Part 1: Why Shoreland Designations Were Back on the Table –02/19/2025

The February 19, 2025 meeting of the County’s Planning and Development Committee began routinely, with statutory public meetings for several consent and rezoning applications, before moving into a far more complex and consequential discussion: how the County should resolve long-standing conflicts between shoreland designations and Natural Core Areas within the Official Plan.

By the time the committee reached Item 7.2, a municipally initiated Official Plan Amendment affecting various shoreland properties across the County, it was clear the issue was not a narrow technical adjustment. Instead, it reopened unresolved questions dating back to the 2020 Official Plan about environmental protection, development permissions, and private property rights.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.

Why the Shoreland Review Was Initiated

Planning Policy Coordinator Scott Pordham explained that the proposed amendment was part of a Shore Land Designation Review, directed by Council, intended to address areas where shoreland permissions overlap with Natural Features and Areas shown on Schedule B of the Official Plan. In those overlap areas, the two designations permit very different types of development, creating internal policy conflicts.

According to staff, this conflict has practical consequences. Environmental Services and Sustainability Supervisor Albert Paschkowiak stated that the County is currently operating under an interim control by-law related to Natural Core Areas, which expires in May. Without resolving the overlap between shoreline permissions and natural core protections, staff warned that the County could face inconsistent decision-making and increased legal risk when processing applications.

Paschkowiak pointed to live examples already before the County, where properties designated as shoreland also sit entirely within Natural Core Areas, leaving staff to interpret competing policy directions within the same Official Plan.

Phase One Now, Phase Two Later

Staff emphasized that the February 19 proposal represented Phase One of the review. Pordham confirmed multiple times that Phase Two would reopen the discussion, allowing for additional designation changes, policy refinements, and more detailed criteria including the possibility of stricter rules for rural lands located within Natural Core Areas compared to rural lands elsewhere.

When questioned about whether certain properties should be designated Agricultural instead of Rural, staff acknowledged that future policy work could refine what types of uses are permitted and under what conditions. Pordham stated that while staff believed the proposed rural designations were appropriate in many locations, the policies governing those lands could be revisited if Council wished.

Concerns About Timing and Prematurity

As the discussion broadened, several councillors questioned whether moving forward with the amendment was premature given that a new comprehensive zoning by-law is already underway.

Councillors raised concerns that without seeing the final zoning rules, particularly changes to on-farm diversified uses, commercial permissions, and lot creation, it was difficult to fully understand how the proposed designation changes would affect property owners in practice.

Some councillors described the process as “cart before the horse,” arguing that Official Plan changes and zoning changes should be evaluated together to avoid incremental decisions that could unintentionally alter long-established land use rights. Others expressed concern that property owners felt confused by the maps and uncertain about what they would be allowed to do on their land if the amendment proceeded.

Property Rights, Appeals, and Public Understanding

The issue of private property rights emerged repeatedly throughout the discussion. Several councillors said they had heard from farmers and rural landowners who viewed the proposal as a gradual erosion of long-standing rights, particularly in wards with significant agricultural land.

Councillors also raised the likelihood of Ontario Land Tribunal appeals, noting that while provincial changes have limited appeal rights in some planning matters, municipally initiated Official Plan amendments can still be appealed by affected landowners. Staff confirmed this interpretation.

Mayor Steve Ferguson focused on communication and public understanding, asking staff how many of the approximately 700 affected property owners had responded during public consultation. Staff reported that while direct mail notices were sent twice, only a relatively small number of written submissions were received, and attendance at public meetings was limited compared to the total number of affected properties. This raised further concern among councillors about whether silence reflected support, confusion, or lack of awareness.

Differing Views on the Path Forward

Not all committee members shared the same level of concern. Some councillors argued that the existing shoreland designation is overly permissive for tourist commercial uses and that the proposed changes would help better protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands while allowing appropriate development in more suitable locations.

Others countered that existing planning tools already provide sufficient oversight through application-based approvals, making broad designation changes unnecessary at this stage. By the end of the discussion, it was clear that the committee was divided not only on the substance of the amendment, but on how and when such decisions should be made whether incrementally through this review, or later once the comprehensive zoning by-law is complete.

Key takeaways for Residents

1. The County is grappling with real conflicts between shoreland permissions and natural core environmental protections, and staff see Official Plan changes as one way to address those overlaps.

   
   

2. Much of the uncertainty comes from timing, as the comprehensive zoning by law update will ultimately determine how these designations affect what property owners can actually do.

   
   

3. The issue is not settled, and residents should expect further discussion as zoning work continues and Council revisits how shoreline lands are designated and regulated.

---

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.