Part 2: Shoreland Designations and Natural Core Conflicts – 02/19/2025

Discussion around Pleasant Bay on February 19, 2025 meeting of the County’s Planning and Development Committee drew some of the most detailed comments. Councillor Janice Maynard spoke at length about specific shoreline strips and subdivisions in the area, questioning why some locations were proposed for change while others were not. She suggested that strong rural designations could act as a compromise by limiting tourist commercial uses while still allowing flexibility for small scale residential or agricultural activity. Maynard emphasized that some parcels are not well suited for farming and that a rural designation could better reflect how the land is actually used.

Scott Pordham responded by explaining how rural and agricultural designations differ in terms of residential potential, noting that rural designations generally allow one new residential lot in principle, while agricultural designations do not. Albert Paschkowiak supported the idea that Pleasant Bay deserves careful treatment because of environmental sensitivities but maintained that the broader policy conflict still needs to be addressed.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Hillier and broader rural farming areas

Concerns from Hillier were raised primarily by Councillor Chris Braney, who said farmers and property owners he spoke with felt uneasy about the direction of the changes. Braney described those concerns as rooted in uncertainty and fear of future restrictions rather than the immediate proposal itself. He warned that many landowners have invested their own money into environmental stewardship and feel the County already has sufficient tools in place.

Braney ultimately opposed moving forward, saying he preferred sticking with the existing plan and avoiding what he believed could trigger appeals and backlash from rural landowners.

County wide natural core areas

Much of the broader debate focused on properties located inside natural core areas across the County. Albert Paschkowiak repeatedly returned to the legal conflict created when shoreland permissions and natural core protections apply to the same land. He explained that the County is currently constrained by an interim control by law and that failing to resolve these overlaps could lead to inconsistent decision making once that control expires.

On the other side, Councillor Phil St.-Jean argued strongly that addressing these issues piece by piece risks eroding property rights. He said the maps were not precise enough and that Council should wait until the comprehensive zoning by law is finalized before making Official Plan changes that affect natural core lands.

Process and timing concerns across multiple wards

Questions about timing and process were raised by several councillors, regardless of geography. Mayor Steve Ferguson focused on public understanding and communication, questioning whether property owners truly grasp the implications of the proposed changes and highlighting the cost and complexity of appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Councillor Roy Pennell, as chair, kept the discussion moving and ultimately called for recorded votes once it became clear the committee was divided. The meeting extended past its scheduled end time to allow the debate to conclude.

The motion and how members voted

The key motion came from Councillor St.-Jean, seconded by Councillor Prinzen, to remove the recommendations that would advance the Official Plan amendment and instead simply receive the report for information. That motion carried on a recorded vote.

Those voting in favour included Councillors St Jean, Pennell, Nieman, Prinzen, Roberts, and Engelsdorfer. Those opposed included Councillors Braney, Maynard, Mayor Ferguson, and Branderhorst. With the amendment approved, the main motion as amended also carried, effectively pausing further action on the proposed changes.

What this means for local residents

For residents and landowners across the County, the immediate takeaway is that no shoreline or rural designation changes were approved at this stage. Existing rules remain in place for now. However, the issues raised during the meeting are not resolved. Conflicts between shoreland permissions and natural core protections still exist, and the comprehensive zoning by law update will play a major role in shaping what happens next.

Property owners in shoreline, rural, and environmentally sensitive areas should expect this conversation to return, likely with more detail and clearer implications once zoning rules are formally on the table.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:45:22. 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.