Part 1: Severance Reversal, Resort Expansion, and Shoreland Controls - 05/17/2023
- PECConnect
- May 17, 2023
- 4 min read
The County Planning and Development Committee met on the evening of May 17, 2023, in Council Chambers at Shire Hall, with members also participating electronically. The meeting was held to review several planning applications under the Planning Act, including subdivision and rezoning proposals, along with a broader policy discussion about shoreline development rules. For residents, this committee is often where major land use questions are debated before final decisions move on to full Council.
The meeting was chaired by Councillor Phil Prinzen who opened the session by outlining how the meeting would run, how public input would be handled, and how planning decisions made by the committee ultimately flow to Council. He also explained that some items could move quickly onto a consent agenda if there were no questions or registered speakers, while others would require detailed discussion and individual votes.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
A Subdivision That Moved Without Debate
The first planning item was a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By law Amendment for Port Picton Homes, involving lands in Hallowell. With no questions from council, staff, the applicant, or the public, the item was moved directly onto the consent agenda and approved. This type of approval is typical when applications align clearly with planning policies and raise no immediate concerns.
A Farm Severance That Sparked Detailed Debate
The tone of the meeting shifted with the next major item, a consent and rezoning application for Drew Harrison Farms Inc. on County Road 8 in North Marysburgh. David Harrison declared a conflict of interest because his son was the applicant and stepped away from the discussion and vote.
Planning staff initially recommended denial of both the severance and rezoning. The applicant’s planning consultant explained that the proposal had been revised since an earlier meeting, with the size of the severed lot reduced. The argument centered on whether a larger than one hectare surplus dwelling severance could be justified due to site conditions, including rocky terrain that limited agricultural use.
Council members asked detailed questions about lot size, environmental features such as a coastal wetland, site visits by staff, and whether nearby neighbours had raised concerns. Staff confirmed no public objections had been received and that a site visit had occurred earlier in the process.
A motion to deny the application, following staff’s recommendation, was put to a recorded vote and failed. Council then considered an alternative motion allowing the severance with a 2.3 hectare lot, subject to a long list of technical conditions. That revised motion carried, reversing the original staff recommendation and allowing the application to proceed under stricter terms.
Wander the Resort Rezoning Brings Neighbours to the Floor
The committee then turned to a rezoning application for Wander the Resort Inc. on Loyalist Parkway in Bloomfield Hallowell. The proposal aimed to update zoning permissions to reflect Wander’s transition from a seasonal accommodation to a four season resort, adding uses such as a spa and event venue, along with adjustments to setback requirements.
The applicant’s planner described the resort’s growth, its employment impact, and how water and wastewater would continue to be regulated through provincial approvals and health oversight. Council questions focused on patio setbacks, noise, water capacity, garbage handling, and how the expanded use might affect neighbours.
Several nearby residents spoke, expressing support for the quality of the resort while also raising concerns about noise from events, water supply reliability, garbage storage, and parking spillover. Staff explained that many of these issues would be addressed through site plan control and existing bylaws, including the Noise By law, which is enforced on a complaint basis.
A motion to refer the application back to staff for further consultation was debated but ultimately defeated. Council then voted to approve the rezoning, allowing the project to move forward to the next stages of approval.
Shorelands Interim Control By law Raises County wide Questions
The final and longest discussion of the night focused on a proposed Interim Control By law for Shore Lands, intended to temporarily limit certain types of development in areas where shoreland designations overlap with natural core areas. Staff explained that the measure was meant to pause development while a long delayed shoreland policy review is completed, avoiding conflicts between overlapping land use rules.
Council members raised significant concerns about the use of interim control bylaws, their impact on landowners, and the lack of broader public consultation. Residents also spoke, including one who explained that the by law could have prevented construction of a planned single family home.
In response, Council approved amendments to the by law that protected existing lots of record, allowed single detached homes to proceed, and exempted complete applications already in progress. With those changes in place, the amended interim control by law was approved by recorded vote, along with a direction for staff to complete a full shoreland policy review within one year.
Key Takeaways
Planning decisions can change significantly at the committee table, as seen with the farm severance that moved from denial to approval through amended motions.
Large developments like Wander the Resort often hinge on future approvals, such as site plan control and provincial permits, even after zoning is approved.
The shoreland interim control by law is a temporary pause, not a permanent rule, and Council has committed to revisiting shoreline policies through a broader study that will shape long term development rules across the county.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:58:51. 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