Town council votes not to endorse Bar Point development plan

If proposed development which calls for 22 new single-detached units on McLeod Ave. in the Bar Point area of Amherstburg proceeds, it will do so without the endorsement of town council.

A 29-page report from manager of planning services Chris Aspila contained a recommendation that, in part, asked for the proposed plan of subdivision be endorsed but town council unanimously balked at endorsing it. While the county is the ultimate approval authority on the matter, town council backed residents who spoke up as well as the others that filled the council chambers at last Monday night’s meeting.

Two delegations spoke against the proposal, including Laura D’Alessandro.

“I want to be clear we understand that Amherstburg needs to grow. We are not opposed to every new home or every new neighbourhood. But how Amherstburg grows matters. Growth should be supported by current evidence, appropriate infrastructure, and respect for the natural and established character of the area being changed,” she said.

D’Alessandro's planning history behind this proposal dates back to 2019.

“Seven years is a long time in the life of a community. Since then, Amherstburg has grown, traffic patterns have changed, infrastructure has aged, and development pressures have increased. Environmental conditions, drainage knowledge, engineering standards and provincial planning rules have also evolved,” she said. 

Noting another report that called for another four additional lots in the area, D’Alessandro said it all matters as it could strain roads, drainage, sewers, traffic and municipal services. 

“A study or assumption considered adequate in 2019 should not automatically be treated as sufficient for a permanent decision in 2026. The Amherstburg of today is not the Amherstburg of seven years ago,” she said. “Council should ask if this proposal were brought forward for the first time today, based only on present conditions, would this still be considered the right development, in the right place, at the right scale and with the right infrastructure?”

D’Alessandro said drainage and high-water conditions “are not theoretical concerns for this neighbourhood” and that the reconstruction of McLeod Ave. was delayed two years because of high water levels. 

“Before council supports this plan, residents deserve confidence that the full post-development runoff can be managed without increasing flood or drainage risks to neighbouring properties,” she said.

Concerns over wildlife were also expressed, with D’Alessandro stating “clearing, grading and construction do not simply move wildlife for a few months. They permanently remove shelter, feeding areas, and travel corridors. Once mature trees and established habitat are gone, they cannot be replaced.”

D’Alessandro said her family chose to live on McLeod Ave. because of its space, mature trees, wildlife, and quiet rural-residential living while still being part of Amherstburg. She said “land that has been permanently developed cannot be returned to what it was.”

“The places people seek out to escape dense subdivisions and constant development should matter. Growth and preservation are not opposing ideas. Amherstburg can welcome new families while still recognizing that some locations are unusually rich in wildlife, natural character, and value to existing residents,” she said. “This is not a request to defer the decision so that the same proposal can return unchanged. It is a request for council to recognize that a permanent decision with consequences lasting generations should not rest on a seven-year-old planning foundation while serious questions remain about infrastructure, drainage, traffic, wildlife, and cumulative development.”

(Editor’s Note: Laura D’Alessandro is a co-owner of the River Town Times, but she did not provide direction or input on the writing of this article. The story was written in the same fashion all town council stories are reported on.)

In his report to council, Aspila stated “it is noted that the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed plan of subdivision is dated January 15, 2020. The consulting engineer who prepared the TIS confirmed by email on February 24, 2026 that the January 15, 2020 TIS continues to be valid. He added that a letter from a consulting biologist  says “that he is satisfied that the natural environment and its inhabitants will not be unduly impacted by the proposed development.”

Rick Kocela, another homeowner in the Bar Point area, also listed his concerns. He also pointed out the original information and reports came forth in 2019 and that a phone call to ERCA he placed in 2019 showed that the lands would have to be built up three to five feet.

Kocela said his property has water on it every spring for four to six weeks, something he has learned to live with. He asked what would happen if the development goes in, also asking if a nearby settling pond were to overflow. Flooding was his biggest fear, he told town council.

“There’s no drainage there,” he said. 

Kocela added: “I’m just asking council to give us our fair shake too and listen to our complaints.”

Aspila said the proposal is consistent with the town and county Official Plans. Councillor Linden Crain wanted to know how that opinion was formed, believing documentation shows the “county does not support residential intensification.”

Crain also questioned the traffic study, noting the age of the document, but the town’s development engineering co-ordinator Sydnee Botham indicated that such documents often forecast ahead and the TIS did include up to 2026.

Jackie Lassaline, a planner representing the proponent, said stormwater will be managed on the property.

“It will be contained and it will be managed,” she said.

Lassaline said the development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Official Plan.

“The settlement area is fully serviced,” she said. “We meet the criteria and are consistent with the PPS.”

The proposed subdivision has been undergoing review for the last decade, she added, and is at the “last step,” she added.

Councillor Diane Pouget noted it has been agricultural land for 100 years and said the province frowns on development on prime farmland. She also questioned whether Caldwell First Nations were consulted, with Lassaline stating that comes at the county level.

Councillor Peter Courtney had several questions, including sewage capacity. He said he received a reply from manager of engineering Todd Hewitt, the latter not being in attendance Monday night, that said the Bar Point sewage plant would go from 52 per cent capacity to 62 per cent capacity if the land was fully developed.

Courtney also questioned the density, stating he believed an eight or nine home subdivision would fit better in the area than 22 homes. He also lamented provincial legislation that, he said, has taken rights away from municipalities.

“There’s nothing left for us to stand on,” he said.

Councillor Molly Allaire had similar concerns about the rights of municipalities, stating her belief that “Bill 23 took away a lot of our rights.” Allaire, the chair of the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) board of directors, asked what ERCA’s thoughts were with Lassaline replying that ERCA had “no issues” with the proposal.

Councillor Don McArthur called it “a very curious construct” in that residents are coming to town council but it is a county decision. He said there was a vote in June 2019 on the matter but town council declared a climate emergency later that year.

“We can’t approve the subdivision. It’s up to the County of Essex,” he asked. “How does county council hear the concerns we heard tonight?”

Aspila said comments will be put together in a report and sent to the county.

Lassaline added “this matter is not unique” in that many subdivisions take many years to complete” and is a regular occurrence throughout the county.

Deputy Mayor Chris Gibb pointed out county council recently looked at a Pelee Coastal Resilience report that identified shoreline issues along Lake Erie from Amherstburg to Leamington and asked if the proposed subdivision was vetted against that. Gibb said flooding is a common concern along the Lake Erie shoreline and while there is a need for more housing, he wanted to be sure all issues along the Lake Erie shoreline are being addressed first.

“I’ve been out to people’s homes and seen the flooding,” he said, adding water could eventually come in from Lake Erie. He wanted the decision weighed against the Coastal Resilience report.

Mayor Michael Prue recalled voting against the subdivision in 2019 and he was concerned then, calling it “a low lying area prone to flooding.” He was concerned about building up land three to five feet in the area to build houses on it.

Prue stated it is the county that has the final word.

A resident tried to voice a defense for the proponents, noting the work that has gone into the proposal, but he was not on the agenda and wasn’t allowed to continue to speak.

Town council votes not to endorse Bar Point development plan

By Ron Giofu