Bylaw to investigate use of Sophiasburgh portion of Picton Terminals property

By Sharon Harrison
“Picton Terminals has quarried and sold (and this is in the estimation of a professional mining engineer) approximately 1.2 million tonnes of rock and aggregate, and has sold it in contracts amounting to over $65 million. This is public knowledge,” shared South Marysburgh councillor John Hirsch. “This is hardly incidental to their development of the site.”

Municipal bylaw staff will investigate the current state of the Sophiasburgh ward portion of the Picton Terminals (PT) property on White Chapel Road, as a result of a resolution brought forward by Hirsch at Tuesday’s council meeting.

The 11-1 recorded vote in favour saw councillor David Harrison opposed (with councillors Phil Prinzen and Kate MacNaughton absent).

The request comes in light of the 2018 Superior Court decision on proper use by Justice Tausendfreund, the South Marysburgh councillor noted in his resolution, who said Tausendfreund “made it clear that only the uses permitted under the County’s RU-1 zone could be carried out”.

“The 2018 decision of Justice Tausendfreund found that the legal non-conforming use of the Sophiasburgh’s portion of Picton Terminals’ property included only vehicle storage.”

Hirsch said he is simply asking the County’s bylaw department to investigate what has been done to the property since the 2018 decision, where he said it’s time that the County really finds out whether or not MNR (Ministry of Natural Resources) believes that PT is quarrying (the MNR oversees limestone extraction).

“If, as many believe, they have been operating a commercial quarry, the County has lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars of royalties that apply to licensed quarries,” expressed Hirsch. “We have many legally-regulated quarries in the County, and it’s time to find out where the ministry stands on PT’s

actions.”

He said, in 2018, the property was essentially flat and largely untouched (as can be seen from an old satellite photo), but now it can be seen how much of the rock has been removed.

The crux of the issue is that the Sophiasburgh portion (green hatch) of the PT property is zoned RU-1 (post-2006, the Hallowell portion was zoned MX (extractive)), where it was ruled that only vehicle storage and uses permitted under the RU zoning were allowed.

Hirsch made it clear that his resolution has nothing to do with the MZO (ministerial zoning order) request – currently awaiting ministerial decision – that was made to try and settle the legal dispute with PT.

“It’s not about the MZO, nor does it dispute the legality of the upcoming grain shipping operation with Parrish and Heimbecker, that is perfectly allowable under the zoning,” Hirsch clarified.

He said the resolution was about two things, the first of which is the use of the Sophiasburgh portion of the property which is not zoned MX, so it’s not zoned for extractive, it is zoned RU-1.

“Secondly, that the overall extent of aggregate extraction on all of the current PT property, including the MX portion, which by virtue of its extent, looks remarkably like a quarry, which would require a licence under the Aggregate Resources Act, and they have no licence,” added Hirsch.

He said, in the May 16 court appearance, the MNR said they would not pursue charges because PT could not be charged due to “officially induced error” and they were relying on an exemption from the MNR allowing a certain amount of rock extraction in the development of a port.

“In the crown’s submission, it was almost an admission that PT was quarrying, but could not be charged due to the exemption.”

The approved resolution Tuesday also directs staff to request information from the MNR regarding operations on the site. This will entail forwarding Justice Tausendfreund’s decision to the MNR requesting its response advising how it has concluded that PT is not operating a quarry.

Hirsch said the pictures shown this evening, and elsewhere (social media), evidence significant excavation and aggregate extraction and rock crushing activity, which is not permissible under RU-1 use.

Member of the public Bill Beckett outlined in a deputation to council how it is clear that “extensive excavation has taken place on the Sophiasburgh portion of the PT site… noting “extensive excavation is not allowed under RU zoning”. “Was the MNR aware of the zoning of the property and the judge’s 2018 ruling confirming that zoning?” he asked

Beckett explained that the judgement is best characterized as a split decision. Bulk cargo transhipment was deemed a legal non-conforming use on the Hallowell portion.

“But in the Sophiasburgh portion, the only permissible legal non-conforming uses were industrial vehicle storage. Pointedly, the judge said: “To the extent that portable equipment is stored and aggregate material stockpiled [on the Sophiasburgh portion], it postdated 2006 and is not permitted under the current bylaw. It must be removed.”

“Why were exemptions given by the MNR to PT that resulted in uses that ran contrary to the judge’s order?” he posed.

Beckett explained that the only legal use of the Sophiasburgh portion is vehicle storage and uses permitted under the RU zoning.

“Picton Terminals was never compliant with the judgement,” stated Beckett. “Aggregate piles and industrial equipment remained on the Sophiasburgh portion from 2018 to 2024.”

He further noted how during summer 2025 on the Sophiasburgh portion, equipment, aggregate piles (including bauxite) and massive excavations are apparent.

Member of the public David McKinnon spoke to Beckett’s deputation, but also highlighted the scale of PT operations on the site, something he described as “really remarkable” and “go far beyond what you or anybody else envisioned in 2017 when we first heard about this”.

“This is a quarry masquerading as a port, a port is a superficial trapping on what is now a huge and very profitable quarry,” expressed McKinnon. “The community needs to see it, not as a port project at all, but as a totally inappropriate quarrying operation – the port language is just a cover for the quarrying operation.”

He had a few suggestions for council, including considering withdrawal of the MZO application.

Penny Morris also spoke up in support of the resolution, telling council that by supporting the resolution, they will “gain some respect for putting some brakes on before the damage gets much worse”.

“PT has pretended to be a good community partner building a legitimate business. The truth is that they have been illegally quarrying, damaging the environment, threatening our drinking water and our community cohesion,” she said.

PT owners, ABNA Investments and 1213427 Ontario Ltd., appeared before the Ontario Court of Justice in Picton on May 16 facing charges for operating a quarry without a licence under the Aggregate Resources Act.

Beckett spoke to the business operations of PT, first providing some background on how in 2017 a group of local residents formed the non-profit organization “Save Picton Bay”. Their mandate was about resisting the renewed activities happening at Picton Terminals.

Save Picton Bay sought to contest the increased and expanded nature of activities, ultimately filing an application with the Ontario Superior Court. The case was heard in April 2018, with the judgement being handed down in May 2018.

“The application sought a determination from the court that the activity at PT ran contrary to existing zoning laws,” noted Beckett. “Save Picton Bay argued that the increased activity at the site was amounted to a non-conforming use and therefore it was non permissible.”

Part of the application read:
“[T]here is evidence of the current use being on a scale that extends its operations to the very boundaries of the property with rock piles etc., and has increased the intensity to the point of polluting surrounding lands and Picton Bay.”

Beckett also pointed out that through the Freedom of Information Act, they were able to obtain emails between the owner of PT, Ben Doornekamp, and MNR, on the exemption letter from MNR. He explained how the MNR will ask a series of questions, and he said one of the questions was whether there will be a financial gain from the disposed materials.

Doornekamp’s reply: “Yes, there will be a financial gain; PT will be selling excavated material from our port development and the financial gain will be offsetting a small portion of the port development.”

“That small portion was at the time he responded to that, he had a contract for $18 million to supply Amherst Island wind project,” shared Beckett. “They also did receive a contract for $27 million for Ashbridges Bay in Toronto.”

At the time of answering those questions, Beckett said PT had contracts in excess of $45 million, which PT said will offset a small portion of port development costs. “Clearly, the landowner has a hard time truthfully communicating information.”

Councillor Chris Braney said there was no doubt in his mind that the quarrying aspect is something that needs to be investigated, but he also noted he wasn’t clear on the jurisdiction of the municipality and “had always assumed that it was a federal port”.

“The question that has always been perplexing to me is the jurisdiction we have,” said Braney. “There is some wrong doing with the quarry; we have no jurisdiction over the water way or a number of aspects that are more provincial than federal.”

Beckett confirmed PT is not a federal port, and that the municipality has jurisdiction over the zoning and has the right to police the zoning.

“The province has jurisdiction over the quarrying; the MNR does, the MOE (Ministry of Environment) does, it is definitely not the feds., and they actually told us, talk to your municipality and your MPP,” shared Beckett.

PT describes the operation as an occasional-use marine facility, explained Beckett, meaning they can have up to 10 ships a year, otherwise they need to apply to be a port status, etc. He confirmed that PT have fallen within that, as they have never had more than 10 ships a year.

“The business is more about quarrying than it is about shipping because they only average about seven or eight ships a year, and that’s not a big business.“