Part 2: Cold Creek Vote Split, Waring’s Creek Concerns, and Housing Debate – 10/16/2024

The October 16, 2024 Planning and Development Committee meeting ended in a tied vote on the proposed Cold Creek Subdivision, but the discussion leading up to that outcome showed clear divisions among councillors. Those divisions fell largely along three lines: environmental protection, infrastructure and cost, and housing need.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.

Protection of Waring’s Creek and its surrounding watershed featured prominently in councillor comments.

Chris Braney (Hillier) stated clearly that he could not support the draft plan, citing the importance of protecting Waring’s Creek, the Millennium Trail, and agricultural land. He said those assets outweighed the case for approval.

Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) repeatedly stressed that council needed to “get it right the first time,” referencing past developments where environmental decisions created long-term problems. He raised concerns about creek protection, fencing near trails, and unresolved safety issues, and voted against the proposal.

Kate MacNaughton (Picton) acknowledged positive elements in the design but said transportation and environmental questions were not sufficiently resolved at the draft approval stage. She also voted against the motion.

In contrast, Bill Roberts (Sophiasburgh) pointed to peer reviews and comments from Quinte Conservation, noting they raised no objections. He framed the proposal as a necessary step toward addressing housing and demographic challenges and voted in favour.

Infrastructure, traffic, and financial risk

Concerns about roads, sidewalks, and who ultimately pays for growth also shaped the discussion.

Phil Prinsen (Bloomfield/Hallowell) focused on the lack of clear pedestrian connections into town, warning against approving developments without firm sidewalk commitments. He voted against the project.

David Harrison (North Marysburgh) questioned the broader financial risk to the municipality if infrastructure upgrades outpace development, and voted against the motion.

Phil St.-Jean (Picton) raised repeated concerns about servicing costs, fairness to adjacent landowners, and limits on council oversight once approvals move under delegated authority. Despite later speaking strongly about housing needs, he ultimately voted against the draft approval.

Housing supply and affordability

Arguments in favour of the proposal centred on housing availability and affordability.

Mayor Steve Ferguson asked direct questions about affordability, timelines, and delivery, referencing population loss and the need to retain younger residents. He voted in favour of the project.

Sam Grosso (Ameliasburgh) focused on entry-level housing and how unit size and pricing could attract younger buyers. He also voted in favour.

John Hirsch (South Marysburgh) emphasized that draft approval conditions allow for refinement at later stages and supported moving the project forward. He voted in favour.

At the request of Roy Pennell, a recorded vote was held. The result was a 6–6 tie, which meant the motion to approve the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment failed.

What this means for residents

Tthe tied vote delays a large housing project that supporters said could add new ownership and rental options over time.

For residents near Waring’s Creek and the Millennium Trail, the outcome reflects council’s continued caution around watershed protection, traffic, and cumulative environmental impacts.

For taxpayers, the discussion underscored ongoing concern about infrastructure timing and cost, with several councillors unwilling to approve major growth without greater certainty that future expenses will not fall on residents.

Overall, the meeting showed how closely divided council remains on growth, housing, and environmental protection, and how a single vote can determine whether a major development moves forward or stalls.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:49:16. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.