Part 2: Salem Road Severance, Energy Storage Policy, Water Studies, and Site Plan Control Decisions- 06/21/2023

This section of the meeting recap focuses on who spoke, who pushed back, and how councillors ultimately voted on the key planning items. It follows the discussion as it unfolded during the June 21 Planning and Development Committee meeting, highlighting where opinions split, where they aligned, and how decisions were made.

The goal is to clearly track positions and outcomes using only what was recorded, while connecting those decisions to how they may affect residents and property owners across the County.

Salem Road severance discuss centred on water livestock and process

The Salem Road rezoning and consent application drew the first real discussion of the night. Planning staff presented the file and confirmed the applicant agreed with the proposed conditions.

Public deputation came from Melinda Pennell Pilling, a nearby landowner, who raised concerns about livestock proximity, manure impacts, and whether the Minimum Distance Separation calculations fully reflected how neighbouring barns could be used in the future. She asked council to defer the decision until more information was shared with affected neighbours.

Questions from councillors followed quickly. Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh), pressed staff on whether existing barns with cattle and horses were properly treated under the Minimum Distance Separation framework. Phil St.-Jean, Chair and Picton Councillor, questioned whether studies were based on a snapshot in time rather than future agricultural use. David Harrison (North Marysburgh), focused on water quality and whether increased use could affect neighbouring wells.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Staff responded that the studies were completed by consultants retained by the applicant and reviewed by County staff, and that Minimum Distance Separation formulas account for barn size and land base, not just animals present on a single day.

David Harrison moved to defer the application back to staff for more work and clarification. That motion failed. The committee then voted to approve the severance and rezoning subject to conditions.

The approval carried with the majority of councillors supporting staff recommendations, while concerns about water and agricultural compatibility were noted but did not change the outcome.

Battery energy storage language triggered the strongest reactions

The Official Plan Amendment became the most animated part of the meeting once it reached policies related to battery energy storage systems.

Multiple members of the public spoke against including language that explicitly supported these systems. Speakers warned that the wording could be interpreted as blanket support and weaken council oversight.

On the council side, Chris Braney (Hillier), emerged as the most vocal critic. Braney argued that council had already rejected specific battery storage proposals earlier in the year and that the Official Plan should not pre signal support without clear criteria.

Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh), echoed concerns about long term risks and accountability, including what happens when battery systems reach end of life. John Hirsch (Wellington), raised economic and grid related questions and argued that energy storage proposals should be reviewed case by case.

Staff explained that provincial policy was evolving and that municipalities might still need to provide resolutions of support for individual projects.

Braney formally moved to remove the supportive battery storage policy language and direct staff to return with a report outlining clear municipal criteria. That motion carried.

Later in the discussion, Roy Pennell and David Harrison attempted a broader motion to send the entire Official Plan Amendment back for additional public consultation. That motion failed.

The committee ultimately approved the Official Plan Amendment with the battery storage support language removed and with one additional clause referred back to staff for revised wording.

Hydrogeological studies split council on cost versus risk

Another recurring point of disagreement involved hydrogeological study requirements. David Harrison questioned why detailed studies should be required in areas where groundwater is widely understood to be abundant. He suggested the County consider mapping where studies are truly needed rather than placing the burden on individual applicants. John Hirsch supported staff discretion, pointing out that the policy allows studies to be scoped based on site conditions and that a smaller study could be used where appropriate.

Janice Maynard raised concerns about how the policy would apply in hamlets with partial services, especially where larger lots might reasonably support additional dwelling units through septic capacity. Staff responded that the intent was to confirm long term water and wastewater servicing and reduce municipal liability, and that scoping flexibility was built into the policy.

No standalone vote occurred on hydrogeological studies alone, but the discussion shaped later amendments and referrals back to staff for wording changes.

Process bylaws passed despite property rights concerns

When the committee moved to the Pre Consultation and Complete Application bylaw, the tone shifted toward process rather than land use outcomes. Staff explained the bylaw update as a response to provincial changes that allow municipalities to define what constitutes a complete application and require pre consultation before submission. David Harrison openly criticized the direction, stating that he saw it as another step in the erosion of property rights.

Despite that comment, no amendment was introduced. The committee voted to approve the bylaw and forward it to council.

Site plan control amendment split council along consultation lines

The final major conflict of the night came during discussion of the updated Site Plan Control bylaw. Staff explained that site plan control deals with how development happens on a site, not whether it is allowed, and that applying it to wineries and similar uses was already embedded in the Official Plan.

Chris Braney introduced an amendment to remove the site plan control provisions related to estate wineries, cideries, and breweries, and to require sector specific consultation before moving forward. Braney said the wine sector felt excluded from consultation and that trust had been damaged.

Roy Pennell and David Harrison supported Braney, citing calls and emails from winery operators and the importance of the sector to the County economy. Janice Maynard questioned whether the amendment would actually change anything, noting staff explanations that the bylaw largely aligned existing policy.

Staff emphasized that consultation had occurred through notices and outreach, though they acknowledged the Wine Growers Association was not directly contacted.

A recorded vote was requested. The amendment to remove winery related site plan control language carried by a wide margin, with most councillors voting in favour and Phil St-Jean voting opposed.

The committee then approved the Site Plan Control bylaw as amended, meaning the winery provisions were pulled out pending consultation and a future report.

How this meeting affects residents

The approved severance means new residential lots will move ahead under strict conditions, but long term questions about water use and nearby agricultural operations remain unresolved beyond existing safeguards.

For rural property owners, the Official Plan changes reinforce tighter expectations around water proofing and studies when creating new lots or additional units, even as councillors continue to discuss fairness and cost.

The removal of battery energy storage support language means no County wide endorsement is in place, and any future proposal will need to be justified individually.

For winery and tourism operators, the carried amendment signals that council heard concerns about consultation. Site plan controls tied to winery uses are paused until direct engagement happens, which may delay clarity but avoids immediate changes without industry input.

Overall, the meeting showed a council willing to approve staff driven planning tools, but also ready to pull policies back when sectors or residents feel left out of the process.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:18:51. 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.