Water and nature concerns over proposed Huycks Bay sub-division

By Sharon Harrison
An application for a proposed seven-unit sub-division, along with a new year-round municipal road, on Huycks Point Road was before the planning and development committee meeting Wednesday evening.

Under the new two-step process, no decision on this planning application is made by council until a future statutory public meeting where staff will provide a report and recommendation.

Originally submitted in June 2021, prior to the current (July 2021) official plan now in effect, the draft plan of sub-division and zoning bylaw amendment are being analyzed against the 2006 official plan. (Click here for details of a virtual public consultation meeting held June 2021.)

“This property recently was subject to two severance applications. One was approved and the other is to be withdrawn and is now forming part of the new sub-division plan,” noted Angela Buonmamici, the County’s manager of planning. “The northern portion of this property is located outside of the plan of sub-division and is not part of the re-zoning application.”

Six members of the public expressed opposition at the meeting, expressing similar concerns, especially, and overwhelmingly, as it relates to worries about well water supply and the aquifer it draws from. Most were against the kind of development being proposed, indicating how it was not appropriate for the location, with one Huycks Point Road resident indicating, “how the project would end up being a detriment to the community that would go on forever”.

Other points raised included concern for wildlife and habitat, inadequate wetland buffers, criticism for lack of communication with neighbours about the development (many neighbours only heard about the proposed development a few weeks ago), and also why a new municipal road would be included (for just seven homes) when the County already has more roads than it can maintain.

Several people noted disagreement that the application is being considered under the old (2006) official plan, instead of the current official plan, with others, including several councillors noting the length of time that has lapsed between the filing of the first application and second application by the applicant.

Gerald Taylor has lived next door to the property for 25 years. He notes the road has no other sub-divisions, “the application got in just before the wire, and it was seen at the time as a bad idea, and it still is.

“I moved here to be in a rural setting with privacy, quietness and some space. This project does not allow any of those at all, and it’s going to infringe on my privacy, besides drying up my well. I didn’t expect the suburbs to follow me and I sure resent the fact that someone thinks that’s a good idea.”

Taylor also spoke to concerns for wildlife and the inhabitants of the wetland, noting how the land borders protected wetland. But he also noted how the proposed sub-division would be serviced by a street that would go in for six lots. “Does he County want any more streets to maintain, to plow, to fill the potholes?” he asked.

“This proposal upsets everyone I know on one of the County’s most pleasant roads.”

The applicants, Jay Christopher and Leah Jensen (11562550 Canada Inc.), operating as Huycks Bay Estates, are proposing to create a low-density, family residential development with seven single detached homes in the western part of the County, at 1092 Huycks Point Road (County Road 20) in Hillier ward.

At 39.4 hectares in total land area, the sub-division with comprise 6.4 hectares, with approximately 30.7 hectares to remain undeveloped (and excluded from the plan of sub-division).

Currently vacant, the land abuts low-density rural residential uses and several vacant properties. The property fronts onto the Huycks Bay shoreline to the north, and Huycks Point Road to the south.

Huycks Bay Road resident Gregor Stuart raised several points, including concerns about the water and when the hydrogeological tests were carried out.

He said, he and his neighbours have no recourse if their wells run dry with the additional houses.

“But this really isn’t about eight new houses drawing water for this development: there’s eight in the development, there are two more on adjoining lots as part of the development, there are two others that are just west of the development, and there’s another four or five wells that are recently dug just west of Huycks Point Road,” expressed Stuart. “That’s 16 additional wells, that are known, on a base of about 35 houses for everybody west of this proposed development, and north around Huycks Bay.”

He said that was a 45 per cent increase draw on the water table that is already precarious.

“Each one of these lots on the development can add another house, that’s another eight or nine wells drawing on the same water table, that makes a 70 per cent increase draw on that water,” he said. “Collectively, it will be completely irresponsible and a catastrophe for people who have existing wells in this area.”

Currently zoned Rural 2 (RU2) and Environmental Protection – Provincially Significant Wetland (EP-W), the re-zoning application proposes a change to Rural Residential 2 (RR2) zone to reflect the resulting lot sizes. The boundary of the Environmental Protection – Provincially Significant Wetland (EP-W) would need to be changed to reflect the updated boundary of the wetland. The official plan designation is shoreland and environmental protection.

The water frontage is not included in the draft plan of sub-division and it will remain in private ownership noted agent for the applicant, Ray Essiambre of Ray Essiambre and Associates Ltd. He further stated there will be no public access to the water. The wetland is located between the sub-division which is an existing visual barrier that blocks views of the water.

The public open space dedication requirement for Huycks Bay Estates is five per cent of the gross area of the 6.4 hectare sub-division that results in a dedication of 0.32 hectares, said Essiambre.

“The area is small and not practical for use as open space in a small sub-division. The applicant proposes to pay cash-in-lieu of parkland; the funds could be used to support development of recreation facilities on the parcel (zoned Open Space) owned by the County, approximately 1.32 hectares and located south of Huycks Point Road immediately across from Huycks Estates.”

Regarding the woodland, the proposed works on the lots are to be outside of the woodland so the woodland would be preserved in its entirety.

Water quality testing in the hydrogeological study showed good physical and chemical quality, but elevated levels of total coliform bacteria, said Essiambre.

He said there are four wells within the area of the sub-division, and there were two neighbouring wells that were tested concurrent with the other four wells when the hydrogeological study was done.

“All wells were producing sufficient water to supply the seven lots, and that’s the conclusion of the hydrogeological study, and there was no significant impact on the adjacent wells during the study period,” said Essiambre.

“The study shows that wells in the area are likely to obtain adequate quantities of potable groundwater (with appropriate UV treatment) without affecting neighbouring water users, and without running dry in the late summer months,” states Essiambre’s report. “The hydrogeological study concludes there is sufficient supply available and well yields will remain adequate for residential water supply under long term use.”

Councillor Roy Pennell said he had “big concerns” about approving the application.

“If we approve lots within this, and I know a couple of the neighbours have suggested they were a little concerned about the water, as soon as we approve these lots, they could put additional houses on there and that scares me for the simple reason, because if you run out of water on any of those, where do you get the water from, there is no water?” He asked if a condition could be put on for only one dwelling per lot.

He specifically highlighted Lot 7 that only produced 7.5 litres per minute, and which was dug in the winter months.

“If you can’t get water then, and you are coming into summer and a dry spell, I’ve got serious concerns on that particular lot,” said Pennell. “My biggest concern of all, why on earth would this municipality look at putting in any sub-division that wasn’t on town water?”

“If we put that in and there is a problem, every taxpayer will bail out the decision that we might make now,” he said, “and any sub-division going in that isn’t on municipal water, I don’t want to see it.”

Councillor Janice Maynard spoke to the well testing that occurred in 2021.

“You had four wells at that point in time, the test dates are all different (that’s four wells, now there will be seven), was there ever any attempt to do a cumulative impact having those wells pumped at the same time in real life, to see what the impact either on those wells that are on-site or on the neighbour wells off-site?“ she asked.

Barry Pinsky lives 300 metres west of the proposed development and took issue with the process and the lack of communication to neighbours indicating how confusing it was, and stating that many of his neighbours had only recently become aware of the meeting.

“I don’t know why we are proceeding with this, we are now putting in at least nine lots, everyone is allowed two houses on each lot… great big homes on grassy lots… it shouldn’t proceed at all.”

Pinsky was also concerned that a lot of trees will have to be removed, how the parkland cash-in-lieu doesn’t make sense, and how it is “a terrible idea for the County to take over the road… It’s basically a driveway for six or 12 houses, I thinks it’s inappropriate”.

“You only have to look at Huycks Bay Road to know why: it’s a mess of gravel, rocks, bits of asphalt, and it was assumed by the County and that’s how it’s been taken care of,” Pinsky added.

An environmental impact study was prepared by GHD Limited for the entire 38 hectare area which identified significant natural features with the site, including fish habitat, significant wildlife habitat, wetlands, and habitat of species of special concern.

“A 30-meter buffer has been recommended to Huycks Bay shoreline, watercourse and significant wetlands. Mitigation measures have been recommended for wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, fish and fish habitat, erosion and sediment control, and operation of equipment,” the EIS notes.

Luke Ridgway, a South Shore Joint Initiative board member, and advocate for conservation and good environmental stewardship in the County, said he was frustrated the applications were being reviewed under the 2006 official plan, citing shortfalls in the environmental planning.

“It undermines the current shorelines designations, the natural core areas designations, and the environmental protection provisions; frankly, it seems short-sighted,” said Ridgway.

He said regardless, the environmental significance and the sensitivity of Huycks Bay is largely under-represented and should generally be treated as a provincial significant wetland.

“A 30-metre buffer is frankly completely inadequate,” he said. “At a minimum, if the wetland wasn’t significant, it would be a 50-metre buffer. If it was being reviewed under the 2021 official plan, the buffer should be considered 120 metres.”

Extending the buffer to 120 metres doesn’t preclude development, said Ridgeway, “but it does ensure the wetland is protected and not affected in a detrimental way”.

Planning documentation relating to this application can be found on the County’s website.