The original Picton Terminals site is divided into two parcels, one zoned MX-Industrial, and the other zoned RU1, or Rural. That portion also happens to sit in Sophiasburgh, while the first parcel is in Hallowell.

In 2018, Ontario Superior Court Judge Wolf Tausendfreund ruled that the only legal non-conforming use permitted on the Sophiasburgh property was industrial vehicle storage. 

Council carried a resolution at the December 9th meeting directing staff to investigate the current state of the Sophiasburgh portion of the property for signs of aggregate extraction. The motion carried 11-1, with only Councillor David Harrison voting against.

The resolution also directs County staff to forward the judge’s 2018 decision to the Ministry to ask how it concluded Picton Terminals is not operating an illegal quarry on the Sophiasburgh portion of the property. 

Picton Terminals is awaiting a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) to rezone all of its land MX-Industrial. 

“I want to make clear that this resolution has nothing at all to do with the request for the MZO that was made to try to settle our legal dispute with Picton Terminals,” said Councillor Hirsch. 

He added that the investigation also does not interfere with the grain shipping contract between Picton Terminals and Parrish and Heimbecker. Bulk cargo shipping is a grandfathered use of the port. 

“It is simply about two things: first is the use of the Sophiasburgh portion of the property, which is not zoned MX, so it’s not zoned for extractive, it is zoned RU1,” Councillor Hirsch explained. 

“And secondly, the overall extent of aggregate extraction on all of the current PT property, including the MX portion, extraction which by virtue of its extent looks remarkably like a quarry, would require a license under the Aggregate Resources Act, and they have no license.

“I’m simply asking that our bylaw department investigate what has been done to the property since the 2018 decision.”

Part of the impetus for starting the investigation is evidence assembled by resident Bill Beckett, which includes emails between Picton Terminals and MNR obtained through a Freedom of Information request. 

Picton Terminals appeared before the Ontario Court of Justice in May of this year, charged with operating an unlicensed quarry. But the Ministry of Natural Resources intervened to stay the charges, saying it had issued permits for the quarrying at the property. 

Mr. Beckett presented the findings in a deputation to Council on the night of Councillor Hirsch’s resolution.

“Picton Terminals had contracts in excess of $45 million dollars,
yet it claimed it was only earning enough to offset a portion
of its port development costs.” 

—Bill Beckett

The correspondence showed that MNR issued a permit to Picton Terminals allowing quarrying on the understanding that it would not result in financial gain; the Terminals said any revenue from the sale of rock was only enough to offset some of the costs of the port development that required the quarrying. 

But Mr. Beckett found contracts for the sale of rock at the time totalling $45 million, including an $18 million contract to supply aggregate to the Amherst Island Wind Project and a $27 million contract to supply aggregate to a massive Ashbridges Bay infill project in Toronto.

“At the time of answering those questions, Picton Terminals had contracts in excess of $45 million dollars, yet it claimed it was only earning enough to offset a portion of its port development costs,” Mr. Beckett said. 

He also presented drone images revealing quarrying as well as aggregate stockpiles on the Sophiasburgh property.

In a comment from the audience, County resident Marion de Vries noted that were the quarry to be licensed the County would be entitled to 61 percent of its royalties. 

“Our rock is everywhere. Have we been paid for it at least?” she asked. 

Meanwhile, whether the Terminals is a port or a rock quarry is becoming a key question.

“Picton Terminals is not a federal port,” Mr. Beckett said. Rather, it is designated an “occasional use marine facility,” meaning it can receive up to ten ships a year.

“The business is more about quarrying than it is about shipping,” he said.

Councillor Bill Roberts, who seconded the resolution, said he believed Picton Terminals could expand its operations as a port. 

“Expanded infrastructure, like it or not, is our lifeline, our lifeline locally and nationally,” he said. “In my view that potentially includes the economic potential of marine facilities on Lake Ontario like Picton Terminals.”

The resolution carried with only Councillor David Harrison opposed. The councillor has come under fire for voting on matters related to Picton Terminals because his son, Drew Harrison of Drew Harrison Haulage Ltd., does business with the company. He was cleared of any conflict by the County’s former Integrity Commissioner, Robert Swayze.  

A slide from Bill Beckett’s deputation:

Questions for the Ministry of Natural Resources

Clearly extensive excavation has taken place on the Sophiasburgh portion of the Picton Terminal site

Extensive excavation is not allowed under RU zoning

The MNR oversees limestone extraction

Why were exemptions given by the MNR to Picton Terminals that resulted in uses  that ran contrary to the Judge’s order?