Part 1: Shorelands Review, Tightens Well Protections, and Amends Tulip Estates Plan – 04/17/2024
- PECConnect
- Apr 17, 2024
- 4 min read
The County Planning and Development Committee met as a hybrid public meeting on April 17, 2024, with members in Council Chambers at Shire Hall and online through Zoom. The meeting was chaired by Councillor Janice Maynard and included committee members such as Mayor Steve Ferguson and councillors from across the County. The session was held to hear public input and make recommendations on planning matters that need a statutory public meeting under the Planning Act.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Shore Lands Interim Control By-law Extension
The meeting opened with a staff report on extending the County’s Shore Lands Interim Control By-law. Scott Pordham, Policy Planner, walked the committee through why staff wanted more time: the by-law creates a pause so the County can review the Shore Land designation and decide what its future should be in the Official Plan.
Public input supported that approach. Amy Bodman, speaking for the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, backed an extension and emphasized the role shorelands play in biodiversity. The committee’s discussion focused on what the pause means in practical terms, including how shoreland property owners are consulted, whether notice should go out to owners, what happens if the review takes longer than planned, and how provincial policy direction could affect the work. The committee voted to extend the by-law for one more year, with direction to consult on an Official Plan Amendment tied to phase-one analysis.
County Road 3 Severance and Rezoning: Well Testing and Oversight
Next came a combined consent and rezoning application for Karol Sitarski, involving lands east of 3309 County Road 3 and west of 3263 County Road 3 in Ameliasburgh. Emily Overholt, Intermediate Planner, indicated she had no additional comments, and Sitarski told the committee he agreed with staff’s recommended conditions.
Public comments sharpened the focus on groundwater. Jeannette Smith raised concerns about not being notified about well testing or blasting, and Pat Reid said the well on his property was not tested and worried it could run dry. Sitarski responded that the hydrogeologist followed standard procedures and reported no drawdown in the wells that were tested.
The committee’s questions stayed centered on the hydrogeology work, the potential impact on nearby wells, and how neighbours were notified. Councillor David Harrison flagged that he intended to strengthen the conditions. That led to an amending motion requiring a revised Hydrogeological Study to confirm adequate water supply for the new lots without harming the well serving 3309 County Road 3. The committee then carried the approvals as amended.
Tulip Estates: Draft Subdivision Approval, Zoning, and Late-Night Amendments
The longest portion of the meeting dealt with Hilden Homes Ltd. (Tulip Estates) at 12697 Loyalist Parkway, under a draft plan of subdivision and rezoning application. Matt Coffey, Planning Coordinator, Approvals, advised the committee about revisions to draft conditions and the corresponding by-law. The applicant’s team, including Emma Stucke, Arcadis Professional Services, presented the proposal, with additional comments from Mark Touw, Arcadis Professional Services on requested condition changes.
As public speakers came forward, a few themes returned again and again: water pressure, traffic and connectivity, the loss of trees due to clear cutting, and the need for clearer commitments on what will be built where. Speakers included Michael Jowett, Colleen Hill, Craig Leask, Gwen Shandroski, Susan Fowler, Chris Weir, Peter Murphy, David Burn, and Gordon Anderson, each raising location-specific concerns about servicing, runoff, construction impacts, and how the development fits into the wider growth picture. The committee also discussed whether Block 11 should be residential-only or mixed use, and what tools exist to encourage commercial space.
Near the end of the night, committee members signalled they wanted changes before finalizing their recommendation. Councillor Bill Roberts and Councillor John Hirsch brought forward an amending motion, prompting a brief recess at 10:06 p.m. before the committee reconvened at 10:13 p.m. The final amendments included changing Block 11 from townhouses to apartments, adding requirements tied to street lighting spacing, completing a Stage 1 to 2 archaeological study, increasing the maximum building height from 15 m to 18 m, and committing to bring forward a minimum amount of commercial space in the zone at a future council meeting. The committee then carried the main motion as amended and adjourned at 10:18 p.m.
Key Takeaways
The County is actively using tools like an Interim Control By-law to pause and reassess sensitive policy areas like shorelands, with formal work on an Official Plan update still ahead.
Well impacts and verification are not abstract concerns in PEC planning decisions, and the committee showed it is willing to add tighter conditions such as a revised Hydrogeological Study when residents raise credible risks.
The Tulip Estates debate showed that major growth files often turn on infrastructure confidence, especially water pressure, and the committee’s late-night amendments signalled that details like housing form, height, archaeology, lighting, and future commercial space can still shift at the committee stage.
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