Part 2: Wellington Zoning Approval, Lake Avenue Deferral, County Road 2 Severance Limits – 03/20/2024

This part of the Planning and Development Committee report focuses on who said what, how councillors voted, and where decisions landed geographically, drawing directly from the March 20, 2024 transcript and official minutes. The discussion revealed clear differences in how councillors weighed growth, fairness, and long-term risk across urban and rural areas of the County.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Wellington: design concerns raised, zoning approved

The Wellington zoning application at 380 Wellington Main Street generated multiple questions and comments from councillors representing different parts of the County.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton, as chair, managed the flow of questions and repeatedly reminded the committee that many design details would be addressed later through the site plan approval process.

Councillor Phil St-Jean supported moving the application forward, ultimately moving the main motion to approve the zoning by-law amendment after an earlier amendment failed.

Councillor David Harrison attempted to introduce an amendment directing staff to further explore design changes along the western edge of the site, including concerns raised by nearby residents. That amending motion was voted down.

The minutes confirm that the main motion to approve the zoning amendment carried, allowing the Wellington project to proceed to the next phase of review.

Lake Avenue Lane: deferral supported without debate

The technical consent application at 37 Lake Avenue Lane was addressed quickly after the meeting recess.

Emily Overholt, Intermediate Planner, advised that the applicant had requested a deferral to allow time for an updated design and further discussions with neighbouring cottagers.

A motion to defer was moved by Councillor Branderhorst and seconded by Councillor Roy Pennell. The motion carried, with no recorded opposition.

The effect for nearby property owners is a pause rather than a decision. No approval or denial was issued, and the application will return once revisions and additional consultation are complete.

County Road 2 in Ameliasburgh: competing views come to the surface

The most detailed voting sequence of the night occurred around the consent and rezoning applications along County Road 2 in Ameliasburgh, near Mountain View Airport.

Supporters of the application, including Keith Watson, Jennifer Matthews, and Brock Sills, emphasized the long history of the file, the completion of environmental studies, and the cost borne by the applicants. Their comments were not votes, but they framed much of the committee’s questioning. On council, positions were more clearly divided.

Councillor Roy Pennell  raised repeated concerns about the landfill buffer, groundwater movement, and long-term risk. Pinnell questioned why applicants were allowed to proceed so far if longstanding policy restrictions might prevent approval. He emphasized that septic systems uphill from the landfill could create future liabilities for the County.

Councillor Phil St-Jean focused on technical clarity, questioning whether the studies assumed the landfill was closed or operating, and whether deeper groundwater sources had been fully accounted for. St-Jean later raised a procedural concern, questioning whether council could properly move from a denial motion directly to an opposing approval motion.

Councillor Janice Maynard spoke strongly in favour of some form of approval. Maynard pointed to the timeline of the application, the number of planners involved over several years, and the lack of earlier warning to the applicants. She argued that similar severances had been approved elsewhere and that the proposal would add housing without placing strain on infrastructure.

A motion to deny the consent and rezoning applications was placed on the floor and failed.

Maynard attempted to advance an alternative approval motion based on staff options, but it did not proceed due to a lack of a seconder.

The final direction came from Councillor Pennell, who moved a motion, seconded by Councillor Nieman, supporting a scaled-back approach. That motion directed that: only one severed lot and one retained lot per existing parcel be supported; staff work with the proponent to identify which lots would proceed and; final conditions return to council for approval at a future meeting. That motion carried, becoming the committee’s formal direction.

Late deferrals: procedural votes carry

Two additional deferrals were dealt with near the end of the meeting. For lands west of 3263 County Road 3, a deferral motion was moved by Councillor St-Jean and seconded by Councillor Nieman, and carried, due to the staff report not being ready despite public notice being issued.

A similar deferral for 3038 County Road 3 also carried, following the same reasoning.

What this means locally

For Wellington residents, zoning approval means change is coming, but many design and livability concerns will surface again at the site plan stage.

For Lake Avenue Lane cottagers, the decision simply delays the conversation, with no immediate development outcome.

For Ameliasburgh residents along County Road 2, council’s decision significantly reduced potential density, limiting what could have been a larger development and signalling caution around landfill proximity, groundwater risk, and rural character, while still leaving a path forward for some development.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 8:00:44. 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.