2019.

"We're very pleased with the decision that IRAC has made," said Jamie Brown, owner of Brown'sVolkswagen, one of the leaders among theappellants.

Brown saidgoing forward, the area should be populated by retail, residential and light commercial vendors, similar to what is there now.

"We have an opportunity here in Charlottetown to have no asphalt and concrete plants down the road, but some city councillors think that we should have more asphalt and concrete plants in our city," Brown said.

"The dynamics ...really changed on the SherwoodRoad in the last few years."

'We do not want this'

Cathy Feener,one of the Charlottetown residents fighting the plant, agrees with Brown. She saidshe worries for the environment and the residents and that plants have no place in the city limits.

"It boggles my mind that people would even consider putting those in the same sentence," she said. "We know that it's very possible that we're going to have to fight this again. This will be the third time.

"We are prepared to fight it ... we do not want this."

When appearing before IRAC, representatives of the appellants had argued that the lengthy newspaper ad announcing the public meeting on the bylaw amendments, which included four words regarding asphalt plants and several other unrelated topics,did not constitute proper notice.

Charlottetown Mayor Phillip Brown said he understands IRAC's decision. He saidhe knows residents are not in favour of the project and the city will work to be "open, transparent and accountable"even if ithasn't been in the past.

"This area north of the city has always been an industrial area, but I think we have to look at the residential properties that exist in and around the area and be very cognizant that we respect what they're asking," he said on Thursday.

"The decision that came from IRAC is quite clear."

In this particular case, did the City give proper notice of the public meeting to residents as required by law?The Commission finds that the City did not. IRAC

The mayor saidthe file will go back to the planning department and then likely the planning committee and a discussion between himself and council.

"When we put it out for public advertisement, it was not clear enough," he said. "That is the basis of the decision."

CBC News also reached out to Chapman Brothers Construction, whichsaid it isdisappointed in the IRAC decision.

It saidtheportable asphalt plant has been used within city limits several times in recent years, without complaint from residents, most recently at the airportto rebuild runways.

"To have the decision reversed because of a simple procedural oversight in its advertising, we are left wondering what the next steps are," said Jeffrey Chapman in a text message.

"When reading the decision, it had nothing to do with environmental concerns or whether or not an asphalt plant is or isn't appropriate for a heavy industrial zone."

In its written decision, IRAC noted it was not asked to consider whether asphalt plants should be allowed in the city, or where they might go.

"The issue that the Commission must decide is very narrow. In this particular case, did the City give proper notice of the public meeting to residents as required by law?" the decision reads.

"The Commission finds that the City did not."

More from CBC P.E.I.