Proposed Cold Creek sub-division back on the table

By Sharon Harrison
A controversial proposed 905-unit sub-division fronting Sandy Hook Road was back on the agenda at Tuesday’s council meeting, where council voted 9-4 in favour of re-considering the application, which almost certainly otherwise would have gone to the Ontario Land Tribunal for decision.

The Port Picton Homes development proposal was denied by council Oct. 16, having been earlier deferred in September, both meetings garnering extensive discussion, debate and commentary. The six councillors opposed in the October recorded vote included Brad Nieman, Corey Engelsdorfer, Chris Braney, Phil Prinzen, David Harrison and Roy Pennell.

At the time, it was felt many of the concerns raised in both meetings by council members and members of the public had not satisfactorily been addressed by the developer. Some of those concerns related to the Waring’s Creek Watershed and included hydrogeological studies, species-at-risk and environmental setbacks, but also impacts to adjacent properties, housing affordability, Loyalist Parkway extension, and implementation of low impact development measures.

Background story can be found here:

905-unit Sandy Hook sub-division denied at council

The re-consideration motion brought forward by councillor Brad Nieman was to re-consider the decision made at the Oct. 16 planning and development committee meeting. The re-consideration does not mean the application is approved, only that it will be re-considered.

The re-consideration motion indicated the matter be referred to staff to work with the applicant to modify any applicable conditions to address concerns, with a report to come for council consideration at the next feasible council meeting in January.

“We’ve had conversations, and the developer has indicated that he is willing to address issues that have been brought forward in both meetings before, by council and by the public,” explained Nieman.

He indicated that if the appeals process had gone forward, as it was presented in the application (with 30-metre setback among them), that is what it would have been appealed on, he said. He also indicated if the appeal had proceed, the County would have had to hire outside agency planning people, as well as a lawyer.

“This way, it gives everybody an opportunity to see what the revisions are and go from there. The last time, it was a lot of the things the developer, standing at the microphone, and things were brought up, and it was said, “yeah, we can do this, yeah, we can do that”, I think they indicated that they wanted it all in writing.”

“Having this go back to re-consider to have that conversation is better for everybody, I guess.”

David Cleave with Port Picton Homes addressed council very briefly.

“This development plays an important role in bringing affordable-priced townhomes to our community, and this project is shovel-ready to proceed in the new year in phase one,” said Cleave. “Minor amendments to draft plan, for the environmental protection (EP) areas, we will amend from 30-metre setback to 50-metre, and change open space to EP.”

Comments and concerns continued to be raised in this meeting by members of the public, where seven people spoke on the subject. The Waring’s Creek Watershed was top of mind, but comments also extended to the lack of doctors, jobs, vets and schools to accommodate so much development.

Resident Ann Deverall wanted the previous votes, denying the application, to be respected.

“How it is permissible, okay or democratic? It doesn’t seem obviously appropriate to keep bringing this to council for approval when it lost the vote twice,” she said. “The process will proceed again with multiple meetings until the public will be worn down.”

County resident Les Stanfield, a stream and landscape ecologist, with a education background in how development affects the hydrology of headwater streams, was against the application being re-considered, at least until such time, at minimum, a peer review hydrological assessment is completed and demonstrates that the lands can sustainably be developed.

He said he has discussed the proposed development with a hydrogeologist as well as local resident and farmer, Dan Langridge, something he said “does support my worst fears”.

“Dan’s local knowledge will clearly demonstrate that the water table is very close to the surface during much of the year. Lots of water enters the site, both as surface water and as ground water,” said Stanfield. “It is a basin with Sandy Hook Road acting as a barrier to flows. The shape, soils and volume of water mean that much of the site could well be an underground river or lake.”

He said the conclusion is also supported by the “flawed, but informative” Loyalist Heights study which showed one well in particular having water very close to the surface.

“Very small differences in water levels determine whether a hydrological feature is an underground river/lake or a wetland. These conditions mean that for much of the site, and much of the year, LIDs (low impact development) will not work on this property.”

He said, stormwater ponds and LIDs won’t drain, meaning at present, they have no idea how much of the land should developed at all.

“To re-consider this application in the absence of a detailed understanding of the hydrology of this property would not only be in violation of the WCIA (Waring’s Creek Improvement Association) terms of settlement, but could also present a liability to the County from future land owners.”

Sandy Hook Road resident, and 27-year farmer, Dan Langridge indicated he has farmed and worked much of the land in the area (including the development site) over almost three decades, and knows the land, where he spoke to his farming experience in the area, but also shared his neighbours experiences.

“The residents in this area called this the underground creek for a reason. The watershed is unbelievable. Only four times since 2007, the three-foot holes I dig on our property for giant pumpkins haven’t filled with six inches of water after digging,” explained Langridge.

“When you check the grade of the land for both proposals [Cold Creek and Loyalist Heights] showing the water flow and the headwater location, you will find Loyalist Heights test wells higher than the water flow chart from Cold Creek development. This implies that the water table is even higher on the Cold Creek property.”

He said, to disrupt the eco-system would be a “very bad choice; the amount of farmland and wetland affected is huge”.

“The best way to protect this eco-system is to leave the properties as farmland with the natural permeability of the soil and the crops being grown: they are absorbing the minerals and nitrates, along with filtering the water running into the headwaters.”

He said, with sub-divisions reducing the permeability of soil by 40 percent, referring to streets, sidewalks, driveways, walkways and building roofs, oils containing contaminants and salt from winter roads are being sent into a sensitive watershed, contaminating the underground lake.

Cheryl O’Brien with WCIA reminded that a legally-binding agreement was signed with the County in 2008.

“That agreement, signed in good faith, encouraged the WCIA to believe that the agreement would be honoured and the County would do the necessary mappings and hydrogeological studies to ensure the Waring’s Creek headwaters would be protected in the event of future development,” outlined O’Brien.

She said, nothing has been done by the County to honour its commitment, and asked why the water resource is so seemingly unimportant to council.

“The County seems determined to pass 1,200 homes in the entire headwaters: Cold Creek proposes over 900, without adequate hydrogeological work,” she said.

“The County is so driven to meet development targets, it appears to be willing to sacrifice a magnificent underground watercourse. This provides water to residential wells, farms and aquatic life in the creek. Shameful.”