Council rejects hydrovac slurry processing plant
Casandra Turnbull
Managing Editor
County of Brant council overwhelmingly rejected a controversial proposal to permit a hydrovac slurry processing facility on Curtis Avenue North last Tuesday night, siding with residents and neighbouring businesses after nearly two hours of detailed presentations questioning the project's compatibility with the surrounding area.
Despite a recommendation from planning staff to approve the rezoning, council voted to deny the application by a decisive margin, with only councillors Lukas Oakley and John MacAlpine supporting the proposal. Councillor Brian Coleman abstained because he had not been present for the discussion.
The application, submitted by Zelinka Priamo Ltd. on behalf of DCH Group Inc., sought to amend the zoning at 40 Curtis Ave. N. from Heavy Industrial (M3) to a site-specific Heavy Industrial (M3-35) zone permitting a hydrovac slurry processing facility, which is a use not currently permitted under the County's zoning bylaw. County planning staff concluded the proposal conformed with the Official Plan, was compatible with the surrounding employment lands and was consistent with provincial planning policy, recommending council approve the amendment.
Instead, council chambers were packed with residents, business owners and community organizations who challenged many of the assumptions contained within the staff report, raising concerns about noise, contaminated materials, groundwater protection, truck traffic, environmental risks and the proximity of the proposed operation to sensitive community uses.
Among the most detailed presentations came from Ted and Robin Horsfall, owners of Horsfall Auto at 50 Curtis Ave. N., who commissioned their own review of the applicant's noise analysis after leaving an earlier planning meeting dissatisfied with the responses they received.
"We definitely oppose this application based on noise," said Robin Horsfall. "We were at a planning meeting earlier and didn't really come out of all that happy. We were asking for mitigation on noise on our behalf. When I left the meeting there was no mitigation going to be done."
Ted Horsfall argued the applicant's noise study overlooked nearby sensitive land uses, including Jason's Wheelhouse, located roughly 30 metres from the proposed facility.
"Interestingly the hydrovac slurry plant's noise impact study deemed Curtis Ave South 300 metres away from 40 Curtis Ave. N. was the most sensitive land use in direct contradiction to the neighbour Jason's Wheelhouse located within 30 metres from the hydro vac slurry plant's fence line," he said.
He also questioned why nearby recreational trails and the Health Hub were omitted from the analysis. His presentation drew applause from the packed council chambers.
Janice Knill, founder and executive director of Jason's Wheelhouse, told council the proposed facility would sit just 32 metres from the organization's property, where 89 children and adults of all abilities receive programming.
"Forty of 89 individuals we support have epilepsy or another form of seizure disorder," she said.
"The safety concerns and distance in our facility is not something we want to deal with. Jason's Wheelhouse is 32 metres from the proposed site."
"This affects our business, our staff, our families and specifically the children and adults that are sensitive to pressure, headaches, noise, with medical issues and heart conditions."
Resident Christine Turple challenged the fundamental planning rationale behind the application, arguing council was being asked to rewrite the zoning bylaw to accommodate a use that clearly fell outside the intent of the existing industrial designation.
"It's not an auto body shop. It's not a dry cleaning facility, it's not an impound yard. It's not a food processing plant. This is waste processing," she said.
"And now we are looking to massage the M3 zoning to fit this. We are massaging the M3 zoning to allow a private company to create a waste processing facility close to residents and established businesses. Why spend all that time developing long-term strategic plans for our county, establishing clear zoning areas just to amend them as we see fit down the line?"
Dozens of written submissions echoed those concerns, questioning groundwater protection, truck traffic, environmental impacts and whether the use belonged in an M4 waste-management zone rather than being added through a site-specific M3 exception. A community petition opposing the application was also submitted to the County.
Several councillors said the public presentations significantly shaped their decision.
Coun. John Peirce praised residents for the work they put into researching the application.
"Kudos for people who came up and spoke here and doing their homework before coming," he said before questioning the handling of wastewater, contaminated materials and the public notification process. He also criticized the fact that no residential properties fell within the County's 125-metre notification radius despite many homes lying within a broader area affected by the proposal.
"That's something we got to work on," Peirce said.
Coun. Steve Howes said many of the questions he intended to ask had already been addressed by residents.
"I came into this meeting with a lot of questions and I have to admit that the residents asked many of them," he said.
"I found the arguments posed by the residents very, very compelling."
After learning there could be situations where contaminated material might arrive on site before testing identified it, Howes said he could no longer support staff's recommendation.
"This is a scenario where I cannot support a staff recommendation," he said.
Coun. John Bell questioned why staff had not directed the applicant toward a more suitable location from the outset.
"Why was this application not denied on the spot? Or to be more productive why didn’t our economic development team seek to help the developer find a more appropriate site?" he asked.
Bell later said he believed there were better locations in the County for the operation and warned against creating a precedent through repeated site-specific zoning exceptions.
"I would hate for us to get to the point where people lose their trust in the zoning system," Bell said.
Coun. Robert Chambers also questioned whether the proposal represented the highest and best use of one of the County's limited fully serviced heavy industrial properties.
"We should refuse this application because there are probably more appropriate uses for this lot," Chambers said.
Mayor David Bailey told the applicant he hoped the decision would not discourage future investment in the County.
"Our staff will find you something more suitable," Bailey said.
"But I don't think you should come and disrupt people. I don't think that is cool at all."
Planning staff had maintained throughout the process that the proposal represented a compatible industrial use within the County's General Employment designation, would generate approximately 20 truck trips per day, create minimal dust, and would not process contaminated materials under normal operations.
Staff further concluded the application was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and the County's Official Plan.
Council ultimately disagreed, rejecting the zoning amendment and bringing months of public opposition to a close.
Comments