Part 1: Farmland Protection Debate, Nature School Approval, and Picton Townhouses – 08/14/2024
- PECConnect
- Aug 14, 2024
- 4 min read
The County Planning & Development Committee met on August 14, 2024, at Shire Hall, with both in-person and virtual participation. These meetings are required under the Planning Act and exist to publicly review and recommend decisions on planning applications before they move to County Council for final approval.
The meeting was chaired by Councillor Phil St-Jean (Picton) and brought together councillors from across the County, senior planning staff, applicants, and members of the public. Several applications were straightforward and moved quickly, while others sparked extended discussion about farmland protection, neighbourhood fit, drainage, and how growth should happen in the County.
Before any planning items were considered, Mayor Steve Ferguson addressed council with an unscheduled but unanimous moment of reflection. He spoke about James Badgley, a Picton resident remembered for acts of bravery, including a life-saving rescue in 2015 and his final attempt to save his nephew earlier this month. Council observed a moment of silence before returning to the evening’s agenda.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Items Approved Without Debate
Several applications moved directly to the consent agenda, meaning no questions or concerns were raised by councillors, staff, or the public.
A zoning amendment for Home Hardware Stores Limited at 13544 Loyalist Parkway in Bloomfield was approved without discussion. A separate set of consent and zoning applications involving properties between 408 and 420 Island Road in Bloomfield also passed smoothly.
These items followed standard planning procedures and did not raise broader policy or community concerns during the meeting.
Pleasant Bay Road Severance Sparks Long Discussion
The most extensive discussion of the night focused on a consent and zoning amendment application from Brauer Housing Developments Inc. for 70 Pleasant Bay Road in Hillier.
The proposal involved severing one residential lot into two and adjusting Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements related to a nearby livestock operation. Elysia Ackroyd, a registered professional planner with Fotenn, presented the application and explained that the property was already zoned rural residential and permitted two dwellings as of right.
What followed was a wide-ranging discussion about farmland protection, future agricultural expansion, and whether reducing an MDS setback could limit farmers over time. Councillors Phil Prinzen, Roy Pennell, Chris Braney, Brad Nieman, and Mayor Ferguson all raised concerns about precedent, buyer awareness, and the long-term impact of residential growth near active farms.
Planning staff, including Emily Overholt, explained that intervening residential properties already constrained the nearby farm’s expansion and that the severance would not introduce new limitations beyond those that already exist.
Despite that explanation, councillors repeatedly returned to the same theme: protecting farming viability for future generations. When the recorded vote was taken, the application was defeated 12–2, with only Councillors John Hirsch and Kate MacNaughton voting in favour.
Nature-Based School Approved in Sophiasburgh
A zoning amendment application from Edwin County Farms G.P. Inc. at 2590 County Road 15 received a notably different reception.
Victoria Taylor, landscape architect and agent for the applicant, presented plans for a nature-based elementary school serving up to 40 students. The school would operate primarily outdoors, using existing farm structures for shelter and instruction when needed.
Councillors asked few questions, and public comments were limited to safety and oversight. Staff confirmed that the school would be subject to site plan control and would require Ministry of Education licensing. The application passed without opposition, reflecting broad council support for the proposal and its alignment with rural land use policies.
Picton Townhouse Proposal Draws Neighbourhood Focus
The final major item involved a draft plan of subdivision and rezoning for 6 John Street in Picton, proposed by JAMR Developments Inc.
The application sought approval for eight freehold townhouses on an underused residential lot near Union Street. Councillors and residents raised concerns about traffic visibility, stormwater drainage, building height, and how the design would fit into the surrounding neighbourhood.
Public speakers living nearby described existing drainage problems and poor sightlines at the John Street and Union Street intersection. Planning staff responded by outlining planned stormwater controls, driveway setbacks, and future site plan requirements.
An amendment introduced by Councillor MacNaughton added a condition requiring Low Impact Development (LID) principles to manage stormwater runoff. The amendment carried, and the overall application was approved as amended.
Key Takeaways
Farmland protection remains a dominant concern, even when applications meet technical planning rules. Council showed clear reluctance to support proposals perceived as limiting future agricultural activity.
Rural innovation received strong backing. The Edwin County Farms school demonstrated that non-traditional uses aligned with stewardship and education can gain broad approval.
Urban growth is expected to be careful and contextual. The Picton townhouse discussion showed council balancing housing needs with neighbourhood character, drainage realities, and long-term infrastructure impacts.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 2:21:13. 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