Part 1: Cold Creek Subdivision Debate Ends in Tie Vote - 10/16/2024
- PECConnect
- Oct 16, 2024
- 4 min read
The County Planning and Development Committee met on October 16, 2024 to consider several planning matters under the Planning Act, including one large residential proposal that would ultimately dominate the evening. The meeting was held at Shire Hall and chaired by Councillor Corey Engelstorfer, who guided the committee through a long agenda that included staff presentations, applicant submissions, and extensive public input.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
The committee began by dealing with two planning files that required little discussion. A rezoning application at 184 County Road 28 and a combined consent and zoning application at 910 County Road 3 were both approved without public comment or questions from council. With those items completed, the meeting shifted to the final and most complex file of the night.
Cold Creek Subdivision
The focus then moved to the Cold Creek Subdivision, a proposed 905-unit residential development in Picton submitted by David Cleave of Port Picton Homes. The applications included a Draft Plan of Subdivision and a Zoning By-law Amendment, both required before the project could proceed.
The County’s presentation was delivered by Matt Coffey, Planning Coordinator, who explained how the proposal aligned with the Official Plan and Picton Secondary Plan, and outlined changes made since the committee last reviewed the file. Coffey emphasized that environmental protection, transportation, and servicing would be addressed through studies and conditions attached to any draft approval.
The applicant team followed, including David Nanton (planner, Fotenn), Nancy Dionne (engineer, Insite Project Consulting), Gord Neilsen (ecologist), and Michael Mulaney (hydrogeologist, BluMetric Environmental). Their presentation walked through housing mix, phasing, stormwater management, and the proposed use of Low Impact Development measures. Because of the volume of material, the committee agreed to extend the applicant’s speaking time.
Public concerns center on water, traffic, and timing
Public deputations formed a significant portion of the meeting and revealed recurring themes. Members of the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association, including Cheryl O’Brien and Joanne Tammel, raised concerns about cumulative impacts on the Waring’s Creek watershed and questioned whether approvals were moving faster than supporting studies.
Representatives from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, including Amy Bodman, Paula Peel, and Gerry Jenkinson, focused on wetlands, wildlife impacts, lighting, and whether environmental safeguards would be enforceable over time.
Nearby landowners also spoke. Sam Walmsley described how road alignments and traffic could affect adjacent properties, while Steve Sensenstein and Edward Lintner raised questions on behalf of residents at Raspberry Fields Modular Home Park, particularly around fencing, construction noise, drainage, and long-term maintenance responsibilities.
Others spoke to the housing crisis from a different angle. Peter Morch urged council to consider the lack of attainable housing for younger residents who want to stay in the County.
Council questions reveal divided priorities
After a short recess, the applicant team responded to technical questions. The discussion then moved into council debate, where tensions became clear.
Councillor Roy Pennell and Councillor Kate MacNaughton questioned whether transportation and environmental details were sufficiently resolved. Councillor Phil St-Jean focused on servicing costs, fairness to neighbours, and how much control council retains once files move into delegated approval stages. Mayor Steve Ferguson asked about affordability and delivery timelines, with the applicant framing affordability through unit price and supply rather than long-term controls.
Sidewalks, road connections, and who ultimately pays for growth-related infrastructure were also debated, with Peter Moyer, Director of Development Services, explaining how future works could be addressed through the Transportation Master Plan and development charges.
When the motion to approve the draft plan and zoning amendment was put forward, Councillor Pennell requested a recorded vote. The result was a 6–6 tie, which meant the motion failed. The committee then moved on to a routine delegated authority item before adjourning at 10:48 pm.
Key Takeaways
Large development decisions can hinge on a single vote. Despite hours of discussion, the Cold Creek proposal failed because of a tie, showing how divided council remains on growth-related issues.
Housing need and environmental protection remain unresolved tensions. The meeting repeatedly returned to balancing attainable housing with protection of sensitive systems like Waring’s Creek, with no clear consensus on where that balance should sit.
The draft approval stage matters most for public input. Councillors acknowledged that once a project moves beyond draft approval, many detailed decisions are handled under delegated authority, making early engagement especially important for residents.
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.
Comments