Part 2: Cold Creek Vote, Waring’s Creek Protections, and Council Vote Split – 02/11/2025
- PECConnect
- Feb 11, 2025
- 4 min read
The most detailed and intense discussion of the night centred on the Cold Creek subdivision application and how Council should respond given the legal opinion, public concerns, and the active Ontario Land Tribunal appeal. What followed was a long back and forth that revealed clear divisions around timing, environmental risk, and process.
Early in the discussion, Mayor Steve Ferguson framed the decision as a difficult balancing act. He acknowledged the long history of the file, the importance of the Waring’s Creek watershed, and the work of the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association, while also stressing that the revised proposal represented a different path than allowing the original application to proceed at the tribunal. Ferguson made it clear he viewed the revised plan as an attempt to address earlier concerns rather than restart the debate from scratch.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Calls for Caution and Process Concerns
Several councillors raised concerns about how quickly the revised application had returned to Council. Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) repeatedly questioned why Council was being asked to move forward before additional studies were complete. Pennell emphasized caution and future consequences, saying he was more concerned about the long term impacts on residents and the environment than the pressure to decide quickly.
Sam Branderhorst (Athol) focused on process. He referenced a motion passed earlier in December calling for a collaborative cumulative impact review and expressed frustration that Council was now being asked to approve the subdivision while peer reviewers were still saying more information was needed. Branderhorst made it clear he did not feel Council had the full picture.
On the other side, John Hirsch (South Marysburgh) argued that the revised application gave Council a chance to avoid a tribunal decision based on the original proposal. Hirsch pointed to the legal opinion confirming the County’s compliance with the 2008 Minutes of Settlement and questioned whether a meaningful cumulative impact study could realistically be completed in the short timelines being discussed. He stated directly that he supported approving the application rather than risking a worse outcome at the OLT.
The Amending Motion and Search for Compromise
Phil St Jean (Picton Ward) played a central role by introducing the key amending motion. His amendment added conditions requiring an updated hydrological study, a cumulative impact study developed with input from the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association, and independent peer review before any subdivision agreement could be finalized. St Jean described the amendment as a compromise that allowed the developer to move forward cautiously while still requiring more science and oversight.
Support for the amendment came from councillors who felt it struck a middle ground. Kate MacNaughton (Picton) spoke about the tension between the need for housing and the unresolved environmental questions. She said she was uncomfortable fully green lighting the project without more clarity and signaled support for taking additional time through added conditions.
Others were not convinced. Phil Prinzen (Bloomfield/Hallowell) raised concerns about delegating too much authority to staff through the amendment and said Council was giving up its final say. Chris Braney (Hillier) spoke emotionally about trust in local environmental voices and said he supported deferring approval to get the science right before proceeding.
Votings on Cold Creek
When the vote on the amending motion was called, it passed 8 to 6, adding the extra study requirements to the planning approval. That set the stage for the final vote on the subdivision itself.
The main motion to approve the Cold Creek subdivision as amended also passed 8 to 6. Those voting in favour included Mayor Steve Ferguson, Councillors Phil St.-Jean, Kate MacNaughton, Sam Grosso, Bill Roberts, Janice Maynard, Corey Engelsdorfer, and Phil Nyman.
Those opposed included Roy Pennell, Sam Branderhorst, Chris Braney, Phil Prinzen, John Hirsch, and David Harrison. The split reflected ongoing tension between moving projects forward under conditions versus delaying decisions until every concern is resolved.
Governance Review Question Moves Ahead
Beyond Cold Creek, Council also addressed governance and economic matters. Chris Braney brought forward a motion asking staff to prepare a report on adding a governance review question to the 2026 municipal election ballot. While councillors had different views on council size and structure, there was broad agreement that residents should be asked whether they want such a review. The motion passed.
Later, David Harrison (North Marysburgh) introduced a motion supporting a Buy Local Buy Canadian approach in response to proposed international tariffs. Council supported the resolution, directing staff to explore ways to prioritize Canadian and local purchasing while staying within procurement rules.
What This Means for Residents
For residents, the impacts vary. In Picton and surrounding neighbourhoods, the Cold Creek decision means the subdivision can proceed but only after more environmental studies and review.
In Ameliasburgh and watershed areas, the vote keeps Waring’s Creek protections firmly in the spotlight and ensures further scrutiny before construction advances.
The governance motion signals that how Council operates may soon be a question put directly to voters, while the Buy Local direction reflects concern about economic pressures facing local businesses across the County.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 4:53:03. 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