Fawcettville development second public meeting called ‘a waste of time’

Story and photo by Sharon Harrison
A second public information meeting on the proposed Fawcett Avenue sub-division was largely considered a waste of everybody’s time at the Picton town hall, with some suggesting it should have been postponed, as it brought little to no new information or resolutions of concerns already expressed.

Developer Eric DenOuden, of Hilden Homes, and County staff had 11 weeks (since the June 19 planning and development committee meeting) to bring back a revised plan addressing nine concerns raised by Fawcettville residents, and supported by councillors.

The developer’s only concession evident was to put a 15-metre (50-foot) wide strip of grass down the middle of the proposed sub-division. It is “to provide a formal separated pedestrian connection through the sub-division, as well as providing on-site green space,” said agent for the applicant, Kelsey Jones, with Fotenn Planning and Design.

This didn’t go down well with residents who continue to seek answer about clear cutting a forest including endangered butternut trees; safety issues, including the use of the narrow Fawcett Avenue for construction traffic and to serve the proposed new sub-division with no second point of access; lack of a sidewalk, especially for those walking along the road, but most importantly for children using the road to access the school bus twice a day at the County Road 49 intersection.

At the June 19 planning meeting, council unanimously decided to defer the application back to staff to consider the issues raised by residents. The developer is seeking an official plan amendment, draft plan of sub-division, and zoning bylaw amendment.

Despite having had 11 weeks to come up with something, the developer only did so the day before this latest meeting, meaning County staff were put in a difficult position, and they and the developer’s agent, had little time to prepare for the meeting. County staff also indicated it would be several days before the updated documents and information would be posted on the County’s website, which meant other than a few slides shown at the meeting, the public was still unable to learn full details.

Jones stated the documents were only submitted to County the day before, and noted how it takes time to get consultants to do work.

Councillor Phil Prinzen expressed his disappointment with the developer.

“I could never support this meeting and go back to the people and say “good job, Eric”. As a councillor, I could never approve this with that little change (green strip),” said Prinzen. “There was a comment about wasting time and as I sit here tonight I truly believe, and it’s unfortunate it only came yesterday, but I truly believe it should have been postponed or put off, because you’ve got 40 people wasting two hours of their time that they are not going to get back, to see a green strip on something.”

Councillor John Hirsch agreed the meeting was a waste of time, with just three items (out of nine) having been addressed by the developer.

“When this comes back to council, if all those nine points are not well addressed, I will not be supporting this,” said Hirsch. “The whole purpose of sending this back was to have these things looked at.”

One gentleman, referring to a few items discussed, noted the updated traffic study, the green space down the middle and that sidewalks would require a lot of effort. He further noted the 16 (of 44) butternut trees deemed savable, are not incorporated in any of the plan.

“You haven’t addressed the safety and bus stops for the citizens and the kids in the area…The green space benefits the people living in those houses, that’s basically it, there is no parkland. I just think that you really haven’t done anything, and there is still a lot to address, even if it’s five or six of these (meetings). There’s no second access, they definitely didn’t want the construction route on Fawcett Avenue. I think there is a lot more work to be done if it’s going to go ahead.”

Several residents expressed concern the developer may simply get approval to develop the site, get services connected and simply hold the site, only to sell it after a few years.

“I am also terrified of another development off of Glenora Road/Highway 33 at Owen Street which has been clear-cut for two or three years now, and now it’s for sale, same developer” said one gentleman. “Is this land banking?” he asked.

It was confirmed that a developer would have to build within three years after the sub-division agreement.

“It is our intent to develop this land as soon as we get permission,” said DenOuden, “we are hoping within a year or so.

Asked about affordability of homes much needed especially for younger families, the developer was asked what will houses be marketed at a year from now, to which DenOuden said $500,000.

The request for a second access road to be installed was to accommodate the construction traffic for the duration, but also to accommodate the additional traffic from 85 new homes. The developer shared no plan for a revised (or a temporary) construction route.

Jones indicated an updated traffic impact study was undertaken by the project’s transportation engineer. While details of the traffic count were not available at the meeting (to be posted on County website in coming days), Jones did provide a summary of the report saying the engineer collected new traffic counts on May 28.

“The engineer estimated the expected trips generated by the proposed sub-division – 66 trips in the peak a.m. period, and 77 trips in the peak p.m. period,” said Jones, adding, “There would be minimal impact on operations at the Fawcett Avenue/County Road 49 intersection during those peak a.m. and p.m. periods.”

Jones said the traffic engineer also evaluated whether a second access is warranted for the proposed development, stating: “as currently designed for a single point of access, they haven’t found any operational or safety concerns for that single point… and as currently designed that single current access to Fawcett Avenue is sufficient to handle the traffic without causing congestion or safety delays.”

Jones also noted that the land on both sides of the property, as well as the existing Fawcettville neighbourhood, are designated and intended for future residential development (although no applications have been filed as yet, according to County staff), with such future development to bring additional points of vehicle access.

“This is very much a temporary situation for that single point access for Fawcett Avenue,” she stated.

Regarding a sidewalk to be installed on Fawcett Avenue, the answer wasn’t a hard ‘no’ but it wasn’t a straightforward ‘yes’ either.

If a sidewalk was to be accommodated, Jones said the increased pavement width would require several modifications to the existing construction of Fawcett Avenue, including likely re-alignment and re-grading of culverts, removing and reinstating driveways, culverts, landscaping, utility poles, other adjustments to utilities (e.g. modifying gas mains), and the likelihood of loss of mature trees that would are in the right-of-way or in front yards, as well as the loss of landscaping, and the likely reduction of driveway lengths and front yard clearances.

“While it may be able to accommodate a sidewalk within the same street, it would require quite significant changes and construction alterations,” said Jones.

“I appreciate the effort you made to tell us how difficult the sidewalk work would be, but you didn’t answer the question, you didn’t say, we are prepared to do it, you didn’t say the town is prepared to do it, you simply said, it’s a lot of work,” said one gentleman.

“I don’t care if it’s a lot of work, my expectation is that the health, the safety and welfare of everybody in this room would be protected, including our children and grandchildren walking from the top of that Millennium Trail down along the bottom of the street every morning to go to the school, were there’s trucks and stuff going up and down, and cars speeding. It’s unacceptable.

“I really don’t understand how we can speak so passionately about something, and out of all of this we are going to put a green space down the middle. I’m disappointed,” he added.

Speaking further to the sidewalk, Jones said the civil engineer undertook an assessment which determined the road was constructed to rural standards, with a paved surface of 7.5 metres wide, with ditches on either side for drainage.

“A typical rural street would require a nine to 11-metre wide paved surface to incorporate sidewalks and for vehicle lanes, and an 11-metre width would be required for an enhanced rural street which would incorporate a paved pedestrian lane, a buffer between that and the vehicle lane travelled,” she said.

In short, “as currently constructed, the 7.5-metre wide width of Fawcett Avenue is not currently sufficient to accommodate a pedestrian lane”.

She said, there would need to be an additional paved surface of 3.5 metres for two paved shoulders, and an additional 1.75 metres for one paved shoulder, so that would increase the width of the existing street to either 11 metres, or 9.25 metres.

“We haven’t said this evening that there wouldn’t be a sidewalk added to Fawcett Avenue,” said Jones, reminding that the engineer said it was feasible, but it would require modifications. “If the desire is for the street to be modified, we can have those discussions with the County to figure out how that can be facilitated.”

It was also noted the developer did not contact the Hastings Prince Edward District School Board for its input on a safe group bus stop at the County Road 49 intersection, as proposed by council at the last meeting.

“One of the items was to talk to the school board and you didn’t talk to the school board. That was as easy as anything, yet you didn’t do it,” said Prinzen.

Speaking to residents’ concerns about tree removal, specifically to the 44 butternut trees on the property proposed to be developed, Jones reiterated that a butternut tree assessment identified that of the 44 butternut trees, 16 were retainable and 28 were not deemed retainable due to butternut canker fungus that will claim the tree, “and is one the province doesn’t feel needs to be protected in its current location.”

Lise Bois reminded that not only does the County have an arborist, but there is a tree protection and management policy that every developer has to abide by.

“I don’t live in Fawcettville, but if I saw that plan and that little green strip, I would be thoroughly insulted that you are removing an active forest,” said Bois. “I understand that you have to remove some, but the 16 that should be protected should stay protected, and there should be no way they can be removed.”

She noted how there is no green space proposed, except the little strip of grass,

“What are you going to put on the strip? Some grass, which is about the most useless thing environmentally.”

Fawcett Avenue resident Katy Fillmore said the amendments need to be coming from the developer, “maybe significantly reducing the number of houses he is planning, but a lot more effort seems to be needed here. “I think the passion from all of us who live there is very clear. We are very unhappy with this”

Updated documentation relating to this application is expected to be posted on the County’s website in the coming days, to include an updated traffic impact study, sidewalk feasibility, updated servicing report, updated stormwater management report, updated draft plan of sub-division, as well as a comprehensive response to each of the motions from council.

Fawcett Avenue proposed sub-division deferred amid significant concerns