Part 2: Votes and Positions Shape Outcomes on County Road 24 and 12 Planning Files – 05/15/2024
- PECConnect
- May 15, 2024
- 4 min read
The most discussed item of the night of May 15, 2024 Planning and Development Committee meeting was Zoning By-Law Amendment File Z4-24, affecting lands at 1601 County Road 24, owned by Thomas Mason and Eva Kralits. The application was formally before the committee, but the direction of the discussion was shaped by the applicant and neighbouring landowners rather than staff recommendations.
Eva Kralits, speaking as the applicant, requested that the committee not proceed with a decision. She explained that she and Thomas Mason were in active negotiations with neighbouring landowners to potentially purchase road frontage. She stated clearly that if those negotiations were successful, the rezoning would not be required. Her request set the tone for the rest of the discussion.
From the committee, Councillor Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) asked the only direct question of the applicant, seeking clarity on how long the negotiations might take. Kralits responded that a property valuation would be needed and estimated that the matter could return to committee in June or July.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Public comments then followed, all from landowners directly affected by the proposal. Nina Marie Lister, a co-owner of the adjoining Lot 41, spoke in opposition to proceeding with the rezoning at this time. She outlined concerns related to lack of road frontage, existing easements, and the purpose of holding the neighbouring land for conservation. Lister requested a deferral so negotiations could continue and so revised zoning language could be properly reviewed.
Jeremy Guth, also a co-owner of Lot 41, reinforced those concerns. He emphasized long-standing conservation goals for the area and explained that their ownership was never intended to enable incremental development along County Road 24. Guth also formally requested a deferral to allow negotiations with the applicant to continue.
A third speaker, Chris Adams, identified himself as the owner of Lot 3, located nearby. Adams stated that he did not oppose the applicant’s desire to build a garage, but asked specific questions about zoning categories, road frontage requirements, and how any severance or rezoning might affect existing easements registered on his title. His questions were technical in nature and focused on future implications rather than opposition.
Planning responses were provided by Scott Pordham, Policy Planner, who clarified that the proposed RR2-161 zone would be a new, site-specific zone designed to recognize access via a private right-of-way. Pordham also confirmed that any acquisition of frontage would require a separate consent application and that existing easements would not be altered by the proposed process.
Following the public comments, the committee acted on the applicant’s request. A referral motion was moved by Councillor Chris Braney (Hillier) and seconded by Councillor Sam Branderhorst (Athol). The motion directed staff to return with an update after further examination of a potential real estate transaction. The referral motion was carried, effectively pausing the rezoning.
County Road 12 in Hallowell
The second major decision involved Consent and Rezoning Files B3-24 and Z5-24, affecting 1400 County Road 12 in Hallowell. Unlike the previous item, this application moved forward without opposition.
The applicant, Brian Wike Smith, addressed the committee briefly. Smith thanked planning staff, including Emily Overholt, Michael Michaud, and Pam Thompson, for their guidance and confirmed full support for the application and its conditions. No members of the public spoke on this item.
With no outstanding questions, the committee proceeded to a vote. The approval motion was moved by Councillor Phil Prinzen (Bloomfield/Hallowell) and seconded by Councillor Sam Branderhorst (Athol). The motion carried, approving both the consent and rezoning subject to detailed conditions related to road widening, title clarity, and parcel consolidation.
The committee also voted on items approved under Delegated Authority By-Law 98-2020, which covers routine planning matters handled by staff. That motion was moved by Councillor Prinzen and seconded by Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer (Wellington) and was carried without discussion.
What This Means for Residents
For County Road 24, the outcome means no zoning change has been approved. Development potential remains unchanged for now, and any future proposal will depend on whether road frontage is legally acquired.
For County Road 12, the decision confirms that the severance and rezoning at 1400 County Road 12 can proceed, but only after technical and legal requirements are met. The conditions ensure that road allowances are secured and that the resulting parcels are properly merged on title.
The meeting highlighted how applicant requests and local landowner input can directly shape planning outcomes.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 34:13. 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