Part 1: Fawcett Subdivision, Cherryvale Rezoning, and Farm Lot Adjustment Decisions – 12/17/2025
- PECConnect
- Dec 17, 2025
- 6 min read
The County’s Planning and Development Committee met at Shire Hall on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, for a meeting that blended two different parts of the planning process. First came the required public planning portion under the Planning Act, where applications are introduced and the public can weigh in before staff completes a full review. Then came the decision portion, where committee members consider staff reports and vote on recommendations that later go to Council for final approval.
After the committee confirmed the agenda, Councillor Janice Maynard disclosed a pecuniary interest related to Item 7.2, explaining it was connected through her husband’s work doing custom cropping with a company involved in that file.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
Fairacres Farms consent and rezoning at Gilead Road
The statutory public meeting section focused on one file only: Consent and Rezoning File Nos. B23 25 and Z14 25 for Fairacres Farms Limited at 1591 Gilead Road in Bloomfield/Hallowell.
Lindsay Mills, a professional planner representing the applicant, presented the proposal as a boundary adjustment, not a new lot creation. Mills explained that two existing lots already exist on the property and that the proposal would reduce one lot to align with an existing house, while transferring the remaining land to the adjacent parcel to the east. The result, she said, would still be two lots, with the larger parcel better suited for agricultural use.
Mills referenced Official Plan policies that allow lot adjustments that do not create new building lots and argued that larger agricultural parcels support long term farm viability and flexibility. No councillors asked questions and no members of the public spoke on this item. The committee voted to receive the oral submissions and formally adjourned the statutory public meeting for this file.
Public comments
The meeting then moved into comments from the audience on items for consideration, with the majority of speakers focusing on the proposed Hilden Homes Ltd. subdivision at 233 Fawcett Avenue in Picton.
Gordon Hanley, a long time resident of Fawcettville, raised concerns about winter road maintenance, emergency access, and whether local infrastructure could support 85 new homes. He also questioned whether a second access road had been approved and raised stormwater runoff concerns tied to sidewalks and drainage.
Stephen Gunn, a resident of Fawcett Avenue, said his main concern was the use of Fawcett Avenue as a construction route. He referenced staff conditions related to road damage but said the larger issue was safety, noise, and disruption over a potentially long construction period. Gunn also questioned whether the current housing market realistically supported immediate build out.
Suzanne Putra, a Fossil Subdivision resident, spoke in opposition and described the neighbourhood as a quiet, established community chosen specifically for its wooded surroundings. She raised concerns about traffic safety, single access, and environmental impacts, including mature trees and habitat loss. During a brief exchange, Councillor Janice Maynard clarified that the lands had been designated for future development in 2015, while acknowledging that environmental protection areas still exist within the site.
Katie Fillmore, another Fawcettville resident, said community concerns had been treated as technical statistics rather than human safety issues. She described recent experiences with nearby road construction, questioned traffic modeling assumptions, and urged reconsideration of the project’s scale and design, particularly the loss of forested land.
Several additional residents spoke after the registered speakers. Gary Brubaker warned about increased traffic volumes and turning movements at Highway 49. Rod Fraser described what he saw as a shift away from earlier committee direction on sidewalks, curbs, and construction access, and raised concerns about school bus safety. Fred Burford focused on drainage and groundwater, describing sump pump discharge patterns and asking where additional water would be directed if road and ditch conditions change.
Cherryvale Farm draws mixed reaction
Public comment also focused on the rezoning application for Cherryvale Farm at 1927 County Road 10 in Athol.
Andrea Weierstra, who lives nearby, spoke in support of the Raistrick family operation. She said traffic related to Cherryvale events did not stand out compared to regular County Road traffic and described the venue as a positive community presence with thoughtful event layout and sound buffering.
John Carnahan, a Cherry Valley resident, spoke in opposition. He said he had no issue with the existing indoor event venue, but strongly objected to expanding activity into a tented, outdoor format. Carnahan referenced past experiences with amplified music, raised late night traffic and safety concerns, and urged stronger regulation and enforcement for event venues in the area.
Items for consideration
The committee then moved into Items for Consideration, beginning with the Draft Plan of Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By law Amendment for Hilden Homes Ltd. at 233 Fawcett Avenue.
Dale Egan, Planning Coordinator, presented the staff overview, outlining a proposal for 85 residential units, including single detached homes, townhouses, and semi detached units. He explained the planning context, including the Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan, proposed changes to environmental protection areas, and a central parkland block connecting to the Millennium Trail.
Eric Denowden, owner of Hilden Homes Ltd., confirmed agreement with the draft conditions and said the project aimed to deliver housing he described as more affordable through unit mix and density. During questioning, multiple councillors returned to the unresolved issue of a secondary construction access route and the long term impact on Fawcett Avenue.
Staff explained that alternative routes had been reviewed, including County owned lands and other potential access points, but cited feasibility constraints, butternut tree concerns, and engineering limitations. The proposed solution relied on road condition monitoring and financial securities tied to damage repair. After extended debate, the chair called the vote. Only one councillor voted in favour, and the motion to approve the staff recommendations failed.
Cherryvale Farm rezoning approved
The committee then considered the rezoning application for Cherryvale Farm. The applicant was not present. With no further discussion, the committee voted and the motion carried, with one dissenting vote noted by Councillor John Hirsch.
Reynolds Farms lot line adjustment approved
The final item was a consent and rezoning application for Reynolds Farms Limited, west of 1037 County Road 4.
Jennifer Matthews of Watson Land Surveyors described the proposal as a small lot line adjustment and requested removal of two draft conditions related to drainage review and new access entrances.
Councillor Phil Prinzen moved to remove Conditions 5 and 6, describing them as disproportionate for the scale of the application. The motion passed unanimously. The amended application was then approved without opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm on a motion from Councillor Janice Maynard and Councillor Phil St Jean.
Key Takeaways
The Fawcett Avenue subdivision still turns on one issue. The committee discussion kept circling back to the same pressure point residents raised, which was the construction access route and what heavy construction traffic could mean for a single residential street.
The meeting showed how often PEC planning debates blend technical compliance and day-to-day livability. Speakers and councillors repeatedly compared studies, conditions, and design rules against real-world questions like snow clearing, bus movement, pedestrian safety, and long construction timelines.
Not every planning file is a multi-year fight. The Reynolds Farms lot addition moved quickly once the committee treated it as a practical correction, while Cherryvale rezoning advanced despite community disagreement, highlighting how different types of applications can move at very different speeds in the same meeting.
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