Part 1: New McFarland Long-Term Care Home Plans Focus on Accessibility and Resident Well-Being - 06/17/2024
- PECConnect
- Jun 17, 2024
- 5 min read
Updated: 7 days ago
The meeting began with several technical delays and a temporary lack of quorum, requiring members and staff to wait the full procedural period before the session could officially begin. Once quorum was confirmed, the committee moved forward with what became a highly focused special meeting centered almost entirely on the proposed McFarland Long-Term Care Home redevelopment.
The agenda was approved without major changes, and members confirmed there were no declarations of pecuniary interest. Minutes from the previous meeting were reviewed carefully and amended slightly to better reflect earlier accessibility discussions involving trail materials, surface safety, costs, and long-term usability. The amended minutes were then approved. There were no deputations or public comments, allowing the committee to dedicate nearly the entire meeting to the long-term care presentation and related accessibility discussion.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
McFarland Long-Term Care Redevelopment
The central focus of the meeting was a detailed presentation on the proposed new McFarland Long-Term Care Home, reviewed specifically through an accessibility and quality-of-life lens.
Staff and consultants explained that the existing home no longer meets modern expectations for long-term care, infection prevention, accessibility, or resident-centered design. The redevelopment is intended not only to replace aging infrastructure but also to respond to changing provincial requirements and increasing demand for long-term care beds within Prince Edward County.
The new facility would expand capacity from 84 beds to 160 beds, significantly increasing local long-term care availability while modernizing the overall environment for residents, families, and staff.
The presentation repeatedly emphasized that the project is being designed around both functional accessibility and resident well-being, rather than simply meeting minimum building standards.
Building Design and Resident Layout
One of the most discussed aspects of the presentation was the overall building layout and how it attempts to avoid an institutional feel. Rather than constructing a large tower-style building, the proposed design uses a combination of one- and two-storey construction, helping the home feel smaller, calmer, and more connected to the surrounding community.
The building will be organized into five separate resident wings, each housing approximately 32 residents. Staff explained that this smaller-scale arrangement is intended to create a more familiar, home-like environment where residents can build stronger social connections and navigate spaces more comfortably.
A central internal corridor described as a “main street” will connect major shared spaces throughout the facility. These spaces include dining areas, lounges, gathering spaces, administrative offices, a café-style pub, visitor areas, and spiritual or reflection spaces.
The goal is to encourage independence, social interaction, and easier wayfinding while reducing the confusion and isolation that can happen in larger institutional facilities.
Committee members appeared especially supportive of the effort to create spaces that feel welcoming and community-oriented rather than clinical.
Accessibility Standards and Design Features
Accessibility remained the foundation of nearly every aspect of the discussion.
The presentation reviewed how the project aligns with the Ontario Building Code, the Long-Term Care Home Design Manual, and provincial accessibility legislation. Committee members were walked through a detailed Accessibility Checklist that helped organize the review of large architectural drawings and site plans.
Features highlighted during the presentation included wide corridors, accessible washrooms, generous turning radii for mobility devices, automatic doors, barrier-free entrances, clear navigation systems, secure outdoor access, and mobility-friendly circulation throughout the building.
Outdoor accessibility received particular attention. Plans include barrier-free walking paths, accessible courtyards, and outdoor gathering spaces designed to accommodate walkers, wheelchairs, and other mobility devices safely and comfortably.
Members repeatedly emphasized that accessibility should not be treated as an added feature, but as a core part of how residents experience daily life within the facility.
Quality of Life and Human-Centered Design
A major theme throughout the meeting was the importance of designing a long-term care home that supports quality of life, not just physical care. Committee members discussed the importance of natural light, gardening opportunities, outdoor activity, social spaces, public art, and flexible communal areas that encourage interaction and independence.
There was strong support for incorporating natural materials, agricultural design influences, and calming visual elements that reflect the County’s rural identity and landscape.
The committee also discussed how smaller social spaces and varied seating areas can help reduce stress, improve mental well-being, and create a stronger sense of belonging for residents and families.
Rather than focusing only on medical or operational needs, the conversation consistently returned to the idea that the building should feel like a home, especially for residents who may spend many years there.
Trails, Outdoor Access, and Future Opportunities
The facility’s proximity to the Millennium Trail also sparked broader discussion about accessibility beyond the building itself. While trail upgrades are not formally part of the redevelopment project, members discussed future opportunities for more inclusive recreation and outdoor mobility connections in the surrounding area.
The conversation included possible improvements to trail surfaces, safer mobility routes, and accessible outdoor connections that could better support seniors, residents using mobility devices, and caregivers.
Although no formal recommendations were made, the discussion highlighted growing interest in connecting accessibility planning to broader community recreation and outdoor infrastructure.
Overall Direction and Meeting Outcome
The presentation was received very positively by the committee. Members expressed strong support for the project’s accessibility approach, particularly its focus on resident dignity, independence, mobility, and quality of life. No formal changes or conditions were requested during the meeting. The committee formally received the report and acknowledged that the redevelopment represents a major step forward in how long-term care is designed and experienced locally.
Key Takeaways
The McFarland Long-Term Care redevelopment is not just a replacement project, but a major shift toward modern, resident-centered design, with a strong focus on accessibility and quality of life.
The planned increase from 84 to 160 beds will significantly improve local long-term care capacity, helping address growing demand in the County.
The project reflects a broader approach to accessible community planning, with discussions extending beyond the building to include outdoor access, the Millennium Trail, and future mobility connections.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:12:018. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration.
Comments