In an unusual move, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has publicly posted Prince Edward County and Picton Terminals’ joint request for a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) for the port on Picton Bay. The Ministry is inviting the public to comment on the application.

The request is to re-zone the entirety of the properties at 62, 24, 167, 203, 253 and 254 White Chapel Road MX-Industrial Extractive.

“The Ministry is seeking input on whether this request should be considered and any additional information that may help inform the Minister’s decision-making,” the posting reads.

The owners of Picton Terminals, the Doornekamp family, have acquired a series of neighbouring farm properties in hopes they will be rezoned under the requested Zoning Order.

The acquisitions almost triple the total size of the property, which has gone from 25 hectares to 60 (or from 62 acres to 148). It now extends far north as well as south of White Chapel Road.

All of the land could, presumably, be turned into a rock quarry should the Terminals apply for and receive an Aggregate Extraction license after receiving the MZO.

Even with the MZO, however, a quarry license is not a foregone conclusion.

The owners of Picton Terminals, the Doornekamp family,
have acquired a series of neighbouring farms
in hopes they will be rezoned under the requested Zoning Order.
The acquisitions almost triple the total size of the property,
which has gone from 25 hectares to 60 (or from 62 acres to 148).
It now extends north as well as south of White Chapel Road.

The MZO request makes no mention of rock quarrying. Instead, the stated reason for the MZO is to enable the Terminals to begin container shipping and to employ all of its lands, no matter how they are currently zoned, in support of that enterprise. 

That means allowing warehousing, open storage of cargo, and the vertical stacking of containers across up to 80% of the property and up to a height of 117 metres.

The permission would exclude garbage, nuclear waste, and toxic substances from trans-shipment at the port.

The government website notes, “to help ensure decisions are made in a transparent manner and support government priorities, the Ministry is seeking feedback on whether this request should be considered and any additional information that may help inform a decision.”

It seeks in particular notice of “any potential environmental risks, financial impacts on the municipality or implications for other approved developments and how these can be mitigated.”

Should the Minister decide not to consider the request for an MZO for Picton Terminals, land use planning decisions affecting the Terminals would revert back to the County.

MP Tyler Allsopp’s office issued a statement indicating he believes the zoning of Picton Terminals is a matter for the County to decide. 

Spokesperson Adam Bramburger said, “MPP Allsopp has communicated to Minister Flack that he believes these properties could be addressed by Prince Edward County through the municipal land-use planning process.”

Should the MZO be denied, Council would resume its 2022 court case against the Terminals, which seeks a ruling on whether the County had the authority to enforce zoning bylaws that prevent the port from becoming an international hub for storing and shipping containers. 

Disregarding those bylaws, Picton Terminals had advised the County in 2021 that it would begin shipping containers on Picton Bay, claiming that as a port it fell under federal rather than provincial or municipal jurisdiction.

Picton Terminals is not identified on the list of federal ports, and the Minister of Transport has advised it does not fall under the federal regulation of ports.

In 2024, however, worried about legal fees, the County reversed course and decided to settle the case out of court. It offered to request an MZO for the Terminals, which, if granted, would allow an international container shipping port on Picton Bay.

The decision shocked a large number of residents opposed to any expansion of activities at the port out of concern for the water quality on the Bay, the source of drinking water for 7000 residents in Picton and Bloomfield; the County’s natural heritage, such as the limestone escarpment bordering the Bay; the destruction of farmland; and the Doornekamps’ previous record of disregard for environmental and other regulations, as well its near neighbours’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.

Should you wish to provide comments to the Ministry: Request for Minister’s Zoning Order to support Picton Terminals in Prince Edward County | Environmental Registry of Ontario