Part 1: Addressing Glen Lane and Port Picton Waste Services – 09/26/2024
- PECConnect
- Sep 26, 2024
- 5 min read
The County Council’s Committee of the Whole met on September 26, 2024, at Shire Hall in Picton to address two issues that had been building through earlier deputations and staff work. The meeting focused on long-standing concerns about Glen Lane, an unassumed municipal road allowance in Hillier, and a separate but equally complex question about garbage collection for freehold homeowners in the Port Picton Homes subdivision. The meeting was chaired by Sam Branderhorst, Councillor for Athol Ward, and brought together council, senior staff, legal counsel, and members of the public.
The meeting opened with routine confirmations, disclosures, and housekeeping matters, before moving directly into deputations. These deputations set the tone for much of the afternoon, as they framed the practical, legal, and emotional dimensions of the issues council would later debate.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Glen Lane and Municipal Road Allowances
The first two deputations both centred on Glen Lane, a municipally owned but unassumed road allowance in Hillier.
David J. Potts, a property owner on Glen Lane, spoke on behalf of a group of petitioners who had previously asked council to intervene. Potts described Glen Lane as a narrow, unimproved road allowance that historically included a hedgerow along its southern edge. He explained that this hedgerow had been removed in recent years and argued that, without clear municipal regulation, there was no mechanism to prevent further damage or to restore what had been lost. Potts emphasized that Glen Lane was a public asset and that council, as the road authority, had a role in regulating its use. He expressed support for staff’s recommendation to create a county-wide bylaw regulating municipal rights-of-way, while also proposing specific additions related to the protection of hedgerows.
Council members, including Chris Braney, Councillor for Hillier, and Chair Sam Branderhorst, asked Potts questions about historical access, agricultural use, and whether Glen Lane had ever functioned as a farming access route. These exchanges highlighted a central tension that would recur later in the meeting: balancing environmental protection, neighbour disputes, and the practical realities of farming in a rural municipality.
The second deputation came from Billy Wright, who presented a very different view of Glen Lane. Wright argued that access along Glen Lane had historically been used for agricultural purposes and said restricting that access would make routine farming operations more difficult. He challenged the motivations behind the petition and questioned whether environmental concerns were being applied consistently. Wright also raised concerns about structures and materials placed on the municipal road allowance by neighbouring property owners, suggesting that Glen Lane was already being treated as private space.
Together, the two deputations laid out competing interpretations of Glen Lane’s past use, current condition, and future management. Council formally received both deputations without debate, signalling that the substantive discussion would follow under staff reports.
Port Picton Homes and Garbage Collection Responsibilities
The third deputation shifted the focus to Picton. Greg Locke addressed council on behalf of the Port Picton Homes community, specifically the freehold homeowners within a larger mixed condominium development. Locke explained that these homeowners were paying for private garbage collection at significant cost and believed the municipality might have an obligation to provide waste services based on language in the original subdivision agreement.
Locke walked council through the structure of the development, distinguishing between freehold homes and condominium buildings, and argued that the staff report did not fully capture this distinction. He questioned whether the subdivision agreement had been properly interpreted and asked council to consider seeking further legal clarification. Locke also raised concerns about fairness, cost, and the practical impacts on residents who were facing high monthly fees for waste collection.
Council members, including Phil St-Jean, Kate MacNaughton, and John Hirsch, asked detailed questions about how the development was structured, how fees were collected, and how this situation compared to other private-road or condominium-style developments across the county. These questions foreshadowed concerns about precedent and consistency in municipal service delivery.
Staff Reports and Council Debate
Following the deputations, council considered two major reports.
The first dealt with waste collection at Port Picton Homes. Staff explained that subdivision agreements are complex legal documents, typically layered with condominium agreements and site plans, and that the municipality was not legally obligated to provide garbage collection to the freehold homes in this case. Council ultimately supported staff’s recommendation to explore a general charge-back process for future developments before municipal assumption of infrastructure. A separate motion that would have provided garbage collection at common collection points, at the owners’ expense, was debated at length but ultimately failed.
The second report addressed Section 35 of the Municipal Act and the regulation of public rights-of-way, using Glen Lane as the catalyst. Sarah Viau, Municipal Lawyer, explained that while the public has a common-law right of passage on municipal road allowances, liability rests with the municipality. Without a bylaw, the County has limited ability to regulate activities, prevent repeated conflicts, or enforce conditions.
Council members expressed concern about how a county-wide bylaw might affect agricultural practices, particularly where farmers routinely maintain or access unassumed road allowances. After extensive discussion, council supported amending the draft bylaw to include a definition of Designated Hedgerow, strengthen permit conditions, and explicitly review the bylaw through the lens of supporting the County’s rural and agricultural character. The amended motion carried, directing staff to refine the bylaw before bringing it forward for final approval.
What Residents Should Take Away
Glen Lane highlighted a broader issue. Council agreed that the County lacks clear tools to regulate activities on municipal rights-of-way, and work is now underway to address that gap.
Port Picton Homes underscored how complex subdivision and condominium agreements can shape everyday services like garbage collection, often in ways residents do not anticipate.
Council repeatedly emphasized balance. Any new regulations must protect municipal assets and reduce conflict while still respecting Prince Edward County’s rural and agricultural realities.
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.
Comments