Part 1: Policy Update and Removal of Bloomfield Boundary Change – 03/19/2025
- PECConnect
- Mar 19, 2025
- 4 min read
The County Planning and Development Committee met on March 19, 2025, to consider a municipally initiated planning amendment with implications across the entire County. The meeting was held in Council Chambers at Shire Hall in Picton and streamed online, allowing for both in person and virtual participation. The session focused on whether the County’s Official Plan should be updated to align with new provincial planning rules while also addressing several local policy matters that have been emerging over time.
The meeting was chaired by Councillor John Hirsch, who outlined the purpose of the meeting and the process for public participation. The agenda was confirmed early in the evening, with no statutory public planning meetings scheduled. Instead, the Committee moved directly into a single item for consideration that would ultimately shape how future development, agriculture, heritage, and infrastructure are handled across the County.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
The sole item before the Committee was Official Plan Amendment 6, File OPA 05 24, a general amendment affecting all lands in the County. The amendment was municipally initiated and intended to bring the County’s Official Plan into consistency with the new Provincial Planning Statement 2024, as well as recent changes to the Planning Act and related Ontario regulations.
Scott Pordham, Planning Policy Coordinator for the County, presented the report and walked the Committee through the scope of the amendment. He explained that several changes were required by the province, including allowing up to two additional dwelling units on rural and agricultural lots, permitting certain settlement boundary and employment land changes without a comprehensive review, and requiring municipalities to develop an agricultural system to better protect agricultural lands and assets.
Other province driven updates included new rules around how often official plans must be reviewed and higher thresholds for designating properties under the Ontario Heritage Act. Mr. Pordham also outlined local policy updates proposed by staff, such as formally recognizing the Wellington Heritage Conservation District, strengthening policy recognition of the commercial fishery, updating transportation mapping, and clarifying servicing rules for new lots on private wells.
Public Concern Over Bloomfield Boundary Adjustment
Before Committee discussion began, the Chair invited public comments on the item. Harry Veenstra, a resident living near the west edge of Bloomfield, spoke in person about his concerns with a proposed adjustment to the Bloomfield village boundary. He questioned why the boundary was being moved again after previous changes and raised concerns about farmland protection, future development pressure, and access to municipal water.
Mr. Veenstra’s comments highlighted a recurring tension in County planning discussions between managing growth and preserving prime agricultural land. Committee members asked follow up questions about soil quality, farmland classification, and the long term implications of shifting settlement boundaries.
Committee Scrutiny of Planning Details
As discussion moved to the Committee table, councillors focused on several technical but consequential elements of the amendment. Questions were raised about how the new allowance for additional dwelling units would work in practice, particularly around water supply and sewage capacity. Staff explained that while the province allows the units as of right, applicants would still need to demonstrate adequate water and wastewater servicing through technical studies.
Another key area of debate involved the proposed clarification that new lots on private services must be supplied by a single on site well. Several councillors expressed concern that the wording could unintentionally limit flexibility for rural and agricultural properties, including farm severances. As a result, the Committee directed that the specific clause be referred back to staff for further clarification before final approval.
The Committee also spent time discussing the new requirement to develop an agricultural system, with councillors emphasizing the need for strong stakeholder involvement and clear policy intent to avoid reopening past land classification debates. Staff noted that this work would come forward as a future process rather than being finalized through this amendment.
Bloomfield Boundary Removed From the Amendment
The most decisive moment of the evening came when the Committee addressed the proposed expansion of the Bloomfield village boundary. Councillor Sam Branderhorst, introduced a motion to remove the boundary change from the Official Plan Amendment altogether. He stated that he did not see a clear need to alter the boundary at this time.
Staff explained that the adjustment was intended as a minor alignment with existing lot lines and not a signal of immediate development or servicing. However, after discussion, the Committee voted to remove Schedule 1, which contained the Bloomfield boundary change, from the amendment. The remainder of Official Plan Amendment 6 was approved and forwarded to Council without that adjustment.
Key Takeaways
The County is moving forward with broad Official Plan updates to comply with new provincial planning rules, affecting rural housing, agriculture, heritage, and employment lands County wide.
Concerns around private well servicing and farmland protection remain central to planning discussions, with staff directed to refine policy language before final adoption.
The proposed Bloomfield village boundary expansion was removed, meaning no change to Bloomfield’s boundary will move forward as part of this amendment.
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.
Comments