Part 2: Council Votes on Lakecroft and Advances Major Decisions - 08/26/2025

As the August 26, 2025 Regular Council meeting moved beyond presentations and into decision-making, discussion increasingly centered on how proposed actions would affect specific communities across the County. Councillors referenced past decisions, professional advice, resident concerns, and financial implications as they worked through a long agenda of motions.

Planning Deputations and Council Response

During discussion following the deputation by Mark Pedersen, legal counsel for the Lakecroft application, several councillors reflected on the procedural consequences raised. Sam Grosso (Ameliasburgh) spoke directly to the cost implications of denying the application again, referencing the likelihood of an Ontario Land Tribunal appeal and the financial burden such proceedings could place on County taxpayers.

John Hirsch (South Marysburgh) echoed concerns about rejecting professional planning advice already provided by County staff and consultants, noting that Council would need to justify a decision that ran counter to those opinions. Chris Braney (Hillier) later stated that Pedersen’s explanation influenced his position compared to the Planning and Development Committee meeting the previous week.

In contrast, Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) and Brad Nieman (Bloomfield Hallowell) continued to raise caution about resident impacts and process transparency, particularly how decisions would be perceived by nearby residents who had previously opposed the proposal.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Cold Creek Subdivision and Groundwater Concerns

Following the deputation by David McGillivray, hydrogeologist with Grounded Engineering, councillors asked detailed questions about long-term responsibility and liability. Maynard asked where responsibility would fall if flooding or well impacts occurred after subdivision assumption. McGillivray responded that, in his experience, municipalities often inherit responsibility once subdivisions are assumed.

Braney emphasized the importance of protecting the Waring’s Creek watershed and raised concerns about irreversible impacts if groundwater issues were not fully understood. Phil St.-Jean (Picton) sought clarification from staff on whether Council had any remaining ability to influence monitoring or mitigation measures given that subdivision approval had already occurred earlier in the year.

Sarah Viau, Municipal Lawyer and Director of Corporate and Legislative Services, explained that while Council could not add new conditions, the approved terms of reference required ongoing monitoring and reporting, with results brought back to Council annually.

Infrastructure Tender Approval

Google Street View

Council unanimously supported awarding the Picton Main Street Phase 3 infrastructure project to R.W. Tomlinson Limited. Jeff Shortt, Project Manager, explained that the project would complete servicing upgrades needed to support growth in Picton East, including the new long-term care home.

Councillors St.-Jean and Maynard both asked about communication with residents and traffic management, referencing lessons learned during earlier phases. Staff confirmed that signage, advance notice, and contractor experience from previous phases would be used to reduce disruption.

Council approved a new Traffic Calming Policy, developed through the Traffic Advisory Committee. Albert Paschkowiak stressed the importance of considering farm equipment and non-resident road users when evaluating traffic calming measures. Staff clarified that the policy establishes a consistent framework, while final decisions would still account for technical requirements and road use patterns. Councillors supported the policy as a way to respond more efficiently to resident requests.

Council approved changes to the Video Surveillance Policy, allowing staff to add camera locations without returning to Council each time. Maynard raised concerns about privacy and scope, asking how footage would be used beyond vandalism prevention. Interim CAO Adam Goheen and staff explained that privacy legislation still applies and access to footage remains tightly controlled.

2026 Municipal Election Ballot Question

Council discussed a proposed ballot question asking residents if they support a third-party review of council size and related ward boundary changes. Councillor Braney emphasized that the question simply asks residents for direction, with no immediate changes resulting.

Councillor Maynard requested broader public engagement and suggested multiple public meetings across the County. Staff confirmed that public meetings would occur before any by-law was finalized.

Lakecroft Planning Decision and Recorded Vote

© Lakecroft

Council separated Motion 2025-446 from the Planning and Development Committee minutes and brought it forward for debate. An amending motion, moved by Councillor St-Jean and seconded by Councillor Hirsch, directed staff to ensure all recommendations from the Cambium Scoped Noise Impact Study be incorporated into the site plan approval process. That amendment carried.

A recorded vote was then taken on the main motion, as amended. In favour were Councillors Grosso, Hirsch, MacNaughton, Braney, St-Jean, Harrison, and Mayor Ferguson. While Councillors Branderhorst, Engelsdorfer, Maynard, and Nieman voted in opposition.

The motion carried 6–5, approving the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the Lakecroft site with added noise-related direction.

Council proceeded through remaining by-laws without debate and adjourned at 9:20 p.m. The meeting highlighted how council decisions are shaped by a mix of technical evidence, resident concerns, legal context, and financial risk, with recorded votes providing transparency on how individual councillors positioned themselves on key issues.

What This Means for Local Residents

The Lakecroft decision means the project can proceed to the site plan stage with specific noise controls now required. Nearby residents should expect future site plan review to be where operational details are finalized.

The discussion confirmed that groundwater monitoring will continue but also acknowledged limits on changing conditions after approval. Residents can expect ongoing monitoring reports to come back to Council.

For residents, Picton Main Street construction is moving forward with efforts focused on minimizing disruption and improving communication based on past phases.

This meeting showed how individual councillors weigh local concerns against broader impacts and how final decisions can shift between committee and Council when new information is presented.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:22:29. 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.