905-unit Sandy Hook sub-division denied at council

UPDATE OCT. 22: Amendments which would allow the project to move forward were presented at Tuesday night’s council meeting and lost in a 7-7 tie vote. The original motion from the planning meeting to deny the application was presented again, and lost in an 8-6 vote. It lost at planning in a tie 6-6 with two councillors absent.

In favour of the application moving forward were councillors Bill Roberts, Phil St.-Jean, Sam Grosso, John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton and Mayor Steve Ferguson. Opposed to the application were councillors Roy Pennell, Brad Nieman, Phil Prinzen, David Harrison, Sam Branderhorst, Corey Engelsdorfer, Chris Braney and Janice Maynard.

Those in favour expressed concern of an Ontario Land Tribunal appeal case in which the municipality would extra have expenses hiring a lawyer and planning staff, as the County’s staff recommended the project move forward. They also expressed support for the project bringing some affordable housing units possibly within the next year.

Developer David Cleave spoke to several concessions he would agree to including amending language, increasing protection of the wetland and its buffer area and not starting construction until the hydrogeologist confirms it will not impact the completion of the hydrological study. He also spoke to some community benefits, which the Planning Act has removed, and to affordable market rents on 37 homes in the $375,000 to $450,000 range (in tiny, town stack homes and back-to-back buildings) which council has no  authority to control.

There were also a few comments from the audience opposing the project, including Amy Bodman of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, and Dr. Cliff Rice, president of the Waring Creek Improvement Association, who had some harsh comments for the project, planning staff procedures, and referred to legal opinion received (and shared with councillors earlier).

“We are of the opinion staff have misrepresented a number of the provisions in the OP (Official Plan) and in the Secondary Plan, and therefore disseminated incomplete, or incorrect information to council in this process,” said Rice. “… “Planning has sort of whittled away at the protections that this watershed should have been afforded. It’s our position, and that of our lawyer… at a minimum should have obtained definitive hydrogeological and accumulative impact studies before any consideration of development in headwaters plans took place.”

The Warings Creek Association, he stated, “has amassed 30 years of expertise in this watershed both on the ground and stream restoration in the areas of hydrology, hydrogeology, stream ecology as well as municipal planning and environmental law. We are the experts in this watershed, yet, neither you, or planning, nor those of the planners and councils (six councils before this plan) have ever consulted us in any meaningful way.”

OCT 18: By Sharon Harrison
A proposed large sub-division on land fronting Sandy Hook Road and Upper Lake Street was denied by councillors in a tie vote at this week’s planning and development committee meeting. The municipality’s planning staff had recommend it be approved.

The application submitted by Port Picton Homes proposes 905 homes for the Picton settlement area, and lost in a 6-6 vote (a tie means the vote loses). The decision goes to council’s Oct. 22 meeting to be ratified.

Councillors opposed were Chris Braney, Corey Engelsdorfer, David Harrison, Phil Prinzen, Brad Nieman and Roy Pennell (councillors Janice Maynard and Sam Branderhorst were absent).

This agenda item was deferred from the Sept. 18 planning and development committee meeting following numerous presentations, comments and discussion by the consultants, the developer, council members, planning staff, and members of the public. In the end, the vote could not take place due to not enough councillors being present around the horse shoe – see background stories here:
https://www.countylive.ca/sandy-hook-sub-division-decision-deferred-due-to-lack-of-quorum/

Wednesday’s three-and-a-half hour meeting began with Matt Coffey, the County’s planning approvals co-ordinator, going over changes in the re-submitted application (from the Sept. 18 version), the revisions of which included some issues raised by members of the public and council from that last planning meeting.

“Some of the things we heard that came out of the last meeting and some of the concerns and comments were in regard to environmental setbacks, species-at-risk, hydrogeological study, road and servicing extensions to Loyalist Parkway, impacts on adjacent properties, and implementation of LID (low impact development) measures,” said Coffey.

He said, there would be some conditions for approval, “essentially it requires that all conditions to the EIS (environmental impact study) are incorporated into the final design of the sub-division, and this also includes recommendations for species-at-risk, including Blanding’s turtle”.

Another ask was for the requirement for a hydrogeological study, where Coffey acknowledged that one is required and staff have asked the developer to provide it.

Regarding future connections to Loyalist Parkway, Coffey said the applicant has been asked to demonstrate how the plan would function without connection to Loyalist Parkway.

“Essentially, the developer has demonstrated that future connections to Loyalist Parkway, while we may desire them as a municipality, they are not required for this development, so staff are satisfied with the feasibility of the development and that it can proceed, regardless of any future connections.”

The implementation of LID (low impact development) measures, he said, are designed to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible and this would include infiltration islands in parking areas, use of permeable pavements, green roofs, bio-filtration swales, rain gardens, cisterns and rain barrels, and compact development.

Presentations were again heard (similar to those at Sept. 18 meeting) from the developer’s consultancy team, including planner David Nanton (Fotenn Planning and Design), David Cleave (Port Picton Homes), along with comments from 10 members of the public, including members of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) and the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association (WCIA).

Extensive discussion and debate, and at times off-topic rambling ensued, with council, the developer and members of the public on the issue of housing affordability, road design and access, and impacts on individual property owners.

But it was protection and concern for the Waring’s Creek watershed that dominated – and maybe the Blanding’s turtle (a threatened species-at-risk) may just have swung the vote for those attempting to protect its habitat.

There was also confusion and disagreement at times, specifically when it comes to whether or not Waring’s Creek is designated a watercourse or not, whether part of the sub-division land is EP (environmental protection) zone or not, and the request by several individuals (including WCIA) for cumulative hydrogeological studies (to include the adjacent proposed Loyalist Heights sub-division to the west), something at least one speaker said hadn’t been considered by anyone.

WCIA’s Cheryl O’Brien said issues of concern and issues in their mandate have not been addressed.

“Although the protections are clear in the secondary plan and official plan, nothing has been forwarded to move the text into action,” said O’Brien.

She requested a moratorium on any and all development approvals until the appropriate cumulative hydrogeological studies have been done.

“We also are requesting that we be included in discussions and have input in the peer reviews of these studies to the satisfaction of both parties,” she said.

Amy Bodman, with PECFN, noted how Waring’s Creek is the largest cold water stream in Prince Edward County, indicating how it is the defining feature of the Waring’s Creek sub-watershed which supplies groundwater to some of the most productive agricultural lands in the County.

Councillor Phil St-Jean argued that the “drainage feature” (Warings Creek) does not meet the definition of a watercourse, as defined by Quinte Conservation.

“The drainage is coming from another property, the two culverts go under the Millennium Trail to drain the property on the other side of the Millennium Trail, so therefore, it is not a drainage ditch, it is not a creek, it is not an identified water source,” challenged St-Jean. “Why are you hanging your hat on that when clearly the experts are saying it does not exist?” he asked Bodman.

She explained it can no longer be called a water source in the Quinte Conservation report due to new laws passed (with Bill 23) that changed it with new definitions of what a water course is. “So they said they cannot comment on it as a water course”.

Coffey said Quinte Conservation has indicated that they have no concerns. “They have indicated that the watercourse is not an actual watercourse”.

PECFN’s Paula Peel spoke to the Blanding’s turtle found in and around the Waring’s Creek watershed, and how the species-at-risk (threatened category) has not been adequately accounted for in the Cold Creek EIS.

“The EIS concludes there is no potential habitat for Blanding’s turtles present on the site,” said Peel, where she compared the EIS done for the proposed nearby Loyalist Heights sub-division which differs to the EIS done for Cold Creek. She requested that the EIS be updated to reflect comments by peer agencies and others.

The property is next to the Loyalist Heights proposed residential sub-division (above) of a mix of 396 new dwelling units on a parcel of land located between Sandy Hook Road (County Road 1) and Loyalist Parkway. That proposal was sent back to staff for further discussion with the developer due to numerous issues raised by staff, who had recommended the application by denied.

“It’s not about stopping development in Prince Edward County,” added O’Brien, “it’s about developing areas that can sustain it.”

Speaking to Waring’s Creek and the cumulative effects of the two proposed sub-divisions (“neither one of the proponents is required to undertake that with each other”), councillor John Hirsch said. “The absolute environmental key to this property is the movement of water into the wetland, and therefore into Waring’s Creek and down to the lake is crucial and that it remains very much as it is today, and that the temperature doesn’t vary in any kind of dramatic way”.

Coffey acknowledged that “it’s difficult to get one developer to look at cumulative effects”.

Hirsch also spoke to water flow, and the “famous drainage feature, which sometimes is a creek and sometimes is just a ploughed field, I’d like some understanding as to does that matter in terms of the water infiltration getting to the wetland?”

Coffey notes that the provincial policy statement states that development shall not be permitted in lands adjacent to a significant woodland, unless it is demonstrated that development will not negatively impact the woodlands or their ecological functions.

He noted the EIS completed to assess the impact of development on environmental features on the site concludes, “the development will not impact the integrity of the adjacent woodland as the woodlands will be left intact and deeded to the municipality”.

The EIS was peer reviewed by Muncaster Environmental Planning who “agree with the assessments and associated conclusions of the environmental impact study”.

The report noted significant natural heritage features on and adjacent to the site include an unevaluated wetland which represents part of the headwaters to the sensitive Waring’s Creek, as well as observations of snapping turtle and eastern wood pewee (species of special concern).

“I agree with the conclusions of the EIS that the applicable feature-specific policies of the official plan are met by the EIS, with acceptable modifications for the drainage feature north of the retained wetlands and an averaging of the 30-metre wetland setback,” the report said.

The EIS makes important conclusions on the limit of development, including retention of the wetlands and associated setbacks and removal of the small agricultural drainage features, the report notes.

“Given proper implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed development would appear to be suitable from a natural environment perspective”.

Addressing the environmental setbacks and the presence of a wetland, Coffey spoke to the policies that apply in this case, and policy interpretation, and the intent of the municipal environmental policies, stating, “our intent is to protect natural heritage from incompatible development, and so how do we do that”.

He said, “Policies in the official plan must be read in its entirety in conjunction with the secondary plan. Section 3.1.4 (2) (feature specific policies) permits development within 50 metres of identified wetlands if an EIS has demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts”.

Section 3.1.4 (15-16) (Waring’s Creek) provides additional guidance on a 50-metre setback, but does not supersede Section 3.1.4 (2), he continued. “We have come to the conclusion that a 50-metre setback can be reduced with an approved EIS.”

One speaker expressed concern that the population growth isn’t here yet for such a large development, and may never come.

Councillor Roy Pennell asked why this agenda item was even being discussed when “the ducks are not in a row”, and councillor Kate MacNaughton agreed that transportation issues need to be worked out before moving forward. “It’s going to see an awful lot of traffic going on Sandy Hook, if it gets built out.”

Councillor Brad Nieman wanted to see a commercial element within the development, something he said is needed and hasn’t been included.

The 34-hectare (84-acre) parcel of land, currently zoned future development (with no EP zoning according to Nanton – disputed by other sources) would have brought 905 residential units, with a mix of typologies (tiny homes, single detached, semi-detached, back-to-back townhomes, stacked townhomes, and apartment units, ranging in size from 800 to 1,600 square feet) to the site in five phases, spanning 10 years.

Cleave noted phase one housing would range from 780 square feet for a tiny home, to 880, 1,100, 1,400, and 1,600 square feet options (mostly two bedroom units).

The first phase, to have began this fall, was anticipated to be completed by 2027, and would have brought 181 units (69 townhomes, 28 stacked townhomes, 84 back-to back-townhomes).
Density of phase one is 27.4 units per hectare, with a site-wide density of approximately of 51 units per hectare, Nanton said.

Cleave spoke to managing building costs which increase annually, while continuing to meet planned inventory, while also understanding the community’s need for attainable housing, while markets continue to rise.

“As a local landlord, we need simple, attractive, functional rental units that meet the needs of renters,” said Cleave. “The backbone of Cold Creek’s high-density will be delivered through stacked townhomes with underground parking (to drive pricing down) -stacked back-to-back townhomes will start at $375,000.”

He indicated, with a five-year term, three percent interest rate, 10 per cent down payment, 30-year amortization, the monthly payment would be $1,514.

“As local rents are now much higher than $1,500 a month, this could be a game changer for renters entering the first time home ownership market,” he said. “They are specifically designed to be more affordable and attainable than any housing previously built: density has always been the missing ingredient to housing being attainable.“

Speaking to the affordable housing component, mayor Steve Ferguson said the number one priority of this council was to enable the construction of affordable housing, asking how many of the units 905 would be affordable (no reply came from Cleave).

“It’s important to recognize that September real estate board sales data in Prince Edward County shows an average price selling of $826,000 range.” Cleave said. “We are bringing a product to market in Cold Creek at $375,000 all because of land density – $375,000 at $1,500 a month is a real number.”

Ferguson also asked how quickly the affordable housing component of the project can be built. “We have an urgent need now. What is the plan for that and can it be sped up?” asked Ferguson, to which Cleave said the plan was immediate.

Pennell’s concern was if affordable housing is built, how long will the affordable component be in effect. “What projections does the county have built into this particular program that guarantees that affordable housing is going to be around for a number of years?”.

“Affordable housing is not the obligation of the developer,” reminded Cleave. “The moral compass of the developer is to try to bring a product to market… volume of density to saturation, so more density, more saturation, prices will come down”.

The Cold Creek project would have been the first green, low-impact development community in Prince Edward County, Cleave said, aligning with the County’s goals of carbon reduction.

“We are committed to green infrastructure, moving away from gas heating, and moving into high-efficiency electric heat pumps throughout the community,” he said. “Cold Creek’s 80 acres could not be in a better location for higher density housing for a growing community… it is the perfect location for three-to-four storey stacked townhomes and surrounding services on Loyalist Parkway.”

Speaking to infrastructure water and sewer, councillor David Harrison asked for an explanation on how development pays for development, and also how up-front financing works.

“In Picton, we pay for everything, that goes on our back,” said Cleave, who reminded that he spent $1.5 million to buy the properties and widen the street (for the Cold Creek site). “No money being spent by the municipality, only by the developer: we are not Wellington, we are Picton, and we are the only builder building in Picton,” he again reminded.

Council decision is to be ratified at the next council meeting Oct. 22.

All planning documents and supporting studies relating to the proposed Cold Creek sub-division application can be found on the County’s website.