Part 2: Shorelands Protection, Adds Well Safeguards, and Reshapes Tulip Estates Plan – 04/17/2024
- PECConnect
- Apr 17, 2024
- 4 min read
This second part of the April 17, 2024 Planning and Development Committee report focuses on who spoke, how committee members voted, and where those decisions landed geographically across the County. The account below follows the meeting in the order issues were addressed and draws strictly from the transcript and official minutes.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Shorelands Interim Control By-law: Council and Public Alignment
The first major item dealt with extending the Shorelands Interim Control By-law. Scott Pordham, Policy Planner, outlined why staff were asking for a one-year extension, emphasizing that the shoreland designation review was not complete and required more time to align with the Official Plan and emerging provincial policy direction.
Public input came from Amy Bodman, speaking on behalf of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists. Baldwin urged the committee to approve the extension, citing biodiversity protection, climate commitments, and the risk of development pressure along the shoreline if the by-law were allowed to lapse.
Committee questions came primarily from Councillor Phil St-Jean and Councillor David Harrison both asking how property owners would be notified and whether affected landowners would receive direct communication. Pordham confirmed that individual property owners would be mailed notice as part of the consultation process.
Support for the extension was clearly stated by Councillor John Hirsch who said the County had little choice but to extend the by-law until the study council requested was complete. The motion to extend the by-law and proceed with public consultation on a related Official Plan Amendment was carried unanimously.
County Road 3 Severance: Hydrogeology Drives the Decision
The next item focused on consent and rezoning files for lands west of 3263 County Road 3 in Ameliasburgh. Emily Overholt, Intermediate Planner, confirmed there were no additional staff comments, and applicant Karol Sitarski stated he accepted all conditions.
Concerns were raised by nearby residents Jeannette Smith and Pat Reid, who questioned why their wells were not included in testing and whether blasting or pumping could reduce water supply. Overholt explained that the consultant had attempted contact and that peer review did not flag deficiencies, but acknowledged the concern had surfaced late.
Committee members responded cautiously. Councillor David Harrison initially proposed deferring the application, citing uncertainty about groundwater impacts. That evolved into an amended condition rather than a delay. Harrison, supported by Councillor Phil Prinzen, moved to require a revised Hydrogeological Study confirming that the new lots could be supplied with water without adversely affecting the well at 3309 County Road 3.
That amendment was approved, followed by approval of the consent and rezoning as amended. The decision directly affected residents along County Road 3 by adding a verification step before development could proceed.
A Long Night of Names, Conditions, and Amendments
The most complex item involved Tulip Estates, a proposed multi-phase subdivision at 12697 Loyalist Parkway in Picton and Hallowell. Staff explanations came from Matt Coffey, Planning Coordinator, while the applicant team included Emma Stuckey and Mark Touw of Arcadis, and Eric Donadien, President of Hilden Homes.
Council questions covered housing mix, parkland size, water servicing, and traffic. Councillor Kate MacNaughton pressed on connectivity and neighbourhood commercial space. Councillor Phil St-Jean repeatedly raised concerns about rental housing supply and the loss of commercial opportunities if Block 11 were sold off. Councillor John Hirsch was explicit in his preference for apartments rather than townhouses on Block 11 and cautioned against advancing water allocation earlier than standard practice.
Public speakers from Owen Street, John Street, Bridge Street, Glenora Road, and Loyalist Parkway described declining water pressure, traffic congestion, stormwater runoff, and extensive tree removal. Speakers included Michael Jowett, Colleen Hill, Craig Leask, Gwen Shandroski, Susan Fowler, Chris Weir, David Burn, and Gordon Anderson, many of whom described long-term residency and recent service declines.
As debate stretched late into the evening, amendments were introduced. A motion led by Councillor Bill Roberts and Councillor John Hirsch resulted in several changes: Block 11 was changed from townhouses to apartments, maximum building height increased from 15 metres to 18 metres, completion of a Stage 1–2 archaeological study was required, street lighting spacing requirements were added, and direction was given to bring forward a by-law amendment establishing a minimum commercial floor area at a future council meeting
After a brief recess, the amended motion was carried, followed by approval of the main motion as amended.
What This Means for Local Residents
The interim control extension means no new shoreland development approvals while policies are reassessed.
For residents along County Road 3, development will not proceed without additional confirmation that existing wells will remain protected.
For neighbours of Tulip Estates in Picton and Hallowell, the committee’s decisions signal that apartments are now expected on Block 11, commercial space is still in play, and unresolved concerns about water pressure, traffic, tree loss, and stormwater will continue to shape the file as it moves to Council.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:21:09. 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