Part 1: Shoreline Resort Rezoning, Winery Approval, and Planning Applications – 11/22/2023
- PECConnect
- Nov 22, 2023
- 4 min read
Updated: May 25
The County Planning and Development Committee met on November 22, 2023, at Shire Hall to consider a full slate of statutory planning matters under the Planning Act. The meeting was chaired by Sam Grosso (Ameliasburgh), who opened the session by outlining how public input, staff review, and committee recommendations fit into the broader planning process, including the fact that final decisions rest with County Council.
The meeting moved methodically through agenda confirmation, disclosures of pecuniary interest, and then into a series of planning applications. While several items were relatively straightforward, one major rezoning proposal on County Road 7 in North Marysburgh dominated both the length and intensity of the discussion, drawing extensive public comment and multiple amendments from committee members.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
Rezoning Proposal for 2353 County Road 7
The most significant item before the committee was a rezoning application for 2353 County Road 7 in North Marysburgh, proposing a small-scale tourism resort on shoreline lands. The application sought to permit a development described as eco-focused and low-impact, consisting of 31 cabins, a clubhouse and event space, and associated amenities.
The applicant’s planning consultant, Kelly Graham of SVN Architects and Planners, presented the proposal in detail, emphasizing environmental protections, including setbacks from ephemeral wetlands, the escarpment, and the inland slope crest, all of which would be regulated through zoning and later site plan approval. Graham explained that the project aligned with the County’s Destination Development Strategy and was designed to limit intensity through strict caps on overnight occupancy, parking, and septic capacity.
Questions from committee members focused on fire protection, water sourcing, noise, event capacity, and whether the project could expand in the future. Staff confirmed that many technical details would be addressed at the site plan stage, including review by the fire department, conservation authority, and other agencies.
Public input formed a major portion of the discussion. Multiple nearby residents spoke about concerns related to noise over water, traffic, light pollution, event use, environmental impacts, and the long-term compatibility of a commercial resort within a rural and agricultural area. Several speakers also raised concerns about notification distances, future enforceability of conditions, and the cumulative effect on shoreline character.
Staff responded by clarifying the Planning Act notification requirements, confirming that notices were sent, signs posted, and newspaper ads published, and reiterating that any member of the public may attend and speak at statutory meetings regardless of mailing radius.
Committee Amends the Zoning Before Voting
As debate continued, committee members introduced amendments to address some of the issues raised. One successful amendment added a provision prohibiting day-pass use, limiting access to overnight guests and event attendees only. Another amendment removed a holding provision related to the Shorelands Interim Control Bylaw, based on staff advice that the application had been submitted prior to that bylaw coming into effect.
A further amendment directed staff to consider relocating the site driveway during site plan review to reduce impacts on a neighbouring residence. Despite these changes, when the committee voted on the main rezoning motion as amended, the motion did not carry, meaning the committee did not recommend approval of the County Road 7 rezoning to Council.
Other Planning Applications Proceed
Following the lengthy discussion on the North Marysburgh proposal, the committee moved on to several additional planning items.
A rezoning application for Del Degan Winery on Loyalist Parkway in Hillier was approved, with staff confirming that the proposal aligned with agricultural and winery policies and would proceed through site plan approval.
Multiple consent and rezoning applications in Athol and South Marysburgh were also considered, largely focused on severances and lot adjustments. These items prompted discussion around well water quality, particularly sodium levels, and the use of warning clauses on title. Staff explained that such clauses are intended to inform future purchasers and are standard practice when water quality thresholds are exceeded. In each case, the committee ultimately approved the applications with conditions intact.
The meeting concluded with receipt of items approved under delegated authority, followed by adjournment just after 10:00 p.m.
Key Takeaways for PEC Residents
Large-scale or sensitive shoreline developments can generate extensive public scrutiny, and committee recommendations may change significantly once public input and amendments are considered.
Zoning decisions establish land use permissions, not final design details, with many technical and operational issues deferred to site plan approval, where staff and agencies apply enforceable conditions.
Public meetings remain open to all residents, regardless of notification radius, and speaking early in the planning process can meaningfully shape committee debate and outcomes.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:04:41. 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