Part 2: Roblin Lake Rezoning, Rural Consent Changes, and Picton Zoning Decisions – 02/04/2026
- PECConnect
- Feb 4
- 6 min read
This Planning & Development Committee meeting on February 4, 2026 was a mixed meeting, some items were full statutory public meeting business (Roblin Lake), and others were standard planning decisions (consents, zoning, and policy housekeeping). The “votes” in this post reflect what was voted on in the meeting, including procedural motions, amendments, approvals, and deferrals.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Roblin Lake – Lakeside Retreat rezoning
The most talked-about file was the proposed rezoning for 467 County Road 19, tied to the Lakeside Retreat property on Roblin Lake.
On the committee side, Councillor Roy Pennell pushed repeatedly for clarity on water consumption, flooding control, and fire protection, and also asked about the water control structure that affects lake levels. Councillor John Hirsch focused on the zoning details and warned that a broad tourist commercial zone could permit many uses Council may not intend, unless specific uses are excluded in the by-law itself. Councillor Phil St-Jean pressed the question that came up again and again: how many of the 22 buildings are actually accommodations, and whether adding showers, sinks, and other upgrades would change servicing needs.
Later in the meeting, Mayor Steve Ferguson returned to the practical question residents were asking in real time: what happens next and how long does this take.
Several councillors also spoke directly to the bigger risk factors they wanted staff and the applicant’s team to take seriously. Councillor Kate MacNaughton stressed the importance of source water protection, the need to establish the correct population for the site including staff, and flagged concerns about winter use and contaminants like road salt. She also raised the issue of ensuring access for whichever conservation authority is responsible for the water control feature, and the need to reduce noise and nuisance impacts near homes.
Councillor Chris Braney said he had major concerns about the file and stated he would be supporting the community when it returns. Councillor David Harrison raised the need for updated phosphorus information, noting the age of the study being referenced.
Councillor Sam Grosso, summed up the overall mood at the end of the public meeting portion by saying the file needs a lot of work, and joked that former NHL player Andrew Shaw has a better chance of returning to the league than the file does as it currently stands.
No vote was taken on the rezoning itself. The only motion was to formally receive the oral submissions. That motion was moved by Councillor Roy Pennell and seconded by Mayor Steve Ferguson. It carried. This was procedural only. It does not approve the project and it does not reject it.
County Road 23 and Spencer Road
Council then shifted into standard planning business with Technical Consent and Rezoning Files B20-25, B21-25, and Z12-25. The key moment here was not whether the consent would pass, but what conditions would stay attached to it. When the agent raised concerns about conditions related to drainage review and an entrance permit, staff explained these were standard best-practice conditions. But Council chose to remove them.
An amending motion to strike those conditions was introduced by Councillor Phil Prinzen and seconded by Councillor Brad Nieman. That amendment carried.
The main motion, as amended, was then approved. It was moved by Councillor Phil Prinzen and seconded by Mayor Steve Ferguson, and it carried.
Consent and rezoning (1004 Burr Road)
The Burr Road file also turned into a conditions conversation. Staff relayed that the owner opposed a condition requiring the decommissioning of one entrance on a horseshoe-style driveway.
An amending motion to remove that condition was moved by Councillor Phil Prinzen and seconded by Councillor Kate MacNaughton. It carried.
The main motion, as amended, was then approved. It was moved by Councillor Phil St-Jean and seconded by Councillor Chris Braney, and it carried.
Redtail Winery – draft plan of condominium (deferred)
For the Redtail Winery condominium file, Council did not take a decision on approval. Staff advised that the applicant requested deferral to allow more time to review conditions.
The deferral was moved by Councillor Phil Prinzen and seconded by Councillor Kate MacNaughton. It carried.
Zoning by-law amendment (81–91 Main Street and 15 Washburn Street)
Council approved a zoning change in the Picton urban centre that removes a site-specific zone and returns the property to the standard downtown urban commercial zoning framework.
On discussion, Councillor Phil St-Jean said he supported the change and pointed to the value of enabling housing above commercial space in downtown cores.
Before the vote, Councillor Kate MacNaughton read an email from residents Christina Croft and Michael Croft, who had been registered to speak but left Zoom after waiting. Their message asked Council and any future developer to respect the heritage character of the area, consider traffic impacts, and think about privacy fencing for nearby homes.
The motion was moved by Councillor Phil St-Jean and seconded by Councillor Phil Prinzen. It carried.
Official Plan Amendment 12 – complete application requirements
This was the countywide policy item of the night. Staff explained it as a required shift: a list of potential studies and reports used to determine whether an application is complete has to live in the Official Plan, not in a separate by-law, because of provincial legislative changes.
Council’s comments showed a split between frustration with provincial direction and concern about losing local tools. Councillor David Harrison said he could not support it. Councillor Chris Braney also expressed frustration, arguing Council should push back even if it is provincial legislation. Councillor Janice Maynard asked what the implications could be if Council did not pass it.
Staff responded that without the list in the Official Plan, the County could be vulnerable if applicants refuse to provide studies requested by staff. A planning staff example pointed back to the Roblin Lake discussion, noting that many of the community’s questions rely on the County being able to request technical reports.
Councillor John Hirsch clarified that this was not a new list being invented at the meeting, but largely a shift of existing requirements from one policy location to another.
The endorsement motion was moved by Councillor Phil St-Jean and seconded by Councillor Phil Prinzen. It carried.
What this means for locals
For Roblin Lake and the surrounding area, the headline is simple: there is still no decision. What residents did get was a clear public record of concerns, plus multiple councillors stating, on the record, that source water protection, noise and nuisance, access to water control features, and the limits of year-round operations need to be addressed before anything moves forward.
For residents near the rural consent files in Ameliasburgh and Hillier, Council’s votes show a pattern. Councillors were willing to approve the applications, but they were also willing to strip out certain conditions when they felt the conditions were overreaching or not matching the reality on the ground, like long-existing entrances and lot line adjustments that do not change drainage patterns.
For downtown Picton, the zoning vote removes old site-specific rules and puts the property back into the standard downtown commercial framework. That makes it easier for future proposals to consider typical downtown mixed uses, including commercial with residential above, while still being subject to heritage-related policies.
The Official Plan Amendment vote keeps the County’s ability to ask for studies. It does not guarantee what the Minister will approve, but it does keep the County aligned with the provincial process and helps staff require reports that answer the kinds of questions residents raised most loudly at this meeting.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:14:03. 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