Part 2: Split on Shoreline Controls and Rural Severance Decisions - 3/22/2023

This portion of Planning and Development Committee meeting on March 22, 2023 focused on land use decisions, who pushed them forward, and how Council handled areas where policy and real world conditions did not fully align. The discussion moved from a major recorded vote on a potential interim control by law for shoreline and natural heritage areas to several planning applications that tested how strictly existing rules should be applied.

Across the agenda, councillors weighed risk, precedent, and local impact, sometimes choosing to move applications forward with conditions, and other times slowing decisions down for further review. The result was a meeting that highlighted Council’s cautious approach to growth, consistency, and long term planning across Prince Edward County.

Interim Control By Law for Shorelands and Natural Heritage Areas

The most significant recorded vote of the night came from a motion brought forward by Councillor John Hirsch, asking staff to prepare a report on a potential interim control by law related to development in shoreland areas that overlap natural heritage features.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

John Hirsch spoke repeatedly in favour of the motion, framing it as a temporary pause to prevent conflicting Official Plan interpretations once the two year amendment moratorium expires. Councillor Janice Maynard, as Chair, supported the motion and emphasized that it would maintain existing rules until the shoreline study is complete.

Several of the members framed their support around risk management and avoiding future Ontario Land Tribunal disputes. Opposition came from David Harrison, Phil St-Jean, and Roy Pennell. Harrison raised concerns about freezing landowners who already face restrictions. St-Jean questioned whether existing planning tools already gave Council enough control. Pennell focused on economic implications and the potential signal this could send to investors and job creators. The recorded vote carried, directing staff to prepare a report for Council consideration.

Wilron Farms North of Gore Road Ameliasburgh

The Wilron Farms application sparked discussion around conditions rather than the severance itself. Keith Watson, Agent, questioned why a drainage plan was required on retained agricultural land and asked for clarification on a deeming by law condition.

Staff support to remove the drainage plan condition was accepted by committee. A motion to remove the deeming by law condition was brought forward by Phil St-Jean and seconded by David Harrison, but it failed. The majority accepted staff advice that the deeming condition was a safeguard and not automatically triggered.

This meant the application moved forward with one condition removed and one retained.

Danforth Road Hillier Application

The Hunter application at 1122 Danforth Road moved smoothly. Christian Fisker, Agent and neighbouring landowner, stated clearly that he supported the application and agreed with staff conditions.

With no objections raised, councillors voted unanimously to approve the consent and rezoning. No recorded vote was requested.

Drew Harrison Farms County Road 8 North Marysburgh

This file generated the most divided discussion. Brendan O'Connor, Agent, argued strongly for a larger surplus dwelling severance at 3.4 hectares, citing rocky terrain and poor soils. Planning staff did not support the larger lot size and recommended denial based on provincial policy requiring the smallest reasonable lot.

Several councillors expressed internal conflict. Phil St-Jean openly stated he was torn between understanding the land context and worrying about precedent. Janice Maynard raised concerns about setting a standard that could be used to justify larger agricultural severances elsewhere. Michael Michaud, Manager of Planning, reinforced staff concern that the proposal went beyond policy intent.

Rather than approving or denying, Mayor Steve Ferguson moved to refer the file back to staff for further discussion with the applicant. This referral motion was seconded by Sam Branderhorst.

Parkland Fee Dispute

The final major vote involved the Storms Martinali Sosnowski Sweet lands on County Road 7. Shawn Legere, Agent, requested that older parkland fees apply, arguing the application had been deemed complete in 2021.

Staff including Matt Coffey and Michael Michaud advised that current fees adopted by Council should apply, noting that the flat fee already represented a reduction from previous percentage based requirements.

Councillors including Phil St-Jean and Roy Pennell supported applying the current fee consistently. No amendment to reduce the fee was passed. The application including the parkland fee and added encroachment condition was approved.

What This Means Locally

The interim control by law discussion signals that development proposals touching shoreland and natural heritage overlays may face slower timelines until the shoreline study is complete.

The Wilron Farms and Danforth Road decisions show that routine severances still move forward when conditions are clear, but legal safeguards are increasingly standard.

The Drew Harrison Farms referral means no immediate approval or denial, but it also reinforces that large surplus dwelling severances remain difficult to justify and will be closely scrutinized for precedent.

The parkland fee decision confirms that newer development charges are being applied even to long running applications, reinforcing a shift toward updated cost recovery across the County.

This meeting showed a committee cautious about precedent, willing to slow files down when policy lines blur, and increasingly focused on consistency across wards even when individual land contexts differ.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:56:41. 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.