Part 1: Cold Creek Development and Watershed Concerns – 09/18/2024

The County’s Planning and Development Committee met on Wednesday, September 18, 2024 as a hybrid meeting in Shire Hall and on Zoom to hold statutory public meetings under the Planning Act, hear public input, and decide whether to recommend planning approvals to Council. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 pm, chaired by Councillor Sam Branderhorst (Athol), who presided over the evening’s proceedings.

After confirming the agenda and noting no declarations of pecuniary interest at the outset, the committee moved into its Planning Act items, separating files with registered speakers from those that could proceed on consent. The committee approved a consent and zoning bylaw amendment for 128 Simpson Road in Ward 5 Athol on the consent agenda, as there were no questions from council, staff, or the public. With no concerns raised, the item moved through.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>

910 County Road 3

The first file requiring discussion was the consent and zoning application at 910 County Road 3 in Ameliasburgh, involving multiple consent files and a zoning bylaw amendment. Early in the discussion, staff advised that the applicant and agent were unable to attend and had formally requested that the matter be deferred to a future meeting.

Despite the request, one registered public speaker, Ryan Vieira, attended in person and chose to speak. Vieira described his experience living on Wannamaker Lane, explaining the shared right of way and how the existing lot configuration differed from surrounding properties along County Road 3. He said the application would help align the lots with the rectangular lot pattern found elsewhere in the area and spoke about traffic and safety concerns, particularly at a bend in the road.

During councillor questions, driveway access became a central issue. Phil Prinzen asked staff to clarify why the application appeared to create three access points, when other severances had been required to consolidate entrances. Staff explained that two accesses were intended to be combined, and that further work with the applicant was needed to resolve that detail. Rather than making a decision, the committee carried a motion to refer the application back to staff, allowing further coordination with the applicant and agent. The Deputy Clerk clarified that this was a referral rather than a deferral, acknowledging that conditions and recommendations could change before the file returned to committee.

Cold Creek subdivision

The most extensive discussion of the night focused on the Cold Creek subdivision, a proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning bylaw amendment for lands in Bloomfield/Hallowell. Staff introduced the proposal as a large, multi-phase development consisting of 905 residential units, and outlined the policy context guiding the review.

Staff framed the discussion around recurring themes raised during public consultation and technical review, including housing affordability and attainability, traffic and road safety, stormwater management, environmental protection related to Waring’s Creek, municipal servicing capacity, and how the subdivision would connect to surrounding roads and the Millennium Trail.

Questions from council highlighted ongoing tensions. Roy Pennell asked how the County could ensure housing labeled as “affordable” would actually be affordable for local residents, rather than simply smaller market-priced homes. Staff responded that in a market-driven subdivision, the municipality cannot set sale prices, but can require a mix of housing types and densities that may improve attainability, while true affordable housing generally requires subsidies or partnerships.

Another major point of friction involved road connections, particularly the potential extension of George Wright Boulevard across lands owned by Choice Properties REIT, home to the No Frills grocery store and gas bar. Kate MacNaughton questioned the use of expropriation language and urged negotiation over enforcement. Phil Prinzen and Roy Pennell both expressed discomfort with the idea of the municipality acquiring private land to support growth-related road connections. Staff emphasized that the development would be registered in phases, that studies could be updated as needed, and that long-term connections were part of broader transportation planning, with costs potentially recovered through development charges rather than general taxation.

The applicant team details the plan and promises “low impact” features

The meeting then shifted to presentations from the applicant and consultant team. David Nanton, a registered professional planner, outlined the policy framework, site context, and proposed five-phase build-out, describing a wide range of housing forms including single detached homes, semi-detached units, townhouses, stacked townhouses, and apartment buildings.

Nancy Dion, a professional engineer, explained how the development would connect to municipal water and wastewater systems, including the need for a pumping station in lower-lying areas. She described a stormwater management strategy centered on a pond and reinforced by low impact development measures such as infiltration techniques to manage flows into the Waring’s Creek watershed.

Environmental consultant Gord Nielsen spoke about the environmental impact study, identifying the wetland on the site as a headwater area and explaining how buffers and environmental protection blocks were intended to protect sensitive features while maintaining groundwater contributions and downstream water quality.

Developer David Cleave emphasized the project’s focus on higher-density housing, underground parking, heat pumps, potential solar and green roofs, and commitments to environmental mitigation. Council approved a motion to extend the applicant’s speaking time to allow the presentation to continue.

During questions, councillors returned repeatedly to housing prices, servicing timelines, and design impacts on neighbouring properties. Bill Roberts asked for a rough estimate of how many units might meet a CMHC-style affordability threshold, while Cleave responded that only a portion of smaller stacked townhouse units might approach that range, given market conditions. Phil Prinzen questioned whether road alignments could shift to preserve trees and buffers near existing homes, with the developer acknowledging constraints but indicating some flexibility at the draft plan stage.

Public delegations sharpen the environmental debate and raise “prematurity” arguments

After a short recess, the committee heard from registered public speakers.

Cheryl O’Brien, speaking for the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association, said the proposal exceeded minimum standards in some areas but argued for stronger protections for the headwaters and surrounding woods. She urged the County to apply a 50-metre buffer, citing Official Plan policies, and raised concerns about wet stormwater ponds and public safety.

Representatives of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, including Paula Peel and Amy Bodman, focused on Blanding’s turtles, wetland connectivity, and the broader Waring’s Creek sub-watershed. They questioned whether the environmental studies adequately accounted for species at risk and cumulative impacts, and asked the County to require additional expertise, stronger mitigation measures, and more stringent application of low impact development principles.

Other speakers raised practical and procedural concerns. Fred Lester spoke about road widths, traffic capacity, drainage issues, and the impact of upstream flows on his property. Kimberley McDougall said she felt too many questions remained unanswered to support approvals at this stage.

The final registered speaker, Laura Jamieson, a planner representing Choice Properties REIT, argued that the Cold Creek applications were premature, citing a lack of detailed analysis of impacts on Choice’s existing infrastructure and operations. She stated that the proposed George Wright Boulevard connection had no legal status in approved planning documents and described an ongoing dispute with the County related to Choice’s own zoning bylaw amendment and Ontario Land Tribunal appeal.

The meeting ends without a decision due to conflict and loss of quorum

Following public comments, Phil St Jean asked to consult with the Deputy Clerk and then declared a pecuniary interest related to the Cold Creek item, noting a family connection to Loblaws. As a result, St-Jean could not participate in discussion or vote on the matter.

With St Jean removed from voting, the committee lost quorum and could not proceed to a decision on the Cold Creek applications. The minutes recorded the outcome as no decision. The committee then received items approved under delegated authority for information and adjourned at 10:10 pm.

Key Takeaways

1. The 910 County Road 3 consent and zoning application was referred back to staff for further work and will return to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting.

   
   

2. The Cold Creek subdivision debate highlighted the ongoing tension between housing supply goals and concerns about watershed protection, traffic, infrastructure, and what a market-driven development can realistically deliver on affordability.

   
   

3. Despite hours of discussion, process mattered. A declared conflict of interest led to a loss of quorum, meaning the committee could not vote and the Cold Creek file will return at a future meeting for a decision.

---

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.