The people of Whistler have had a chance to officially weigh in on the proposed bylaws that would see the Alpine Paving asphalt plant moved 150 metres from Cheakamus Crossing, and now Whistler’s mayor and councillors have until Sept. 21 to weigh the submissions and make their decisions.

About 100 people came to Millennium Place on Tuesday (Sept. 7) for the public hearing on the proposed bylaws. Despite an expectation the hearing would run for four hours and possibly be held over for a second night of submissions, no more people came forward to address council after about two hours and 15 minutes of verbal submissions.

The final tally of speakers and letters weighed heavily on the side of those against the rezoning, with 22 of 24 speakers on Tuesday expressing their opposition. A total of 65 letters against the rezoning were also received, with two petitions totalling more than 230 signatures. Four letters were received in support of the rezoning, and three written submissions included general comments, said Laurie-Anne Schimek, acting municipal corporate officer.

Though there were a few laughs and smatterings of applause, plus some personal comments of “disappointment” directed at Mayor Ken Melamed and other members of council, the hearing was mostly respectful and orderly. The most repeated arguments against the rezoning were that industrial and residential uses simply don’t go together, and that the asphalt plant is not legally permitted under the existing zoning. Others spoke about issues of health, air pollution and trust.

Angela Connor said the municipality’s “secret information,” referenced in a recent response to the third-party legal opinion obtained by the No Asphalt Plant group, leaves people with a “perception of lies and deceit.” People need more information to make informed decisions, she said.

Connor said if council can’t get rid of the plant, the residents of Cheakamus Crossing can.

“We will push and we will shove to make this asphalt plant go away,” she said.

A few speakers said they have lingering questions about wind directions in the area and how emissions from the asphalt plant could affect all of Whistler, not just Cheakamus Crossing.

“This is not just a Cheakamus issue, it’s a Whistler issue,” said longtime resident Jack Nosegaard.

As a pilot, Nosegaard said he’s been studying the weather patterns in Whistler for years and during the summer, wind blows from south to north more than 80 per cent of the time. Summer is a critical operation time for the asphalt plant and the pollution from the plant will land directly on Whistler Village, he said.

Inversions are also common in Whistler and cause the plant’s emissions to be trapped in the valley, Nosegaard added.

A few speakers called for the bylaws to at least be deferred until airflow studies can be completed.

“We need factual information, not possible scenarios,” said Marlene Gervais.

Resort planner and 40-year Whistler resident Paul Mathews was one of two people who spoke in favour of the rezoning on Tuesday. He called those against the rezoning “hysterical eco-freaks” — a handle that subsequent speakers picked up on.

“I may be an eco-freak, but it’s because we care for our community,” said Shelley Kannegiesser later in the hearing.

Mathews asked council to put economic considerations on equal footing with environmental ones and said he’s “certain” the municipality would lose a lawsuit if the case were to go to court.

Industrial uses were deliberately planned to be located in Function Junction in the 1970s and those uses should stay there, Mathews said.

A couple of local lawyers also weighed in on opposite sides of the debate. Retired lawyer Garry Watson reiterated Mathews’s comments that Function is “essential” to provide industry and services. Watson also quoted case law that indicates in certain circumstances municipalities don’t have the ability to enforce zoning.

The municipality’s “solution” to move the plant 150 metres, see it upgraded and introduce a bylaw with stricter emissions standards is the “best decision” — one that will improve the current situation and not expose the community to undue cost, Watson said.

Former municipal councillor and local lawyer Nancy Wilhelm-Morden submitted a letter outlining her “many objections” to the rezoning and also addressed council.

She referenced the recently released statement by Don Lidstone, the municipality’s lawyer, that the asphalt plant is not a permitted use in the current zoning. The problem is that members of council, the chief administrator and the mayor have said repeatedly that the plant is permitted in the zone, Wilhelm-Morden said.

“It seems to me there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts at the time when the agreement was entered into with Mr. Silveri (the owner of Alpine Paving) in May,” she said. “That alone is enough to revisit this whole issue and not go forward with the rezoning.”

Lidstone, who is based in Vancouver, was in attendance at Tuesday’s meeting and sat at the municipal staff table. After the meeting, Melamed said Lidstone was asked to attend to advise lawmakers on any possible procedural issues, such as a question by Councillor Ralph Forsyth at the Aug. 17 council meeting about community charter regulations allowing the bylaws to come forward for first and second reading.