Concerned Citizens file legal action against Stone Mills to halt proposed Erinsville hog farm

A map showing the location of a proposed hog farm in Erinsville.

Adam Prudhomme
Editor

A group of Erinsville residents opposed to a proposed hog farm operation in the heart of the hamlet has filed a legal challenge against the Township of Stone Mills.

Concerned Citizens for our Community Environments (CCCE) filed the legal challenge after their request to remove the Site Plan Control Application was voted down at a Sept. 8 Stone Mills council meeting. The township originally approved the hog farm application, which was granted to Mark Slack of Slack Family Farms Inc., on May 19. The CCCE has raised concerns about the location of the Waddell Road farm dating back to 2001, when Slack first made an unsuccessful attempt to establish a hog farm at that site. The neighbouring citizens maintain the location is not suitable for the operation, citing potential damage to Beaver Lake and nearby private residential wells.

The CCCE argues the township granted the approval for the livestock operation, which will hold upwards of 600 adult hogs and 600 young hogs, based on “incomplete and incorrect information.”

Citing approval from OMAFRA and three hydrogeologists, the township officially issued a building permit to Slack on June 19.

“This kind of industrial development should not be approved in this highly sensitive location. Our water supplies and lakes must be protected. The risk to the community’s health and safety is simply too great.” said CCCE director, Susan Moore in a written statement.

The CCCE says it has presented new information from an expert in nutrient management that shows council had incorrect and incomplete information when it granted the building permit and presented the legal opinion of Eric Gillespie that council was not obligated to approve the project.

At the June 19 meeting Stone Mills manager of planning Jason Sands told council they’d be liable for legal action from Slack if they didn’t issue the building permit after already approving the site plan application.

“I’m struggling to understand who would defend council’s decision at an LPAT (Local Planning Appeals Tribunal) hearing to an application that would be refused,” Sands told council on June 19.

The CCCE maintains it will continue to challenge the development and has started a Go Fund Me page to raise money for its legal fees. As of Sept. 17 they had raised $35,222 of their $50,000 goal.

error: Content is protected !!