top of page

Part 2: Planning Decisions in Bloomfield, Hillier, and County-Wide Infrastructure Updates - 07/16/2025

Updated: Apr 27

The July 16, 2025 Planning and Development Committee meeting moved away from exploratory discussion and into recorded positions, formal motions, and votes. While the statutory public meetings earlier in the evening focused on hearing information and concerns, this portion of the agenda showed how councillors weighed staff recommendations, asked clarifying questions, and made decisions that directly affect specific communities across the County.


Rezoning at 433 Bloomfield Main Street


The first decision item concerned the rezoning of 433 Bloomfield Main Street in Bloomfield and Hallowell. Angela Buonamici, Planning Coordinator, confirmed that notice requirements had been met and that staff had no further comments beyond the written report. The applicant’s agent, Dale Egan, Senior Planner with RFA Planning Consultant Inc., stated clearly that the property owners, Alexandre Fida and Melanie Fida, agreed with staff’s recommendations and the draft zoning by law.


Councillor Maynard moved the motion to approve the rezoning, seconded by Councillor Roberts. The motion carried without opposition.


A group of people in a semicircular council meeting room, viewing a screen with video call. Neutral tones and Canadian flag visible.
© PEC Council (YouTube)

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


Consent and Rezoning at 1092 County Road 20


Attention then shifted to 1092 County Road 20 in Ward 7 Hillier, where a consent and rezoning application was brought forward by 11562550 Canada Inc., operating as Huycks Bay. Ray Essiambre, Principal of Ray Essiambre and Associates Ltd., confirmed that the applicant accepted all staff recommended conditions.


This item prompted targeted questioning from Councillor Pennell, who focused on groundwater reliability. Pennell asked staff to confirm whether the portion of the property associated with a previously identified low yield well had been removed from consideration. Planning staff confirmed that the affected lot was not part of the approval before the committee. That clarification appeared to address Pennell’s concern, reinforcing the committee’s reliance on hydrogeological studies when approving rural severances.


Crosswalk with white stripes on an asphalt road, bordered by vibrant green hedges. No people or vehicles present; calm urban setting.

With that confirmation on record, Councillor St.-Jean moved the motion to approve the consent and rezoning, seconded by Councillor Roberts. The motion carried. The conditions attached to the approval were extensive, covering road widening, drainage controls, environmental compliance, and explicit disclaimers placing responsibility for water quantity and quality on the landowner.


The committee then considered a Road Assumption By Law, a procedural but locally significant item. Councillor St.-Jean again moved the motion, with Councillor Roberts seconding. There were no questions or debate, and the motion carried unanimously.


Next, the committee reviewed a list of minor variances approved under Delegated Authority By Law 98 2020. These decisions had already been made by staff and were presented for transparency rather than reconsideration. Councillor Maynard moved the motion to receive the list for information, seconded by Councillor St.-Jean. With no objections or questions, the motion carried.


Throughout the decision portion of the meeting, voting patterns were consistent. Motions were routinely moved and seconded by councillors from different wards, and no recorded opposition votes were cast. Questions tended to focus on technical safeguards, particularly water supply and infrastructure capacity, rather than land use principle. Where staff and applicants were able to confirm compliance with studies and conditions, councillors appeared comfortable advancing the applications. The meeting concluded with Councillor Engelsdorfer moving the motion to adjourn, seconded by Councillor Roberts, bringing the session to a close at 8:30 p.m.


What it Means for the Residents


For Bloomfield residents, the vote confirmed that the committee was satisfied the proposal aligned with planning policy and that no outstanding technical or neighbourhood concerns remained at the committee level.


For Hillier residents, the discussion and vote underscored how water supply remains a central issue in rural planning decisions and how conditions are used to manage risk rather than deny applications outright.


The Road Assumption By Law means that affected roads are now formally part of the County road system, making them eligible for County maintenance and long-term infrastructure planning.


For residents across the County, while earlier debates reflected strong public concern and detailed questioning, the later votes showed the committee acting within the framework of staff reports, technical studies, and policy compliance, with clear implications for Bloomfield, Hillier, and other areas where development and infrastructure decisions continue to shape local communities.

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:32:08. 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


PEC Connect

Contact: hello@pecconnect.ca 
View our:  Privacy Policy   and  Terms of USE

Join Our Community

Blog, News, and More!

Prince Edward County Blog

Are you a local interested in community news, council info, and more? Or a visitor wanting to familiarize yourself with PEC? Subscribe to stay in touch with us for more of what interests you!

© 2026 by PEC Connect Inc.

bottom of page