Part 1: Land Deals, Transparency Questions, and Community Planning – 01/16/2024
- PECConnect
- Jan 16, 2024
- 5 min read
The County Council met at Shire Hall on January 16, 2024, for a Regular Council meeting that combined land transactions, public deputations, and several policy and funding decisions. The meeting opened in closed session at 6:00 p.m., followed by the public portion beginning at 7:00 p.m., and ran for just over three hours.
The meeting was chaired by Mayor Steve Ferguson, who guided Council through a full agenda that included closed-session land matters, multiple deputations from residents and community organizations, and decisions affecting infrastructure financing, fire services, and future planning studies. Attendance, disclosures of interest, and meeting structure were governed by the County’s Procedural By-law, with participation from councillors across all wards.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Council began with formal opening procedures, including the Traditional Land Acknowledgement, confirmation of the agenda, and disclosure of pecuniary interest. Councillor John Hirsch declared a conflict related to a closed-session land item and did not participate in that discussion or vote.
Council then moved into a closed session to address proposed land transactions, as permitted under the Municipal Act. When Council returned to open session, two decisions arising from that closed meeting were formally approved.
The first involved the purchase of land adjacent to the South Marysburgh landfill, a transaction tied to meeting Environmental Compliance Approval requirements. Council authorized the purchase and related by-law, allowing the County to proceed with securing land needed to support landfill operations.
The second closed-session item dealt with the sale of surplus road allowances near West Lake. Council approved multiple by-laws to stop up, close, declare surplus, and convey portions of road allowances to adjacent landowners. These types of transactions are typically administrative in nature, but they are important for clarifying property boundaries and resolving long-standing land-use issues.
Transparency and Freedom of Information Discussion
The first major public deputation came from Paul Allen, who spoke about the County’s handling of Freedom of Information requests. Allen framed his comments around transparency, accountability, and public access to municipal records, referencing the County’s existing Accountability and Transparency Policy.
His presentation focused on two main ideas: publishing an annual public report on Freedom of Information requests, and expanding proactive disclosure of records, particularly around procurement and consultant reports. Allen suggested that greater openness could reduce administrative burden over time while improving public trust.
Council’s discussion revealed a familiar tension. Several councillors acknowledged the value of transparency while also raising concerns about staff capacity and workload. The Municipal Clerk explained that the County’s Routine Disclosure Policy, last updated in 2008, is outdated and already slated for review, alongside the development of a new privacy breach policy.
A motion to formally direct staff to incorporate Allen’s proposals into the upcoming policy review was debated and ultimately defeated, though Council did vote to receive the deputation, allowing the ideas to remain part of the public record.
Property Development at 612 Hiscock Shores Road
Council then heard a lengthy deputation from Jason Pavey, who outlined a multi-year effort to obtain a building permit for 612 Hiscock Shores Road. Pavey described the property’s history, including its designation changes over time, the payment of residential taxes since 2006, and the challenges posed by provincially significant wetlands and floodplain regulations.
Much of the discussion centered on evolving requirements from Quinte Conservation, particularly changes to the 1-in-100-year floodplain mapping introduced in 2022. Pavey explained the steps he had taken, including environmental studies, engineering plans, and appeals, as well as the significant personal cost involved.
Council’s questions focused on process rather than outcomes. Staff clarified that Conservation Authority approval is required before a building permit can be issued, and that any new application would need to be substantively different from previous submissions. The discussion highlighted the complexity of shoreline and floodplain regulation, especially where rules have changed mid-process.
Council ultimately voted to receive the deputation, with no immediate direction given, but with clarity provided on what steps would be required for the matter to move forward.
Community Benefits Network Presentation
Next, Christine Durant, representing the Prince Edward County Community Benefits Network, presented an overview of a new initiative aimed at securing community benefits from public and private development projects. The concept draws on models used elsewhere in Ontario and focuses on outcomes such as affordable housing, workforce development, local hiring, and environmental protection.
Durant emphasized that the network is in an early, information-gathering stage, with public consultations planned in Picton and Wellington. Council’s questions explored how such a network would interact with existing municipal responsibilities, advisory committees, and legislative authority.
The discussion acknowledged both the potential value of coordinated community input and the need to avoid duplication or conflict with Council’s decision-making role. The deputation was formally received, with Council indicating interest in reviewing a future framework once community consultations are complete.
York and William Street Pedestrian Concept
Council also heard from Mark Rose of the Picton BIA, who presented ideas for reimagining York and William Street as a more pedestrian-focused space, particularly in connection with the Delhi Park Community Pathways Project. The proposal stemmed from community engagement events and focused on safety, accessibility, and improved public use of underutilized space.
Council’s discussion addressed practical concerns such as emergency access, underground infrastructure, and impacts on nearby residents and businesses. Rather than endorsing a specific design, Council approved a motion directing staff to prepare a report for Committee of the Whole exploring pedestrian-only options and implications, using community input as part of that review.
Financing, Fire Services, and Policy Resolutions
Later in the meeting, Council approved a loan application to Infrastructure Ontario to finance previously approved fleet vehicle purchases. The discussion covered interest rates, loan terms, and the reality that reserves are limited, making long-term borrowing necessary for essential equipment.
Council also unanimously supported a resolution calling on the Province and Fire Underwriters Survey to reconsider fire truck replacement timelines, particularly for small and rural municipalities. Councillors expressed concern that rigid age-based replacement rules place unnecessary financial pressure on communities where equipment is well maintained and lightly used.
Key Takeaways
Land-use decisions and environmental regulations continue to be a major source of complexity, especially for shoreline and floodplain properties where rules have evolved over time.
Public expectations around transparency and access to information remain high, but Council is balancing those expectations against staff capacity and existing policy frameworks.
Council signaled openness to new ideas, from community benefit agreements to pedestrian-friendly streets, while emphasizing that careful study and process will guide any future decisions that affect residents and businesses across the County.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:06:28. 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.
Comments