Part 2: Glen Lane, Port Picton Homes, and Council Votes – 09/26/2024

The September 26, 2024 Committee of the Whole meeting marked the point where discussion turned into direction. Chaired by Sam Branderhorst, Athol, council debated, amended, and voted on two issues with clear local consequences: how Glen Lane and other municipal road allowances should be regulated, and whether freehold homeowners in the Port Picton Homes subdivision should receive municipal garbage collection. This article focuses on who spoke, how councillors voted, and how those outcomes affect residents in different parts of the County.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Glen Lane: Regulation vs. Agricultural Access

Glen Lane, an unassumed municipal road allowance in Hillier Ward, generated the most sustained debate.

David J. Potts, speaking for a group of Glen Lane property owners, argued that Glen Lane is a municipally owned public asset that has been damaged through vegetation removal, including the loss of a long-standing hedgerow. Potts supported staff’s recommendation to regulate municipal rights-of-way using Section 35 of the Municipal Act, and called for clear protections for hedgerows. His position emphasized municipal responsibility, environmental protection, and the lack of enforcement tools under the current framework.

Billy Wright presented an opposing view, stating that Glen Lane has historically been used for agricultural access. Wright warned that restrictions could interfere with routine farm operations and questioned whether some residents were attempting to treat the road allowance as private property. He also raised concerns about structures and materials placed on municipal land.

Those competing views were reflected at the council table. Roy Pennell and Janice Maynard, both Ameliasburgh Ward Councillors, expressed concern that a county-wide bylaw could unintentionally restrict farmers who rely on unassumed road allowances. Chair Sam Branderhorst (Athol)  also cautioned against limiting agricultural access if the bylaw were too broadly written.

Legal context was provided by Sarah Viau, Municipal Lawyer, who explained that while the public has a common-law right to use municipal road allowances, liability rests with the municipality. Without a bylaw, the County has limited ability to regulate activity, recover costs, or deter repeated conflicts when municipal land is altered or blocked.

Following debate, Councillor Chris Braney (Hillier) introduced an amending motion to the draft bylaw. The amendment directed staff to add a definition for Designated Hedgerow, strengthen permit conditions, and explicitly review the bylaw in the context of Prince Edward County’s rural and agricultural character.

That amendment passed on a recorded vote. Councillors voting in favour were Brad Nieman, Bill Roberts, Phil St-Jean, Corey Engelsdorfer, John Hirsch, Kate MacNaughton, Chris Braney, Janice Maynard, and Mayor Steve Ferguson.

Councillors voting opposed were Roy Pennell and Sam Branderhorst. Council then voted to receive the staff report, endorse the draft bylaw as amended, and direct that it return to a future council meeting for approval. That motion carried.

Port Picton Homes: Garbage Collection and Precedent

The Port Picton Homes discussion produced a clearer outcome aligned with staff advice.

Greg Locke, representing freehold homeowners in the Port Picton Homes subdivision, argued that the municipality may be obligated to provide garbage collection based on language in the subdivision agreement. He emphasized that the request applied only to freehold homes and described the high cost of private waste collection.

Council members focused on precedent. Councillor Phil St-Jean (Picton) questioned whether extending municipal garbage service would lead to similar requests from other private or mixed-use developments. Councillor MacNaughton, also representing Picton, pressed staff on whether freehold homes were being mischaracterized as condominiums. Councillor John Hirsch (South Marysburgh), compared the situation to other private roads in the County where residents bring waste to common collection points.

Staff, including Matt Coffey, Planning Coordinator, maintained that the municipality is not legally required to provide garbage collection in this case. They explained that subdivision agreements, condominium agreements, and site plans are layered documents, and that waste services for the freehold homes were intended to remain private.

Council approved Motion CW-163-2024, directing staff to explore a charge-back process for future developments prior to municipal assumption of infrastructure. That motion did not change garbage service for Port Picton Homes.

A separate motion brought forward by Phil St-Jean, seconded by John Hirsch, to provide garbage collection at common collection points at the owners’ expense was debated and defeated.

What This Means for the locals

For residents along Glen Lane, the decision confirms that the issue will not be addressed through a site-specific solution. Instead, Glen Lane will be considered within a broader county-wide framework governing municipal rights-of-way.

For farmers and rural landowners, the amendments signal that council acknowledged concerns about agricultural access. While no new rules are in place yet, staff must return with a refined bylaw that balances enforcement, environmental protection, and the practical realities of farming in the County.

For Port Picton Homes residents, the outcome means municipal garbage collection will not be extended to the freehold homes. Private waste collection will continue unless future legal or contractual changes alter that arrangement.

Council’s decision reinforces a clear boundary. Municipal services will not be expanded onto private roads or developments without a clear obligation, largely to avoid setting a County-wide precedent.

Across both issues, council’s votes show how localized disputes are shaping broader policy. Glen Lane is now driving the development of a county-wide regulatory framework for municipal rights-of-way, while Port Picton Homes reinforced firm limits on expanding municipal services into private developments. For residents, the next step will be when revised bylaws and policies return to council and begin to translate these decisions into practical, on-the-ground rules.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:59:59. 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.