Save Picton Bay: stand down from opposition to appeal

Council chambers at Shire Hall was filled as two residents of the County and members of Save Picton Bay addressed council on Tuesday night.

Victor Lind and Brian Etherington both spoke during the regular council meeting and questioned why council is not supporting Save Picton Bay’s appeal of a court decision last summer.

Lind says there have been a number of environmental issues that have come to light recently.

He cited another company when it comes to what Save Picton Bay is hoping for.

Lind wrapped up his presentation by urging council to talk to their provincial and federal counterparts and enforce environmental laws.

He also brought in a drone photo of the property for his presentation.

Lind says a picture like that speaks a thousand words.

Etherington says he’s disappointed following his deputation to council in Prince Edward County.

Etherington stated in his remarks: “We know that SPB and council share the same views about water quality in Picton Bay. In addition to drinking water concerns I am certain that you need no reminder that much of the community and their financial well-being depends upon the natural beauty of the surroundings, its dependence upon the harvest and the welcome of visitors.”

Council did not comment after both presentations, something that Lind says was not unexpected calling it “legal chill”, meaning to him, council was probably advised to not speak to the matter.

Mayor Steve Ferguson couldn’t comment much on the issue as the municipality is involved in the matter directly but he did say they would consider their comments.

In June 2018, Judge Wolfram Tausendfreund of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, released his decision which certified that Legal Non Conformance (LNC) of the zoning for the bulk storage and shipping of industrial goods is permitted in addition to the new zoning which allows quarrying on the Hallowell side.

On the Sophiasburgh side or RU1 (Rural Residential) lands, on the southerly formerly M2 Industrial, he permitted it to be used for access by storage of industrial vehicles only, not storage of bulk goods. (This is where Picton Terminals recently stored Clinker). He certified that the balance of the property is to be used only for rural residential, not industrial, and ordered PT to cease using that portion of their lands for industrial and remove portable industrial equipment and aggregate stockpiles stored on the north east portion of its Picton Bay site.

SPB’s legal counsel, Eric Gillespie, felt strongly that the court did not necessarily appear to address certain aspects of SPB’s Case. Accordingly, SPB advised council and Picton Terminals that it would appeal the decision.

Last month, Madam Justice Benotto released her decision to allow the extension of time to appeal to move forward as Save Picton Bay seeks to appeal a recent Superior Court decision.

Save Picton Bay expects the appeal to move ahead later this year.