No decision

Too few council members means a deferral of Picton subdivision

A large contingent of the general public showed up for a Planning Committee meeting, but not enough council members. The meeting began with eight council members in attendance (50 per cent plus one), but after almost three hours of comments from the audience and council discussion, Councillor Phil St-Jean declared a conflict of interest. His departure broke the quorum. (A minimum of eight council members must be present to conduct municipal business.)

The item was automatically deferred to a future meeting with no further discussion or decision.

The proposed Cold Creek subdivision, promoted by Dave Cleave, sits south of the Millennium Trail and north of Sandy Hook Road in Picton. Primary access to the site is proposed from Sandy Hook Road. A secondary access exists on Upper Lake Street. The developers are also planning access south from George Wright Boulevard past the No Frills food store.

The subdivision is located near the headwater of Warings Creek on 35 hectares of land. The proposal consists of 905 residential units featuring a wide range of building formats, including single detached homes, back-to-back townhouses, semis, stacked townhouses, rear lane townhomes, apartment buildings and tiny homes.

Councillor Roy Pennell wanted to know if the homes would be affordable to the average family.

“This is a market-driven subdivision,” said Manager of Planning Michael Michaud. “We do not determine what the price point is going to be. All we can do is ensure that there is a variety of units built at a smaller or denser size, then that determines what the price is going to be.”

Michaud added that proposed back-to-back townhomes might bring an economy of scale, but ultimately, affordable housing would have to be subsidized.

One snag appears to be access to the project from George Wright Boulevard past the No Frills store. It seems neither the developer nor the municipality own this land.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton felt this matter should have been sorted before it had come to the Planning Committee.

“I do feel like this is something that should be negotiated before we move forward any further,” said MacNaughton.

Chief Planner Michaud said his department has tried, but to no avail.

“Both Matt [Coffey] and I have tried desperately with Choice REIT (owner of the property) along with the developer to come up with a compromise and a solution to the George Wright quandary,” said Michaud. “However, Choice REIT has decided to play ostrich and bury their head in the sand and we haven’t heard from them in three months.”

Unsurprisingly, Choice REIT (the landowner) had a different view.

According to their representative, Laura Jameson, the proposed extension of George Wright Boulevard cuts through the middle of its lands, effectively dividing the lands and impacting the existing stormwater pond, sanitary and water serving infrastructure and potentially, infrastructure related to the gas bar.

“There has been no analysis of the impacts to neighbouring properties,” explained Jameson, a Planner with Zelinka Priamo Ltd. “This road has no legal status. It is our professional opinion that this connection is premature as the proposed connection is not shown in any formal documentation, and impacts to existing operations of Choice [REIT] lands have not been considered.”

Jameson also noted that Choice has been in continuous contact with the developer regarding the road connection and are open to continued negotiation. Jameson noted a lack of consideration for her client’s property.

“The Servicing Report, Transportation Report and Planning Justification Report lack any detailed analysis on the impacts of Choice’s existing infrastructure and operations,” she said.

Earlier in the meeting County Planning Chief Michaud explained that the County might consider expropriating the land if Choice REIT refuses to play ball.

“I have never seen a commercial developer refuse to have traffic go in front of their store. I am at a bit of a loss,” he added.

The word expropriation didn’t sit well with Councillor Phil Prinzen.

“I am under the impression they [No Frills] have an application in to intensify their property. If that application wants them to build something on the spot you are claiming we have the hammer to take, sitting around this table, I don’t feel good about that,” said Prinzen. “Seems to me like you are siding with one guy and calling out another company for not coming to talk, which doesn’t sound like negotiating fairly.”

Michaud reiterated that expropriation was a last resort.

We have negotiated in great faith trying to come up with cost sharing. We have had a meeting with them to explain everything and they have gone away,” he added.

Councillor St-Jean wanted to hear from all sides before making any decisions.

“I think before anybody prejudges anything, we should hear from the developer.”

Enter David Cleave.

“We are clearly at a turning point regarding housing in Canada,” said Cleave. “We need to be more innovative in how we use our serviced lands and build housing that meets the needs of our community.”

He said his Picton project would be the first low-impact subdivision in Prince Edward County featuring carbon-reducing green infrastructure, including electric heat pumps, geothermal heating and cooling for specific blocks, green roofs where possible and double tree planting.

Cleave also pointed to the project’s relationship to the Millennium Trail.

“At the advice of planning staff, we forward faced the builds to be more Millennium Trail friendly, incorporating the trail into the community,” said Cleave.

On the matter of access via George Wright Boulevard, Cleave blamed a previous term of council for allowing the No Frills development without taking the land for the roadway.

“I was the first one who reached out to Choice REIT and brought forward a cost sharing plan,” said Cleave. “ I want Councillor Prinzen to understand that we have pushed and pushed and pushed and all we get back from them is ‘we want our plan approved for expansion of No Frills, but we really don’t care what you are doing,’” said Cleave. “When I hear deferral tonight, it is with respect that I want everyone to understand that we have tried very hard along with planning staff to make this work.”

Councillor Prinzen fired back.

“I don’t appreciate you name dropping me or calling me out,” said Prinzen. “I do appreciate development and I know it is going to happen. But I think it has to happen properly, and I think all of your ducks have to be in a row before it does happen. So that is where we might not agree on things.”

Earlier in the meeting, Council listened to a presentation by Cheryl O’Brien representing the Warings Creek Improvement Association. She wanted assurances that there were no walking paths, picnic areas or tree planting near Warings Creek.

“The County needs to develop immediate protective policies for the woods and the headwaters. This is essential for the creek, watershed and species at risk,” she said.

Paul Peel and Amy Bodman spoke on behalf of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists. Peel felt that the Blanding’s turtles had not been adequately accounted for in the developer’s plans for the Cold Creek Subdivision.

“What sense can be made of this when the Loyalist Heights EIS confirms that suitable habitat for Blanding’s turtles is found in the same wetland,” she said.

Bodman thinks past councils made a mistake by zoning the lands residential. “We believe the correct zoning for this land is prime agricultural. You have the authority to correct this mistake and reverse the zoning. By doing this, we believe you will benefit generations of County residents to come, as well as the biodiversity that ensures the sustainability of this very important ecological feature,” she said.

Three hours into the meeting the debate had settled on what to do about the No Frills land. At this point Councillor St-Jean declared a conflict of interest, as his son works for Loblaws.

St-Jean said he didn’t know that the planners for Choice/Loblaws were participating in the debate.

“At the beginning of the meeting I did not have a conflict of interest,” explained St-Jean. “As they are a now a presenter I am restricted from asking questions or voting.”

With that, all discussion stopped and the matter was put off to another day.