Part 1: Planning Rules, Energy Storage Policy, and Site Plan Control Changes — 06/21/2023

The County councillors gathered for the Planning and Development Committee meeting on Wednesday, June 21, 2023, held as a hybrid meeting at Shire Hall in Picton and on Zoom. The meeting was chaired by Councillor Phil St. Jean (Picton), with Mayor Steve Ferguson and councillors from across the County in attendance, alongside Development Services staff including Director Peter Moyer, Manager of Planning Michael Michaud, Policy Planner Scott Pordham, and Planner Matt Coffey.

After the meeting was called to order at 7:09 pm and the agenda was confirmed, Councillor Roy Pennell (Ameliasburgh) declared a conflict on a Salem Road file and stepped back from that item. With housekeeping complete, the committee moved into a long night of planning decisions touching on rural severances, Official Plan policy changes, battery energy storage, and two county-wide process bylaws shaping how development applications are reviewed.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>

Salem Road severance and rezoning raised questions

The first major item involved a rezoning and consent application from Hilden Homes for 1198 Salem Road in Ameliasburgh, tied to File Nos. B59 21, B60 21, and Z51 21. With Roy Pennell in conflict and not participating, Matt Coffey noted a small clerical amendment to one condition, and staff confirmed the applicant was fine with the conditions being proposed.

Public input focused on how the severances could affect neighbouring properties, including nearby livestock operations. Committee questions ranged from livestock setback calculations under the Minimum Distance Separation approach, to concerns about water quality and well impacts, and whether outstanding report work had been completed.

David Harrison (North Marysburgh) moved a referral motion to send the file back to staff for further work and consultation with the applicant, but that motion failed. The committee then carried the main motion to approve the consents, subject to a long list of conditions dealing with road widening, drainage planning, entrances, and proof of water supply, including a detailed agreement stating the County does not guarantee groundwater quantity or quality.

Official Plan amendment turned into a discussion about energy storage and water studies

The meeting then pivoted to a broad Official Plan Amendment described as affecting all lands in the municipality. Phil St. Jean introduced the item and opened the floor to registered public speakers. Several residents spoke against policy language that supported Battery Energy Storage Systems, raising concerns about blanket approvals, insufficient criteria, and loss of local control.

That public input quickly shaped committee discussion. Councillors questioned provincial authority, municipal influence, and whether a formal resolution of support would be required in future. There was also acknowledgement of growing provincial energy demand alongside resident concerns about weak safeguards.

Chris Braney (Hillier) introduced a motion to remove policy language supporting battery energy storage systems in employment and rural areas, and to direct staff to return with a report on criteria required before any future support could be considered. That motion carried.

As discussion continued, councillors also examined hydrogeological study requirements. David Harrison questioned why such detailed studies were needed across the County and suggested mapping where they are truly necessary. Staff emphasized groundwater protection and municipal risk reduction, while councillors pointed to cost and the variability of water conditions across the County.

Another thread focused on development servicing and whether proposed controls would capture smaller-scale projects unnecessarily. Concerns were raised about thresholds and clarity.

Before wrapping the item, Janice Maynard (Ameliasburgh) introduced a targeted amendment sending one clause back to staff for revised wording. After a short recess, Roy Pennell and David Harrison attempted to refer the entire Official Plan amendment back for further consultation, but that motion failed. The committee then carried the main motion as amended, removing battery energy storage support language and sending one clause back for revision.

Two process bylaws moved forward, with councillors split on what they mean for property owners

The committee then reviewed updates to the Pre-Consultation and Complete Application bylaw. Scott Pordham explained the changes as required under provincial Planning Act updates, including defining complete applications more clearly and using pre-consultation to identify required studies. The bylaw also included a one-year expiry on pre-consultation comments.

Councillors asked who the “stakeholders” were and why the plan was to communicate changes after approval. Staff explained that outreach had been done through notices and contact with groups, and that the August 1 implementation date was meant to give time to make sure people understood what was changing.

During that discussion, Harrison offered a blunt comment about “the continual erosion of property rights,” framing the bylaw changes as another step in a long trend. The committee still voted to approve the bylaw and move it forward to the next council meeting.

Site plan control became a flashpoint around wineries and consultation

The committee then considered an updated Site Plan Control bylaw, described by staff as modernization and alignment with provincial changes. Staff clarified that site plan control governs development details rather than land use permissions, which are determined through zoning. The discussion also noted limits on site plan control for smaller residential developments and explained how the bylaw would apply in rural non-residential contexts while exempting typical farm buildings.

Because the meeting ran long, councillors voted to extend beyond the normal three-hour limit.

Tension emerged around consultation with the PEC Wine Growers Association. Chris Braney introduced an amendment removing estate wineries, cideries, and breweries from the bylaw and directing staff to conduct sector-specific consultation and report back. Staff noted that site plan control for these uses already exists in the Official Plan and that the update was intended as alignment rather than a new regulatory burden.

Even so, councillors emphasized that the issue was process and trust. The amendment carried on a recorded vote, and the main bylaw was then approved as amended, with winery, cidery, and brewery provisions removed pending consultation.

The meeting adjourned at 10:29 pm.

Key Takeaways

1. The committee removed supportive language for Battery Energy Storage Systems from the Official Plan amendment and directed staff to return with clearer municipal criteria before future support is considered.

   
   

2. Water and servicing requirements were a recurring pressure point, with councillors questioning when hydrogeological studies are truly needed and how to keep them fair and practical across very different parts of the County.

   
   

3. Even when staff describe a bylaw as modernization or alignment, councillors can still force process changes if they believe a local sector was missed, as shown by the committee decision to pull winery related site plan control language and require direct consultation before moving ahead.

---

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.