Cold Creek sub-division conditionally approved, with more studies needed

Administrator | Feb 13, 2025 | Comments 0

By Sharon Harrison
Council voted 8-6 in a recorded vote to finally approve the proposed 870-unit Port Picton Homes Cold Creek sub-division bordering Sandy Hook Road (County Road 1) which had been up for re-consideration.

Councillors opposed to the application moving forward were: Chris Braney, Phil Prinzen, Sam Branderhorst, Roy Pennell, David Harrison and Corey Engelsdorfer.

The approval, however, came with additional conditions which councillor Brad Nieman brought forward to have the developer provide a hydrogeological study and an independent peer review consultant retained by the municipality, prior to sub-division agreement.

Nieman’s motion also included a clause that the County will develop terms of reference for a cumulative impact study (CIS) in consultation with the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association (WCIA) and the Cold Creek development on the Waring’s Creek watershed. All recommendations of the hydrogeological study and cumulative impact study, and any peer review recommendations, are to be incorporated into the development, all prior to the execution of the sub-division agreement.

“That study would be fulsome enough that whatever came out of that study, we can move forward from that,” said Nieman. “This motion would also allow the developer to move a little bit, but not really giving full approval until that study is done and the peer review. It is also allowing all parties to communicate, set-up the terms of reference and be part of that study.

“This is a good path forward and a good way to do it; we are not giving full approval, we are giving some,” he added.

The developer said he wants phase one to move forward this spring for a project anticipated to include five phases over 10 to 15 years.

Original plan at top, revised at bottom

Spanning five hours, Tuesday’s council meeting heard from the developer, several hydrogeologists and an engineering consultant, the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association, and the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, along with extensive discussion around the horseshoe. A mix of opinions were shared by the dozen comments heard from the public.

There were also some observations made by several council members (and others) noting the speed to which the application came back to council for approval, questioning its timing, and who received what report when, thereby not allowing sufficient time for some (including councillors) for appropriate consultation, but especially leaving WCIA out of the conversation.

“It’s very evident that we are all very disappointed with the balls that have been dropped on this file; in my mind, it’s become a bit of a gong show at this stage,” said councillor Chris Braney, expressing disappointment as he spoke to the things that have been overlooked.

In application revisions that went back and forth numerous times between council, planning staff, and the WCIA, the application received much feedback on the proposed development amid immense controversy and public concern especially as it relates to the nearby Waring’s Creek watershed and headwaters, and the effect large-scale developments will have on the functionality of the water course.

Port Picton Homes’ CEO David Cleave (applicant is Waterloo-based 24222092 Ontario Ltd. owned by Port Picton Homes) addressed council where he indicated how the proposed project has been re-designed to remove 20 units, and provides a 50-metre wetland setbacks, along with several other changes pertaining to the proposed George Wright Boulevard connection.

On the affordability issue, Cleave stated, “We will deliver 10 per cent (18 units) of our phase one townhomes at $375,000”.

“We have made huge revisions to the application addressing the requests of the WCIA and tonight there is irrefutable science that speaks for itself,” said Cleave. “We are no longer talking about cumulative impact studies because Loyalist Heights have filed their OLT (Ontario Land Tribunal) and they are no longer participating with us.”.

Speaking to “facts and science”, he said tonight was about hydrogeology and the expert engineering of stormwater management system design.

“I understand how for the last six months, the WCIA has constantly asked for delay, defer and deny because they cannot factually support the position regarding the science. If the WCIA has accredited and applicable information to bring to council tonight, we would like to hear it. Otherwise, all other claims, comments have no bearing on this important decision this evening.”

“There are only five accredited, qualified individuals at this meeting this evening who have the credentials to speak about hydrogeology and stormwater engineering for Cold Creek,“ added Cleave. “Mr. Les Stanfield, stream biologist, carries no professional designation as a geo-scientist, or professional engineer in any field, so as he speaks about our project, he is only giving his lay opinion without any professional designation or accountability to regulatory body.”

Les Stanfield has a master’s degree in landscape hydrology and four years experience in stream ecology, Stanfield said. “I literally wrote the manual on how to conduct stream surveys for cumulative effects analysis.”

For clarity, Dan Langridge addressed his experience saying that while he is a numbers guy, he has never claimed to be a hydrogeologist, noting his experience has been 33 years working on stormwater management in industry, 23 years of which included training students.

Cleave reminded that Cold Creek forms less than two per cent of the total 4,000 acres of the Waring’s Creek watershed East Lake.

“I believe the WCIA is playing the long game with council, trying to delay enough to catch a break somewhere and if they end up having to go to OLT, well, so be it,” stated Cleave. “At some point, we have to stop the spinning and believe in the science.“

Cleave said he will agree to provide monitoring on the property for the headwaters from now until the final phase of the project, so a pre-construction baseline can be established, something he said he will pay for.

“Each block (phase) has to go through site plan control so any mitigation can be put in place each time through an LID protocol. If we see temperatures increasing, we can address and establish for more infiltration beds through detailed design work.”

Gerry Jenkison, PECFN president said they would like to request measures for LID be included in the draft conditions of approval. “LID measures are vital to project Waring’s Creek watershed, which includes the only designated cold water creek in the County,” she said.

“From the day we named the project Cold Creek, the name was always meant to be on point, cold creek,” said Cleave. [This despite the confusion with an already established area of the County historically named Cold Creek (creek, road, area) in Hillier].

Dr. Cliff Rice, representing the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association reminded that the County “retains a moral and ethical obligation and responsibility to protect Waring’s Creek”.

“The opponent [Cleave] has made impassioned statements that have tried to discredit the WCIA and the proponent group contends that they are the only source of credible information and qualification to speak on this subject,” said Rice. “One of the main reasons is the failure of your planners to allow us to develop the science that could help inform you.”

Outlining the sequence of events, and how at the Dec. 11 planning committee meeting council agreed WCIA could obtain a CIS, he said “planning has now failed to follow council’s direction”.

“We’ve been patient and now all of a sudden this proposal has come back to council for approval and we’ve had no chance to produce the study that is required. Planning has reneged, and by default, council has reneged on that motion and the proposed study as it was never given a chance.”

Rice said they were provided with the developer’s hydrogeological study just last week, “and we are expected to digest and comment on that in one week. Then we find out that planning sought a peer review, asking for comments on cumulative impacts, all without consultation from WCIA”.

He reminded the peer review contained a recommendation that the CIS be done, noting that while the proponent has science within the boundary of the development, he said there is no assessment of the downstream effects on the watershed.

“If council approves this decision tonight, it is doing so from an uninformed position in the absence of critical sciences. Council will own this decision and you will be accepting all future liability for its decision,” stated Rice. “Your liability may not become apparent for years until the full impacts of the developments are clear. If that liability happens to turn into a class action law suit, all those people downstream impacted by water quality degradation, then this council’s legacy could cost the County millions of dollars.”

Rice promised that if the CIS comes back and it indicates there is no problem with the proposal, that there are no long-term impacts, “we will pack our bags”.

Stanfield said the decision must be deferred until a motion to complete a collaborative, unbiased, objective and science-based cumulative effects study on Waring’s Creek is successfully implemented.

“The peer review by CCR Environmental concludes that a cumulative effects analysis is recommended to understand and quantify potential impacts. The proponents own data suggest that surface flows will increase from 134 to almost 400 per cent,” stated Stanfield.

He said, LID and green roofs can’t be relied upon as there are too many issues with maintenance and failed construction. “Are you willing to accept the risks for Waring’s Creek for the next 100 years?”

Cumulative effects studies must be done prior to any sub-division approval, noted Stanfield, because the “results determine the development capacity of the lands. This is a small stream with limited capacity to manage altered flows. If the intensity or frequency of the channel increases, Waring’s Creek will be destroyed”.

“Protection of the water quality and the watershed of Waring’s Creek is a critical part of the livelihood of many people, along with hundreds of wells around the proposed development all the way to West Lake,” said Langridge. “Along with aquatic life, birds and animals, we have one chance to get this right. A wrong decision on the proposed development will destroy years of protecting this precious resource.”

“It’s about doing the right thing,” added Braney. “The Waring’s Creek watershed is an environmental gem in the County, this is a natural asset to Prince Edward County and we need to protect this.”