Part 2: Cold Creek Subdivision, Road Access, and Quorum Breakdown – 09/18/2024
- PECConnect
- Sep 18, 2024
- 5 min read
The Planning and Development Committee meeting on September 18, 2024 was chaired by Sam Branderhorst (Athol), who guided the committee through agenda changes, speaker sequencing, and time extensions. Branderhorst focused on keeping discussion moving, clarifying when motions were needed, and ensuring public speakers were heard.
At the end of the meeting, Branderhorst confirmed that no vote could proceed on the Cold Creek subdivision after Phil St-Jean (Picton) declared a pecuniary interest, resulting in a loss of quorum. The item was deferred due to process, not a decision on its merits.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
910 County Road 3 in Ameliasburgh
The consent and zoning application at 910 County Road 3 drew limited but focused discussion.
Ryan Vieira, a nearby resident, spoke in favour of the application, describing lot layout inconsistencies on Wannamaker Lane and saying the proposal would better align the area with surrounding properties along County Road 3. He also raised traffic safety concerns tied to the bend in the road and said spreading access points could reduce risk.
Councillor Phil Prinzen (Bloomfield/Hallowell) zeroed in on driveway access. He questioned why the proposal appeared to include three entrances when recent severances elsewhere had been required to share or consolidate access. Staff confirmed that two accesses were intended to be combined and that revisions were still needed.
With the applicant and agent absent, Councillor Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) ultimately moved support for sending the file back to staff. The committee agreed to refer the application for further work, signalling neither rejection nor approval but a pause to resolve technical details.
Cold Creek subdivision: housing need versus infrastructure and environment
The Cold Creek subdivision generated the strongest opinions of the night and revealed clear differences among councillors.
Councillor Pennell repeatedly challenged the idea that increased density automatically results in housing that local residents can afford. He questioned whether people working in the County would realistically be able to buy homes in the proposed price ranges and expressed frustration that affordability is discussed without guarantees.
Staff responded that pricing cannot be controlled in a market driven subdivision, only influenced through housing form and size. David Cleave, the developer, reinforced that pricing follows resale markets, not municipal direction, and said stacked townhouses offered the best chance of lower price points.
Councillor Bill Roberts (Sophiasburgh) pressed further, asking what portion of the 905 units might meet affordability benchmarks tied to County incomes. Cleave estimated that only a portion of smaller ground level stacked units might come close, acknowledging that even that would be difficult under current market conditions.
Councillor Kate MacNaughton (Picton) expressed concern about references to expropriation related to the proposed extension of George Wright Boulevard through the No Frills site. She emphasized the importance of negotiation and questioned whether approvals should move ahead without clearer agreements in place.
Councillor Prinzen reacted strongly to the idea of using expropriation to secure road access, stating that he could not support the subdivision without a clear and fair resolution on connections. He also challenged staff comments about Choice Properties reluctance, cautioning against framing negotiations as one sided.
Councillor Pennell was explicit in his opposition to expropriation, saying he would not support a municipality taking land to solve traffic issues created by development. Staff countered that long term road connections are part of a regional transportation approach and that costs could be recovered through development charges rather than general taxes.
Choice Properties challenges legal footing
Later in the meeting, Laura Jamieson, speaking for Choice Properties, reinforced that the George Wright Boulevard extension has no legal status in approved plans and described the proposal as premature without detailed impact analysis on Choice lands.
Laura Jamieson, planner with Zelenka Pre-Ammo Limited, spoke on behalf of Choice Properties, arguing the application relied on a road connection with no legal status in an adopted Official Plan, Secondary Plan, or Transportation Master Plan. She said impacts on Choice’s grocery store and gas bar had not been analyzed and noted an ongoing Ontario Land Tribunal appeal related to Choice’s zoning application. Jamieson said Choice remained open to negotiation but opposed being required to dedicate land for an unapproved road.
Environmental protection and Waring’s Creek
Environmental concerns were raised consistently by public speakers and questioned by council.
Cheryl O’Brien, for the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association, argued that the headwaters woods require a do nothing approach and called for a fifty metre buffer based on Official Plan language. She also raised concerns about wet stormwater ponds and public safety.
Paula Peel and Amy Bodman, speaking for the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, focused on Blanding’s turtles, wetland connectivity, and cumulative impacts within the Waring’s Creek watershed. They questioned conclusions in the environmental studies and asked for stronger protections, additional expertise, and updated analysis.
Staff and consultants responded that the environmental impact study and peer review supported the proposed approach, that mitigation measures would be mandatory, and that detailed design would further refine protections.
Design impacts and local properties
On design and adjacency, Phil Prinzen questioned whether road alignments could be shifted to preserve trees and buffers near an existing home on Sandy Hook Road. The developer acknowledged constraints tied to wetland setbacks and road geometry but said some adjustments could still be reviewed at the draft plan stage.
Fred Lester, a nearby landowner, raised concerns about road widths, drainage patterns affecting his property, and the routing of force mains. He said some of this information was new to him and needed further discussion.
Conflict of interest and no vote
Late in the meeting, Councillor St-Jean declared a pecuniary interest related to the Cold Creek file due to a family connection to Loblaws. St Jean stated he could not participate in discussion or voting on the item.
With St Jean removed from voting, the committee no longer had quorum. As a result, no vote could be taken on staff recommendations for the Cold Creek subdivision. The item was deferred automatically due to process, not because of a decision on its merits.
What this means for local residents
For residents near County Road 3 in Ameliasburgh, the consent application is not approved yet but remains active, with staff directed to resolve access details before it returns to committee.
The Cold Creek subdivision remains undecided, meaning no immediate approvals but continued uncertainty.
The meeting showed that housing supply, environmental protection, and road infrastructure are tightly linked, and that final decisions will hinge not just on planning studies, but on unresolved access agreements and council’s ability to reach quorum when the file returns.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:06:00. 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