Washington St. project sparks concern
- Mar 17
- 5 min read
Casandra Turnbull
Managing Editor
A proposed residential development at 69 Washington St. drew a packed council chamber and nearly a dozen speakers during a public meeting at County of Brant council on Tuesday, March 10, as residents voiced concerns about flooding, wildlife habitat and environmental protections.
The application, brought forward by Stone Edge Developments Inc. through planning consultant Stantec, seeks an Official Plan amendment and draft plan of subdivision that would allow nine residential units on the property, including seven single detached homes and one semi-detached dwelling.
County staff emphasized that the presentation was being received for information only, with the proposal still under technical review.
Ryan Cummins, senior planner with the County of Brant, said the municipality is aware of several issues raised by residents during the early stages of the process.
“There are some key themes we’ve been hearing as areas of concern from members of the public,” said Cummins.
“Storm water runoff, high water table, on street parking and protect of natural heritage feature and these are all things we are taking into consideration in our review right now,” he added, noting staff are meeting with the applicant to discuss the concerns.
According to planning documents presented to council, the property includes roughly seven hectares of land along Washington Street, much of which falls within a Natural Heritage designation intended to protect environmentally significant areas such as woodlands and watercourses.
Only a portion of the site, about 0.58 hectares, is proposed for development, with the remainder retained as natural heritage lands.
The subdivision proposal would create eight new residential lots, while retaining an existing home currently being restored on the property.
Joe Lefaive of Stantec, representing the developer, told council the proposal attempts to balance housing development with environmental protection.
“We hope to alleviate some concerns,” he said.
Lefaive explained that the developable frontage along Washington Street would be used for housing while the majority of the natural heritage lands would remain untouched.
“The area deemed natural heritage will remain untouched although we are requesting reduced vegetation protection zones. Which in this particular case can be supported as evidence in the environmental impact study.”
The requested amendment would reduce vegetation protection buffers around environmental features, including a reduction from 10 metres to five metres for significant woodlands and reductions around wetlands and watercourses.
Lefaive said several technical studies have already been completed in support of the application, including planning justification, archaeological assessments, geotechnical analysis, hydrogeological studies and a stormwater management brief.
He also acknowledged groundwater conditions on the property.
“We acknowledge that through the hydrogeological study the ground water is relatively shallow across the site and as part of our preliminary design there is no consideration for basements with the proposed homes.”
The development would include backflow preventers to reduce the risk of sewer backup in the new homes.
Despite those assurances, many residents said the area already experiences flooding and drainage problems.
Michael Davis of 52 Washington St. said heavy rain frequently overwhelms storm infrastructure near his home.
“My front lawn is the lowest front lawn on Washington street. The construction of the foundation is going to disperse the water somewhere. Is that going to come up in my front yard? I’m wondering if there is a liability concern because of construction.”
Davis said he is not opposed to development but worries about potential impacts to neighbouring properties.
Others questioned whether the proposed changes to natural heritage buffers would weaken environmental protections.
Michelle Costello of Long Lane said she was less concerned about housing itself than the environmental implications.
“My concern is not the development it’s reduction of natural heritage protections. They are in place for a reason.”
“The proposal requires a reduction in those natural heritage areas – why are we reducing instead of designing within them?”
Residents also raised concerns about wildlife habitat in the forested area.
Lisa Pottruff Lalonde of Washington Street said wildlife and natural water flow are top priorities for nearby homeowners.
Her spouse Jeff Lalonde said the development would significantly change the character of the area.
He noted they purchased the house, which sits on 1 acre of property because it’s a country setting. “We never thought in a million years that something like this would happen.”
He also questioned who would be responsible if flooding worsens.
“What’s going to happen if someone’s basement does flood because of this? Who is going to pay? We all have insurance for things out of our control, but this is within our control.”
Additional written submissions to the county echoed those concerns.
In a letter submitted to planning staff, residents Liam and Pamela O’Farrell warned that the area already has a documented history of flooding and high-water tables, including flooding events in July 2024 that affected nearby properties.
They argued the proposal does not demonstrate that new development would avoid increasing flood risks or placing additional pressure on existing stormwater and sewer systems.
Other residents highlighted groundwater concerns.
Carol Ritchie, who lives on Washington Street, wrote that monitoring wells on the site have shown groundwater levels only two to three metres below the surface and warned that the surrounding landscape contains multiple feeder streams.
She also raised questions about how development could affect runoff and water flow toward the Grand River.
Several councillors signalled they shared residents’ concerns and expect additional analysis before any approvals are considered.
Councillor John Peirce said drainage issues stood out to him.
“I find it puzzling there are no basements, so they (developer) already know there is a water issue.”
Peirce also noted the amount of fill that may be required to raise building sites to road level.
“To bring it to the height of the road we are talking about hundreds of truck loads,” he said.
Councillor Jennifer Kyle asked staff whether they review previous applications to develop the property, which have been rejected because of similar water issues, because she has fielded concerns from constituents that this application is moving forward despite no change to the area in question over the years.
Staff responded that each application is reviewed based on current technical reports and conditions rather than earlier proposals.
Councillor John Bell said he is particularly concerned about the request to reduce natural heritage buffer zones.
“I’m more interested in the variance; the buffer from the natural heritage,” Bell said.
“I would like to understand much better why in this case when there are so many issues countering the need to reduce here. I think I would be going in the other direction to set a higher level. I’m going to be looking for staff to come forward with very strong reasoning on why there may be a reduction from our own policies on this one.”
Councillor David Miller also questioned the level of stormwater analysis included with the application.
When Miller asked about the difference between a stormwater management brief and a full study, Lefaive said the brief provides a high-level overview of existing and proposed drainage conditions.
Mayor David Bailey suggested that given the concerns raised by residents, a more detailed study may be warranted.
County staff noted that while only a stormwater management brief is required at the draft plan stage, more detailed technical analysis would be needed before development could proceed.
For now, council has received the proposal for information while technical reviews continue.
Comments