Part 2: Fawcett Subdivision, Cherryvale Approval, and Lot Adjustment Consensus – 12/17/2025
- PECConnect
- Dec 17, 2025
- 4 min read
This meeting recap focuses on who said what, how committee members voted, and how those decisions broke down by location and file. This section stays close to the record and walks through each major area discussed, naming the councillors involved and clearly showing how positions lined up during the meeting.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Gilead Road and Fairacres Farms
For the Fairacres Farms consent and rezoning at 1591 Gilead Road, the tone in the room was calm and procedural.
Lindsay Mills, planner for the applicant, was the only speaker. She clearly framed the proposal as a boundary adjustment that would leave two lots where two already exist. No councillors questioned her explanation. No members of the public spoke.
The committee voted unanimously to receive the oral submissions and adjourn the statutory public meeting for this item. There were no opposing statements or recorded objections from any councillor.
Fawcett Avenue subdivision
The most divided and longest discussion centered on the Hilden Homes Ltd. subdivision at 233 Fawcett Avenue in Picton.
During public comments, residents spoke forcefully and repeatedly against the proposal. Those concerns were echoed during committee debate.
Councillor Phil St.-Jean repeatedly returned to the issue of construction traffic and the long term condition of Fawcett Avenue. He stated clearly that he could not support the application due to the lack of a secondary construction access and voted against approval.
Councillor Nieman raised early questions about the traffic study and construction timing. He said directly that he could not support the project without a separate construction route and emphasized council’s responsibility to protect existing County infrastructure. He voted against the motion.
Councillor Phil Prinzen was one of the most vocal opponents. He referenced the committee’s earlier direction from June 2024 and said the core concerns had not been addressed. He also questioned the applicant directly about whether Hilden Homes intended to build or sell serviced lots. After hearing the response, he stated plainly that he would not support the application and voted against it.
Councillor Janice Maynard expressed concern about removing environmental protection lands, especially once it was clarified that the developer would not be building the homes directly. She also raised concerns about roads running alongside the Millennium Trail and voted against the application.
Councillor Roy Pennell said the same issues raised in 2024 were still unresolved. He described too many unknowns and said he would not support the file until there were clearer answers. He voted against approval.
Ben Thornton spoke at length about environmental protection lands, mature trees, and the cumulative impact on the Millennium Trail. He stated he could not support the removal of environmental protection designations and voted against the motion.
Councillor John Hirsch acknowledged flaws in the application and raised questions about what issues might matter at the Ontario Land Tribunal. While he was more measured in tone, he did not support the approval.
Councillor Sam Grosso said he liked the overall concept and tree planting but insisted a second access was necessary. Without it, he could not support the proposal.
When the vote was called, only one councillor voted in favour. The chair declared the motion lost.
Cherryvale Farm: support carried despite one clear dissent
The rezoning file for Cherryvale Farm at 1927 County Road 10 saw far less debate among councillors.
Public comments were split, with Andrea Weierstra speaking in support of the venue and John Carnahan speaking in opposition, primarily over outdoor noise and traffic.
At the committee table, there were no detailed questions or extended discussion before the vote.
Councillor John Hirsch was the only member who voted against the rezoning. All other councillors present voted in favour. The motion carried.
Reynolds Farms lot adjustment: consensus after conditions removed
The final file for Reynolds Farms Limited west of 1037 County Road 4 was treated as a straightforward lot line adjustment.
Jennifer Matthews of Watson Land Surveyors asked that two draft conditions related to drainage review and new entrances be removed.
Councillor Phil Prinzen made the motion to remove Conditions 5 and 6, stating the adjustment did not justify those requirements. Councillor Harrison seconded the motion. No councillors spoke against it.
The motion to remove the conditions passed unanimously. The amended application was then approved without opposition.
What this means for locals
For Fawcett Avenue residents, the committee decision means the proposed 85 unit subdivision did not move forward and will not be sent to Council for final approval in its current form. The strongest message from the vote was that a single construction access and long term road impact remain deal breakers for most councillors.
For Cherry Valley residents, the rezoning approval means Cherryvale Farm can move ahead under the new zoning framework, despite ongoing concerns about noise and traffic from some neighbours.
For landowners near County Road 4, the Reynolds Farms decision confirms that small lot adjustments can move efficiently through the process when impacts are limited and conditions are proportional.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:41:42. 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