Part 2: Decisions on Quaker Road, Pleasant Bay, and Loyalist Heights – 07/17/2024
- PECConnect
- Jul 17, 2024
- 4 min read
This article looks into July 17, 2024 Planning and Development Committee that focuses on who said what, how councillors voted, and how those decisions affect specific areas of the County.
321 Quaker Road
The first substantive decision of the night involved a consent application for lands surrounding 321 Quaker Road. Peter Thoma, acting as agent for the applicant, explained that the file dated back more than a decade and was intended to correct a long-standing boundary issue involving a septic system. Thoma asked the committee to remove conditions four and five, which required drainage and grading reviews.
Emily Overholt, Intermediate Planner, advised against removing the conditions, noting they were intended to protect future owners if drainage patterns changed over time. Michael Michaud, Manager of Planning, added that drainage easements are a standard municipal safeguard and help prevent future disputes where road drainage crosses private lands.
Despite staff’s caution, Councillor Brad Nieman argued the retained lands were extensive, historically well-drained, and had not caused issues over many years. Nieman moved an amendment to remove the two drainage conditions. Councillor Kate MacNaughton seconded. The amendment carried, and the main motion approving the consent passed as amended. The consent was approved without the additional drainage requirements.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
70 Pleasant Bay Road
The next item concerned a combined consent and zoning application at 70 Pleasant Bay Road. Emily Overholt advised the committee that the staff report contained a housekeeping error. The rezoning approval had not been clearly included in the motion, and the draft zoning schedule showed inconsistencies that needed correction.
Although the applicant’s agent confirmed agreement with staff’s intended changes, Councillor Brad Nieman raised concerns about process and transparency. He questioned why the committee was being asked to make a decision when the full and correct zoning information was not clearly before councillors or the public.
Following discussion, Nieman moved to refer the application to the next Planning and Development Committee meeting so staff could correct the report and zoning documents. Councillor Chris Braney seconded the motion. The referral carried. The outcome is no approval or denial was issued. The file was deferred to the August meeting.
Loyalist Heights
The most extensive discussion of the evening focused on the Loyalist Heights subdivision, official plan amendment, and zoning application for lands along Loyalist Parkway. Due to a declared pecuniary interest, Councillor Brad Nieman left the room for this item.
Matthew Coffey, Planning Coordinator, presented staff’s position recommending denial. He outlined several concerns, including the subdivision’s interface with the Millennium Trail, pockets of low-density development that did not meet secondary plan targets, fragmented parkland dedication, and the proposal’s location within the headwaters of Waring’s Creek, a cold-water stream with long-standing environmental protections. Coffey explained that staff believed the proposal did not represent good planning under the Picton Secondary Plan.
He emphasized that newer developments should integrate trails as active transportation corridors, provide consolidated and functional parkland, and respect environmentally sensitive areas.
Ray Essiambre, agent for the applicant, challenged staff’s conclusions. He stated the project met density targets, included a seniors’ village, and proposed affordable housing units. Essiambre acknowledged, however, that expectations around trail design, park configuration, and evolving planning standards had changed since the application was first submitted. He asked for clearer direction and more time to resolve design disagreements.
Public participation was extensive. Speakers including Kimberley McDougall, Cheryl O’Brien of the Waring’s Creek Improvement Association, Amy Bodman and Gerry Jenkinson of the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, and nearby landowners raised concerns about groundwater recharge, wildlife corridors, increased traffic on Sandy Hook Road, loss of farmland, and cumulative impacts from multiple developments in the area.
Following a recess, a motion to deny the application was read into the record. However, several councillors expressed interest in allowing further discussion. Councillor Bill Roberts ultimately moved a referral motion, seconded by Councillor David Harrison. The committee voted to send the Loyalist Heights application back to staff for further discussions with the applicant, specifically addressing low-impact design, protection of Waring’s Creek, Millennium Trail integration, parkland layout, housing affordability, and public concerns. The referral carried. The application was neither approved nor denied and will return to committee.
What This Means for Local Residents
The Loyalist Heights proposal remains unresolved and active. Further negotiations may lead to design changes, but the scale and environmental sensitivity of the site remain central issues.
The Pleasant Bay Road application is paused until staff corrections are completed, delaying any development decision.
For those near Quaker Road, the approved consent moves forward without added drainage safeguards, relying on existing site conditions and historical drainage patterns.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:50:38. 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