Coming out party for Petworth/Boyce Road subdivision

Jeff Green | Jul 09, 2015

Members of South Frontenac Council have been asked about their stance on it for years. There have been meetings between neighbours, presentations at Council meeting, whisperings about too much water on the site, drainage, loss of rural character and more.

All of this was before a parcel on a long, narrow swath of land just west of Road 38 between Petworth and Boyce Road had ever come to Council as a proposed 47-lot subdivision.

That ended on Tuesday night, July 7, when Mike Keene of Fotenn Planning brought the subdivision proposal before a public meeting at South Frontenac Council, one of the formal steps in the process that will eventually lead to Frontenac County, which approves subdivision agreements, and perhaps a date with the Ontario Municipal Board at the end of the day.

The proposal that Keene described features two rows of lots running along the property with a road running through the middle. There are 47 0.8 hectare (2 acre) lots, each with 46 metre (150 foot) road frontages. The 46 metres is significant because minimum road frontage in the township for new lots is 76 metres (250 feet)

Keene said that the 150 foot frontages are “consistent with other subdivisions in the township and are supported by the studies that have been done.”

He also talked about some extensive hydrogeological studies that have been done at the site, and said that even as the lots are developed, further studies can be done as wells are dug at each lot to ensure there is no draw down of wells in the vicinity.

When he presented his own planning report in relation to the plan of subdivision, South Frontenac Township Planner Lindsay Mills said he did not think the 150 foot frontages were appropriate, but said “something under 250 foot frontages are supportable” although he did not say what that number should be.

A string of neighbouring property owners, seven in total, made 10-minute presentations to Council in opposition to the subdivision in front of an overflow, sign-carrying crowd at the council chambers in Sydenham. Opponents said that test wells that have been dug at the site have affected their own water supply, both in terms of quality and quantity. A farmer who lives near the site said his ability to farm will be affected by the subdivision, saying “people who live in urban subdivisions are not friends of farmers”.

Others attacked the location for being located, for the most part, outside of the designated Hartington hamlet, where they said subdivisions should be confined. Still others attacked the project on the grounds that it did not live up to the principles of sustainable development.

A number of councilors joined in, calling the development ill-conceived, inconsistent with the rural nature of the area, and more. Councilor Ross Sutherland even attacked the shape of the road. “If it was serpentine instead of straight it would fit in better with the surrounding landscape,” he said.

Other concerns were raised about increases to traffic flow on Road 38. Later, members of the audience asked further questions about drainage and more.

In the end, a motion to forward the planning report by Lindsay Mills, which outlined the project but did not make a recommendation as to whether it should be adopted, in addition to all the comments and presentations by council and the public, was not fowarded to Frontenac County for consideration by the planning department, which has the authority to approve plans of subdivision.

Instead, it will come back to South Frontenac Council for further consideration.

It is a bit unclear how long the township has to go over the proposal before it will have been longer than is prescribed, leaving the applicant with grounds to appeal the slow progress to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Solar approval – A 500 kw micro-fit project at 300 Hinchinbrooke Road received a motion of support from council, one of many from the township that will go forward to a competitive bidding process under the Independent Energy Systems Operator (IESO) for consideration this fall.

Council also approved a framework for “facility agreement requirements” for large scale solar projects. A proposal to provide a motion of support to Sun Edison if and when a community vibrancy agreement (in the form of an annual payment to the township) is signed, was deferred until the August meeting. The main reason noted was that Council had already been in session for over four hours at that point and were too tired to make a good decision.