County Launches Review of Picton Terminals’ Sophiasburgh Lands
Date: December 17, 2025
Prince Edward County Council has voted to move forward with a formal investigation into activities taking place on the Sophiasburgh portion of the Picton Terminals property, reopening long-standing questions about land use, zoning, and aggregate extraction.
At its December 9 meeting, council approved a resolution directing staff to examine whether aggregate extraction has occurred on lands zoned RU1 (Rural)—a designation that does not permit quarrying. The motion passed with strong support, with only one councillor opposed.
Why the Investigation Is Being Revisited
The Picton Terminals site is split between two zoning categories: MX-Industrial land in Hallowell and RU1-zoned land in Sophiasburgh. In a 2018 ruling, the Ontario Superior Court determined that the only allowable non-conforming use on the Sophiasburgh lands was industrial vehicle storage, not extraction.
Council’s resolution directs staff to assess current site conditions and to forward the 2018 court decision to the province, asking how it was determined that Picton Terminals was not operating an illegal quarry on the rural parcel.
Separate From the MZO Request
Councillor Corey Hirsch, who introduced the motion, emphasized that the investigation is independent of the company’s request for a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO), which would rezone the full property to industrial use.
He also clarified that the review does not affect ongoing grain shipping operations at the port, which are considered a grandfathered use.
According to Hirsch, the focus of the investigation is twofold:
whether the Sophiasburgh lands have been used in ways not permitted under RU1 zoning, and
whether the scale of aggregate extraction across the entire site would require a licence under the Aggregate Resources Act.
Evidence Raised by a Local Resident
Part of the momentum behind the investigation comes from work done by Bill Beckett, a County resident who submitted documentation to council, including correspondence obtained through Freedom of Information requests involving the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).
Picton Terminals previously faced charges related to operating an unlicensed quarry, but those charges were stayed after the MNR indicated permits had been issued. According to Beckett’s findings, those permits were granted on the understanding that quarrying would not generate profit, but would instead offset development costs tied to port construction.
However, Beckett presented evidence of contracts totalling $45 million for the sale of aggregate during that same period, raising questions about whether commercial extraction took place beyond what was permitted.
He also shared drone imagery showing excavation activity and large aggregate stockpiles on the Sophiasburgh lands.
Broader Questions for the County
During public discussion, residents raised concerns about potential financial implications. One speaker noted that if the operation were licensed as a quarry, the County could be entitled to a significant share of royalty payments.
As staff move forward with the investigation, a broader issue remains unresolved: is Picton Terminals operating strictly as a port or does its activity more closely resemble a quarry?
That question now sits at the centre of the County’s next steps.
Comments