Part 1: Rural Land Use Decisions and Public Input in PEC - 06/18/2025
- PECConnect
- Jun 18, 2025
- 5 min read
The County Planning and Development Committee met on June 18, 2025 to hear planning applications, gather public input, and make decisions on rural land use matters across several wards. The meeting was held as a hybrid session, with members attending both in person at Shire Hall and remotely, and was conducted under the requirements of the Planning Act.
The meeting was chaired by Councillor Brad Nieman, who opened the session and guided the committee through a mix of statutory public meetings and items brought forward for decision. The overall purpose of the meeting was to move planning applications through different stages of review, ensuring public input was heard and formal recommendations were made where required.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
Early in the meeting, the committee addressed procedural items, including disclosures of pecuniary interest. Councillor David Harrison, declared a conflict on one application due to a family connection and did not participate in that item.
This step cleared the way for the committee to focus on the substance of the planning matters before them, which largely centered on how rural properties are divided, accessed, serviced with water, and protected from long term infrastructure issues.
Realigning a long standing water servicing easement
The first major discussion involved Consent File No. B5-25 for 84 Parrs Lane in Athol Ward, submitted by Marla Lehberg. The application was presented by Matthew W. Rutledge, counsel for the applicant. He explained that the proposal focused on a private communal water servicing easement that has existed since 1981. Over time, the recorded easement came to cover more land than is actually needed for the water pipes and pump house that serve several nearby properties.
Rutledge walked the committee through how the easement currently sits on the property and why the application proposed to realign it to match the actual infrastructure on the ground, while abandoning unused portions. This discussion mattered because easements affect property rights, access, and future land use, particularly in areas with shared water systems.
Committee members asked questions about how many homes rely on the system and whether the proposal would change servicing obligations. Staff clarified how communal water systems are defined and confirmed that the application would not increase the number of users or shift responsibility to the County.
No members of the public spoke, and the statutory public meeting for this file was closed after oral submissions were received for information.
The committee then turned to Consent and Rezoning File No. B6-25 and Z4-25 for 129 Cressy Lakeside Road in North Marysburgh Ward, submitted by Drew Harrison Farms Inc.
The application was presented by Jeff Wheeldon, acting as planning agent. He explained that the proposal involved a surplus farm dwelling severance, a planning approach used when a farmhouse is no longer needed to support an active farm operation.
Wheeldon described how the retained land would continue to be farmed, while the existing house would be severed and rezoned to function as a rural residential lot. The discussion touched on how the severed lot was shaped to follow natural features and how well testing had been completed to address water supply considerations.
This topic mattered because surplus farm dwelling severances are a common tool used to balance agricultural protection with housing needs in rural the County.
There were no questions from committee members and no public comments, and the statutory public meeting concluded with oral submissions received for information.
Public concerns about access and rural character
After closing the statutory public meetings, the committee moved into hearing public comments related to applications scheduled for decision. Attention shifted to Consent and Rezoning File No. B15-24 and Z24-24, affecting lands west of 620 County Road 39 in Hillier Ward. Sheila Stene, a neighbouring resident, spoke about concerns related to the location of a proposed entrance for the retained lot.
Stene explained how the entrance location could affect dust, traffic proximity, and the sense of rural separation between properties. Her comments reflected a recurring theme in rural planning discussions, where access placement and everyday impacts on neighbours often matter as much as lot size or zoning.
The applicant, Margaret Wright, responded during the meeting, explaining her perspective on access and land use. Staff later clarified that entrance placement is handled through a separate entrance permit process, and that the access point being discussed already exists as a field entrance. The committee formally received these comments, ensuring they became part of the planning record.
Decisions on County Road 39 severance and rezoning
The committee then moved to a decision on Consent File No. B15-24 and Zoning By law Amendment File No. Z24-24, submitted by Margaret Wright. Staff confirmed there were no additional comments beyond the written report, and Wright confirmed agreement with the proposed conditions. The committee approved the application subject to extensive conditions dealing with road widening, drainage, hydrogeological studies, water supply acknowledgements, entrance permits, parkland dedication, and registration of agreements on title.
This decision highlighted how approvals in rural areas often come with detailed conditions aimed at protecting infrastructure, neighbouring properties, and municipal interests over the long term.
Lot additions along County Road 24 in Athol Ward
The final major discussion focused on Consent File Nos. B3-25 and B4-25 and Zoning By law Amendment File No. Z4-24 for properties along County Road 24 in Athol Ward, submitted by 1000025072 Ontario Inc., Thomas Mason, Eva Kralits, Brian Flack, and Susan Straiton.
The application was presented by Shawn Legere, Senior Planner with RFA Planning Consultant Inc. Legere explained that the proposal involved lot additions, where land would be severed and added to neighbouring parcels rather than creating new residential lots.
This distinction mattered because lot additions typically do not increase density, but they still raise considerations around road access, drainage, and land title consolidation. The agent confirmed agreement with all staff recommended conditions, and the committee recommended approval.
Before adjourning, the committee also received information on planning matters approved under Delegated Authority By law 98 2020, including a minor variance and a part lot control exemption approved earlier in the year. With all agenda items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 6:44 p.m.
Key Takeaways
Several rural planning applications focused on how land is divided, accessed, and serviced, particularly in Athol, Hillier, and North Marysburgh Wards.
Water servicing, entrance placement, and long term infrastructure protection were recurring themes across multiple discussions.
Public input was formally heard and recorded, even where applications ultimately moved forward with staff recommended conditions.
Disclaimer This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 46:03 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