Michael MacDonald, who lives with his wife on Ridge Road, said he heard from his neighbour in early January that a proposed extension of Country Road 22 would mean the demolition of a number of neighbouring properties — including his.

“We are facing expropriation of our property, demolition of our homes, and being forced to move. The plan has also rendered our houses unsellable,” he said in a deputation at Council last week.

“For those adjacent to the new road,” he continued, “that would be a major factor in devaluing the sole largest asset that they have.”

He was joined by three other property owners, John Gregg, Paul Champagne, and Beverly Sills, all of whom faced expropriation by the County of either their homes or some of their property.

John Gregg, also of Ridge Road, noting he and his wife were both in their eighties, described the house and art studio where they have lived for 19 years.  “On January 2, my neighbours and I received a notification of an amendment from the planning department, a notice that changed our lives. It would result in complete demolition of my home and studio and those of our neighbours.”

“It caused acute distress to all concerned,” he said, stressing “the physical and mental tolls over the past two months.”

The ruckus was the result of a mistake in the planning department. It sent out a notice of a Statutory Public Meeting concerning a General Official Plan Amendment with a laundry list of items to be added to the Official Plan.

It was supposed to be a more or less routine housekeeping amendment. It included such things as modifying existing policies around adding additional units to a single property; incorporating Heritage Designation and Heritage Districts into the OP; settlement area boundary changes; Official Plan review periods, and the like.

The amendment was to bring the County’s Official Plan into accord with changes the Ford Government consolidated in its 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. Not all of the housekeeping changes are small, but they are changes the County has little control over.

As County spokesperson Mark Kerr explained, “Municipally initiated OPAs are typically intended to deal with housekeeping matters and matters of provincial legislation.”

“They are not typically used for matters requiring stand-alone public consultation.”

Something as serious as a road extension requiring the expropriation of people’s homes, he explained, “should not have been included in the Official Plan Amendment.”

Nonetheless, listed near the bottom of a long list of proposed changes was: “Recognize the future extensions of George Wright Boulevard and County Road 22 as per the Transportation Master Plan.”

Transportation Master Plan

Stantec submitted the Final Report for the Picton Settlement Area Transportation Master Plan in November 2024.

It proposes several road extensions to accommodate growth over the next ten to 20 years. In addition to that of County Road 22, an extension of George Wright Boulevard is also proposed, with planners noting both extensions “would require additional property acquisition or easement.”

County Road 22 would extend across County Road 10 through to Ridge Road, and then curve north to County Road 1 to connect to the George Wright Boulevard extension. (See above image.)

Yet nothing in the TMP had yet been canvassed by Council when the Official Plan Amendment notice went out. The Master Plan had not been received by Council, and none of the road extensions, roundabouts, bike lanes, or even traffic lights it proposes had been discussed, never mind approved.

Backtracking

Once alerted by upset residents, Planning Staff attempted to correct the error. They rescheduled the Statutory Public Meeting for February 5, and sent out a new notice with all references to the TMP and road extensions removed.

At that meeting, County planning staff and CAO Marcia Wallace apologized to the affected homeowners for what amounted to a clerical error.

But residents were still justifiably worried about the TMP. As Mr. MacDonald put it, the apology meant little as long “as the proposed extension of County Road 22 is part of the TMP.”

“We are asking Council to remove this extension from the TMP immediately and permanently,” he said.

The TMP was on the agenda for the March 11 meeting of Council, to be “endorsed” by councillors.

While the Master Plan was endorsed, the offending road extension was removed by a unanimous vote.

Nonetheless, an extension of George Wright Boulevard between Loyalist Parkway and County Road 1 is still a possibility and residents could still be affected by that new road.

“It is important to note,” explained Mr. Kerr in an email, “that the TMP Amendment does not fulfill all requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) process. Further studies and consultation will be required either through a Schedule C MCEA or future planning applications to determine the exact alignment of the road and impacts to private property.

Public input, in other words, will be taken into account.

Next week, the Gazette will explore the Transportation Master Plan.