Part 1: Severances, Housing Growth, and Wellington Rezoning - 04/19/2023

The County Planning and Development Committee met on April 19, 2023, at Highline Hall for a statutory public meeting under the Planning Act. The meeting was chaired by Councillor Brad Nieman, with Councillor Phil St.-Jean guiding the meeting process and explaining how applications move through consent, public discussion, and voting.

After confirming the agenda and noting there were no pecuniary interest disclosures, the Committee moved into the planning applications. Two items were approved quickly through the consent agenda, including a consent and rezoning for Pleasant Bay Bible Conference Inc. and an extension of a temporary use bylaw allowing food trucks at Wellington Rotary Beach until May 31, 2025.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>

The Committee first dealt with a consent and rezoning application for Pleasant Bay Bible Conference Inc. Staff noted the agent could not attend but supported the recommendations, and with no questions raised by the public or Committee, it was approved as part of the consent agenda. A second consent item, a bylaw to extend a temporary use allowing food trucks at Wellington Rotary Beach (to May 31, 2025), also had no questions from the public or Committee and was approved by consent.

With those items cleared, two other files were pulled out of the consent process because people wanted to speak. Those applications shifted into the part of the meeting where items are discussed and voted on one-by-one.

A severance at 477 Walmsley Road raised practical questions about standard conditions

The first longer discussion focused on a consent and rezoning application at 477 Walmsley Road in the ward of South Marysburgh. On first mention in the minutes, the applicants were Kelsey Miller and Veronica Miller. During the meeting, Kelsey Miller attended and asked questions about conditions that seemed out of step with an already-developed lot.

Kelsey Miller explained that the parcel being severed already had a house on it and asked why the County was requiring a lot grading and drainage plan before the deed could be endorsed. She also questioned why conditions related to an entrance permit and a civic address would apply if an entrance and address already existed. Kelsey Miller said she was trying to cross her t’s and dot her i’s and wanted to understand what she would actually have to do.

Emily Overholt (Project Manager) responded that a drainage plan was a standard condition for severances. Staff’s explanation was tied to the fact that lot lines were being reconfigured and the County wanted to confirm that drainage would not be redirected onto neighbouring property, especially where there is not a clear legal drainage outlet. Staff described the entrance permit requirement as standard as well, with the added point that an existing entrance still needs to be a legal entrance.

The discussion widened when Albert Paschkowiak (Environmental Services and Sustainability Supervisor) asked whether the drainage condition was truly needed for a lot that already appeared to be developed. Staff and planners returned to the same central point: the County was trying to do due diligence on drainage and reduce the risk of water being conveyed across property lines, which can create disputes and liability later.

The septic system conditions also drew careful questioning. Phil St.-Jean raised concerns about the Ontario Building Code not being retroactive and the possible cost if a property owner were forced to move a septic system. Staff clarified that the intent was to confirm the septic system’s setbacks in relation to the new lot lines, rather than require upgrades for unrelated deficiencies.

Planning staff also explained that because the current drawing was still “lines on a plan,” a proper record could allow lot lines to be adjusted to keep the septic system appropriately located within the correct property. Staff said that if lot lines could not be adjusted to achieve compliance, relocating the septic system could become the alternative for completing the severance.

With questions addressed and no public comments offered on that file, the Committee voted to receive the staff report, approve the consent with conditions, and approve the related zoning bylaw amendment.

In Wellington, a rezoning request turned into a bigger conversation about what comes next

The second major discussion focused on a rezoning application in Wellington tied to Lanarose Developments Ltd., described in the minutes as Cork and Vine, for lands on Consecon Street in the ward of Wellington. This item included staff updates, a presentation from the agent and owner representative, and public input from a nearby resident.

Matt Coffey (Approvals Coordinator) flagged two updates. One was a proposed amendment related to parking standards for the apartment buildings being contemplated, lowering the requirement from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1.25 parking spaces per unit. The second was late correspondence from a member of the public, which staff said raised items that likely needed to be addressed.

The agent, Ryan Guetter, presented virtually, with Devon Danielle identified as the owner representative. Guetter described the subject lands as about three acres, adjacent to the broader Fields of Wellington area and near the Millennium Trail. He explained that Block 15 had previously been identified as a stormwater management block, but stormwater needs had been consolidated elsewhere, leaving this block available for housing instead of infrastructure.

Guetter said the County was being asked to rezone Block 15 so it would match nearby blocks already zoned for similar residential development. He described a concept of two apartment buildings separated by open space and a circular internal laneway, with a three-storey building closer to existing homes and a four-storey building farther away and closer to West Street. He also said the application was at the zoning stage, not site plan, and that the concept shown was not a site plan submission.

Committee questions focused on what the project would mean in practice. Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) asked whether the apartments would be rentals or condominiums. Ryan Guetter responded that tenure had not been determined because this stage dealt with land use permissions, not ownership structure.

St.-Jean asked about EV charging, framing it as a growing issue as higher-density developments become more common. Ryan Guetter said there was no direct commitment at that stage but described it as a consideration. Devon Danielle added that in recent apartment projects, the developer had at least roughed in EV readiness, while noting that charging technology keeps changing.

Chris Braney (Hillier) asked about landscaping and buffering for existing residents on Consecon Street. Ryan Guetter pointed to setbacks and said the site plan stage would include a landscaping plan dealing with fencing and planting, describing the available space as enough for significant screening if designed and implemented that way.

When the meeting opened to public comment, Margaret McFetridge of 71 Consecon Street said she had lived there for 23 years and understood earlier conversations to suggest “low-level” apartments behind her property. She asked how many floors the buildings would be and how much a hedge or landscaping could realistically do to help. Staff later confirmed in the discussion that the building closest to Consecon Street would be three storeys and the other would be four storeys.

From there, a recurring theme surfaced around the table: how concerns raised in a zoning meeting carry forward into site plan review under recent provincial changes. Several councillors asked what authority the municipality still has once an application moves into site plan, and whether staff feedback is enforceable or simply advisory.

Staff described the site plan process as still involving staff review, technical circulation, and a site plan agreement process, even though Council would not be approving the site plan.

The discussion then returned to something the Committee could directly change through zoning: parking. Phil St.-Jean moved an amendment to set the parking ratio for Block 15 at 1.25 spaces per unit for apartment dwellings. Kate MacNaughton (Picton) attempted to amend that amendment by lowering the ratio further, but the amendment was lost. The Committee carried the 1.25 ratio and approved the rezoning as amended.

Key Takeaways

1. Even straightforward severances can involve detailed, standard conditions, especially around drainage and septic setbacks, because changing lot lines can create future conflicts and liability.

   
   

2. The Wellington rezoning showed that key resident concerns like building height, buffering, EV charging, and on-site design details often land in the site plan stage, and councillors spent significant time pressing staff on how those concerns will be carried forward.

   
   

3. Parking was the most concrete issue the Committee could directly shape through zoning in this decision, with the meeting resulting in a specific standard of 1.25 parking spaces per unit for the Block 15 apartment proposal.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:14:57. 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.