Next step

Council approves moving forward on Queen Elizabeth School proposal

After many comments from the public, and much debate around the Horseshoe, Council voted to move forward with pursuing New View Holdings proposal for Queen Elizabeth School in Picton.

County staff will enter into detailed negotiations with New View Holdings, to provide a draft agreement for Council’s consideration, and include a clause that New View Holdings develop a fulsome public consultation process, to be implemented as the project moves into the detailed site planning phase.

The file passed in a 9-4 recorded vote, with councillors Phil Prinzen, Chris Braney, Roy Pennell and Brad Nieman opposed.

The County’s Director of Housing, Adam Goheen, led Council through a short presentation.

“The vision and the plan for the site have come together,” said Goheen. “The provision of affordable housing and the provision of space for community services.”

Goheen noted that the proposed plan includes 198 units, 114 of which are one-bedroom, with 84 being two-bedroom. Fifty per cent of those units would reach the affordability definition of Prince Edward County— $400 a month less than market rent—and be guaranteed to stay affordable over the long term of 20 years or more.

“It gives those people an opportunity who may not be able to secure market housing that opportunity. The community hub is desired in the community. New View has proposed to increase, and almost double, the allocation of space for the community hub, from 12,000 square feet to 22,500,” he added.

Goheen wanted to make it clear that Council was only endorsing a plan in principle.

“That’s not to say that the plan is exactly what will be built, but we are asking for a nod to multiple multi-storey buildings, 198 units in total, half guaranteed to be affordable by our definition, commitment to enhanced green space along with playground and community garden element, asking for the commitment to the architectural design and massing of structures to fit the context of neighbourhood, but not asking for endorsement of the proposal as submitted. We aren’t there yet. But we need to signal to the partner that we are ready to move forward with the project to the next phase,” said Goheen.

Gary Olsen lives on Centre Street and told Council the concept doesn’t blend in with the existing community. He urged Council to send the plan back to the drawing board and get something everybody could live with.

“I support affordable housing. I support a hub for community services. I certainly understand that a developer will have to make some profit on this, but what I don’t support is the high density and the overwhelming number of units and space used up in this area,” said Olsen.

He added that green space in the proposal is essentially non-existent.

“Where are the kids going to play safely, in the parking lot or on the street? This area of central Picton consists of single dwellings on good sized lots. We are talking about 200 units in two acres.

Neil Story believes the County’s public engagement and information sessions has not been sufficient.

“In my mind the rush to get this whole proposal done and dusted by Christmastime is driving a very faulty process. We don’t get to be part of much of the discussion,” he said.

Barbara Mason believed major issues had not been given enough discussion around the table. “It’s hard to be objective when the topic at hand affects your home. It’s also hard to be objective when you sit on the affordable housing committee and the project in front of you could put people in homes,” said Mason. “We understand the site must and should evolve to serve the community as a whole. We ask that Council take the time how this very sizeable lot can serve the needs of many and not just affordable housing.”

Eric Zylstra pointed to neighbourhoods such as Regent Park and Jane and Finch in Toronto and Williamsburg in Kingston. “Tons of rentals that turn those areas into areas of crime, graffiti and dangerousness. Literally it has become social housing. Property values plummeted. Is this what you want for the most beautiful part of Picton. No pride of ownership?” he asked.

Ken How, who is involved in the Pinecrest Housing project, had a different outlook.

“We made an effort to find out who the developer is. We went to see what his developments were like. It was a wonderful, spectacular building. It has community services and gardens. We were truly impressed,” said How.

For neighbour Tim Johnson, it all came down to basic answers surrounding safety. “I don’t think anybody in our neighbourhood is opposed to affordable housing. But there are a series of recurring issues—public safety, infrastructure and densifiction,” he said. “There are hundreds of children who walk along the streets to PECI where all of this traffic is going to be moving. How will it work?” he asked.

Councillor Chris Braney believed purchasing the building wasn’t a smart move in the first place. “I think we need to listen to what the community has to say. They have a very large vested interest in this. I voted against even purchasing this property. I didn’t feel we had the money to buy the property, and I was concerned about the conversation that we were going to be facing around this table,” he said.

Councillor Corey Engelsdorfer asked for the process to be clarified. “From my understanding, this will go through the normal planning process, with all of the studies including a traffic study being needed. Is that correct?”

Director Goheen confirmed that was the case.

“This will undertake a very standard process, with the difference being, that Council will have more control. We will ask that the developer brings back a site plan for Council review with consultations, providing more exposure,” he said.

Building on the last question, councillor Phil Prinzen asked what would happen to the property if a traffic study determined the roadways can’t support the density . “The next step is to begin to structure an agreement,” said Goheen.

“ A lot of these items will have to be included in that, with eventualities that if the infrastructure does not exist, if the traffic briefs prove there are deficient movements, we won’t be able to bring one back. But we need approval to start having those discussions and ask for those studies.”

Councillor Janice Maynard believed the project will be desirable, with plenty of opportunity for refinement.

“I am hopeful something very positive will come out of this. This isn’t social housing, and it is not going to be Regent Park. These make whole communities when you combine different types of housing on different sized lots.”

Councillor Brad Nieman said he was looking at two things, cost and efficiency. “We paid $1.5 million for it and we are selling it for $1.5 million. To me, it is worth a lot more than that. There is so much you could do with it,” said Nieman, who then put forward the idea of a deferral motion, saying it would be a good building to house County staff in, instead of renting two floors in the Edward Building on Main Street.

Councillor Phil St-Jean wasn’t a fan of a deferral.

“If we stop here, which is what I am gathering is on some peoples’ minds, we might as well kiss affordable housing goodbye forever, because there will never be another P3 partner who wants to come in and do business with us,” he said. “If a deferral motion ends up on the floor, what an absolute shame. Shame on us,” said St-Jean.

Mayor Steve Ferguson disagreed with the deferral motion, worrying about the lack of confidence it would indicate to developers.

“We will absolutely not achieve our objective of creating affordable housing for those that need it,” said Ferguson. “That is wholly wrong and it violates the principles under which we formed our strategic objectives, and we are not dealing with the problem at all, we are kicking it down the road. That is fundamentally wrong.”

Councillor Roberts shared some statistics with his colleagues.

“Over the summer we heard from the Ontario East Economic Development Commission that Prince Edward County is the only County in Eastern Ontario since 2018 that loses working age adults between 18 and 64 at a rate of 4.1 per cent per year,” said Roberts, who then told Council it had two choices.

“If we aren’t worried about no school and no jobs, then we can become a community of retirees, short-term accommodations, second homeowners and the mobile wealthy, that’s an option, or we can be aggressive about seizing opportunities for affordable housings so we can retain and attract people who create those jobs.”

Councillor Nieman put forward a deferral motion, seeking direction for staff to include discussion at this week’s budget deliberations for a feasibility assessment and business case (at an estimated cost of $100,000) to explore retaining ownership of the former school for staff accommodation, rental community hub space, affordable seniors housing, and a full market commercial rental space.

Councillor David Harrison said he wasn’t against proceeding with the proposal, but wanted it deferred for a short period as he has concerns about budget deliberations.

“I’m not comfortable with our financial situation, and would like to get through budget and see where our financial situation is. We should be taking and getting a very firm grounding by the time we are through that exercise,” said Harrison.

The deferral motion lost in a 9-4 recorded vote with councillors Nieman, Harrison, Grosso and Pennell in favour. The main motion to proceed with the proposal in principle passed.