Learning lessons

Council wants to know more about Waring’s Creek decisions

At its meeting last Tuesday, Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive “lessons learned” report examining the approval process for the 870-unit Cold Creek subdivision that sits in the immediate vicinity of Waring’s Creek. Council approved the request in a 12-1 recorded vote Tuesday, with Councillor Roy Pennell opposed and Councillor Phil Prinzen absent.

Brought forward by Councillor Chris Braney, the resolution asked CAO Adam Goheen to prepare a report detailing the administrative process surrounding the draft plan of subdivision and zoning bylaw amendment for the Cold Creek development near Sandy Hook Road and County Road 1. The report is expected to include a chronological timeline of the file and return to Council during the first quarter of 2027.

Braney said one of the key questions he wants answered is why the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association (WCIA), which entered into a 2008 Minutes of Settlement with the municipality to protect Waring’s Creek and its headwaters, appeared to have been disregarded during the planning process.

His resolution notes the subdivision application went through several major council decisions, including approval by the planning and development committee in October or 2024, ratification by Council in November 2024, a successful motion to reconsider two weeks later, and final approval on February 11, 2025. Council also received legal advice during the process regarding implementation of the 2008 settlement agreement.

The original resolution stated the application involved “unique administrative procedures, complex jurisdictional matters, serious irregularities, and significant community feedback” that could provide valuable lessons for future municipal operations.

Those two words—”serious irregularities”— became the focus of an extended debate.

Councillor Phil St-Jean argued the wording presumed wrongdoing before any review had taken place.

“I believe we should always be looking for lessons learned if something doesn’t go quite right or there were problems that arose, you should reflect on them and try to do better,” said St- Jean.

Councillor Bill Roberts described the phrase as “provocative” and “not helpful,” while St-Jean called it “presumptive.”

Councillor John Hirsch supported moving ahead with the report, saying it was an opportunity to “clear the air on the whole matter, with hopes that it doesn’t happen again.”

“As far as serious irregularities, it may well be that the COA doesn’t find any serious irregularities, or if he finds them, we want to hear about them,” Hirsch added.

Despite repeated requests from colleagues to amend the wording, Braney initially refused.

“I’ve already made it very clear, I am set on ‘serious irregularities’,” said Braney. “Many of my council colleagues feel there were serious irregularities that were committed with this file.”

After considerable discussion, however, council voted 7-6 to strike the words from the resolution. Supporting the amendment were Councillors Sam Branderhorst, Phil St-Jean, Janice Maynard, Sam Grosso, Kate Mac- Naughton, Bill Roberts and Mayor Steve Ferguson.

Members of the public also urged Council to proceed with the review.

Speaking on behalf of the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association, Cliff Rice said the group has spent nearly two years following the application and has gained an intimate understanding of what he described as the “often frustrating convolutions” of the file.

“The support of this motion will allow the CAO to develop a fulsome report about all the convolutions of this file,” stated Rice. “If the CAO in this case is allowed unfettered independent reporting, that is not influenced by anybody, particularly by the administration of this County, then the report could lead to important recommendations which will allow situations like this to be avoided in the future.”

Resident Penny Morris questioned how the development’s environmental monitoring is being handled, saying she understood only the first phase had been approved pending ongoing review.

“What approval was actually given and what is in place to control whatever impacts may be happening with phase 1?” asked Morris. “Last year, in July and August, references annual monitoring reports would start in April 2026. Where is this report, what’s happening, and where are the results?”

Braney said he was seeking the same answers.

Goheen acknowledged he was not involved when the file began but welcomed the opportunity to examine it more closely.

“I am interested in delving into this, I am a little bit nervous. I don’t have a lot of time to put this much into it, but I don’t have awareness from the beginning and I am interested to see what that research will tell us.”

Braney said accountability, transparency and integrity were central to the purpose of the review.

“You have to follow through to enable those three factors are followed through on and that there’s transparency and we communicate that to our residents to offer trust in our processes, and how we move things forward around this table,” expressed Braney. “So, I think it’s very important to have some truth come out on this, that people realize that we actually are concerned about this and we care about it, and we want to get answers to it.”

Mayor Steve Ferguson agreed the review was about continuous improvement rather than assigning blame.

“I want to make sure that the public understands that if we make a mistake, we don’t necessarily shove it under the carpet,” added Ferguson. “We assess and evaluate what happens so it doesn’t happen again, and I think that’s an important point to make that we are always on a course of continuous improvement.”

Braney said he hopes the review will help restore public confidence.

“The sooner we can get transparency on this, the more relieved I’ll be,” he said.