Muskoka Rock Company Ltd. got its controversial zoning amendment at Monday’s Huntsville Council meeting.
The amendment will permit a rock cutting and processing facility, contractor’s yard, a heavy equipment servicing area, office, showroom and retail space but not without establishing a 10-metre vegetative buffer along the western side of the property located at 749 Muskoka Road 3 North. Other stipulations include a traffic impact brief as well as a site plan that details noise mitigation measures as outlined by a noise impact study conducted by Cambium Inc.
Area residents have expressed concern about the impact the operation would have on their daily lives, citing concerns such as noise and added traffic.
Councillor Jonathan Wiebe spoke of how much work had been done by all parties with a stake in the issue.
I just wanted to circle back with our staff one last time and be reassured that that vegetative buffer will be of a type that is conducive to attenuate noise as in spruce trees, coniferous trees – things that are dense and do in fact mitigate noiseCouncillor Jonathan Wiebe, looking for assurances from staff
Manager of Planning Services Kirstin Maxwell said the buffer was included through discussions with the applicant and the neighbours who requested that it be added to the zoning bylaw amendment. She said further discussions regarding the type of vegetation to be used will be discussed at the site plan approval stage.
Councillor Nancy Alcock also recognized the work that had been done by all parties to come to some form of “happy medium” on the issue. She also spoke of the sound of back-up beepers and the fact that the applicant is willing to investigate alternatives. She asked company president Seth Rudin, who was sitting in the audience, what type of alternatives could be used. Huntsville Mayor Scott Aitchison noted that the meeting was not a public one and asked staff to respond. Maxwell said there are other options such as the use of lights and said that would also be further discussed.
Councillor Brian Thompson also expressed concern with the noise associated with the operation.
I would echo Councillor Wiebe’s concerns with regards to noise, if we’re going to settle on a vegetative buffer then it has to be a proper vegetative buffer and deciduous trees will not cut it because for seven months of the year they would be totally ineffective…Huntsville Councillor Brian Thompson
Thompson said he lives about 1.5 kilometres from an extraction pit and said he can feel the vibrations associated with the operation and hear the noise when the wind is blowing a certain way. “So to be 200 metres from this kind of an operation, and the kind of noise that I have heard in the past, and the kind of noise that these saws will make when they’re cutting through granite, is startling.”
Councillor Jason FitzGerald said he has every confidence that staff will address all of those concerns in the site plan agreement. He also told Council that a ‘quacker’ sound is available in place of a back-up beeper, which he said could be “less audibly annoying than beepers.”
Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano said she too appreciates all the work that has gone into the application. She also said the municipality’s noise bylaw is inadequate and she would push hard to change that. In terms of the zoning amendment for Muskoka Rock, Terziano said she didn’t support it a month ago and would not support it that evening. “I just don’t think it’s a compatible use for the area,” she added.
Alcock said although she would support the application, Muskoka Road 3 North is going to be a high priority for council to look at sidewalk development, speed limits and the ability to add some form of active transportation along that road. “That was really important to residents in this file, it was important to other residents,” she said. “I want to put that on the table because from my perspective that was one of the ways that I think I budged on this because fundamentally I hope this is the last time that we have an application of this kind in that area… we have so many new homes going there and I just don’t think it’s all that compatible. Having said that, I think we’ve addressed all the concerns that were raised by the residents.”
Aitchison told Council that further information would be forthcoming on sidewalks, or something like that, for Highview Drive as well as Muskoka Road 3 North.
Councillor Bob Stone was not present for discussions surrounding the Muskoka Rock operation, citing a conflict, and Councillor Dan Armour was away. In the end, Council approved the zoning amendment enabling the company to proceed to the site plan stage by a margin of one vote with Councillors Thompson, Det Schumacher and Terziano voting against the application and Mayor Aitchison and Councillors FitzGerald, Wiebe and Alcock voting in favour.
See related stories below:
Industrial and residential uses come to a head on Muskoka Road 3 North, committee wants all of council involved in decision
Mayor tells staff to hasten planning process for proposed rock operation on Muskoka Rd 3 North
Residents along Muskoka Road 3 North up in arms over proposed rock cutting facility
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.
Guess it just takes a million dollar donation to the hospital and you can operate Carte Blanche in Huntsville. I feel for the residents in that area.
Thanks for your comment, Rob. I didn’t know that about back-up lights not being permitted as an alternative to audible signals. I have seen flashing back-up lights and it seems that they certainly capture one’s attention. But backup-beepers aren’t any more of a nuisance than anything else in the operation. Perhaps the “quackers” are a less obnoxious alternative?
I’m surprised that they didn’t require the quarry owner to put in a noise abatement fence (which would double as a safety fence too, considering the number of children who are likely living in the area). The noise abatement fence would be fairly effective in suppressing the noise–as long as it is high enough. They are permanent and good-looking as well–much better looking than a wire fence (which I’m assuming would be a minimum requirement anyway?) The quarry owners should also be required to remove the fence and, considering our region’s sandy soil, line the quarry with clay and put in a sand beach, when the quarrying operation is played out. The homeowners in the area would then have the benefit of having a clean lake nearby, when the quarrying operation is over. Quarrying operations are, typically, extremely profitable. Returning the land to it’s original state or even better than the original state should be a Province-wide requirement. The noise from slicing the granite can and should be largely contained within the building where the saws are located.
We lived near a very busy highway once (with LOTS of truck traffic–day and night) and the noise abatement fence was pretty effective in blocking the noise. A vegetative barrier there, in addition to the fence, did an even better job of noise reduction–you could actually have a conversation, without needing to shout, in the yards backing onto the highway. A lot of people whose back yard bordered on the fence planted their own vegetative screen on their side of the noise abatement fence. Their back yards were long (it was a rural housing development). The homeowners had plenty of room to plant a fairly thick screen of evergreens. At least the quarry will only be operating during the day. Highway noise is 24-7.
Kudos on your analysis, Ms. Jones! As noise is rectilinearly propagated, and as a 10 – metre buffer is a joke, a noise-abatement fence should be mandatory. It would certainly blend with the overall residential nature of the area. Also, the Town should not be satisfied with contributions to “scratch and patch” band-aids for Road 3 North (and possibly Earl’s Road): When the road(s) fail badly enough, a complete reconstruction will be required with different design criteria (to reflect the increased truck traffic). Back-up lights are not allowed; as more than half of these accidents occur with workers facing away from the trucks.
I agree with Susan Vtech’s comment.
I also recommend voting in some new councillors next municipal election.
Did we really expect any other decision?
Big business, big money. Home owners??
Without Prejudice.
Rock quarries are noisy operations–just ask anyone who lives near one–it is mainly the rock crusher that is the noisiest. They are expensive and the quarry owners usually want to run them for as long a day as they can but it abuses the people who are living nearby. There are other measures which can be taken in addition to a vegetative barrier. There are noise abatement fences–which is a very good idea in a residential area. You would never want some adventurous ten-year-old inside the area. Another important regulation is a strict adherence to a permitted time of operation (suggested is 7 a.m. to a max of 7 p.m.) With these measures in place, it shouldn’t be too bad except for the increased traffic (with very heavy trucks) on what is already a pretty congested roadway here in town. The dump trucks should be required to head north on Muskoka Rd. 3 (with an appropriate traffic light at the entrance/exit) to the road that goes past the golf course and back into Route 60 at the light east of Highway 11. Town maintenance staff should monitor the condition of that road and the quarry owner should be required to contribute to its upkeep.
Also, what drives a lot of people crazy are the constant, very loud “beep-beeps” of backup monitors on heavy equipment. They just add to the noise load. They could use flashing lights instead. It is obviously not ideal to put this kind of an operation in a residential area but, with the proper measures in place, it should keep the nuisance down to a minimum.