Part 2: Who Said What at PEC’s Final Planning Meeting of the Council Term - 09/16/2026
Prince Edward County’s September 16 Planning and Development Committee meeting moved through several applications with relatively little public participation, but councillors still had plenty of questions about how the decisions could affect rural properties, future development and the County’s new zoning rules. Councillor Phil St-Jean, Picton Ward, chaired the meeting and noted at the beginning that it was the final Planning and Development Committee meeting of the current Council term.
The applications touched different parts of the County, from South Marysburgh and Bloomfield/Hallowell to Ameliasburgh and the County as a whole. Some files passed with little debate, while others prompted longer conversations about agriculture, servicing capacity and how long developers should be allowed to hold planning approvals without making substantial progress.
View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap>
South Marysburgh: Geothermal Lot Adjustment Moves Ahead
The first application involved property on County Road 13 in South Marysburgh, where an existing geothermal loop was located on a different parcel from the dwelling it served. Planner Stuart Cade explained that the lot addition would correct that situation by placing the geothermal system on the same property as the home.
Councillor John Hirsch moved the main recommendation, seconded by another committee member, and the committee also considered staff changes to the conditions of approval. One change clarified that the owner’s solicitor would provide an undertaking related to consolidating the parcels instead of requiring the earlier wording in the conditions.
The applicant’s representative confirmed agreement with the revised conditions. St-Jean then called the amendment, which carried, followed by the main motion as amended. There was no recorded opposition in the transcript.
Bloomfield/Hallowell: Debate Over a Barn’s Future
The next application involved a surplus farm dwelling at 661 County Road 10 in Bloomfield/Hallowell. Cade explained that the house was being severed from a larger farm operation and that the retained agricultural property would be rezoned to prevent another residence from being built there.
Most of the discussion centred on a condition requiring the barn on the newly created residential property to be converted to dry storage only. One committee member questioned whether that could unnecessarily limit the barn’s future agricultural use, particularly if surrounding farmland were later added back to the property or used in connection with it.
Cade explained that once the severed property became rural residential, livestock would no longer be a permitted use. He said converting the barn to dry storage was part of ensuring that livestock could not continue to be kept there. Restoring livestock use later would require further municipal approvals, including at least rezoning and a building permit.
Councillor Phil Prinzen said he understood the concern but was uncomfortable creating a precedent that could affect similar applications in the future. After hearing what would be required to change the property back to agricultural use, Prinzen said he was comfortable leaving the condition in place.
An attempt was made to remove the dry-storage condition, but it did not receive a seconder. The original application then carried.
Ameliasburgh: Councillors Cut Lakeside Estates Extension to Two Years
The strongest debate came with Lakeside Estates, a proposed 37-unit subdivision near Lowndes Parkway and Lakeside Drive in Ward 4, Ameliasburgh. Staff had recommended extending the subdivision’s draft approval from January 2027 to January 2030, even though none of its 45 conditions had yet been cleared.
Councillor Roy Pennell focused on servicing, asking whether approving the extension would effectively reserve water capacity for the development. Staff clarified that it would not. Water allocation would only occur later, after the subdivision conditions were satisfied and the developer entered into the required municipal agreement.
Pennell also questioned the length of time the subdivision had already been in the planning process, saying he was concerned about development approvals remaining active for many years without moving forward.
Councillor Janice Maynard took a similar position on timing. She said a two-year extension seemed more reasonable given Council’s discussions about speculation and land banking. Maynard formally moved an amendment changing the expiry date from January 24, 2030 to January 24, 2029.
Another committee member seconded the amendment. St-Jean called the vote, and the amendment carried. The main motion, now granting a two-year extension rather than three years, also carried.
The developer’s agent, Greg King, had told committee that the owner was ready to proceed, had hired Juul Engineering and had already spent significant money on environmental and technical studies. The shortened approval period gives the project additional time, but also creates an earlier point when progress will again have to be demonstrated.
Countywide Zoning Changes Get Support
The final major discussion affected all of Prince Edward County. Planning staff presented a housekeeping amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 140-2025, which Council approved in November 2025.
Discussion touched on hydrogeological studies, shipping containers in commercial areas and short-term accommodations in commercial zones. Councillor Janice Maynard raised concerns about shipping containers near residential properties, particularly where commercial and residential uses sit close together.
Staff explained that containers would still be limited to rear yards and that existing commercial screening requirements would continue to apply where commercial properties abut residential zones.
St-Jean supported the proposed change concerning short-term accommodations in commercial areas. He said residential units above businesses in the County’s downtown cores have traditionally provided accessible and more affordable rental housing, and he viewed protecting those residential opportunities as important.
The housekeeping amendment passed without recorded opposition in the transcript.
What This Means for the Locals
For South Marysburgh residents, the County approved a relatively technical property adjustment that brings an existing geothermal system onto the same parcel as the house it serves.
In Bloomfield/Hallowell, the decision shows how severing a surplus farm dwelling can affect more than the house itself. Existing barns and other agricultural buildings may face restrictions once land is rezoned for residential use, and returning those buildings to agricultural use later can require additional approvals.
For residents around Consecon and Ameliasburgh, Lakeside Estates remains alive, but the developer received less time than requested. The subdivision now has until January 24, 2029 to satisfy the requirements necessary to preserve its draft approval. The decision also does not give the project an immediate claim on municipal water capacity.
Countywide, residents can expect the new zoning by-law to continue changing as staff identify issues in how it works in practice. The September amendments were described largely as housekeeping, but the discussion showed that even technical zoning changes can influence housing, rural land use and the relationship between commercial and residential properties across PEC.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:39:24. 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