Picton Terminals withdraws tribunal appeal on cruise ship decision
Administrator | Oct 14, 2021 | Comments 4
Nearly one year after Prince Edward County Council unanimously decided to deny the Doornekamp family (ABNA Investments Ltd) to add cruise ships and expanded activity at their Picton Terminals facility, it has formally withdrawn its Ontario Land Tribunal appeal to challenge the decision.
No reason for the withdrawal has been stated. The first case management conference (CMC) video hearing was held Sept. 14 where the tribunal agreed draft issues and procedural order are to be delivered to the tribunal’s case co-ordinator by Oct. 14. The next CMC was set for Dec. 14.
An unsigned statement dated Oct. 13 on the Picton Terminals website announcing the formal withdrawal goes on to indicate the belief the business can operate under federal and provincial rules, and that the municipality “has no legal jurisdiction to regulate the port.”
“It is now clear that this council is not simply seeking to regulate the port, but rather wants to see it cease operations. After many years of working co-operatively with the County, this latest action is beyond disappointing. Picton Terminals will continue to operate as a good neighbour and to work diligently to comply with all provincial and federal laws that validly regulate port activity.”
The municipality, in a notice to residents and media today, stated it is aware “ABNA Investments Ltd. has challenged the municipality’s jurisdiction to regulate activities at the port through zoning and the Official Plan. ABNA Investments has stated that they will continue operations at the port notwithstanding municipal approval.”
The municipality states it “aware that is an important issue for residents and we are working quickly to investigate options.”
The ABNA Investments appeal was a challenge to council’s unanimous decision to deny a re-zoning application that would permit expanded shipping activity at the site.
OCT 22, 2020: Council denies Picton Terminals rezoning for cruise ships, more storage:
Council denies Picton Terminals’ rezoning for cruise ships, more storage
Filed Under: Local News
If PT thought they could win an appeal at LPAT I hazard to guess that they would have continued on. Now they have opened the door to litigation based on their premise that the County has no authority… what does that say about greed over conscience. There are water issue concerns, certainly traffic concerns and most certainly environmental concerns that are valid.
How much is enough money and at what cost to the community this business is located in. Certainly at no cost to the business owners. Do they have a home on the Bay? Do they rely on drinking water through the water plant? Would they want to live next to this operation? I guess not. They have broken regulations in the past, and will most likely do so again but are counting on no local authority with “eeyes on” to answer for it.
I don’t think we have anymore Municipal control to try to drive this business out of the County. They are thriving, providing employment and have done no harm.
Interesting that the Doornekamps believe that the Federal Government regulates all ports. With respect to private ports they regulate under the Canada Shipping Act – essentially on-water management – and through the Environmental Protection Act. Nearly all other aspects are through Port Authorities and there is none in Picton.
So the Doornekamp family who owns this terminal hasn’t suddenly developed a conscience and wants to cooperate with our Council and community – instead they have basically decided to ignore us and to do what they want. I’m not sure what kind of federal support we can expect now, but I hope our Council starts the lobbying asap. There really are water quality issues that the terminal is responsible for, and yet they have ignored those too.