Blanks

Too many open questions hobble development plan

Aplan to build 905 homes—mostly townhomes—behind the No Frills store in Picton has stalled. Council, in the form of a planning committee, has one shot at reviewing, shaping, asking questions and getting answers about subdivision proposals—even one as big and potentially imposing as the one on the table last week. But there were just too many unanswered questions and too many open-ended concerns on this file. The planning committee turned it down.

Among the more glaring holes in the project— known as the Cold Creek Subdivision— is the welfare of the Waring’s Creek watershed. Several residents and advocates for this sensitive watercourse outlined the risks posed by as many as 1,400 homes (encapsulating two residential development proposals on Sandy Hook Road) rising from the open farm fields.

SENSITIVE HEADWATERS
Cheryl O’Brien heads the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association. She says basic studies aren’t done yet. A mandatory hydrogeological study examining the impact of the proposed development and stormwater management is still underway. No studies have investigated the cumulative impact of acres of homes, roads, and sidewalks. She and others insist that this work must be completed before Shire Hall gives the project the go-ahead. O’Brien urged the council committee to put the brakes on this development, or any development on these headwater lands, until these studies are done and the potential impacts are fully understood.

“The County has been negligent in its duties to provide studies, by-laws and environmental policies to adequately protect this vital area of the headwaters,” said O’Brien in her arguments to the planning committee. “Protections have been provided in text (Official Plan and Secondary Plan), but nothing has been delivered in practice.”

Quinte Conservation provided a letter of No Objection to the development proposal. Some council members took that to mean that Quinte Conservation supports this development proposal. It doesn’t. What it means is that Conservation Authorities’ mandate has been severely restricted under the Ford government’s desire to build more homes in Ontario. It means that the responsibility for the welfare of the sensitive lands and waters has been downloaded onto the municipality. It magnifies Council’s responsibility to ensure a comprehensive study of the risks is completed and that rock-solid mitigation measures are in place to protect the watershed.

There are other big blanks in the proposed subdivision plan.

NO UPFRONT FEES TO FUND WATERWORKS
Currently, there is no upfront development charge agreement in place for this project—as there is with the similar-sized development in Wellington and contemplated in the rest of the County. In Picton, developers pay connection charges rather than waterworks development charges as in Wellington. A developer building a single- family home connecting to the municipal system in Wellington will pay $21,448 to connect to municipal waterworks. In Picton, the same connection costs just $16,001—or about 34 per cent less.

Shire Hall is working toward uniform waterworks development charges for Picton/Bloomfield and Wellington to pay for the upwards of $300 million in waterworks expansion on the books. It is still months away from implementing these charges. It must do this before it can devise an upfront payment agreement.

Councillor David Harrison tested the developer’s willingness to enter into such an agreement.

“We have to put something into these subdivision agreements,” said Harrison. He worried the municipality was spending hundreds of millions on infrastructure in Picton, Bloomfield and Wellington without any means to ensure developers pay for this growth on a timely basis.

“That subdivision could sit there undeveloped for 30 years—but we’ve spent the money,” cautioned Harrison.

The developer argued that there was no need for such an upfront payment agreement because Picton currently has surplus waterworks capacity. (As does Wellington.) He would discuss waterworks development charges “when the time is appropriate, and the surplus capacity starts running out.”

Harrison countered that all new developments in Picton must be part of paying for the massive infrastructure spending currently underway, including the Cold Creek subdivision.

We have to change our way of doing business,” said Harrison. “We are approving a lot of developments here. Sooner or later, there is a catch-up—a big catch-up. I think the developers need to come together to provide some protection. Everyone of these we approve we are adding a burden in the long run. I am not against development, but we need to fiscally do it properly.”

There is still another big hole in the proposed subdivision: roads and sidewalks.

UNDETERMINED ACCESS
Currently, there is no clear way to get in and out of the proposed project from the Loyalist Parkway. The notion on the table calls for an extension of George Wright Boulevard, south between the No Frills store and the Mobil gas pumps, before the proposed artery turns westward and connects to Sandy Hook Road. The problem is that neither the developer nor the County owns the land needed to make this connection. The land owner, Choice Properties, a real estate investment trust (REIT) controlled by the Weston Group, is worried about its infrastructure under the land and has complained that neither the County nor the developer has seriously engaged with the REIT to discuss acquiring its land.

Councillor Phil Prinzen wanted to see the plans for sidewalks connecting the subdivision to town before he would consider giving the project his approval. Prinzen promised himself that he would not do so again after the municipality recently overlooked connecting sidewalks at another Picton development.

“We forgot a sidewalk at Pineridge, and it cost taxpayers $400,000,” said Prinzen. “That was pretty low of us. We need sidewalks to town. Until they are there, I am not supporting it.”

MORE BLANKS
There are other concerns. Some neighbours are only just now learning about the plans for the adjacent property. A nearby trailer park residence will incur costs to tie into the sewer system. There are open questions about affordability and timing.

As to timing, the developer explained that it is “a tricky market.” He said his firm has another development project in the queue that he hopes will get started in the spring. He indicated that the project would provide a good indication of the timing of the new proposal.

“We don’t know what saturation is,” said Dave Cleave cautiously.

As to affordability, the plan calls for about 200 units to come in at about the $375,000 price point. But he added price was a function of the market and costs.

Affordability, he explained, is derived from “more density and more saturation. It’s a function of supply and demand,” said Cleave. He added that increasing development charges—to include waterworks development charges—would push up the cost of the proposed homes.

A lot of questions. Council has one shot to get it right. Once it approves a subdivision plan, Council relies entirely on Shire Hall staff and the developer to work through the long list of conditions, questions and concerns.

Half of the council at the Planning meeting weren’t ready to move forward until some of the holes were filled in. These were councillors Roy Pennell, Brad Nieman, Phil Prinzen, David Harrison, Corey Engelsdorfer and Chris Braney. The other half were willing to green-light the project, trusting everything would turn out alright. They were councillors Bill Roberts, Phil St-Jean, Sam Grosso, John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton and Mayor Steve Ferguson.

The plan lost on the tie vote, but as has become a pattern of late, big decisions don’t always stay decided.