Denied: Council votes down 85-unit Fawcett Avenue sub-division

By Sharon Harrison
A long, contentious issue for residents of Fawcett Avenue, a proposed 85-unit sub-division, by Belleville-based developer Hilden Homes Ltd., recommended for approval by planning staff, was not approved by council at Wednesday’s planning and development committee meeting. The decision is to be ratified at the next feasible council meeting.

The sole hand in favour came from councillor Sam Grosso, with 11 councillors voting against, and two councillors absent.

This application first came before council at the June 19, 2024 planning and development committee meeting (after an April 16, 2024 public meeting), with an approval recommendation from planning staff, but ended up being deferred by council. A second public information meeting was held Sept. 4, 2024 intended to address numerous concerns raised by Fawcett Avenue area residents, but fell short with just three of the nine issues addressed to the satisfaction of the public at that time. Click here for background stories.

Wednesday’s statutory public meeting considered the applicant’s third revised submission and came with a report and recommendation for approval of the applications of draft plan of sub-division, official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment by the planning department for council’s discussion and decision.

Several of the key issues raised still have not been addressed by the developer it was noted by many who spoke at the meeting (both public members and councillors), where it was pointed out that the developer has had more than a year to address all the issues and still has not. At least one member of the public questioned why this meeting was being held now at short notice just a week before Christmas.

“On June 19, 2024, we gave you a list of nine or 10 things to do, and I guess your to-do and my to-do are two different things… it just seems like, we didn’t do, we just waited and hopefully time changes stuff,” expressed councillor Phil Prinzen.

“And I wonder why it’s back here tonight knowing back in June of 2024, this same council gave you a list… the biggest one was an second access route, that was a cut and dry, there was no question about it, so why is this is even back on this table, wasting time here for everybody? I don’t know.“

Perhaps the biggest revelation of the night came from the developer himself.

Eric DenOuden, owner of Hilden Homes, was asked outright by councillor Prinzen whether Hilden Homes is going to be the one to develop the land, or if they are going to list it for sale “similar to the one they listed for sale on Glenora Road”. “What is Hilden Homes’ ultimate plan with this property, for the record, for everybody here, if we find a second access route?” Prinzen asked.

DenOuden replied, “We have, I’ll repeat, never sold off land that we did not develop ourselves, but we brought it to this stage,” stated DenOuden. ”The one in Picton, I tried to sell it because it was way too onerous for me with the upfront costs that were come through on draft plan approval; it’s just something I couldn’t and wouldn’t risk and handle.”

He followed it up by stating, “This one, it is my intent to fully service it, fully develop it as a developer. I no longer want to be a residential builder, so it would be my intent to sell off building lots to builders that would build the homes, but as a developer, I have never sold land that I have brought to draft plan approval.”

To clarify the remark, Prinzen repeated: “Hilden Homes is not planning to build; they are going to sell the building lots to builders, which to me is the same as selling the property. You’ve just said to me exactly what I didn’t want you to say was, Hilden Homes is not building; they are going to sell it all to builders,” to which DenOuden said that was “Correct”.

“I will not support this,” said an angry Prinzen.

Of the list of concerns raised by residents at past meetings, the developer has not conceded on several of them, including not providing a construction route that is not on Fawcett Avenue, and not providing a second access route, not providing a proper park (only a strip of grass), not providing phased development, and the clear cutting 28 of 44 butternut trees.

The developer would install a 1.5-metre pedestrian walkway along the south side of the existing Fawcett Avenue to County Road 49, something that was high on the list of residents’ requests. Although it was noted, this isn’t the sidewalk they requested. And the County was in discussions with the school board regarding a safe bus stop point.

But that’s all the residents got from a list of requests where safety, especially as it relates to the single access road (on Fawcett Avenue) which is the only road in and out of Fawcettville, would serve as the main construction route (which could potentially continue for many years, it was noted) on a road that is used by families, children, walkers, cyclists, school buses, etc.

Seven Fawcettville residents, many long-time residents, spoke at the meeting and all opposed the application, where concerns raised largely echoed the same concerns raised in past meetings.

Issues raised included the lack of snow plowing of Fawcett Avenue currently, surface water issues, the lack of a second access road, the lack of a construction route, community safety concerns, a development that may take years to complete, the protection of old growth mature trees, and increased vehicle traffic

“This is another wasted council meeting; bringing this to the podium for December when everybody’s busy with Christmas and everything else, because the developer thinks he’s going to slide this through with nobody here,” said resident Gordon Hanley.

Mayor Steve Ferguson asked about the build-out timeline, and if it would be a five year, 10 year or 15 year project for example, where it was noted that the developer has three years to meet all the conditions and to then begin construction. He also spoke to the single road in, calling it a “real problem”.

Ferguson also enquired about affordable housing and asked if it would be part of this project, where he asked what that means, where planning co-ordinator Dale Egan said the housing would be at market rate.

“The intensification, even though we don’t get the density the bylaws wish to have, we have a lot of townhouse and semis, we have built those in the past on affordable lots keeping them under $500,000,” DenOuden explained. “That today for a new home is an affordable house for the average person. My houses, I want them to be affordable for the average person.”

DenOuden said it had been a long time coming, since he purchased the land about 10 years ago with the intent to create some houses that would be affordable in Prince Edward County.

“I find the conditions of the draft plan approval are still quite onerous to create houses that are affordable and it will take me quite a while to fulfill them,” he said.

Located on a 5.49 hectare parcel of land at 233 Fawcett Avenue, Picton – situated at the end of Fawcett Avenue- the proposed sub-division will bring 27 single detached homes, four semi-detached homes (two blocks), and 54 townhouse units (12 blocks), all freehold. Residential net density will be in the range of 25 units per hectare.

The proposed development, which was expected to be completed in one phase, would have also seen the extension of the existing Fawcett Avenue, together with two new public streets. The existing Fawcett Avenue neighbourhood (known locally as “Fawcettville”) consists of approximately 57 residential properties, with parkland of 0.51 hectares.

Egan, in his report, had stated “The proposed development will contribute to a compact and complete community with multiple connections to adjacent lands, Fawcett Avenue and the Millennium Trail… and will contribute to energy conservation and efficiency through a more compact urban development where services and municipal operations can be concentrated.”

A number of councillors spoke to many of the same concerns raised previously, such as when the traffic impact study was undertaken, to the elimination of the environmental protection area, to those that didn’t like the idea of a road running along the Millennium Trail.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton had concerns on the longevity and safety of the infrastructure, about endangered species, and how the Millennium Trail needs to be better protected, but also about the EP land.

“I have still have concerns about this plan, I don’t like it; I will never on any file ever, support the removal of EP lands to transition them into another zone.” said MacNaughton.

Bounded by the Millennium Trail to the west, with vacant agricultural land located beyond the trail, it is 355 metres from County Road 49. The proposed official plan amendment would have re-designated the lands from EP (environmental protection) to residential.

Referring to the EP lands, councillor John Hirsch said the ground truthing of the EP lands showed that they are not EP lands, “so for me, EP is not an issue”.

“I too find this to be an imperfect application. It’s not what I would like to see for a number of reasons. However, a number of the to-do list did get done, and we are left with some key points that weren’t,” Hirsch said, noting also how the sidewalks are an issue, the butternut plan is an issue, and the construction route is an issue.

It was the lack of a construction access road especially that was most heard, which councillor Brad Nieman said it had been asked at every meeting that a construction route is needed.

“We need that construction access road; Fawcett Avenue is not built for heavy equipment, the kind of heavy equipment that is going to be needed to do that construction. I can’t support it because there is ways to get that construction route, whether it be temporary or not,” shared Nieman. “If the developer is serious about doing this, he needs to find a way to get that construction route in there.”

The official plan requirement for five per cent parkland dedication was proposed to be met with parkland for 5.65 per cent (0.31 hectares) of the development. This amounts to a 15-metre-wide green corridor area through the centre of the sub-division, something many residents voiced opposition to in past meetings because it wasn’t a park, but a thin strip of grass.

The EIS (environmental impact study) had identified 44 butternut trees on the property, and established that 16 of the trees would be retainable, and 28 were non-retainable.

All planning documents related to the Fawcett Avenue sub-division application can be found on the County’s website.