Part 2: Growth, Climate, and Land Use: Who Pushed What Forward and Why It Matters Locally - 11/4/2025

This part focuses on who pushed which items forward, how the committee voted, and what each decision could mean in real terms for the County residents, depending on where you live.

Photo: PEC Council

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

Picton and the South Side Growth Area

A major update came through working group remarks about the Hillside development proposal, a large subdivision concept near Base31 and the approach into Picton. Councillor John Hirsch explained the location as the wooded land between County Road 22 and County Road 10, including Marsh Creek and a portion of farmland. He and Angus Ross submitted detailed comments on the studies provided by the applicant, and staff said those comments were received “with gratitude,” with formal endorsement to follow at the next meeting due to agenda timing.

For locals, this matters most if you live in or travel through Picton’s southern gateway, including nearby rural roads and creek adjacent properties. If the plan advances, questions about stormwater, natural features, habitat protection, and creek impacts become highly relevant. It also affects anyone concerned about how fast growth arrives versus how quickly infrastructure and environmental safeguards can keep up.

County Wide Public Health Data and Local Risk

The committee heard from Southeast Public Health through Ian and Madison Schuller, with the most direct local reaction coming from Councillor Kate MacNaughton. She emphasized two County realities that shift the risk picture. One is the County’s older population, which increases vulnerability during heat events. The other is PEC’s water vulnerability, which has been flagged before as worse than other areas in the wider conservation region.

Public health staff responded that localized context will not be lost in the larger public health structure and that data should remain region specific rather than averaged out. For locals, this lands differently by area. If you are in more rural parts of the County, reliance on well water and flood or drought patterns becomes a bigger concern.

If you are in denser areas like Picton, Wellington, and Bloomfield, the issue can show up through heat exposure, housing conditions, and access to cooling.

Indigenous Engagement and a Practical Connection

A key moment came when Megan, Environmental Supervisor with the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, spoke up during the discussion and offered a direct connection. She invited public health staff to contact her and noted she has related work underway. The Chair also invited Megan to present future initiatives to the committee.

For locals, this matters because it signals movement away from polite acknowledgments toward actual working relationships. That can affect how future environmental work considers Indigenous priorities, especially around land, shoreline impacts, and climate resilience.

Bill 21 Protect Our Food Act and What It Means Outside the Urban Areas

The committee backed the Agricultural Advisory Committee’s position on Bill 21 Protect Our Food Act, and this was one of the clearest votes of the night. Councillor Kate MacNaughton argued that joint endorsement from both committees matters because it prevents a false narrative of environment versus agriculture. A motion was put forward to formally endorse the Agricultural Advisory Committee motion, and it carried.

There was caution from Councillor John Hirsch, who noted this is a private member’s bill and warned that the idea of mandatory agricultural impact assessments could trigger resistance at higher levels and potentially within Council. Jane Lesslie acknowledged the uncertainty but still expected Council support.

For locals, the effect is mostly felt in rural and farming areas. If Bill 21 ever becomes law, it could make rezoning farmland more complex. Supporters would say it protects food producing land. Critics might argue it adds process and delay. Either way, it is directly tied to how easy or hard it becomes to shift farmland into other uses.

Wellington Beach and the Most Immediate Climate Adaptation Story

The Wellington Beach update was framed as a win because Council has started to consider a budget pathway that enables the County to apply for federal funding. Councillor John Hirsch explained the logic clearly. If the County wants to access FCM adaptation grants, it must show it can cover its share, commonly around 30 percent.

He described adaptation measures tied to earlier damage events and stressed that without budget planning, grant applications fail before they start. The committee did not vote on a new funding decision here. They voted to receive the update, and that motion carried. For locals, the impact is most direct in Wellington, especially near the beach, the road, and any area affected by wave uprush during severe weather. It also affects the entire County in a quieter way because grant matching competes with other priorities during budget season.

Climate Action Plan and a Vote to Put It in Front of Council

The committee approved a specific action that moves from internal work to a public decision space. A motion was read confirming that Angus Ross and Don Wilford, on behalf of the Climate Action Plan Working Group, will make a presentation to Council or Committee of the Whole on community greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation at the earliest feasible meeting. The motion was moved, seconded, and it carried.

For locals, this is where the rubber meets the road. Community emissions affect how new housing is built, how heating is handled, and what expectations Council sets for future growth. If the County pushes harder toward heat pump based heating and cooling instead of gas, that shifts long term costs and infrastructure planning. It also affects renters and older homes where upgrades are not simple.

Wetlands and Solar Over Parking Lots

Two practical work plan actions were voted through. Wetland protection was added to the committee’s work plan after being raised by Kathy, and the motion carried. This matters most in low lying areas, near marshes, and around water systems where wetlands reduce flooding and support water quality.

The committee also voted to add exploration of solar panels over municipal parking lots to the work plan, and that motion carried. Jane Lesslie framed it as both a zoning permission issue and a potential leasing opportunity. Councillor MacNaughton supported the logic, pointing out that solar is common elsewhere and permission should not be a barrier.

For locals, parking lot solar is not just a climate symbol. It can mean shade in summer, potential revenue, and local generation that does not compete with farmland. It matters most in commercial hubs like Picton and Wellington where large parking areas exist.

How the Votes Landed Overall

Most votes were unanimous and supportive, especially on work plan additions and joint endorsements. The differences were less about opposition and more about caution, timing, and how policies may be received at Council or beyond. The strongest pattern was this. The committee is trying to move from reports and discussion into actions that show up in budgets, bylaws, and public facing decisions.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:27:032. 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.