Part 1: Roundabout Plans, Lakeside Estates Review, and Road Assumption Updates – 01/24/2024
- PECConnect
- Jan 24, 2024
- 5 min read
The Planning and Development Committee met at Shire Hall in Picton on January 24, 2024, as a public meeting held under the Planning Act. The meeting was chaired by David Harrison who opened the evening by outlining how the committee would handle items, including which matters could move forward by consent and which would be discussed individually if questions or concerns were raised.
The chair also explained the public nature of the meeting, how participation becomes part of the public record, and how the ability to appeal planning decisions can depend on whether comments are made before by-laws are passed. With the agenda confirmed and no conflicts declared, the committee moved into the main business of the evening.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Highway 62 and County Road 1: A Roundabout Emerges as the Preferred Design
The meeting began with a detailed presentation on proposed improvements at the Highway 62 and County Road 1 intersection at Huff’s Corner. The presentation was delivered by Tim Belliveau of Stantec, appearing virtually on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation, with Sham Hunt from the Ministry also participating.
The study was described as a preliminary design and Class EA process focused on improving safety and traffic operations at the intersection. Belliveau explained that earlier in the study, several major realignment options were considered but ultimately screened out because of cost, property impacts, and environmental concerns. That process narrowed the field to two main options: a revised signalized intersection and a roundabout.
The signalized option required geometric changes because the existing intersection angle was not suitable for signals without adjustments. The roundabout option remained largely unchanged from earlier concepts and was centered close to the existing intersection.
Belliveau walked the committee through how the alternatives were evaluated using a mix of engineering, community, and natural environment criteria. The roundabout scored higher overall, particularly in collision reduction, severity of impacts, and traffic flow, while community and environmental impacts between the two options were described as similar.
The roundabout was presented as the preferred plan, with limited property impacts and minor realignments to slow traffic and improve safety. To help residents visualize the scale, it was compared to the existing roundabout in Picton.
Questions from the committee focused on timing and design details. The response was that there was no firm construction timeline, but that the project was moving toward detailed design following completion of the study and subject to funding. The discussion also touched on visibility and plantings in the centre of the roundabout, with an emphasis on maintaining clear sightlines and avoiding distractions.
Hunt reinforced the safety benefits of a roundabout at this location, pointing to driver behaviour and the reduction in collision severity. The committee formally received the presentation and moved on.
A Straightforward Rezoning Application Moves Without Debate
The committee next dealt with a rezoning application for a rural property. When the item was called, no questions or comments were raised by committee members, staff, or the public. As a result, the application moved through the process without discussion and was approved under the consent approach.
Lakeside Estates: Traffic, Water, and Environmental Questions Take Centre Stage
The most extensive discussion of the night centered on the Lakeside Estates proposal, involving a draft plan of subdivision and zoning amendment. Because of the number of questions raised, the item was pulled out of the consent process and addressed individually.
The proposal was presented by the applicant’s planning agent, who described the development as an infill-style residential project made up of single-detached and semi-detached homes. The layout included a large block intended for stormwater management, described as a functional feature rather than a traditional pond, and also intended to serve as passive open space. Parkland dedication was proposed through cash-in-lieu.
A key design feature was the primary access onto Lakeside Drive, with an additional emergency-only connection controlled by barriers to prevent regular traffic use. The access location was explained as a traffic safety decision based on road hierarchy and spacing from a major arterial road.
Environmental and servicing issues quickly became central to the discussion. The proposal included municipal water servicing and private septic systems, with enhanced treatment proposed for certain lots because of nearby homes that rely on well water. Committee members asked detailed questions about groundwater, wetlands, setbacks, and how potential contamination from nearby lands had been assessed.
The discussion included explanations about environmental impact studies, drainage patterns, groundwater flow, and how further testing and monitoring would be required as part of the detailed design stage before final approval could be granted. Staff emphasized that draft approval conditions would require these technical matters to be addressed and signed off before the subdivision could proceed.
Tree preservation and lighting were also raised. The committee heard that an arborist study and tree preservation plan had already been completed, with further review planned to identify additional trees that could be retained. Lighting concerns focused on minimizing impacts in a sensitive area and applying dark sky principles during detailed design.
Affordable housing was briefly discussed, with the proposal described as market housing. Staff explained that under provincial rules, the County cannot require affordable units but can encourage discussions with housing staff where appropriate.
A resident from Lakeside Drive addressed the committee virtually, outlining concerns shared by nearby homeowners. The comments focused on increased traffic on Lakeside Drive, pedestrian and cyclist safety, the lack of sidewalks, headlight impacts on nearby homes, screening and buffering, risks to private well water, and the broader environmental sensitivity of the surrounding bay and lake system.
The resident also questioned whether enough consideration had been given to wildlife and off-site environmental impacts. After hearing the public comments and completing committee discussion, the committee voted to grant draft plan approval subject to conditions and to approve the related zoning amendment.
Road Assumption By-law: Cleaning Up Years of Planning Work
Later in the meeting, the committee considered a road assumption by-law covering a long list of road widenings. When asked why the list was so extensive, staff explained that it represented a catch-up effort, consolidating several years of planning-related road dedications that had accumulated through consent and subdivision processes. The committee supported the explanation and approved the by-law.
The final substantive item was a report listing planning decisions approved under delegated authority, which the committee received for information without discussion. With no further business, the chair called for adjournment, and the meeting concluded.
Key Takeaways
The County is moving closer to a roundabout at Huff’s Corner, with safety and traffic flow driving the preferred design, and more public review still to come.
The Lakeside Estates discussion showed how access roads, septic systems, environmental protection, and neighbourhood impacts can shape draft subdivision approvals long before construction begins.
Not all planning decisions are highly visible, but some, like the road assumption by-law, quietly formalize years of accumulated development-related work across the County.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:21:11. 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