Part 2: Prime Agricultural Lot Size, Winery Regulations, Agritourism Rules, and Environmental Protections - 04/02/2025

Nadia DeSanti, on behalf of the consulting team, presented and defended the structure of the proposed zoning by-law, emphasizing conformity with provincial policy and the Official Plan. She explained that the 40 hectare minimum for prime agricultural land is rooted in provincial requirements intended to protect irreplaceable soils and long-term agricultural capacity.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

County planning staff, represented by Mike Michaud, reinforced that the draft remains open to refinement and that staff are actively tracking and responding to every comment received. Staff acknowledged concerns raised about site plan control and building separation rules and indicated flexibility exists through fee adjustments, discretionary authority, and potential clarifications in the by-law text.

Agricultural and Winery Perspectives

Erin McGinnis, speaking on behalf of the wine industry, argued that proposed limits on tasting room size, retail space, and building proximity would restrict winery operations and undermine tourism. She emphasized that wineries are major contributors to the County’s economy and require flexibility to adapt to visitor demand and changing business models.

Dan Sullivan, a long-established winegrower, raised concerns about the 40 hectare minimum lot size for prime agricultural land, arguing it could discourage new vineyard development and push wineries into less suitable rural areas. He also warned that restrictions on reusing existing farm buildings could erode the County’s agricultural heritage and visitor experience.

These positions directly affect wine-growing areas and rural communities by influencing where wineries can locate, how they operate, and how agricultural landscapes evolve.

Farm and Agricultural Organization Input

Don Williams, representing the Prince Edward Federation of Agriculture, expressed support for many agricultural provisions in the draft while recommending refinements to reduce regulatory barriers for low-impact farm activities. His comments highlighted the importance of flexibility for diverse farm operations and seasonal agritourism.

Brittany Denowden, operating a working livestock farm with agritourism activities, detailed how mandatory site plan control for small-scale uses such as overnight RV parking or farm tours could impose prohibitive costs and delays. Her comments illustrated how zoning rules directly affect small farms attempting to remain financially viable.

Environmental Advocacy

Amy Bodman, representing environmental interests, supported some improvements in the draft but requested stronger and clearer protections for wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitat, and natural heritage systems. These recommendations would affect development near sensitive environmental features across the County.

Committee Member Positions

Several committee members voiced support for increased flexibility while maintaining safeguards. Sam Grosso and Chris Braney publicly acknowledged the importance of the wine and agriculture sectors to the County’s identity and economy. Roy Pennell and Phil St Jean raised concerns about practical impacts on neighbors, water supply, and agricultural compatibility, particularly where residential development encroaches on farm operations.

The committee ultimately voted to receive the oral submissions related to the zoning by-law and planning applications, allowing the process to move forward without making final decisions.

Impact on Local Residents

For residents, farmers, business owners, and property owners, the meeting underscored that the proposed zoning by-law will significantly influence land use, development opportunities, farm viability, environmental protection, and community character. While no final decisions were made, the discussion revealed areas where the draft may be refined to better balance provincial policy, local economic needs, and community expectations before adoption by Council.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:03:06. 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.