A quiet industrial site on Picton Bay may soon become the epicenter of one of Prince Edward County’s most consequential land-use decisions in years.
The former Essroc cement terminal, located at 124 White Chapel Road on the shores of Picton Bay, is the subject of a planning review that could lead to significant redevelopment of the port lands. While proposals are still evolving, reports indicate that the developer, identified as a numbered Ontario company tied to industrial logistics interests, has been in consultation with provincial officials regarding the potential use of a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) to accelerate approval.
What’s At Stake
The 24-acre site is currently zoned for industrial use. Over the years, it has supported various marine and aggregate-related activities, with proximity to deepwater docking making it attractive for shipping and logistics. However, redevelopment ambitions appear to include expanding commercial activity, introducing warehousing or intermodal logistics functions, and possibly intensifying marine traffic—all without full public consultation or local planning oversight.
If an MZO is granted, normal zoning processes through County Council would be bypassed. That means:
- No public meetings
- No Council vote
- No municipal conditions
This raises serious questions about transparency, land use compatibility, and environmental impact on Picton Bay and surrounding residential areas.
Environmental and Safety Concerns
Picton Bay is a critical water source for the Town of Picton. In 2017, a barge spill in the bay led to the closure of the town’s water intake for over a week. Any intensification of industrial activity—including shipping, fuel storage, or bulk transfers—could increase the risk of contamination, noise pollution, and shoreline degradation.
Legal Review: Understanding MZOs
A Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) is a regulatory tool under Section 47 of the Ontario Planning Act that allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to directly zone land for specific uses—overriding local planning processes and bypassing public consultation. While initially intended for emergencies or public interest projects, MZOs are increasingly used to fast-track private developments.
They:
- Are not subject to appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal
- Do not trigger automatic environmental assessments
- Can override the County’s Official Plan and zoning by-laws
Legal Opinion: What Are the Options?
PECRA consulted with land-use legal experts, who identified the following avenues of response:
- Judicial Review – File with Divisional Court if procedural fairness or legality is in question.
- FOI Requests – Obtain internal communications between the County, Province, and developers.
- Municipal Opposition Resolution – County Council can publicly oppose the MZO and request Ministerial restraint.
- Environmental Legal Action – Apply for a Part II Order (Environmental Assessment Act) or challenge through Ontario Clean Water Act protections.
- Ombudsman/Integrity Complaints – If transparency or conflicts of interest are at play.
- Media and Public Advocacy – Mobilize public pressure to deter Provincial approval.
Possible Scenarios: What Could Happen Next
Scenario 1: MZO Approved – Full Industrial Expansion
Likelihood: Medium
Impact: Very High
The Province issues an MZO to rezone the site for intensified industrial use—possibly including warehousing, aggregate storage, marine shipping, or bulk fuel handling. The developer may lease the port to a third-party operator. The County has no recourse unless environmental laws are violated.
⚠️ Risks: Water contamination, noise, heavy truck traffic, irreversible land use shift.
Scenario 2: MZO With Local Support and Conditions
Likelihood: High
Impact: High
The County informally supports the MZO in exchange for limited conditions (e.g., hours of operation, site remediation, or community benefit pledges). While this gives the appearance of local input, it removes real public oversight and locks in zoning for decades.
⚠️ Risks: Legitimizes MZO use, weakens planning process county-wide.
Scenario 3: Developer Pursues Zoning Amendment (ZBA)
Likelihood: Moderate
Impact: Moderate
Amid local and provincial scrutiny, the developer opts for the regular rezoning process. This would include staff reports, planning justification studies, and public consultation, subject to Council vote and OLT appeal.
✅ Preferred scenario for transparency and legal checks.
Scenario 4: MZO Denied, Site Quietly Marketed or Repurposed
Likelihood: Low to Moderate
Impact: Low
The developer abandons the MZO path and either mothballs the site or seeks a new buyer with fewer ambitions. Environmental constraints and legal opposition may deter immediate redevelopment.
✅ Best-case for conservation and future public negotiation.
Scenario 5: Citizen Legal Action or Injunction Filed
Likelihood: Variable
Impact: Potentially High
If a water safety issue or environmental risk is credibly established, residents or NGOs could seek an injunction, judicial review, or trigger an Environmental Assessment. This may delay or prevent project implementation.
⚠️ Requires funding and legal support, but can change outcome.
The Call for Accountability
PECRA calls on the County of Prince Edward Council to:
- Disclose all communications with developers or the Province regarding the port
- Publicly oppose the use of MZOs for this site
- Require an Environmental Impact Study before any zoning changes
- Reaffirm its commitment to the County’s Official Plan and public consultation process
A Public Interest Matter
What happens at Picton Port is not just a local issue—it’s a referendum on how land-use decisions are made in Ontario. Do we allow Queen’s Park to dictate outcomes behind closed doors, or do we insist that public input and environmental integrity remain at the heart of planning? We urge Mr. Tyler Allsopp, MPP, Bay of Quinte to take an active interest in this matter.
PECRA will continue to monitor this issue and share updates.