Part 1: Trees, Bridges, Benson Hall, and an Affordable Housing Tax Tool - 10/26/2023
- PECConnect
- Oct 26, 2023
- 7 min read
On Thursday, October 26, 2023, the County’s Committee of the Whole met at Shire Hall in Picton to handle a packed afternoon of presentations and staff reports that touched on day-to-day basics like public assets and building safety, and bigger picture issues like climate resilience, infrastructure planning, and affordable housing. The meeting was chaired by Councillor Chris Braney (Hillier), with council members and senior staff in the room, including Mayor Steve Ferguson and Chief Administrative Officer Marcia Wallace.
The Chair opened by welcoming the public, council, and media, and reminded everyone that decisions made at Committee of the Whole are not final until the next regular Council meeting on November 14, 2023. After the agenda was confirmed, Councillor Phil St. Jean (Picton) declared a pecuniary interest related to the later discussion about Benson Hall and the Kinsmen Club of Picton, explaining he was a signing officer and treasurer of the club.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Tree protection and why a policy was not enough
The first major discussion began with a deputation from Susan Banks and Victoria Taylor, speaking on behalf of the Natural Cover Working Group, a subcommittee of the County’s Environmental Advisory Committee. They came with a clear message: the County already has a tree management and preservation policy, but without enforcement tools, the protections described in the policy can be ignored or inconsistently applied.
They pointed back to the County’s 2021 tree policy as a strong step that recognized the value of trees and the goal of growing and maintaining a healthier tree canopy. But they also stressed the limits of what that policy actually covers. In their explanation, the policy focuses on municipal trees in settlement areas and situations tied to Planning Act applications, not rural properties and not private landowners doing everyday yard work.
A big part of their presentation focused on what they described as preventable damage to young trees planted by volunteers, especially in places like Delhi Park, where trees had bark torn by mowers and mulch zones were driven over. They also raised concerns about street tree damage from winter equipment and careless vehicle contact, and construction practices that left roots exposed during sidewalk work. Their point was consistent throughout: without a stronger framework, trees keep getting treated as obstacles instead of long term community infrastructure.
Taylor laid out what a Tree Protection By-Law could include, like permits for removal or injury, clearer requirements for protection zones, inspections through the life of a project, penalties for damage, replacement requirements based on size and valuation, training for staff and contractors, and clearer maintenance expectations for newly planted trees.
Council’s questions quickly revealed a tension that kept coming up in different forms: protecting trees, while not creating rules that are unclear, overly heavy, or accidentally applied more broadly than intended. Councillor Roy Pennell raised concerns about being realistic when policies meet real world construction needs, especially when sidewalks or public works projects require flexibility. Councillor John Hirsch pushed the conversation toward action, asking how the County’s upcoming site alteration by-law work connected to what the deputants were asking for, and whether staff could be directed to explore a stronger, enforceable version of the existing tree policy.
The deputants repeatedly clarified what they were asking for: not a countywide crackdown on rural tree cutting, but a way to add “teeth” to the existing policy so it actually works on municipal lands and planning-related development sites.
That discussion ended with council carrying a motion directing staff to explore creating a Tree Protection By-Law to strengthen the existing tree policy,
specifically noted as being done in conjunction with the site alteration by-law work.
Before moving on, the meeting also heard an unregistered public comment from Sarah Crawford, who framed municipal trees as a public asset funded not only by taxes, but also by volunteer time and grant-supported planting efforts. The underlying message matched the deputation’s theme: if the County protects other public property from damage, trees should be treated the same way.
Bridge inspections and what the OSIM report was really about
The next major item was an information report from Development Services on the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM) program, presented by David MacPherson, Manager of Engineering. The report explained the County’s mandated inspection cycle for bridges and culvert structures that span more than three metres, done every two years under provincial requirements.
MacPherson described the OSIM work as a building block for how the County plans capital spending across infrastructure. The inspections produce condition ratings and help staff identify which structures should be prioritized for maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement. He explained that professional engineers perform the inspections, and the results feed into later decisions, including detailed design work and procurement for any intervention.
Councillors focused less on the inspection requirement itself and more on what happens after a bridge is rated and flagged. Councillor Roy Pennell repeatedly brought the conversation back to basic maintenance and protecting investment, pointing to examples like rusting railings and vegetation growth around newer bridges. Staff responded that the inspection cycle is meant to catch issues early, and the Chief Administrative Officer indicated the broader maintenance conversation would be more appropriately handled during budget discussions.
Councillor John Hirsch raised a different concern, questioning whether the County’s next steps after inspection leave enough room for “outside the box” thinking, especially for smaller structures. In response, MacPherson explained that OSIM provides criteria for what triggers different types of interventions, and that the detailed design stage, often handled through a competitive procurement process and potentially by a different engineering firm, is where alternative solutions can be explored.
Benson Hall and a bigger problem hiding behind one building
The most complicated discussion of the afternoon centered on Benson Hall and the expired agreement with the Kinsmen Club of Picton, presented through a report from the Recreation and Community Facilities Department. The discussion was framed as a mix of short term problem-solving and long term direction-setting.
Staff explained that the Kinsmen lease agreement ended in 2022, and when renewal was being pursued, inspections identified significant deficiencies. An additional investigation and a more extensive review documented issues related to fire code, structural elements, and electrical concerns, leading to an order that prevented the building from being occupied until code compliance work is completed.
This section turned into a wider conversation about how County facilities have been managed over time. Staff described a history of limited investment and incomplete building assessments, especially in older or heritage properties, and explained that the County is now working through a “report card” approach, evaluating buildings as renewals, leases, or urgent problems force decisions.
Councillors asked the obvious questions: what will it cost, what is Benson Hall supposed to be used for, and does it make more sense to fix it for the Kinsmen, repurpose it for municipal office space, or consider other options. Staff and the Chief Administrative Officer discussed how the intended use of the building drives the price and the code compliance requirements. A key practical detail also surfaced: the Kinsmen are not only a club that needs meeting space, but have a bingo operation that relies on a dedicated, permanent location.
During debate, council moved away from the original direction of immediately repairing the building to return it to the Kinsmen. Instead, council approved an amended approach: continued in-kind use of community space for the Kinsmen through December 31, 2024, and direction for staff to explore repurposing Benson Hall to include municipal office use as part of the 2024 budget deliberations.
Affordable housing and a tax tool tied to 230 Niles Street
The last major item was a Housing Department report about using the County’s Municipal Capital Facilities By-Law framework for an affordable housing project at 230 Niles Street in Wellington, owned by the Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation.
The Chief Administrative Officer described the by-law as a tool meant to improve the thin financial margins that often make affordable housing hard to build, using tax exemptions for the portion of a project that meets the County’s affordability definitions. This item was presented as the first real project moving through that process, and staff also recommended administrative amendments to improve clarity in the by-law based on what they learned while drafting the first agreement.
Council’s discussion included confirming that affordability definitions should align with provincial definitions, and staff indicated they would verify alignment before the by-law proceeds at the next Council meeting. The motion to receive the report and proceed with the designation and agreement steps carried.
Key Takeaways:
The County is moving toward stronger enforcement for tree protection, with staff directed to explore a Tree Protection By-Law tied to existing policy and planned site alteration rules.
The County’s bridge inspection program is not just a checkbox, since OSIM ratings are being used as the foundation for prioritizing capital work, but councillors are pressing for clearer maintenance follow-through.
Benson Hall became a case study in bigger facilities challenges, and council’s direction shifted toward temporary Kinsmen accommodations while staff explore whether repurposing the building for municipal office use makes more financial sense in 2024.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:37:03. 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