County reopens Picton Terminals dispute despite past setbacks

Council directs bylaw investigation as questions resurface over aggregate extraction

Prince Edward County council is once again turning its attention to Picton Terminals, reviving a long-running dispute that has already cost the municipality years of legal battles and significant taxpayer dollars.

© Picton Terminals

A motion brought forward by Councillor John Hirsch last week directs bylaw officials to investigate whether the company is violating zoning regulations on part of its property. The move signals a potential new chapter in a conflict many believed had largely run its course.

Search for new leverage after legal losses

The County’s latest approach stops short of immediate legal action, instead focusing on gathering evidence that could support future enforcement or pressure provincial authorities to step in.

At the centre of the issue is whether Picton Terminals is operating beyond what is permitted under its zoning, particularly on land that extends into Sophiasburgh ward, where different zoning rules may apply.

Hirsch and others also want to determine whether aggregate extraction on the site exceeds what would reasonably be required for port operations.

Quarrying concerns drive renewed push

Opponents argue the scale of activity at the site suggests something closer to a commercial quarry than a port facility.

Hirsch has estimated that up to 1.2 million tonnes of aggregate may have been removed from the property, with a potential value in the tens of millions of dollars. If the site were regulated as a quarry, the County could be entitled to significant royalties.

Those concerns have prompted calls for renewed enforcement, with residents urging council to act after years of frustration.

Limited municipal authority complicates response

Despite ongoing concerns, the County’s ability to act remains constrained.

Many of the key regulatory areas such as environmental oversight, aggregate extraction, and shipping operations fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction. The municipality’s primary authority lies in zoning, which has proven difficult to enforce in this case.

The site’s designation as a port dates back to the 1950s, and portions of the property have been recognized by the courts as “legal non-conforming,” allowing certain uses to continue even if they don’t align with current zoning.

History of legal battles with little resolution

The County has repeatedly attempted to impose limits on Picton Terminals through legal action, including court proceedings in 2022 and additional charges in 2023.

However, with mounting legal costs and uncertain outcomes, the municipality shifted course in 2024, proposing a Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) as a way to clarify and enforce land use rules.

That request has yet to be resolved.

More recently, a separate legal case involving the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) ended when the province determined that Picton Terminals was permitted to extract aggregate under an existing exemption tied to port development.

Province steps back, leaving uncertainty

The MNRF’s position has effectively limited provincial intervention, leaving the County and concerned residents with few clear avenues for action.

Picton Terminals, for its part, has maintained that it is operating within its legal rights, often challenging the municipality’s jurisdiction. A series of favourable court outcomes has strengthened that position.

Council sees potential opening

Despite past setbacks, some members of council believe there may still be an opportunity to act.

Hirsch and others point to judicial comments suggesting that certain aspects of the operation particularly on lands outside the original port designation could be subject to stricter interpretation.

The current investigation is intended to test that theory, and potentially identify grounds for renewed enforcement or legal action.

“It is time to find out where the County stands on Picton Terminals,” Hirsch said, signalling a willingness to revisit the broader fight.

Takeaway

The County’s latest move reflects a familiar pattern: ongoing concern, limited authority, and a search for new leverage. While the bylaw investigation may uncover fresh evidence, the broader challenge remains unchanged balancing local control with provincial jurisdiction in a dispute that has yet to find clear resolution.