Part 1: old Creek Subdivision Debate and Waring’s Creek Watershed Concerns - 02/11/2025
- PECConnect
- Feb 11, 2025
- 5 min read
The County Council convened on the evening of February 11, 2025 for a Regular Council meeting that would stretch late into the night and revolve around one of the County’s most complex and long-running planning files. Chaired by Mayor Steve Ferguson, the meeting brought together councillors, senior staff, external consultants, developers, and members of the public to revisit a revised subdivision proposal connected to the Waring’s Creek watershed, alongside several other governance and policy matters.
The meeting followed Council’s earlier decision to reconsider a previously refused subdivision application that is already under appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal. That context shaped much of the evening’s discussion, as councillors worked through what had changed, what new information had been received, and what risks remained if Council chose not to act.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
Revisiting the Cold Creek Subdivision Proposal
The central focus of the meeting was a revised subdivision proposal brought forward by Cold Creek Developments, represented by David Cleave, related to lands within the Picton urban area and the broader Waring’s Creek watershed. The file returned to Council following a reconsideration motion passed in December, which opened the door for a modified plan to be reviewed rather than proceeding solely through the tribunal process.
Early in the discussion, questions were raised about how the revised proposal related to earlier Council directions. Councillor Roy Pennell sought clarification on whether previous motions applied only to Loyalist Heights or more broadly to the watershed, while Councillor Sam Branderhorst focused attention on a peer review that had recommended additional information before approvals moved forward.
Staff explained that since the original refusal, the applicant had reworked elements of the plan and engaged with County staff to introduce larger setbacks, phased development, and additional monitoring measures. The revised approach, councillors were told, was intended to address concerns raised by Council and the public, while still allowing the developer to move ahead if Council was prepared to consider it.
Legal Opinion, Peer Review, and Timing Pressures
A significant portion of the meeting was spent unpacking two recent pieces of information: a legal opinion obtained by the County and a peer review related to hydrology and cumulative impacts in the Waring’s Creek watershed.
The Acting Director of Development Services explained that the legal opinion had been received shortly before the meeting and placed on the public agenda as soon as it was available. The opinion addressed whether the County had met its obligations under earlier settlement agreements tied to the lands now under appeal. Staff confirmed that while the opinion was public, it was not directly circulated to outside groups prior to the meeting.
The peer review, meanwhile, recommended a cumulative impact study, a point that resonated strongly with members of the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association, who had been active participants in the process for years. Staff outlined how draft plan conditions could be structured so that early phases of the development could proceed only up to certain design stages, with no subdivision agreement, building permits, or construction allowed until further studies were completed and reviewed.
Timing emerged as a recurring theme. Staff stressed that if Council delayed or deferred the revised proposal, the existing appeal would continue at the tribunal based on the original application, not the revised version. This distinction mattered because the original proposal lacked many of the new conditions, setbacks, and monitoring measures now under discussion.
Environmental Protection and Housing Needs
As the discussion broadened, councillors articulated the competing pressures at play. Several spoke about the environmental sensitivity of the Waring’s Creek watershed and the importance of ensuring that long-term impacts were fully understood before development advanced.
Others emphasized the County’s ongoing housing challenges, noting that the revised plan included a mix of housing types and was located near existing services, trails, and active transportation routes. For these councillors, the revised proposal represented an opportunity to improve on the original application while avoiding a tribunal outcome that could remove local control altogether.
Throughout the exchange, councillors asked detailed questions about phased approvals, monitoring wells, tree protection, buffering for neighbouring properties, and how conditions could be adjusted as the project evolved over what staff described as a potential ten- to twelve-year buildout.
By the time Council moved toward motions and amendments later in the evening, it was clear that the meeting functioned as both an informational briefing and a working session, with councillors testing options, clarifying risks, and exploring compromise paths. While the discussion was often tense, it remained focused on understanding the implications of each possible decision.
Key Takeaways
Council was navigating risk, not just a development decision. Much of the night focused on what would happen if Council delayed or refused to act. Staff repeatedly flagged that the Ontario Land Tribunal appeal would continue based on the original subdivision proposal if no decision was made, potentially stripping out newer environmental safeguards now on the table.
The revised Cold Creek proposal introduced controls but not certainty. Changes like larger setbacks, phased development, monitoring wells, and conditional approvals were presented as improvements over the original plan. However, the peer review and calls for a cumulative impact study made it clear that significant environmental questions about the Waring’s Creek watershed remain unresolved.
Council was balancing environmental protection against housing pressure. Councillors openly weighed watershed sensitivity and long term ecological risk against the need for housing near services in Picton. The meeting reflected a search for a middle ground where stronger conditions could protect the environment while avoiding an all or nothing tribunal outcome.
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