Part 1: Shorelands, Farm Severances, and Parkland Fees Set the Tone - 3/22/2023
- PECConnect
- Mar 22, 2023
- 6 min read
The County Planning and Development Committee met on March 22, 2023 at Highline Hall in Wellington, with a hybrid option over Zoom, to handle a slate of Planning Act matters that shape how land can be split, developed, and serviced across the County. Councillor Janice Maynard, Chair opened the meeting by explaining how the night would run and how public input becomes part of the record, while also noting that Council makes the final decisions on planning applications after committee recommendations.
Early on, Councillor David Harrison declared a pecuniary interest on two planning files tied to family connections, and those matters were set aside for later in the evening so the committee could handle them properly without his participation.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
A quick approval, then a bigger policy worry takes over
One application moved through with no questions and was approved right away: Edward Elborn and Kathryn Elborn sought consent and rezoning for lands west of 382 McKinley Crossroad in North Marysburgh, and with no one asking to speak, the committee approved it as part of the consent portion of the meeting.
The meeting’s biggest policy discussion came next, driven by Councillor John Hirsch. Hirsch asked the committee to support a direction to staff to prepare a report on an Interim Control By law tied to development in natural heritage areas that overlap with the shoreland designation in the County’s Official Plan. He described a concern that, once the Official Plan amendment moratorium ends in July 2023, the County could face applications that lean on conflicting directions in the plan, especially where shoreland policies and natural core protections sit on top of each other.
As the discussion unfolded, several themes kept circling back. Some members focused on protecting landowners and avoiding what sounded to them like an unnecessary freeze. Others framed it as a short term pause meant to avoid bigger problems later, especially if applicants try to change Official Plan designations before the promised shoreland review is completed. Michaud clarified that the concern was not all shoreland lands, but specifically where shoreland overlaps with mapped natural heritage features, and that the intent was to limit Official Plan amendment opportunities until the County completes its shoreland work.
In the end, the committee supported Hirsch’s resolution to direct staff to bring a report forward for the May 17 Planning and Development Committee meeting, for Council consideration by June 27. A recorded vote was requested, and the motion carried, with the minutes recording 10 in favour and 3 opposed.
Delegated authority updates were received, then attention returned to severances
After that policy debate, the committee briefly received two planning matters approved under the County’s delegated authority by law, treating them as information for the record before moving back into the planning applications that had been pulled earlier.
Wilron Farms asks about a drainage plan and a “deeming” condition
The Wilron Farms file, for lands north of 707 Gore Road in Ameliasburgh, came back for discussion because the agent had questions about conditions. Keith Watson, Agent, raised concerns about why a drainage plan would be required on a large agricultural field that was not intended for development, and he also asked for clarification about a condition referencing a deeming by law as part of the lot addition process.
Overholt explained that staff could not see drainage channels clearly during a site visit due to snow cover, and staff supported deleting the condition requiring the drainage plan on the retained agricultural land. On the deeming issue, Overholt described it as a legal tool used only if needed to ensure the severed parcel actually merges on title with the benefiting lands, rather than accidentally creating an extra lot.
Committee members pressed for more clarity on why that condition would appear if it was rarely used. Michaud told the committee he had not encountered it in his time with the County, but described it as a safeguard in case a technical or legal wrinkle prevents the title merger. A motion to remove the deeming condition failed, while the motion to remove the drainage plan condition carried, and the overall application was then carried as amended.
A Danforth Road file moves forward with no opposition
Next, the committee considered the Hunter application at 1122 Danforth Road in Hillier. Christian Fisker, member of the public, appeared by Zoom and told the committee he supported the proposal and agreed with the staff report and conditions. With no further questions, the committee approved the consent and rezoning.
A surplus dwelling severance triggers a bigger debate about lot size and precedent
The most tense planning discussion of the night centred on Drew Harrison Farms at 2983 County Road 8 in North Marysburgh. With Harrison conflicted out, the committee heard from Brendan O’Connor, Agent, who argued that the proposed surplus dwelling severance should be allowed at 3.4 hectares rather than the smaller size staff preferred. O’Connor pointed to a rocky ridge and poor soils as constraints, and described the larger parcel as a better fit for separating residential and agricultural use.
Overholt responded that provincial policy is clear on minimizing the lot area for surplus dwelling severances, and staff did not see a servicing or environmental reason that would justify such a large parcel. Michaud added that the point of the policy is not to create a view lot or expand a residential holding, but to sever a surplus house with the smallest reasonable footprint in an agricultural area.
As the conversation continued, the committee wrestled with two competing worries that were stated plainly in the room. One was the fairness and practicality of severing a lot that includes rocky or marginal land. The other was the precedent that approving a much larger lot could set, and the risk of drifting away from the standards the County relies on when similar files come forward.
Rather than approving or denying on the spot, Mayor Steve Ferguson moved to refer the file back to staff to consider the feedback from the meeting, consult with the applicant, and bring back a report to the next feasible Planning and Development Committee meeting. The recorded vote on that referral carried 8 to 4.
County Road 7 application raises a parkland fee dispute, but still passes
The final major file involved Velma Storms, Rosemary Martinali, Donna Sosnowski, and Brenda Sweet at 1539 County Road 7 in North Marysburgh, covering an Official Plan amendment, rezoning, and multiple consents. Shawn Legere, Agent, told the committee the applicants agreed with the conditions overall but wanted to revisit the cash in lieu of parkland fee, arguing the application had been deemed complete back in June 2021 and that fee expectations were different at the time.
Coffey flagged late additions and clarifications for the evening, including an extra condition requiring an encroachment agreement if any existing buildings or structures are deemed to sit within the County Road 7 allowance, plus by law wording tweaks to clarify setbacks and lot area details. Legere confirmed the applicants were fine with those changes.
On the parkland fee question, staff explained that the County’s updated fee structure was intended to apply to applications heard and approved in 2023, and they noted the current flat fee is already a shift away from the older percentage based approach that could have required appraisals and larger payments. Several committee members focused on the importance of applying fees consistently. The motion to approve the Official Plan amendment, rezoning, and consents passed with the conditions, including the added encroachment agreement requirement.
The committee then adjourned at 8:56 pm.
Key Takeaways
Three key takeaways for PEC residents are worth keeping in mind after this meeting.
The committee signalled that shoreland and natural heritage overlaps are still an unresolved pressure point in the Official Plan, and staff were directed to report back on an Interim Control By law approach before the moratorium window opens.
Even routine rural severances can turn into long discussions when legal tools like a deeming by law show up in conditions, because councillors want to understand what a condition does before making it normal practice.
The Drew Harrison Farms discussion showed how strongly the committee weighs precedent and provincial direction when a proposal pushes past typical limits, with the decision to refer the file back to staff instead of forcing a yes or no in the room.
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.
Comments