To the Honourable Paul Calandra, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,

On June 25, 2024, after closed session, Prince Edward County Council passed a motion by a vote of 7-6 to provide Picton Terminals (PT) with draft terms of settlement enabling PT to extend its shipping and port activities well beyond those approved in a 2018 court case. A motion to reconsider was planned for the next Council meeting. However, that planned motion was superseded with the announcement that PT had accepted the draft without change thus creating a legal binding agreement.

Under the terms of the agreement, Council and PT plan to request the Minister to issue a Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) on December 26, 2024.  As well, the parties agreed “that the issuance of a Ministerial Zoning Order …is a pre-condition to this agreement, without which this Agreement shall automatically terminate.”

We are raising this matter with you well in advance of the planned submission for an MZO because of the very serious concerns being raised by numerous citizens in the County.

We submit that this request to the Minister does not meet the spirit or intent of the Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) process or objective and thus this request should be rejected by the Minister for the following reasons:

     1. The request for a MZO does not align with the objectives of the order.

The Ministry website states: “Zoning orders can be used to protect a provincial interest or to help overcome potential barriers or delays to critical projects.” The agreement with PT meets neither of these objectives. Council offered the agreement in order to save legal costs. It is not in the public interest nor does it provide economic, social or community benefits to the County.

     2. Negotiation of the settlement excluded public input.

The Ministry website states that the Minister expects that a Council consult with its community before requesting an MZO. The expected submission for an MZO includes “a description of consultation with the public.” The entire negotiation process leading to this settlement was done in camera with no public input or consultation.  In fact, the terms were to be made public only with an agenda issued three days prior to a meeting to ratify. Only after intense public outcry was a special meeting of Council called leading to an earlier release. Still only after the negotiation and settlement had been completed.

     3. An MZO would allow PT to bypass needed oversight.

PT has a dismal record as a private company. From disobeying municipal by-laws, to contravening environmental regulations on numerous occasions, to a sunken barge that shut down the Picton water plant for 10 days forcing a boil water advisory, this is a company that should not be immune to the normal reviews and approvals. PT should not be exempt from public consultation, municipal by-law approvals, site plan approvals, traffic studies, and environmental assessments.  

In conclusion, an expanded port with 24/7 activities in a residential neighbourhood, operating close to a water intake upon which 7,000 people depend for their drinking water, is not an appropriate candidate for an MZO. We ask the Minister to deny this request.

Paul Kearns, Prince Edward County

Parkland Policy Needs Review

I received an email from the County in regards to ideas for parks. I live at the top of Downes Avenue in the complex called Lyfe Lofts and Townhomes. There are 16 townhouses there with a greenspace behind the community mailbox. Nearby are over 100 homes in Talbot Ridge owned by a mix of families with young children as well as seniors. The children have nowhere to play. The builders paid cash-in-lieu to the municipality rather than build a park. Now the municipality is scrambling to find appropriate park space nearby.

Why do the developers get away with not building parks in the area of their newly built homes? I live in an area where the owners are mostly seniors and retirees and Council is thinking of changing its green space to a park for children from another development. There is no parking and it will bring people through our private road to access it.

Maybe the Council should stand up and say “NO” to building permits until developers build parks in their own neighbourhoods.

Steve Runner, Picton