County of Brant Council discussed moving ahead with a detailed design to realign Salt Springs Church Road around erosion hazards during the regular council meeting on Tuesday, July 22, 2025.
A slope failure on the road was first discovered back in April of 2021, and the section between Salt Springs Church and 82 Salt Springs Church Road has been closed to traffic ever since.
Given that the slope failure continues to advance further into the paved road platform, staff have continued to monitor the slope failure and its potential impacts to nearby properties, including 82 and 86 Salt Springs Church Road.
According to a staff report from July 15, Matrix Solutions Inc. was later retained in the fall of 2023 to complete an erosion hazard and alternatives assessment for Salt Springs Church Road, and an initial hazard assessment identified how far the erosion could stretch if not taken care of.
Several potential solutions were eventually developed, and a public meeting was held in January of 2025 to present the following ideas to the residents in order to get their feedback:
Alternative 1 – “Do nothing” to prevent further deterioration and erosion of the slope, and leave the road as is. This option would still ultimately cost the County approximately $1.9 million because of damage to both private and municipal property.
Alternative 2 – Close a portion of Salt Springs Church Road and construct a new municipal access road to provide access for affected properties. The option would cost the County approximately $900,000.
Alternative 2B – Comparable to Alternative 2, but with a shorter section of re-aligned road to provide access to the affected properties. The option would cost the County approximately $200,000.
Alternative 3 – Realign Salt Springs Church Road around the erosion hazard between Salt Springs Church and 124 Salt Springs Church Rd. The option would allow through traffic and cost the County approximately $2.6 million.
Alternative 4 – Retain and protect Salt Springs Church Road in its current alignment, implementing slope stabilization and erosion protection measures along the slope and riverbank. The option would cost the County approximately $5.7 million.
While Councillor John Bell expressed his concerns surrounding the cost of the options during the July 15 administration and operations committee meeting, Ward 5 Councillors Christine Garneau and Brian Coleman, said that something had to be done for the residents in the area.
“While there are only a small number of properties [being affected], being told that you’re not a priority to your municipality is really tough to hear for the residents in that space,” said Garneau. “I’m making the case today that the balanced option would be to reinvest in the road to see that it is opened. …I have heard from folks who are concerned about emergency response times, who are concerned about their ability to get home from work. …These folks don’t ask for much; all they’re asking for is the road to continue to service them as it once had.”
Coleman then said that while he was disappointed it’s taken so long to get to this point, he would be advocating for option three.
“There’s 30 some-odd residents that are affected by this road, and at least ten other property owners that own agricultural land down there,” he said. “So I would like us to see us doing option three.”
Councillors David Miller, Robert Chambers and John MacAlpine, also expressed that they would be open to supporting option three as it would ultimately stretch the road’s lifecycle for another 75 years.
Garneau also added that by spending the money now, it would also help mitigate extra wear and tear on the surrounding rural roads, especially given that there is a significant amount of agricultural equipment traveling the roads.
Council later voted in favour of having staff proceed with the detailed design of alternative option three, and the discussion was later picked up again at the most recent Tuesday, July 22, Council meeting.
Robert Hamilton, a local resident of the area, had the opportunity to speak as a delegation and express his support for the option to realign Salt Springs Church Road away from the erosion.
“Here are a couple reasons why we, the local community, are looking for support for option three to keep Salt Springs Road open,” he said. “One, this provides the County departments better efficiencies in maintaining the roads, snow plowing, emergency services, garbage collection and for post office mail delivery. Number two, it will take pressure off of No. 6 School Road, and it would provide an alternate route for traffic flow; this includes large farm equipment and local residents traveling the western portion of the previous Onondaga township. …We urge Brant County Council to approve option three to realign Salt Springs Road and keep it open.”
While several discussions followed, it was pointed out by staff that the detailed design could cost anywhere between $400,000 to $500,000, and that it would take about two years to finalize the design and purchase the property needed to build the new road.
Garneau once again reminded her fellow councillors that while there may not be that many people who are affected by the decision, they’ve still stepped up and paid taxes to improve other parts of the County.
“These are some of our most price-sensitive residents from a property tax standpoint, and they’re asking us to spend,” she said. “They’re the ones who have stepped up for the investments in the other communities, because we’ve told them they have to, and tonight they’re just asking for their fair shake to continue the conversation about maintaining a service level.”
The decision to move ahead with the detailed design for option three was then carried by a vote of 8-2, noting that Councillor David Miller was not present for the vote.
Kimberly De Jong’s reporting is funded by the Canadian government through its Local Journalism Initiative.The funding allows her to report rural and agricultural stories from Blandford-Blenheim and Brant County. Reach her at kimberly.dejong@brantbeacon.ca.
