Part 2: Bloomfield Boundary Removed, Well Policy Referred, and Key Planning Debates – 03/19/2025

This coverage focuses on the main topics discussions during the March 19, 2025 Planning and Development Committee meeting, highlighting who spoke, who moved motions, and what decisions were made.

Bloomfield Village Boundary Adjustment

The only public comment came from Harry Veenstra, who spoke directly against the proposed west side expansion of the Bloomfield village boundary. He questioned why the boundary was being adjusted again, raised concerns about farmland protection, and said the rationale had never been clearly explained to nearby residents.

Inside the Committee discussion, Councillor Sam Branderhorst (Athol) stated early that he did not understand the need for the change and said he intended to put a motion forward to remove it. Councillor Kate MacNaughton (Picton) later confirmed she would support that motion.

The formal motion to remove the Bloomfield boundary change was moved by Branderhorst and seconded by Brad Nieman (Bloomfield/Hallowell). The Committee voted in favour, and the boundary adjustment was removed from Official Plan Amendment 6. The final approval of the amendment explicitly excluded the Bloomfield boundary change.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.

Private Well Servicing and One Well Policy

Questions about the proposed clarification that new lots on private services must be supplied by a single on-site well came from several councillors. Councillor Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) asked how this would work in practice if water supply needs changed and what level of water production was considered acceptable. Councillor MacNaughton said the wording appeared stricter than staff intended and could unintentionally affect agricultural severances or rural properties.

In response, staff explained that the intent was to clarify requirements at the time of lot creation, not to prevent future wells or alternative water solutions. Even so, MacNaughton said she was not comfortable approving the clause as written.

A referral motion was then moved by Councillor MacNaughton and seconded by Councillor Pennell, directing that the specific clause dealing with the single well requirement be sent back to staff for further clarification. The Committee voted in favour of the referral, meaning the wording will be revised before final approval.

Agricultural System and Farmland Protection

Discussion around the new provincial requirement to develop an agricultural system prompted detailed questions from Councillor Maynard and Councillor St.-Jean. Both councillors wanted reassurance that this new framework would not reopen past land evaluation debates or blur the distinction between prime agricultural land and rural land.

Staff, led by Scott Pordham, explained that the agricultural system would function more like an overlay. Existing land designations would remain in place, but additional policies would help protect agricultural lands, infrastructure, and related facilities. Michael Michaud added that the concept is relatively new at the provincial level and will require careful local implementation with stakeholder involvement.

No motions were brought forward on this topic, but councillors clearly signaled that future work on the agricultural system will need transparency and broad consultation.

Additional Dwelling Units in Rural and Agricultural Areas

Questions about allowing up to two additional dwelling units on rural and agricultural lots were raised by Councillor St.-Jean. He asked whether there were minimum lot size requirements and what safeguards would exist around water and sewage capacity.

Staff confirmed that the allowance comes directly from the Provincial Planning Statement and does not set minimum lot sizes, but applicants would still need to demonstrate adequate water supply and sewage servicing through technical studies. No motions were proposed to alter this provision, and it remained part of the amendment moving forward.

Employment Lands and Buffer Requirements

Councillor St.-Jean also asked for clarification on new provincial requirements related to buffers and mitigation around employment lands. Staff explained that the province wants municipalities to ensure new employment areas are protected from conflicting land uses, either through physical buffers or other mitigation measures.

Councillors acknowledged that this policy is more relevant to larger employment areas and industrial parks and less likely to affect small scale rezonings in the County. No motions were brought forward on this topic.

Transportation Mapping and Road Networks

Questions about the updated transportation schedule came primarily from Councillor Maynard, who asked whether there would be opportunities to reassess how certain rural roads are classified in the future. Staff clarified that the mapping changes in this amendment were limited to recognizing existing and approved roads within Picton, Wellington, and Rossmore, not reclassifying rural road networks.

The Chair, Councillor Hirsch, summarized that broader transportation planning discussions would need to happen separately and not through this amendment.

What It Means for Residents

The main approval motion for Official Plan Amendment 6 was moved by Councillor Maynard and seconded by Councillor Pennell. After removing the Bloomfield boundary change and referring the private well clause back to staff, the Committee voted to approve the amended package and forward it to Council for final consideration.

For residents, the key impacts are practical. The Bloomfield village boundary will not change as part of this amendment. The rules around private wells are not finalized and will be clarified before adoption. At the same time, broader provincial planning changes, including additional dwelling unit permissions and future agricultural system planning, are moving ahead and will shape how growth and land use decisions are made across the County once Council gives final approval.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:07:43. 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.