Flying blind

WCIA claims it is still left out of Cold Creek discussions

Not only do we have a situation where the applicant is not following Council’s direction, but we also have a situation where staff appear to be okay with that,” stated the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association’s (WCIA) lawyer Colin Léger at last Tuesday’s council meeting.

Earlier this year Council approved a pair of developers’ plans to blanket the sensitive watershed with 1,400 homes, streets, sidewalks and shops. The WCIA repeatedly explained the risks of paving over the watershed to Council. The group insisted that Shire Hall conduct its own independent study of the groundwater conditions to find out once and for all the challenges of intensive homebuilding in this sodden 150 acres—so that it could assure all County residents that the developers’ plans were defensible and safe. Council had already committed to doing so in a 2008 settlement with the WCIA—but in the intervening years, Shire Hall found a way to relieve itself of this obligation. After a tortured journey to Council’s table, a majority approved the development plans in February on the condition that the largest plan (Cold Creek Homes’ 900 units) would undergo a thorough hydrogeological (groundwater, hereafter referred to as hydroG) study with the full participation of the WCIA. It also required that the recommendations of that study be incorporated into the development and that the WCIA be involved in the writing of a terms of reference. Council further committed that if any adverse findings were revealed in the study, changes would be made to development site plans accordingly. The County’s planning staff would safeguard the process and the watershed—in partnership with the WCIA.

Léger was back before Council on Tuesday to speak to a report that included a terms of reference, and to let them know that the applicants were refusing the direction of Council, and doing so would come at a severe cost to environmental natural heritage features, primarily Waring’s Creek and groundwater. He claimed that the WCIA had been excluded from the necessary information and study process associated with the development.

“Today, not much has changed, except now, staff are trying to deem condition 9FF as having been satisfied,” said Léger. “In contrast, the applicant and its consultant have taken the position that the terms of reference would be the only deliverable and that the actual results will only be available as the project develops over a period of time,” said Léger.

He noted that the submission of the first cumulative impact study would be completed in April of 2026, long after start of construction of the first phase.

“The applicant is asking you to fly blind in this case and staff appear to be endorsing that approach in the report that is before you today. Planning staff do not appear to be pushing the applicant to follow Council’s direction,” said Léger.

Léger also said that the WCIA was not opposed to development in principle, and that it was not interested in delaying a proposal for the sake of delay.

The WCIA just wants to see a science-based process in place,” he said. “Why does the applicant not want to involve the WCIA? Why does it not want to share data? Why does it not want the science to lead the development process for this property?” he asked.

Les Stanfield is an OLT recognized expert witness as a stream ecologist. He said that the report before Council was contrary to the motion it passed earlier in the year. He said it also contravened the direction of the OMNR Natural Heritage Manual, which provides guidance for implementing the natural heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement.

He noted that the most egregious error is the misuse of the term cumulative impact study. Blue Metric defines this as being only related to conditions at the property boundaries and only related to Cold Creek.

“I am intimately familiar with the manual that directs proponents to extend study boundaries to any adjacent receiving waterbody that is hydrologically connected,” said Stanfield. “Without knowledge of the groundwater pathways and how they will be altered by this project, Waring’s Creek simply cannot be protected.”

Cheryl O’Brien spoke on behalf of the WCIA. She said the association has now been frozen out of the terms of reference and hydrogeological studies of the Cold Creek property three times in a seven-month period.

“Under no circumstance do we endorse or accept the results of any such report or PEER Review as we have been barred from any information or participation pertaining to it,” she said. “The WCIA will continue to challenge the lack of implementation of the municipal process. It is time for transparency and adherence to the will of Council,” she added.

O’Brien also noted that the report makes it sound like her group has been involved in a process when the WCIA has been given no opportunity to do so.

“Why is the will of Council being thwarted? Why are the intentions of the February motion repeatedly denied? Do we have an administration that upholds its decisions, or not?” asked O’Brien.

“We are asking Council to consider the consequences of not being on the right side of this issue. You make your own history in Prince Edward County. Choose wisely.”

Councillor David Harrison asked O’Brien where the study that the group promised Council was.

“I thought the purpose was to give the WCIA time to present something here. More time than that has passed, and my patience is running out for something that is starting to appear almost like a stall process. When is something coming? I understood you were taking this on,” he said.

O’Brien acknowledged the councillor’s point, but said there needed to be a cooperative process in order for her group to provide material.

“We were working with the planner and the developer to start the terms of reference. It got to a certain point and it stopped. Our lawyer contacted the planner and engineer for the developer and were told that there would be no need to continue because they were going to study as the development went along and if there was a problem they would deal with it then,” said O’Brien.

The stall is not from us. We have been more than willing to participate, but we have not been given any information. We are kind of fed up.”

Councillor Phil Prinzen has been a strong advocate for the WCIA. He wanted a simple answer to his question.

“The WCIA has said that they weren’t involved and to turn this [report] down, which I trust. How come they aren’t involved? What is the reason we are not getting everyone in as Council directed? I am just looking for the simple answer,” stated the councillor.

County Planner Matt Coffey said it wasn’t fair to say they haven’t been involved.

“We have had a series of meetings with WCIA in the development of these terms of reference. I provided a matrix that shows when the meetings happened and when comments were provided. There was responses given back to the development team and to the County on behalf of the WCIA. There were at least two meetings held, and then there were three different versions of the terms of reference that went back and forth before a final version was made,” said Coffey.

“There were a few statements made by the WCIA lawyer with regards to hydrogeological report not being produced. Has that been produced?” asked Councillor Phil St-Jean.

Planner Coffey said that the report was available on the County’s website.

“We did receive a report and it is being reviewed by our PEER review consultant, so its well underway,” he said.

Councillor Chris Braney said he was going to remain consistent, and believed that Waring’s Creek should be protected at all costs.

“For me it comes down to the very beginning. We had a written agreement between the County and the WCIA that we would not allow this scenario. It’s disappointing that wasn’t followed through on. I think the intent of that agreement was the natural asset that Waring’s Creek and the headwaters had not only for Prince Edward County, but for farms upstream” he said.

The motion to receive the report on the terms of reference carried 8 to 4 with Councillors Pennell, Prinzen, Branderhorst and Braney opposed. Councillors Nieman, Harrison Roberts, Maynard, Hirsch, St-Jean and MacNaughton and Mayor Ferguson were in favour. Councillors Grosso and Engelsdorfer were absent.