Part 2: Picton Terminals Opposition, McFarland Decisions, and Accessibility Changes – 07/23/2024

This article looks into July 23, 2024 Regular Council meeting that focuses on who said what, who supported which decisions, and how those decisions connect to different parts of the County.

Public deputations dominated the Picton Terminals discussion.

Ken Stewart challenged Council’s use of closed sessions and questioned whether upcoming public meetings still mattered if a settlement was already legally binding. He also raised the idea of large-scale homeowner compensation.

Meg Kerr, Director with the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, warned that Picton Terminals’ past conduct made future compliance unlikely. Kerr pointed to additional land owned by Abnett Investments Limited near Whitechapel Road and questioned whether expansion plans were already in motion.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Eugenia Venchiarutti urged Council to abandon negotiation in favour of litigation, citing repeated bylaw violations and environmental risks tied to larger vessels and sediment disturbance near the Picton Bay water intake.

During the public comment period, Debbie Rankin and Shelley McFarland, both Picton Bay residents, described daily impacts including noise, dust, light pollution, and health fears. Their comments were received formally after a motion moved by Councillor Phil Prinzen and seconded by Brad Nieman which carried.

Infrastructure Funding: United Council Support

Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer introduced a resolution calling on federal and provincial governments to partner more aggressively on infrastructure funding for small rural municipalities. Mayor Steve Ferguson seconded the motion.

Support came quickly. Councillor John Hirsch said municipalities across Ontario were aligned on the issue. Councillor Bill Roberts referenced provincial population growth projections to underline urgency. The resolution passed unanimously.

McFarland Home: Cost, Capacity, and Commitment

Council next addressed the redevelopment of H. J. McFarland Memorial Home.

Councillor Roy Pennell questioned tender transparency and asked whether alternatives to a larger build had been fully explored. Kyle Cotton, Director of Long-Term Care, confirmed past Council decisions locked in the 160-bed plan.

Councillor Phil St-Jean pressed staff on borrowing and provincial funding flows. Cotton explained subsidy payments would be spread over time. Councillor Sam Branderhorst confirmed Council would review progress before the final provincial milestone.

St-Jean strongly supported moving forward, saying the project replaced beds lost when Picton Manor closed and reflected the County’s aging demographics. The motion to receive the report and proceed carried.

Reuse of the Existing McFarland Site

Council then supported issuing an Expression of Interest for reuse of the existing McFarland building.

Roberts highlighted the building’s architectural significance as a Ron Thom design. Councillor Janice Maynard emphasized housing needs but accepted keeping the scope broad. Branderhorst explained the goal was eventual sale to offset redevelopment costs. The motion passed.

Accessibility Parking: Detailed Debate, Small Adjustments

Accessible parking changes prompted extensive discussion.

Councillor Phil Prinzen raised concerns about losing convenience parking in Bloomfield, particularly near the post office. Council approved an amendment shifting one space west.

Later, St-Jean asked staff to re-examine a proposed Picton space near 130 Main Street to ensure proper placement. Council directed staff to review the location before implementation.

Closed Session and Recorded Vote

Councillor MacNaughton introduced a late motion to move into closed session under Section 239 of the Municipal Act for litigation or potential litigation. A recorded vote was requested. The motion carried 7–5, with divisions clearly noted in the minutes.

What This Means for Residents

Residents remain directly affected by unresolved concerns around Picton Terminals, with strong public opposition now formally on record. 

Taxpayers face major long-term financial decisions tied to the McFarland redevelopment, with levy impacts still to be decided through the budget process. 

Residents will see changes to accessible parking, with Council showing willingness to adjust locations while moving forward on accessibility commitments.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 5:06:00. 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.