Part 2: Residents Clash with Supporters Over Rural Event Venue Rezoning - 12/11/2024

The second half of the public meeting focused heavily on speaker comments, technical arguments, and questions from councillors as the committee worked through one of the most divisive planning debates in recent months. Residents, professionals, business advocates, and council members all presented sharply different views on whether the proposed event venue belongs in the Old Orchard Road neighbourhood.

What emerged over several hours was not simply a disagreement about one barn venue, but a broader conflict between neighbourhood protection, tourism growth, cultural development, and confidence in the County’s planning and enforcement systems.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.

Residents Describe Ongoing Impacts and Long-Term Concerns

Many residents from Old Orchard Road and County Road 3 spoke strongly against the rezoning application, describing a neighbourhood they believe has already been negatively affected by past events held at the property.

Speakers including Bob Waldon, Don Carr, Mike Batty, Erin Douglas, Penny Hopkins, Jerry Inglis, Sherry Colburn, Tim Pickard, Kathy Schenk, and several others described concerns involving noise, traffic, parking, water usage, late-night activity, and what they viewed as weak enforcement mechanisms.

Several residents emphasized that the issue extends far beyond occasional music events. They described ongoing worries about vehicle headlights late at night, guests leaving events after dark, outdoor conversations carrying through the neighbourhood, and increasing pressure on an area they consider primarily residential in character.

A recurring theme throughout the evening was permanence. Residents repeatedly argued that zoning approvals remain attached to the land long after current owners or operators may leave. Several speakers warned councillors that while operators may promise responsible behaviour today, future ownership changes could alter how the venue operates years from now.

For nearby residents, the proposal was framed not as a temporary inconvenience, but as a permanent land-use change that could reshape daily life in the neighbourhood indefinitely.

Technical Experts Challenge Noise, Water, and Septic Studies

The meeting also included extensive criticism from professional and technical experts speaking in opposition to the application. Lawyers, planners, engineers, septic designers, and architects questioned whether the supporting reports submitted with the proposal were complete or reliable enough to justify rezoning approval.

Among the more prominent speakers were Spencer Putnam and Francis LaPointe, who argued that several technical assumptions underlying the proposal remained unresolved or potentially flawed.

Noise modelling became a major point of contention. Critics argued that the submitted studies did not properly reflect provincial standards or account for real-world conditions experienced by nearby residents. Some speakers questioned whether the modelling underestimated how amplified sound would travel through the surrounding area, particularly during outdoor gatherings or late-night events.

Water supply and septic servicing concerns were also heavily debated. Several technical speakers argued that projected water demand may have been underestimated and raised concerns about well capacity, aquifer vulnerability, wastewater management, and the long-term reliability of septic systems serving large gatherings.

Others pointed to what they described as missing or inconsistent information involving parking layouts, occupancy assumptions, and building details. The overall concern raised by opponents was that Council was being asked to approve a permanent zoning change before several important technical questions had been fully resolved.

For residents, these expert comments reinforced fears that potential environmental, infrastructure, and quality-of-life risks could eventually become the community’s responsibility if problems emerge after approval.

Supporters Promote Tourism, Arts, and Barn Preservation

While opposition dominated much of the evening, supporters of the proposal presented a very different vision for the property and its future role within Prince Edward County.

Speakers including Jason Clark, Tony Aucello, Stephen Stanley, Martin Smith, Don Warren, Chris Bennett, and others described the proposed venue as an opportunity to strengthen the County’s tourism economy, arts sector, and cultural identity while preserving an existing agricultural structure.

Supporters repeatedly emphasized that the venue is intended to function as a small-scale, carefully managed cultural space rather than a large entertainment destination or nightclub. Several speakers argued that concerns about late-night activity had been exaggerated and noted that proposed event schedules would end earlier than some residents feared.

Others described the applicants as responsible, community-oriented operators with a genuine interest in creating a respectful venue that supports local musicians, artists, hospitality workers, and tourism businesses.

Economic development also featured heavily in supportive comments. Several speakers argued that Prince Edward County’s economy increasingly depends on cultural attractions, tourism experiences, and creative industries. Some warned that rejecting projects like this could make it harder for artists, performers, and younger entrepreneurs to remain in the County, particularly in the north end where economic opportunities can be more limited.

A number of supporters again drew parallels to the County’s early winery industry, suggesting that many businesses now considered central to the local economy initially faced similar resistance and skepticism.

Council Members Wrestle With Enforcement and Planning Questions

Throughout the meeting, councillors and committee members asked questions about technical reports, enforcement tools, planning policy, and how future complaints would be managed if the proposal were approved.

Despite the volume of public comments and technical criticism presented during the meeting, staff confirmed that their planning recommendation remained unchanged. When councillors asked whether the new information altered staff’s position, staff stated clearly that they continued to support the application as presented.

However, not all comments from officials reflected complete comfort with the proposal.

Albert Paschkowiak expressed visible concern during discussions, drawing on his own experience dealing with noise complaints and enforcement issues connected to other venues within the County. While acknowledging the cultural and economic benefits supporters had described, he stated that he could not support the proposal in its current form due to concerns about enforcement realities and long-term compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood.

His comments appeared to resonate with many residents who had repeatedly questioned whether the County possesses the practical resources needed to effectively monitor and enforce venue conditions over time.

Other councillors, including John Hirsch and Roy Pennell, raised questions about process, enforcement mechanisms, future complaint handling, and how unresolved concerns would be addressed moving forward.

Councillor Roberts spoke more positively about the application, emphasizing alignment with planning policies and expressing confidence that site plan controls and operational conditions could help manage many of the concerns being raised by residents.

Debate Reflects Broader County-Wide Tensions

By the end of the meeting, it was clear that the debate had grown beyond a single rezoning application. The discussion exposed broader tensions already shaping many planning conversations across Prince Edward County, particularly around tourism growth, cultural development, residential quality of life, and rural land-use compatibility.

For nearby residents, the issue remained deeply personal. Approval would mean living beside a commercial event venue with impacts they believe cannot easily be reversed once zoning permissions are granted.

For supporters, denial represented something larger as well a signal that creative businesses, cultural venues, and adaptive reuse projects may struggle to move forward even when they align with broader tourism and economic development goals.

The meeting ultimately highlighted a sharp divide between local lived experience and long-term economic planning priorities, leaving councillors with the difficult task of deciding whether this particular location can realistically accommodate both.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 6:13:29. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.