Council voted twice last night against Port Picton Homes’ Cold Creek neighbourhood proposal.

The decision leaves David Cleave no option but to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal — an appeal he is almost certain to win. The zoning of the property allows for town residential development, and County planners were in favour.

“The OLT process will set the project back at least a year,” said Mr. Cleave. “It’s also very, very expensive to fight a case your own planners recommended. This is an extremely complicated file and they now have to re-do the whole thing for the OLT.

“That means the County has to hire new planners, engineers, and peer reviewers and re-do every study, plan and report for the Tribunal. Every single one.”

Council cannot use its own planners, who support the development, to argue against it at the Land Tribunal.

“Council voted to spend taxpayer money against the most affordable housing project it will ever see. I just don’t understand it. I’m gobsmacked,” said Mr. Cleave.

“Never mind that those voting against did not offer a single argument for why.”

Estimates of the County’s costs to defend the denial at the Land Tribunal run as high as $250,000.

Mr. Cleave was at Council to try to save the deal, which also failed at the Planning and Development Committee earlier this month on a tie vote of 7-7.

He committed to entry level price points for 37 tiny homes and townhouses of $375,000 – $450,000, with the first homes ready for occupancy in 2025.

He also addressed a series of key sticking points, including: amending the language of the agreement to make Low Impact Design features the default; increase protection of wetlands through Environmental Protection zoning; make all proposed 30m wetlands setbacks subject to permits from QCA; create three connecting trails to the Millennium Trail; and to reconstruct the proposed Hineman Street entrance from a 7m path to a 16m-wide street with sidewalks and streetlights.

“With these nine proposed amendments, we have committed to more than is required and stepped past the middle ground,” said Mr. Cleave. “I am here to participate.”

Councillor John Hirsch then proposed an amended motion to Council incorporating some of Mr. Cleave’s concessions.

But it wasn’t enough.

“Council has rejected the best chance we have had yet to approve affordable housing with many green building and design features.”

Councillor John Hirsch

Some councillors were opposed on the grounds that the land is considered some of the best farmland in the County, as well as out of concern for the Cold Creek Watershed. Yet the 80-acre parcel has been zoned for town development since the 1970s.

Some of the confusion was procedural. Councillor Prinzen said he would vote against the motion until it was more clear, apparently unaware that voting against the development proposal again at Council after it had been defeated at Planning would be final.

“There’s no reason this can’t go back to get cleaned up so every one of us sitting around this horseshoe understands exactly what we are voting on,” he said. “Send it back and bring it back final so everyone can support it.”

Councillor Braney spoke at length against established Council procedures that allow for a second debate on decisions taken at Planning and other secondary committees, but did not address the actual development proposal or offer reasons for his opposition.

Other than Councillor Prinzen’s demand for more clarity, those voting against the development offered no reason or rationale.

When Mr. Cleave takes the case to the Tribunal, the County will have no directives from Council to direct their argument against the development.

“Don’t forget what the repercussions are if this doesn’t go forward,” warned Councillor St-Jean. “If we deny this it will certainly be appealed to the OLT, and we will have to hire staff and lawyers to defend our denial of a proposal our staff approved.”

Mr. St-Jean pointed out that five of those opposed — Councillors Braney, Engelsdorfer, Harrison, Nieman, and Pennell — had voted in favour of settling with Picton Terminals in order to save money on legal costs.

Yet the same councillors, voting against a staff recommendation to approve a development, were inviting a long and almost equally expensive appeal at the OLT.

“That’s a a double standard right there.”

Speaking in favour, Mayor Ferguson noted, “Mr. Cleave has made a commitment to affordable housing and there’s the possibility that some of those units will be occupiable within 12 months.”

“That is welcome news to those having to move out of the County because they can’t find a place to live.”

The Mayor also noted the almost certain expense of going to appeal, and worried that the gains made in concessions from the developer through multiple rounds of negotiations with Council would be lost.

Councillor MacNaughton asked Councillors Hirsch and St-Jean to consider a referral back to planning, “so we can incorporate the increased environmental protections offered tonight and create a second formal agreement with Mr. Cleave,” on such things as the promised price points.

“Let’s make sure we have our ducks in a row.”

But the councillors thought they had done enough — only to see their amending motion fail on a tie.  

Councillors Braney, Nieman, Prinzen, Harrison, Pennell, Branderhorst, and Engelsdorfer voted against. A final vote on the main, unamended motion also failed with a vote of 8-6 against.

Phase 1 of the master-planned neighbourhood between Sandy Hook Road and Lake Street runs along the Millennium Trail and includes 83 back-to-back townhouses, 69 single townhouses, and 32 stacked townhouses. Occupancy was to be as soon as a year away, with units move-in ready beginning in 2025.