County-wide zoning bylaw adopted; some revisions to follow

By Sharon Harrison
Following almost four hours of substantial discussion, councillors voted to adopt the final version of a revamped comprehensive zoning bylaw with amending motions to explore further support for the wine industry, multi-unit builds, wind turbines, solar generation, and enhanced environmental protections.

Having undergone significant review, as well as public input, the final comprehensive zoning bylaw (CZB) was presented by consultants WSP who summarized final changes. It was noted the CZB was last updated 19 years ago, in 2006. Following adoption by County council, the municipality will issue a Notice of Decision. Should there be no appeals in the 20-day period, the new zoning bylaw will be in effect.

The bylaw covers all land within the municipality and sets out rules for how it can be used and developed, and what is permitted. It therefore affects residents and businesses who intend to construct a new home or an additional dwelling unit, build an addition (including porches, decks, sheds, gazebos, garages, etc.), severances and changes of use.

Councillor Chris Braney’s motion saw council vote in favour of having staff review the CZB provision related to wineries and on-farm diversified uses to consider a potential revision to support the County winery industry.

A further motion put forward by councillor John Hirsch also got support from councillors for staff to conduct a review of the CZB provisions related to special setback provisions that support enhancement of the County’s environmental protections.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton brought forward two motions, the first of which received council’s vote, for staff to explore changes to the R1 zone that would encourage multi-unit built forms, including triplexes, semi-detached and row house dwellings.

“I am primarily talking about existing neighbourhoods and looking to increase in-fill offerings,” she said.

MacNaughton’s second motion asking for staff to explore amendments to the CZB to encourage small wind and solar generation in rural zones, failed in a 7-5 recorded vote (councillors John Hirsch, Chris Braney, Brad Nieman, Bill Roberts, Roy Pennell, Corey Engelsdorfer and mayor Steve Ferguson opposed).

“There are currently wind turbines on rural lands, small unobtrusive, they tend to be tall, but they are not very imposing, and they are very, very different from the industrial wind turbines that caused a stir on the south shore,” shared MacNaughton. “We are going to be needing to consider all forms of non-fossil fuel energy generation,” she said. “This is a very small thing that we can do, and I don’t think it’s going to be particularly controversial in this small form, and additionally, a number of the comments spoke in favour of residential wind.”

Hirsch expressed how the motion concerning the wind turbines was unexpected.

“It’s not just a height issue, it’s a heritage landscape issue; there are lots of issues around turbines, as there are around solar panels. I just can’t support looking at this again,” he said.

The meeting included a presentation by WSP with a brief overview of key changes. Discussion ensued around the horse shoe among council members, planning staff and the consultant, as well as eight members of the public, representing the wine industry, farmers and local environmental groups.

“This comprehensive zoning bylaw, we believe, and hope, is more accessible, contemporary and straightforward as much as possible, and has been prepared to make the document more user-friendly and easy to interpret for all users,” said Nadia De Santi, of WSP.

Briefly, the changes include one new zone to allow for an agricultural zone, the current rural and rural residential zones have been consolidated, there are new specific on-farm diversified uses (OFDU) uses for wineries, and revised setback provisions.

Other new provisions implemented include overnight parking for up to five trailers for three nights, something that Scott Pordham, the County’s policy co-ordinator, said would be permitted as-of-right for wineries, and it would be applicable to all OFDUs. As well, changes have been made to permit outdoor storage of recreational vehicles in rural residential zones (with limits on size).

New Agricultural Zone
“The new agricultural (AG) zone is intended to implement the agricultural areas designation in the official plan (OP) and includes prime agricultural lands as defined by the 2024 provincial planning statement (PPS),” explained De Santi, who added that the new AG zone will require a minimum lot size of 40 hectares.

She said it establishes direction for protection of those valuable lands for long-term use, and protection for agriculture.

Consolidation of R1-R3 Zones
The current rural one to three zones are proposed to be consolidated into one single rural zone, and come with a minimum lot size of 10 hectares (24.7 acres).

“Existing lots that are smaller than the new minimum lot size would be considered legally non-compliant (grandfathered), so the use can continue on those undersized lots,” De Santi explained.

She said OFDU uses have been clarified in the new bylaw, such as a farm café and shop, and a farm produce outlet may sell any products produced in Canada (the previous definition limited to products made on the farm only).

OFDU for wineries
A new section specific to OFDU use for wineries is also included in the new bylaw.

Dan Sullivan, with PECWine, spoke to restricting permitted uses for wineries, what they can sell, as well as development, and indicated there are a significant number of things that still need to be addressed in the bylaw.

Pordham reminded that there is a limit for OFDU, capping the size of those at either two per cent or one hectare, whichever is the lesser.

“I have some big concerns that we are at a critical time, and for us to overly restrict by saying two per cent. So, if you’ve got a 40-acre farm, two per cent of that is 0.8 acres and there’s not a lot you can do with that,” said Sullivan. “By creating this specific inclusion, you are endangering the viability of some of the farming operations.”

“Certainly, the winery association expressed some concern that perhaps that was too restrictive, but that is what the provincial guidance is,” added Pordham.

MacNaughton reminded that all wineries still have the right to work through the planning process should they wish to consider doing something larger.

Sullivan also added that under the proposed bylaw, a winery is not permitted to have a bed and breakfast operation, where he asked why it was not included as part of the OFDU.

“The winery association was looking for some relief from those restrictions, but it’s not something we are not specifically looking to support,” said Pordham.

He said there are some improvements with a consolidation of the farm wineries and the estate wineries, so common uses between the wineries in the agricultural and rural designation are the same. There is also a whole new section on OFDU.

“Those two things alone are going to be huge improvements to help the wine industry, and those OFDU uses will allow wineries to branch out into other things, such as restaurants or retail space, as of right, without having to go through a zoning bylaw amendment application.”

Pordham also clarified that agricultural-related uses, such as processing, packaging and storage are not part of the OFDU area or operation calculations.

Mayor Steve Ferguson spoke in support of helping the winery industry.

“I don’t think any of us can imagine the amount of hard work that goes into those [winery] operations and the reliance they have on factors such as the weather and the environment,” he said. “It sounds to me like we are in a position to give those businesses, those sectors of the economy, due consideration and help them get a leg-up to improve their businesses which have been so important to the development of Prince Edward County.”

He said, help doesn’t apply only to agriculture and wineries; it’s everything: hospitality and tourism and the arts.

“And it’s making sure we don’t stand in their way… help them thrive because thriving has… between 2006, we’ve got 19 years of old rules that we are changing the reality of Prince Edward County, and that is progress, and we have to mindful that more progress is going to be necessary.”

Brittany DenOuden, owner and operator of Struisvogel Ranch, spoke to how OFDU have been applied to wineries, but not to farms which have been excluded, where she asked, “What caused the additional restriction on farms compared to wineries?”

She also said, site plan control should not be required for every OFDU, where she provided an example of the inconsistencies between wineries and farms.

“Right now, changes were made that a winery had added a say, 100-seat patio without site plan control, but a beef farmer selling burgers to families requires a site plan, so that doesn’t make sense,” she said. “We are not asking for exemptions, we are just asking for equal treatment.”

Setback Provisions
Special setback provisions have also been revised. For example, erosion hazards now have a six-metre horizontal distance; dynamic beaches have a six-metre setback; Waring’s Creek 50-metre setback, including top of bank, tributaries, wetlands or other features that provide groundwater discharge to the creek; and inland escarpments have a 30-metre setback.

Councillor Phil St-Jean highlighted that the various setbacks for ANSIs (areas of natural and scientific interest), significant wetlands, etc., in the public comments matrix had been not incorporated into the new bylaw. He also asked if the setbacks are typical for most municipalities in the province.

De Santi confirmed the 30-metre and the 120-metre are setbacks provided by the province, and are standard across Ontario.

“The comment regarding development shall not be permitted within 50-metres of any identified wetland, again 50-metres is not in any PPS policies or the natural heritage manual. For that, and also the County’s OP, has the setback provisions which were consistent with the 2020 PPS, but those setbacks have not changed in the PPS.”

She said, those are the reasons why the comments were not included, adding that they are in conformity with the County’s OP and the 2020 PPS.

Public member Paula Peel asked for the decision to adopt the bylaw be postponed until all of the environmental protection policies in the OP are fully and properly implemented.

“While some of the environmental protections policies have been carried over, others have not,” explained Peel. “For example, the OP prohibits development within woodlands, and within any significant woodlands identified during the planning process, yet there is no corresponding provision in the new zoning bylaw to implement this.”

She said the same omissions exist for significant valleys, significant coastal wetlands and significant wildlife habitat, which are clearly protected in the OP, but not explicitly in the bylaw. Other key gaps remain in the bylaw for ANSIs and for the natural core areas.

The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists have made many efforts to put environmental provisions into the CZB to safeguard the natural environment, stated PECFN’s Amy Bodman.

“We submitted detailed comments last fall, and again in April at the statutory public meeting. The agenda was downloaded last Friday; we are only finding out now why most of our comments were rejected.”

She noted the summary of comments matrix references a joint submission from PECFN, and three other local environmental groups.

In response, the consultant asserts that, “It is noted that a number of the comments proposed to carry forward policy language from the OP and adding it into the zoning bylaw. This is not required in most cases as a zoning bylaw implements the vision of the OP via land use permissions and standards for development.”

Bodman asserted that the consultant’s response seems “contradictory”, especially when the zoning bylaw does implement the vision of the OP via provisions of the flood plain, for water bodies, water courses and wetlands, and as well, for provincial highways and right-of-ways.

“Why would it not be as important to implement the vision of the OP via provisions for significant woodlands, significant valley lands, significant coastal wetlands, significant wildlife habitat for areas of natural and scientific interest, and for the County’s natural core areas?” asked Bodman.

She said, a 50-metre setback from all wetlands is in the OP because all of the County is considered a highly vulnerable aquifer.

“We know from experience that land use permissions and standards are frequently contested by land owners and developers at the expense of the OPs vision for environmental protection,” she said.

In terms of some of the comments for significant woodlands, valley lands, ANSIs and wildlife areas, Pordham said staff would like to go back and review those again and make some improvements.

“I think there are some discrepancies there in what is set out in the OP and what has been set up in the zoning bylaw and room for improvements that should be there. “

The environmental protections provisions in the new bylaw are improvements over the existing bylaw, because there are some protections that weren’t in the existing bylaw that have been added, said Pordham.

A key land use planning document that establishes specific rules and regulations governing the use and development of land and buildings within a municipality, the CZB (approved in 2006), is outdated in many respects, said Pordham. “The need for an update provides the municipality with an opportunity to re-evaluate every aspect of the zoning bylaw to ensure it meets current provincial legislation, regulations and guidance.”

The update also provides opportunity to ensure the zoning bylaw is in conformity with the 2021 OP and regulates land use to meet local needs.

Documents pertaining to the County-wide comprehensive zoning bylaw can be found on the County’s website, including the 415-page final comprehensive zoning bylaw.