Peer Review Highly Critical of Petworth Road Subdivision Study

Jeff Green | Feb 12, 2014

At a meeting called by opponents of a proposed subdivision near Hartington a couple of weeks ago, members of South Frontenac Council said they had not been apprised of the details surrounding the subdivision application.

That all changed this week when a report by Malroz Engineering was presented to a Committee of the Whole meeting in Sydenham on Tuesday night (February 11)

The Malroz report had been commissioned by the planning department of Frontenac County in response to a hydro-geological (hydro-g) study on the land slated for the subdivision, which was done by ASC Environmental and submitted to the County by the developer. The study was then forwarded by the county to South Frontenac Planner Lindsay Mills.

The question at the heart of the hydro-g study is whether there is sufficient water available to service the proposed 49 lots in the development, which is located on a 45 hectare (111 acre) site.

While pointing out that they did not do any independent analysis of the data gathered for the hydro-g study, Malroz found more than a few gaps in the data and conclusions that the report drew. They pointed to six general items that either need clarification or confirmation of the data, as well as six items related to groundwater quality on the site, 10 items related to groundwater quality, and three items related to analysis of the terrain.

As well, Malroz felt that although the hydro-g report said that a communal system was not feasible for the site, and “would result in excessive infrastructure costs … in our opinion further evaluation [of that option] is required due to the environmental suitability of the site for proposed private systems, and the density and complexity of the development.”

Opponents of the subdivision, most of whom are homeowners living nearby, have claimed that the subdivision, as proposed, will affect their water quality and quantity.

While the Malroz peer review report does not provide any evidence to support the opponents' position, it does put the onus on the applicant, Terry Grant Construction, to prove them wrong.

South Frontenac Council received the Malroz report for information purposes.

Parkland or "Cash in Lieu"?

In another matter relating to the proposed subdivision, Planner Lindsay Mills wrote that Council should consider, at an early stage in the process, whether to hold the developer to the requirement to hand over 5% of the land to the township as parkland before the plan of subdivision is approved. The alternative would be to accept a cash payment in lieu of the land transfer.

“In the case of this subdivision, the parcel would be 5.5 acres,” Mills said.

Since the land in question is flat and abuts a major road (Road 38) within the hamlet of Hartington where there is very little in the way of public parkland, Mills' report suggests that establishing a park may be in the public interest.

“For long-range planning purposes, parkland for public purposes should be acquired wherever possible before land values increase,” Mills wrote. He said that council should consider whether they want the parkland, which might cut three lots out of the subdivision, before the design of the development progresses any further