Environmental groups say significant wetlands is ‘wrong place’ for children’s camp
Administrator | Jan 26, 2025 | Comments 16
By Sharon Harrison
“The Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN) is well aware of the healing power of nature, and of the merit of the Campfire Circle camps, and what they provide to critically ill children and their families,” stated PECFNs Amy Bodman. “Nevertheless, PECFN cannot support this application because we believe it is in the wrong place: major development of this sort should not be allowed in the middle of a natural core area (NCA).”
PECFN President Gerry Jenkison added that as advocates for protection of the County’s natural environment, “we can only support new development in appropriate locations, and 565 Wesley Acres Road is not one of them”.
The proposal for a camp for children affected by cancer, and other serious illnesses, is proposed for a 32.8-hectare property on the north-eastern shore of West Lake (with more than 700-metres of water frontage on West Lake), located south-west of Bloomfield. It garnered some heartfelt comments from some members of council and the public. It also heard concern of the large development’s encroachment on environmentally-sensitive lands and important eco-system.
Bodman pointed out there are PSWs (provincially-significant wetlands), coastal wetlands, ANSIs (areas of natural and scientific interest), significant woodlands, shoreline and wildlife habitat all connected on this property, which is why this property, and the surrounding area, is in the south Bloomfield NCA. Wetlands surround the property on three sides, to the west, north and south.
Campfire Circle has filed an application for a zoning bylaw amendment to re-zone the property (tilled and farmed fields used as agriculture for many years) to site-specific tourist commercial in order to facilitate the development and use of a specialty summer camp on the property (it was outlined by several attendees that it would be an all-season, year-round facility). Its current zoning is rural 2 and environmental protection–provincially-significant wetland.
A privately-funded charity, Campfire Circle was founded in 1983, originally starting as two charities, Camp Ooch and Camp Trillium, both focused on bringing overnight camp programs to kids with cancer and their families. The two charities merged in 2020, re-branding as Campfire Circle, and have two medically-supported overnight Ontario camps located in Muskoka and Waterford, with all programming offered at no cost to families.
Under a new two-step process recently approved by council (effective Jan. 1), no decision on this application will be made by council on this planning application at this first planning and development statutory committee meeting (as has been procedure). Outcome and decision made by council is to happen at a future, second meeting. See further explanation at the end.
Last Wednesday’s planning and development statutory committee meeting, lengthy at almost five hours, heard from John McAlister with Campfire Circle, who outlined what the camp is all about, and Miles Weekes, a planner with Fotenn Planning and Design.
One member of the public and three representatives from local environmental groups spoke to their concerns about the proposed development which is expected to bring 1,600 campers throughout the year (160 campers in a week session). While most activity will take place through the summer, it was noted mini-camp experiences would take place on weekends into the fall and winter.
Wesley Acres Road resident Doug Dolan raised several concerns, including the lack of information received, but also the sheer scale of the proposed project, as well as the significant amount of parking needed, increased traffic (on a small narrow road), and water concerns with a sensitive aquifer.
“There is no question about the worthiness of the work the Campfire Circle does, and I know and admire this organization, and I don’t want to leave any illusions to the contrary,” he said.
Dolan spoke to the large scale of the proposal and the large influx of people: 500 people per week (160 campers plus caregivers and support people).
“Just the camper residences, there are 10 of them, they are over 7,000-square-feet a piece, the total square footage of constructed development on this space is 193,000-square-feet, and the parking lot has provision for 291 parking spots. As a resident, that is a little bigger than I imagined.”
He also spoke to it being a year-round facility, not a specialty summer camp as planning staff indicated, which he said “changes the complexion of the thing”, and he also expressed concern the facility would be available for rent (as is the case with the two other facilities) to those outside the charity, for corporate retreats, school groups, etc.
“That changes the character of who might be coming there, and what frequency and what volume, it’s not just about kids with cancer.”
Speaking to if the property is re-zoned tourist commercial, he noted “there is no category called kids’ medical camp, so it has to be designated something it is not, currently agricultural has to become tourist commercial”.
He, along with several others (including a few councillors), shared concern that any change in zoning, should the current owners decide to sell for whatever reason down the road, allows the next owner to do whatever they wish with the property with a tourist commercial designation in hand.
Councillor Janice Maynard asked why this location was chosen with its environmental constraints and a lack of optimal waterfront (because it’s a cattail marsh) within an NCA with an EP (environmental protection) designation, and an ANSI, and the constraints that that will bring.
Weekes responded by saying, every site has its constraints.
“This is a site that is feasible for this project, and while there are concerns and constraints, it can be mitigated with no negative impacts to those nearby significant wetlands,” noted Weekes. “There is no perfect site and this site is well-suited to what’s being proposed, even if there are some challenges.”
Maynard reminded that a zoning will follow a property forever, and in response to an off-hand comment directed to her by councillor Sam Grosso, added this:
“Asking questions regarding environmental, ecological, hydrogeological or community impact concerns, in no way does that equate or diminish the laudable objectives of the Campfire Circle and the need for it,” stated Maynard. “Land use planning decisions we make today will have generational consequences.”
Bodman and Jenkison with PECFN, together with Cheryl Anderson, of the South Shore Joint Initiative, each spoke to the serious environmental and ecological concerns of such a large development on the sensitive and fragile lands of West Lake.
Simply put, Bodman said major development should be not be allowed in the middle of an NCA, where she outlined reasons why PECFN believe the application requires an official plan amendment (OPA) as it is major development requiring a significant zoning change.
“As well, the applicant claims to have changed the boundary of the south Bloomfield NCA,” outlined Bodman. “Moving hectares of land from an NCA, two entire woodland features in fact, so many buildings can be built on them, is much more than simple ground-truthing [basically, information provided by direct observation to information provided by inference] of an NCA boundary. Changing an NCA boundary significantly requires an OPA.”
She said also that PECFN “profoundly disagrees” with the proponent’s EIS (environmental impact study), as the proponent “misses the point of an NCA, which is to protect, not only the ecological functioning of individual features, but also the ecological functioning of the broad areas that connect the features”.
The EIS has completely ignored the connectivity aspect of our natural heritage system, she said, amplified by the fact that the EIS only considers 30-metre setbacks from significant features, rather than the 120-metre setbacks required by the OP.
“Another problem is that the EIS passes the buck on many threats to three PSWs that surround the site regarding possible contamination from the septic system (that will contain seriously toxic chemicals, like chemotherapy drugs) and from the swimming pool, which also contains chemical toxic, to wetlands.”
“The most egregious aspect of the EIS is that it is filled with a despairing attitude; it is as though the writers have decided that because all of the wetlands in southern Ontario are filled with invasive species, like narrow-leaf cattail, they are no longer worth protecting. Yet they admit that rehabilitation work done on Big Marsh to remove swathes of narrow-leaf cattail exponentially increased its biodiversity.”
If the property is re-zoned, it will be tourist commercial for perpetuity, said Bodman, no matter who the owners are.
Councillor John Hirsch said “we’d love to have it in the County, but not in an NCA”, and challenged Weekes about why he believes an OPA is not required, stating he was “still perplexed”.
“Why do you feel the NCA concept doesn’t need to be considered, because this kind of development would not be allowed according to the OP?” asked Hirsch.
Weekes indicated how the NCA policies are “fairly broad” and “not particularly specific as to how development should proceed on those lands. Industrial/commercial development lumps them as major facilities, those would be permitted provided that an OPA is not required. In my opinion, an OPA is not required”, explained Weekes, to which Hirsch respectfully disagreed.
“We are not proposing development within the EP areas, the OP allows for the boundaries of wetlands to be refined based on ground-truthing because mapping is based on very high-level data,” he said. “No development is proposed within the wetlands which are the boundaries of the EP designation; we are maintaining a 30-metre setback from those features.”
The shoreland designation is really intended to recognize areas of shorelands and associated lands that have recreational qualities and capacity, Weekes noted. “Adding that permitted uses within the designation include a wide range of residential, institutional, agricultural and commercial uses, and those permitted commercial uses also include tourism uses, which would permit a kids’ camp.“
McAlister said the charity’s vision is to be able to go from serving 3,000 children a year, to 10,000 children, and with the two overnight camps at capacity, there is need to build another medical camp so that more children across Ontario can be supported because there is demand.
“We really need to have another medical camp that is in a location that can better support kids that are in eastern Ontario, so by having a medical camp here in Prince Edward County, we are really ideally situated to support kids at CHEO in Ottawa, and Sick Kids in Toronto,” expressed McAlister.
“This new camp would be a shining example of medical innovation and care located right here in the County.”
“The proponent is planning a tourist establishment in an NCA requiring an OPA and this is not permitted,” stated Anderson. “In addition, the OP requires 120-metre setbacks on lands adjacent to natural heritage features: that requirement is not met in any of the planning documents or recommendation of the EIS.”
With the project described as bringing many young people and their caregivers to the facility at all times of year, Anderson reminded how the surrounding PSW, the area of natural and scientific interest, and the coastal wetland will be “exposed to extraordinary human use and impacts resulting in further degradation of this sensitive and important eco-system”.
“If this project is approved, a precedent is set. The value of the natural heritage system and linkages is de-based, the principles espoused in the OP mean nothing,” said Anderson.
Councillor Grosso outlined his rationale for supporting the project.
“This is a camp for kids that have cancer, think about this, it is a camp for kids that have cancer. Some of these kids are not going to make it and they are gonna die, and it is so important to have these kids to really live somewhat like normal kids and give them the opportunity,” stated Grosso.
“That’s my rationale for this project and for anybody to question that, you gotta give your heads a shake. I am totally excited about this, and I think the County should be really supporting this and we should be proud to have this here.”
Mayor Steve Ferguson also indicated he hoped the project goes forward.
“If this goes forward, and I very much hope it does, because I believe fundamentally in everything councillor Grosso said, that when this moves forward, there will be more conversation about this.”
Calling it “an extraordinary proposal for an extraordinary purpose”, councillor Kate MacNaughton said it was “important and precious” and something that merits a special zone or an institutional zone, but said she also sees the environmental risks.
“Certainly exceptions can be made for an exception of a project: this is an exceptional project,” she added.
Planning documents related to this application can be found on the County’s website.
NOTE on the new meeting process:
In the new format two-part statutory meeting, the purpose of the first overview meeting (held Wednesday night) was to gather information and is largely intended to provide more opportunity for the public to participate as well as bring more transparency, as it was felt items were sometimes rushed through without sufficient public input. This first meeting also allows the developer/applicant or its representatives to present their project. Members of council may make brief comment and ask basic questions, but anything substantial cannot be discussed or debated at this stage. Planning staff’s role at this first meeting is to simply take notes.
After this first meeting, planning staff will then formulate a complete report (full analysis and recommendation), taking into consideration comments and information received (while also working with the developer), and will then provide a recommendation to council to come at a second statutory planning meeting (in approximately 60 days). At that time, the public can provide further comment, and council will have the opportunity to discuss, deliberate and debate in full, before coming to a decision.
Wednesday’s first meeting in the new style format came with a few teething troubles, with some members of council unsure of process, with others uncomfortable at not being able to debate the item at this meeting, as some strayed into more fulsome discussion, something that is not allowed at the first meeting.
“Already, I am starting to feel uncomfortable with this new process, because people want good news and bad news, but they want the answers, to be able to ask those questions and get people answers as they go away,” expressed councillor Chris Braney. “At least they have an understanding of where the thought process is, it just prolongs anxiety of people that want decisions. I know this was to improve things, but with all these files on here tonight, I am perplexed, again.”
Braney said it was really important council have a voice around the table.
“We are not legislative inconveniences, and that`s how I feel, and I don’t want that to happen because we have a crucial impact to be able to inform and make things happen, and pave the road that’s easier for our planning staff,” he said. “I don’t want to be remiss that we have an important voice and I just feel as though more and more it’s being taken away from us, and that frightens me.”
Mayor Ferguson noted that the process can be adjusted and changed.
“I understand Braney’s point about losing our voice,“ said Ferguson. “If there are adjustments that need to be made to the process given that this is the first meeting under the new process, then we can do that going forward.”
“I feel like we were failing everybody the way it was, this is a first and honest attempt, and we can evaluate this,” added meeting chair, councillor Roy Pennell.
Filed Under: Featured Articles • Local News
About the Author:
Thanks Angus those are useful links. I hope the Councillors take time to look at them.
Right project, wrong place. Approving this would put all Natural Core Areas and wetlands in the County at risk. For further details about Campfire Circle, look at the Charity Intelligence assessment https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/990-campfire-circle and also the Campfire Circle rental programme https://campfirecircle.org/about-campfire-circle/rentals/campfire-circle-muskoka-rental-info/
I am dissappointed in Councillor Grosso’s position on supporting the project solely based on the CC’s charitable status. We elect our Council members to be responsible.
Well said Henri! Very valid points.
Emotional appeals based on CC’s charitable status should not override rational concerns in planning decisions with lasting consequences. To gain some perspective, county staff should look into CC’s Muskoka properties with respect to size of land, scale of development, natural features, environmental constraints and issues, environmental stewardship, effects on adjacent residents, and community complaints and overall impacts.
Campfire Circle may be a charitable endeavour focused on sick children, but this does not necessarily make it a responsible developer or a good long-term neighbor.
To speed up the approval process for this application, I would recommend that the developer throw into the mix some extra-dense “affordable” housing, and they’ll get full support for whatever development is proposed, regardless of any environmental or constituent concerns. Damn the Official Plan, start the bulldozers.
This development pulls at the heart strings no doubt. However given the significant impact on the environment and the fact it is a commercial operation that can pass on to future owners benefit of rezoning is plenty to reject the application. There are loads of other areas in the County for this proposal that do not carry the environmental risk as presented.
The key word here is “development”. As in a commercial enterprise. Open to the public and various corporate entities, and it is very, very large. Septic systems (new and improved though they are) are not the only detriment in this endeavour to the damage this fragile environment. This is not only a project for very ill children and their families. We should not lose sight of this, nor of the poor choice in location.
This is a great development for the county
With todays modern septic systems that should not be a big environmental concern
So many other locations in the County that would not affect sensitive wetlands. Why here? I fear an underlying commercial venture.
Developers of all stripes purchase land everywhere with something particular in mind, knowing full well what the land is zoned for, then seek to change the zoning. I respectfully suggest councillors pay more attention to who and what this land protection is really for.
Why do we even have an official plan which clearly states its vision of protecting cultural and natural heritage, which recognizes the importance of and protection of environmentally significant areas through identified Natural Core Areas and with Environmental Protection designations if we are going to eradicate those areas every time a developer wants to gobble up rural land.
I think that the camp for children with cancer is a wonderful vision, however, the fact that they will also rent out to the public shines a light on the true picture of such a large development.
It is easy to come from outside, and say this is a perfect site for this development, however, no thought has been given to the ongoing impact it will have on climate change, the environment and agriculture in the County.
I agree with Dolan. While on the surface of it, this is a commendable idea. However, it is definitely the wrong location. I also absolutely disagree with this being changed to Tourism/Commercial – the camp is for child cancer patients and should NOT be available for rental to outside interests and when they do find a more appropriate location (hopefully within PEC) that designation should be made quite clear. Council makes all sorts of by-laws around here. Make one for this project, and make it stick – the designation should not be allowed to change should they decide to sell off in the future. Make it so that it has to revert back to the original designation of the land.
Great idea. That’s a nice piece of property and the camp does important work.
Happy to support this wonderful project.
The parties in opposition of the location (not the principle) have provided very strong and reasohable grounds for this to be rejected.
Amazing idea and good luck with your development folks. Don’t let these environmental groups convince you that you don’t care about the environment. Camp Trillium has been part of the fabric of this community for ages. Keep up the good work.