Part 2: Campfire Circle Rezoning Approved in 12–1 Vote After Emotional Council Debate 03/05/2025

Amy Bodman spoke strongly against the rezoning, both for herself and on behalf of Sandra Dowds. She focused on the ecological importance of the site, especially wetlands and marsh bird habitats. She warned that development could push species out permanently and damage areas that cannot be restored.

She urged council to protect Natural Core Areas and avoid setting a precedent that could open the door for more development in protected lands. Her message was clear that once this type of decision is made, it becomes easier to repeat.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

For local residents, this reflects a fear that environmental protections could slowly weaken over time, especially in sensitive rural areas.

Cheryl Anderson, speaking for the South Shore Joint Initiative, also opposed the project. She brought up species at risk, environmental laws, and recovery strategies that apply to the area.

She asked council to delay the decision until more environmental studies are completed. She compared the proposal to “paving paradise,” making it clear she believes the long term risks outweigh the short term benefits.

This adds pressure from organized environmental groups who want stronger enforcement and more data before any approvals move forward.

Douglas Dolan raised a more practical concern focused on infrastructure. He pointed to the small rural road that would serve the site and warned about increased traffic.

He asked for baseline traffic studies so the county can properly measure future impacts.

For nearby residents, this highlights concerns about road safety, traffic increases, and how rural infrastructure will handle new development.

Community and Family Support

Evelyn Wilson delivered one of the most emotional presentations of the meeting. She spoke about her family’s experience with childhood cancer and the reality of traveling long distances for treatment.

She explained how medically supported camps provide relief, dignity, and a sense of normal life for children and their families. She pushed council to act now, saying delays only add to the burden families already carry.

Her message centered on one key point that children’s lives and well being should come first.

For local families, this decision could mean access to support close to home instead of long and exhausting travel.

Rick Halsey, a nearby resident, spoke in support based on his own experience being around similar camps. He said that in his view, wildlife, campers, and neighbors can coexist.

He pushed back on concerns about noise and environmental damage, calling them overstated. He described a setting where camps operate quietly and respectfully within nature.

For the local community, this presents a different perspective that the impact may be smaller and more manageable than feared.

Council Debate and Final Vote

Councillor John Hirsch was the only member to vote against the rezoning. He argued that building in significant woodlands goes against the Official Plan and Natural Heritage policies. He questioned why the decision needed to happen now and pushed to send it back to staff for more review. In the end, he voted against the project.

His position reflects concern that policy rules are being bent, which could affect how future developments are handled. The rest of council voted in favor.

Councillor Phil Prinzen, Councillor Roy Pennell, Councillor Phil St-Jean, Councillor Chris Braney, Councillor Janice Maynard, Councillor Sam Grosso, and Mayor Steve Ferguson all spoke in support and voted in favor.

They focused on the camp’s charitable purpose, the steps taken to reduce environmental impact, and the importance of supporting children and families going through serious illness.

Several acknowledged environmental concerns but said these can be handled during the site plan stage, where more detailed controls are put in place.

For residents, this signals that council is willing to approve projects first and manage details later, especially when there is a strong social benefit.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton, acting as chair during the vote, also supported the project and voted in favor, while stressing the need for careful monitoring and oversight moving forward.

The final result was a 12 to 1 vote in favor, approving the rezoning and exempting the project from the Shoreland Interim Control Bylaw.

What This Means for Locals

For families dealing with serious childhood illness, this decision creates a path for a local, medically supported camp, reducing travel and giving easier access to care and community.

For environmental advocates and nearby residents, it raises ongoing concerns about long term protection of Natural Core Areas, wildlife impact, and whether enough safeguards will actually be enforced.

For the wider community, this decision shows a clear direction. Council is trying to balance environmental protection with social need, but it puts a lot of weight on future steps like site plan approval to get that balance right.

Bottom Line

This vote sets a strong precedent. It shows that projects with major social value can move forward even in sensitive areas, as long as mitigation is promised.

At the same time, it means this project will stay under close public attention, with residents, advocates, and council watching closely to see if those promises are actually followed.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:06:027. 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.