The application was for a “minor variance.”

But the Committee of Adjustment was instructed by the County’s lawyer, Sarah Viau, Acting Director of Development Services, that there was no variance. It instead voted to approve the expansion of activities at Picton Terminals to include grain storage structures and loading equipment.

Parrish & Heimbecker’s eight concrete grain silos, planned for leased land at the Picton Terminals site, were going to be built within Quinte Conservation’s required 30m setback from the waterfront. That requires approval.

Intense blasting has been ongoing at the PT site on White Chapel Road since mid-October. The Doornekamps are quarrying away the escarpment to make a platform for the silos, which are to be built at water level and recessed into the cliff.

The silos will be 150 feet tall. Even if they are built at water level, they will still tower over the escarpment, which is about 60 feet high.

“The silos are serving as a perfect pretext for PTs ongoing quarrying operations,” said Leslie Stewart, President of the County Conservancy. 

According to its permit from the Ministry of Natural Resources, renewed in 2023, Picton Terminals is allowed to quarry only incidental aggregate — rock that must be removed in order to develop its site.

P & H submitted a building permit application to the County for its planned grain shipping port at the Terminals on December 17.

The Terminals began site preparations, in other words, two months before P & H’s draft plans had been submitted to the County, and four months before the permit was approved last week.

No Approval Needed

What was to be a routine approval, however, hit a snag when it was discovered the silos fell within Quinte Conservation’s required 30m setback from the waterfront. A minor variance application requires a hearing at the County’s Committee of Adjustment. Public notice had to be given and concerned parties, including the neighbours, invited to attend. A four-way test must be passed to merit approval.

Then the hearing opened with the announcement that a variance was no longer required. In consultation with the County, Quinte Conservation moved the high water line to bring it into accord with an already approved new dock. That put the silos safely out of reach. 

Even a steel shiploading tower, to be built directly adjacent to the water’s edge, will not require a variance as the 120’ tall structure will be built on the already approved dock.

The staff report notes, “the applicant [P & H] submitted information from the Quinte Conservation Authority indicating that the high-water elevation of Lake Ontario is 75.2m, and the flood elevation is 76.09m, and the new dock will be 1.71m higher than the flood elevation. As a result, the County, in consultation with the Quinte Conservation Authority, defines the high- water mark as the edge of the new dock.”

The 30m waterfront setback is generally from the high-water mark, in this case 75.2m.

Quinte Conservation dispensed with actual water, however, and set a new high-water mark at 77.8m. It marks not the water, but with the height of the new dock.

Because of these calculations, the silos could now deemed to be situated outside the setback.

That left two remaining questions, to do with building new structures that would extend the legal nonconforming use of the site, to approve the building of a set of eight 150’ tall concrete silos on Picton Bay.

The committee of adjustment was asked to agree that expanding the grandfathered uses of the property — bulk cargo transshipment — was, first, “desirable for appropriate development of the subject property,” and second, “would not result in undue adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and neighbourhood.”

A Divided County

The questions split the attendees down the middle. Farmers representing the County’s grain growers spoke in favour of an expansion of port activities to include grain and biomass storage.

Jeff Harrison, Chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario, said “I recently had an opportunity to tour the Picton Terminals site with an MP and observed the sculpting of rocks to make way for state-of-the-art shiploading equipment. P & H are making a significant investment in agriculture in southeastern Ontario.”

“Trucks on the road, the carbon footprint, the safety and the cost of trucking time, the shortage of drivers — moving grain across the province has never been a bigger impediment for farmers. This local shipping port will put money in farmers’ pockets.”

“The vast silent majority are in support of this initiative — only a loud minority opposes it,” he concluded.

Local farmers Lloyd Crowe and Dean Foster stressed that local shipping would make the difference between profit or loss in tight operating margins.

On the other hand, neighbours close enough to hear and see all the development had a lot to say about the second criterion, the “undue adverse impacts,” already extensively documented.

They made the case again, citing the environmental degradation involved, the sheer extent of the blasting of the cliff face and historic escarpment that will be required to build there, as well as the safety of the drinking water, the destruction of fish habitat, the beauty of Picton Bay, and the right to peace and tranquillity of all those who live on it.

“I’m getting PTSD living on this bay,” said Bob Bird. “The noise is incredible, they are blasting and crushing rock 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, and it’s been going on for years. Is it not possible to find some middle ground? There must be a different way to store grain, to find some other solution.”

David Mackinnon cited worries about risks to the drinking water on Picton Bay from increased shipping of biomass and other cargo, and suggested expanding the storage facility at P & H’s Trenton rail link instead.

Yulia Nesterenko, who fled Ukraine with her family in 2022, rents a house on one of the Doornekamp’s recently acquired properties on White Chapel Road. She said living next to the rock quarry was like being back in a war zone.

“For 6 years our family lived 3 kilometers from the front line, where fierce fighting was constantly taking place. And we flew to Canada in the hope of building a peaceful life for ourselves and our children,” she said.

“But since the spring of 2023 we have returned to the same zone. Explosive work is constantly carried out at the Picton Terminals, which scares our children and the dog and breaks glass dishes in the house. There is constant dirt and dust from explosions and heavy machinery.

“We are witnessing the degradation and destruction of one of the most beautiful places on the island.” 

Residents also noted the entire lack of oversight by the municipality over massive site alterations at the property.

But the staff report dismisses the concerns. It asserts that the silos will support the transshipment of grain, and, therefore “will not create any adverse impacts on the surrounding properties.”

“The historic use of the property has been the subject of complaints from surrounding properties, although many of those concerns are beyond the jurisdiction of the municipality….The permission sought is not to expand the type of permitted uses of the property; rather, the applicant is seeking permission to construct new structures that will directly support the legal non-conforming use of transshipment of bulk commodities. Therefore, the application will not create any adverse impacts on the surrounding properties.”

In the Balance

Meanwhile, the fate of Picton Terminals hangs on the outcome of three of pending inquiries. 

As Penny Morris pointed out in a formal deputation, a decision is expected after the provincial election on February 27th, if not as a result of it, about the County’s application to Housing Minister Paul Callandra for an MZO that would more than double both the size and scale of its operations.

A suit filed by four County residents alleges the owners of the Terminals have turned the property into a full-time rock quarry, and that its claims it is only removing incidental aggregate are fraudulent.

That suit was approved by a Justice last month and will be heard in Ontario Superior Court in Picton on 7 March, when charges could be laid.

One of the two municipal councillors who sit on the Committee of Adjustment, David Harrison, is under investigation by the Integrity Commissioner for an alleged conflict of interest in all of his votes on matters to do with Picton Terminals.

A judgment on that complaint is expected to reach Council in time for its February 25 meeting.

“For all of these reasons,” said Ms. Morris, “I ask that you defer or delay this decision until these three outstanding matters reach some kind of resolution.”

It was for nought. The application was approved 3-0, with two committee members absent.