Part 2: Farm Housing Debate, Food Truck Extension, and Planning Authority Concerns – 05/20/2026
- PECConnect
- May 20
- 5 min read
As the May 20, 2026 Planning and Development Committee meeting moved deeper into discussion, the evening became less about technical planning language and more about how the County wants to handle growth, housing, and local decision-making going forward. This portion looks at where councillors landed on the major issues, who raised concerns, and what those conversations could mean for residents across the County.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.
Support Builds Around Keeping Existing Housing
The evening’s first major discussion involved the proposed severance of a surplus farm dwelling tied to a rural property owned by Drew Harrison. The application sparked a broader conversation around affordable housing and the reality of losing older homes in rural areas.
Planning agent Ken Menlove strongly framed the proposal as a way to preserve both farmland and housing at the same time. Menlove repeatedly emphasized that the remaining agricultural land would stay protected while the existing house could remain occupied by a local resident rather than sitting vacant or potentially being demolished.
Committee members responded quite differently depending on what issue they prioritized most.
Councillor Bob Waldon openly supported the application and tied it directly to the County’s ongoing housing affordability struggles. Waldon said he was glad to see another home potentially entering the local housing market and argued that farmers increasingly need larger, more efficient land holdings while older rural homes still serve an important role for residents trying to stay in Prince Edward County.
Councillor Phil St-Jean also leaned heavily in favour of the idea, even while acknowledging concerns about what could happen to the property years from now. St-Jean pointed out that any house in the County could eventually be redeveloped, but argued that the immediate priority should be keeping existing homes available for local buyers while housing prices continue to rise.
On the other side of the discussion, Councillor Albert Paschkowiak focused more on the planning policy implications. Paschkowiak questioned whether the affordability argument could realistically be enforced after approval and reminded the committee that the proposal still conflicted with the County’s current Official Plan rules around additional farm severances.
In the end, no final decision was made that night. The committee simply received the public submissions and closed the statutory hearing process.
Little Opposition to the Head Street Mobile Restaurant
Compared to the farm dwelling discussion, the rezoning application connected to the temporary mobile restaurant at 1 Head Street in Picton moved through committee with very little resistance.
Planner Stuart Cade explained that the updated bylaw now addressed previous concerns about parking spaces and traffic flow around the site. Once those operational concerns were clarified, councillors appeared comfortable with extending the temporary use for another three years.
The motion passed with little debate, showing that committee members were generally supportive of maintaining flexible temporary commercial uses in areas where impacts appear manageable.
Delegated Authority Proposal Triggers the Most Division
The longest and most politically sensitive discussion of the evening centered around the proposed Official Plan Amendment connected to delegated authority for minor zoning bylaw amendments.
While staff framed the proposal as an efficiency measure designed to reduce planning delays, several councillors quickly shifted the conversation toward transparency and oversight.
Scott Pordham, speaking on behalf of planning staff, repeatedly stressed that the proposal only applied to what staff considered “minor” planning matters. He explained that the changes were intended to shorten approval timelines and reduce the need for repetitive council meetings.
Some councillors supported the direction in principle.
Councillor Albert Paschkowiak called the proposal “a great initiative” and said it could make the planning system friendlier and faster for applicants while still allowing controversial files to return to council if concerns emerged.
Mayor Steve Ferguson also appeared supportive of efforts to reduce delays. Ferguson noted that the County has developed a reputation for slow planning approvals and suggested residents consistently express frustration with how long relatively simple applications can take to process.
But several councillors were clearly uneasy about how much authority could eventually shift away from elected officials.
Councillor Harrison repeatedly questioned whether council members would still have
the ability to “pull” applications back into public discussion if concerns arose later in the process.
Councillor Janice Maynard raised concerns about the breadth of the proposed list defining “minor” zoning changes and said she wanted clearer details before supporting the amendment.
Councillor Roy Pennell took a similar position, arguing that council needed safeguards built into the system so councillors and residents would still have opportunities to flag problematic files in the future.
Ultimately, the committee voted against approving the amendment that night and instead directed staff to return with more detailed explanations and a fuller delegated authority framework at a future Committee of the Whole meeting.
What This Means for Locals
For residents, the meeting highlighted two growing realities in Prince Edward County.
First, council continues to wrestle with the conflict between protecting rural land policies and preserving attainable housing. The surplus farm dwelling discussion showed that even relatively small rural housing proposals can quickly become debates about affordability, farmland preservation, and who gets to stay in the County long term.
Second, the delegated authority debate revealed that councillors are still cautious about speeding up planning approvals if it means reducing public oversight. While many members agree the process needs to move faster, there is clearly ongoing concern about maintaining transparency and making sure residents still have opportunities to raise concerns before decisions are finalized.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:01:49. 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