Denied, again

Council turns down amendments and approval of Cold Creek subdivision

Aproposed 905-unit subdivision by Port Picton Homes on land fronting Sandy Hook Road and Upper Lake Street got a second kick at the can, but was yet again denied at last week’s council meeting. The file had lost on a tie 6-6 vote at a Planning meeting earlier in the month.

A set of amendments put forward by Councillor John Hirsch, which would allow the project to move forward, were presented and lost on a 7-7 tie vote. The original motion from the planning meeting to deny the application was presented again, and lost in an 8-6 vote. Dr. Cliff Rice is the president of the Warings Creek Improvement Association, which has 30 years of expertise on the watershed. He called the file a planning fiasco that could have been avoided.

“We are the experts in this watershed, and neither you, or planning, or those planners and six councils before this one have ever consulted us in any meaningful way,” said Rice.

He noted that his group is of the opinion that County staff have misrepresented a number of the provisions in the Official Plan and in the Secondary Plan, and have therefore disseminated incomplete or incorrect information to Council in this process.

“We believe the protections that should have been provided to this watershed have been diluted or ignored, and need to be implemented before this proposal is reconsidered. Planning has whittled away at the protections that this watershed should have been afforded,” said Rice, adding that there should be definitive hydrogeological and cumulative impact studies completed before any consideration of development on the lands.

Amy Bodman spoke on behalf of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, and said Council is not in a position to approve the application as it stands, as it does not conform with the County’s Official Plan.

“We also agree with Quinte Conservation’s recommendation that the wetland and its buffer be zoned Environmental Protection and not Special Open Space,” said Bodman. “The wetland it contains and its buffer need to be protected from the thousands of people, and their pets, who will potentially live in the development, and as well from any lighting and other factors that would impact its biodiversity and ecological functioning.”

Developer David Cleave said that if there was an opportunity to find solutions for conditions to be met and satisfied that he was there to participate.

“I’m here this evening to find common ground and allow this first phase of Cold Creek to move forward at the same time we work through further detailed design,” said Cleave. “The need for affordable housing cannot wait any longer in our community.”

Cleave then listed off a number of concessions he was willing to make to see the file get approval. Those included looking into documentation to determine if a 50-metre setback was needed around the wetland, completing a hydrogeological study, increasing the protection of the wetland and its buffer area by changing the zoning from Open Space to Environmental Protection, and reconstructing Hineman Street at a cost of $2.2 million.

Cleave went one step further, committing to 37 homes to be offered immediately in the $375,000 to $450,000 range. These include five tiny homes and 16 stacked townhomes at $375,000 and 16 back-to-back townhomes at $450,000.

“Cold Creek is about home ownership. Letting kids, young families and newcomers have access to affordable housing. You can clearly see in our amendments we have heard you. We have committed to more than is required, and have stepped past the middle ground,” said Cleave.

Councillor John Hirsch pulled the file and put forward an amending motion with conditions to ultimately see the subdivision approved.

This didn’t sit well with some council members.

Councillor Chris Braney worried Council was “spinning its wheels” on reconsiderations.

“Every time a vote is lost something gets reopened,” said Braney. “I spent 4.5 hours at the meeting with many of my colleagues. I heard from members of the public. I heard from planning staff. I am a good news bad news person, but I like it now, and I thought we rendered a decision on Wednesday,” he added.

“This motion doesn’t address all of the questions raised at the Wednesday meeting, or those raised here tonight,” said Councillor Brad Nieman. “I don’t want to disrespect anybody, but when somebody says don’t worry about it, we will get that later on down the road, I am a little leery. This is our opportunity to make those things happen.”

Councillor Janice Maynard wanted to know if there was any way to incorporate many of the concessions the developer had made in his remarks.

“You can’t put a requirement for a community benefit or anything related to the market into a motion,” said CAO Wallace.

Wallace then spoke to the file, saying the County’s planning staff had given their professional planning opinion and they will have to stand by that if it is appealed.

“I have asked them to review their position. They believe they are in conformity with the Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement,” said Wallace. “It would not be my advice to go against planning advice because you put us at risk of an appeal. I also fully understand that there are people in the audience and members of the community who don’t agree with our staff. Ultimately, it is not my recommendation to go against the planning advice.”

Councillor Phil Prinzen, who has made it clear he wouldn’t support the file, said he was having a hard time with the motion.

“There was a lot Mr. Cleave said in his three-plus minutes. I would never be able to support something like this when it is getting so muddy. I see no reason why we can’t send it all back.”

Prinzen also worried about leaving the file to staff.

“I know you say that’s delegated authority and that’s for staff to worry about. But we represent the people, so as far as I am concerned, it’s for us to worry about. Mr. Cleave stood up here tonight, seeing that it lost on a tie vote last Wednesday and made a whole bunch of promises again tonight. There is no reason this can’t go back, get cleaned up so every one of us knows exactly what we voted on,” said Prinzen.

Councillor Phil St-Jean felt differently.

“When somebody stands up at the podium and they make very bold statements on what they are going to do, I am going to hold their feet to the fire. Mr. Cleave stated publicly all the things he is going to do. Until he does otherwise, I think we should believe he is going to do it. His company is not going to go away,” he said, adding that it would be foolish for Cleave to make promises and then not honour his word.

He also worried about the repercussions of an appeal.

“If we deny this, we are kind of screwed. Our staff cannot be part of it. We will have to hire staff to defend a case our staff said was supportable. I think those that supported Picton Terminals might be a little duplicitous if they support this.”

Mayor Steve Ferguson noted there would be an expense if the file was appealed.

“There is a possibility that any of the gains that have been made will be lost on the basis of that appeal,” said Ferguson. “We, as Council, are trying to address a significant need in our community, which is affordable housing. Mr Cleave has made commitment to housing that falls into the affordable category. There is the possibility that some of those units will be occupied in 12 months. That is welcome news to those people that may be on the verge of moving out of the County because they can’t find anything.”

The vote to ultimately approve the file lost 6 to 8.

Voting to accept staff’s recommendation to approve the rezoning and draft plan of subdivision were councillors Roberts, Grosso, St-Jean Hirsch, MacNaughton, and Mayor Ferguson.

Voting against approval were councillors Prinzen, Pennell, Nieman, Harrison, Branderhorst, Engelsdorfer, Braney, and Maynard.