Withdrawn

Picton Terminals withdraws appeal, says it will continue to operate

Picton Terminals has withdrawn its appeal of Council’s decision to not allow zoning changes permitting an expansion of services at the port. Last October at a planning meeting held at the Regent Theatre, Council unanimously rejected Picton Terminals’ application to rezone the 25- hectare site at 24 White Chapel Road. Picton Terminals was seeking a rezoning from an extractive industrial zone to a special extractive industrial zone to allow for additional space for tour boat docking and outdoor material storage, to recognize the legal non-conforming transshipment use, and to expand the list of permitted uses for the facility.

At the time, Council heard from 15 County residents who were all against the proposal, expressing concerns about the environment, traffic, infrastructure, pollution, water quality and supply, material storage, and quality of life, to name a few. Not one of the 15 speakers could see a benefit of the proposed operation.

Mohawks of Bay of Quinte Chief R. Don Maracle stated in a letter to planning staff that many of the same worries were expressed in his region surrounding environmental concerns related to negative impacts to fish and habitat, disturbance to historical contaminants, and increased traffic on the Skyway Bridge.

Ultimately, the application was denied on the basis that it is incompatible with the vision statement as a special place in the County Official Plan, and for a lack of consideration and response to comments from the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. Ben Doorenkamp, owner of Picton Terminals, then appealed the decision with the Land Planning Appeal Tribunal, but just last week stated in a release that the appeal had been withdrawn.

According to the release by ABNA Investments Ltd., all ports in Canada are regulated by the federal government. The release states that the province has no jurisdiction to regulate the activities of a port. Because the County is a level of government created by the province of Ontario, the County also has no legal jurisdiction to regulate the port. “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. Despite the attempt to illegally prevent the port from operating, the Doorenkamp family will continue to operate the port responsibly and respect its neighbours as we look forward to continuing to contribute to the economic success of the County,” said the release.

Leslie Stewart, president of the County Conservancy, a volunteer organization whose mission is to support responsible development within Prince Edward County and monitor port activities to ensure that compliance with federal, provincial and municipal regulations are adhered to, says that her group will be monitoring the situation closely. “We will continue to support the County and Council in their efforts to stop Picton Terminals from violating the County laws and exceeding the scope of its legal non-conforming use by bringing container and cruise ships into the Bay,” said Stewart. “We will continue the charge to do what is right for the residents of the County, our water and our environment.”

The County stated in a release that it is aware of the withdrawal, and that that is an important issue for residents and they are working quickly to investigate options.