Part 1: Plans on County Road 8, North Marysburgh School, and Base31 Take Center Stage - 07/16/2025
- PECConnect
- Jul 16, 2025
- 5 min read
The Planning and Development Committee met on the evening of July 16, 2025, gathering in Council Chambers at Shire Hall and online for a long statutory session focused almost entirely on planning matters. The meeting was held to fulfill requirements under the Planning Act, giving applicants and the public a formal opportunity to speak before staff complete their reviews and before any decisions move forward to Council.
Early in the meeting, Councillor St.-Jean set the tone by carefully walking through how the evening would unfold. He explained the difference between statutory public meetings and later decision meetings, emphasizing that many of the applications before the committee were still at an early stage. In these cases, there were no staff recommendations, no votes on approvals, and no decisions being made.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
The first statutory item involved a consent and rezoning application at 511 County Road 8 in Bloomfield and Hallowell. The applicant, Mark Bett, spoke directly to the committee about his family property and his request to sever an approximately eight hectare parcel containing an existing house from a much larger agricultural holding. Bett explained the location of the lands, their long family history, and his intention to retain the majority of the farmland. He noted that environmental protection zoning would apply to protect nearby wetlands and that professional
technical studies had already been completed and submitted. There were no questions from committee members and no public comments on this item. The committee formally received the oral submissions for information, and the statutory public meeting for this application concluded quickly.
The meeting then moved into a much longer and more complex discussion surrounding a rezoning application for the former North Marysburgh public school at 383 County Road 7 in North Marysburgh. This application proposed converting the former school building from an institutional use into a commercial, for profit operation consisting of an assembly hall, a culinary training facility, and ten accessory guest rooms.
The agent for the application, Sean Legere, Principal Planner with RFA Planning Consultant Inc., delivered a detailed presentation outlining the history of the site, its surrounding land uses, and the scope of the proposal. He was joined by the property owner, Nick Di Donato, President of the applicant corporation. Legere explained that while the uses themselves were already permitted on the property under institutional zoning, the application sought to allow those uses to operate as a commercial enterprise. He walked through the site context near Lake on the Mountain Provincial Park, the existing escarpment protections, and the technical studies that had been prepared, including hydrogeological, traffic, stormwater, noise, and lighting assessments. Committee members asked a wide range of questions during the presentation, focusing on parking capacity, event size, water supply, traffic impacts, lighting, and noise.
Several councillors, including Councillors Pennell, Maynard, Harrison, and St.-Jean, returned repeatedly to concerns about water availability on the escarpment site and the need for further technical confirmation before any decision could be made. Planning staff confirmed that the application was still under review and that additional information would be required before a recommendation report could come forward.
Public participation formed a significant portion of this discussion. Over the course of the evening, numerous residents and community representatives spoke, including Amy Bodman, Vivien Jones Michaluk, Angus Ross, Chadley Michaluk, Pamela Stagg, Mark Hanley, Harold Bratten, Dave Poxon, and Victoria Hunt. Speakers raised concerns about traffic congestion along County Road 7, noise and lighting in a rural area, potential impacts on groundwater wells, ecological sensitivity, and long term land use implications of commercial zoning. Several speakers also highlighted the importance of protecting chimney swifts that have historically used the school’s chimney, noting the applicant’s stated willingness to preserve that habitat.
Because of the number of registered speakers, the committee passed a procedural motion to extend the usual time limits for public comments. Both Nick Di Donato and Sean Legere responded directly to questions and concerns, clarifying that the proposal did not seek to expand the building footprint or increase assembly capacity beyond what already exists under current zoning. They emphasized that the rezoning was about changing the financial structure, not introducing new land uses.
After hearing all submissions and responses, the committee formally received the public input for information. No decision was made, and the statutory public meeting for this item concluded shortly before 7:45 p.m. Following a brief recess, the committee reconvened to consider a third statutory planning item involving Base31. Mike Pettigrew, Partner and Manager of Design with The Biglieri Group Ltd., presented draft plans of subdivision for Village A and the Revitalization District at Base31, on lands near County Road 22 and Kingsley Road in Bloomfield and Hallowell. He was joined by Chris Marchese of PEC Community Partners Inc.
Pettigrew explained that the applications were rooted in the previously approved Area Concept Plan, describing how Village A would introduce a mix of housing types, parks, walkways, and a collector road, while the revitalization district would allow for flexible, mixed use redevelopment within the former base lands. He outlined changes made since the public open house, including road layout revisions and expanded green space, and emphasized long term planning horizons rather than immediate build out timelines.
Committee members questioned servicing capacity, timing, infrastructure planning, and coordination with municipal water and wastewater systems. While no commitments were made, staff and the applicants acknowledged that servicing capacity and infrastructure planning would be central issues in future reports. There were no public speakers on this item, and the committee received the oral submissions for information before closing the statutory public meeting for the Base31 applications.
With all statutory public meetings concluded, the committee formally adjourned that portion of the agenda and prepared to move into decision items.
Key Takeaways
Most July 16 planning items were information-gathering only. The committee did not make approval decisions on the applications presented, including the North Marysburgh school rezoning and Base31 subdivision plans. These statutory meetings were focused on collecting public input and identifying outstanding technical issues before staff prepare recommendation reports.
Water, traffic, and environmental impacts dominated public concern. Across multiple applications, councillors and residents repeatedly raised questions about groundwater availability, traffic safety, noise, lighting, and ecological sensitivity. These issues were flagged as requiring further technical review before any proposals advance.
Large-scale and site-specific planning files are moving on different timelines. While smaller consent applications moved quickly through the statutory process, complex projects like the former North Marysburgh school and Base31 will continue through extended review stages, with infrastructure capacity and long-term servicing remaining central considerations for the County.
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