Part 1: More Than a Subdivision: How Village A’s Approval Signals a Shift in County Growth - 11/19/2025

The Planning and Development Committee meeting that continued into the evening marked a pivotal moment for Base 31 and its first major residential phase, known as Village A. What unfolded over several hours was not simply a technical review of a subdivision application, but a wide ranging discussion about growth, housing, costs, community impact, and the long term shape of the County.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue for speaker comments and councillor votes.

Public speakers opened the continuation of the meeting by describing how Base 31 has already changed visitor behavior and local business patterns. Speakers representing tourism and retail businesses emphasized that the site functions as a distinct destination, rather than a competitor to Main Street.

One speaker explained that visitors who come to Base 31 often stay longer, explore more of the County, and travel beyond the trail system into back roads, Lake on the Mountain, and surrounding communities. Another speaker highlighted that seasonal retailers are being priced out of traditional commercial cores, and that Base 31 has offered affordable and flexible rental space, allowing small businesses to continue operating in the County.

Several residents spoke in strong support of the redevelopment of the former Camp Picton site, emphasizing the preservation of historic buildings, the reinvestment into decaying infrastructure, and the creation of new community amenities. Speakers referenced the daycare, concert venues, and adaptive reuse of legacy structures, noting that many feared the site would be demolished entirely when it was sold. Instead, they described relief at seeing restoration and reinvigoration take place.

With no further public speakers, the Committee formally received public comments before moving into the statutory planning agenda. Several consent and rezoning matters were approved without controversy, clearing the way for the main item of the evening: the draft plan of subdivision for Village A, submitted by PEC Community Partners, operating as Base 31.

County planning consultant Steve Willis presented the staff recommendation, emphasizing that he was appearing on behalf of the County, not the applicant. He outlined the location of the lands north of Kingsley Road and east of County Road 22, noting that the site sits outside the designated heritage area but remains directly connected to the broader Base 31 revitalization district.

A central feature of the proposal is a large, consolidated public park, exceeding the minimum parkland dedication required under the Planning Act. County staff had requested that park space be centralized rather than fragmented, citing usability, maintenance, and community benefit. The plan also includes smaller parkettes and pedestrian linkages that connect residents to Base 31 amenities and surrounding neighborhoods.

A significant portion of the presentation focused on road design and public laneways, which generated extensive discussion later in the meeting. The proposal includes publicly owned rear laneways, designed to remove driveways from main streets, improve pedestrian safety, support waste collection and emergency access, and enable laneway housing and secondary suites. County staff confirmed that these laneways were negotiated extensively, redesigned for operational needs, and would be evaluated post construction before being considered elsewhere in the County.

Housing diversity was presented as a core rationale for the subdivision. The plan includes single detached homes, townhouses, stacked townhouses, laneway houses, garden suites, and future small apartment buildings. Staff emphasized that many of these housing forms are currently rare or absent in the County. The intent is to provide a range of price points, tenure options, and opportunities for rental housing, particularly through additional dwelling units.

Steve Willis explained that the Official Plan Amendment governing Base 31 permits up to 7,500 units across the full site, with a requirement that at least 5 percent be affordable or attainable. Village A is positioned as a test case that advances those objectives early, particularly through smaller lot sizes, townhouse formats, and secondary units that can support mortgage affordability and rental supply.

The presentation confirmed that all internal infrastructure, including roads, services, and stormwater facilities, will be paid for by the developer, not the County. Future phases remain subject to available servicing capacity, particularly wastewater, in accordance with County policy. The subdivision also falls under a Minister’s Zoning Order, which staff confirmed required minor technical corrections now underway at the provincial level.

Consultation was highlighted repeatedly throughout the presentation. County staff and the applicant referenced multiple open houses, a statutory public meeting in July, and a large public session in November 2024 attended by approximately 100 people. Feedback from advisory committees was addressed, including heritage concerns about buffers along Kingsley Road and accessibility issues that will be handled at the building design stage.

Committee members responded with a mix of support, questions, and caution. Several councillors praised the responsiveness of the design, particularly the laneway concept, housing mix, and central park. Questions focused on how secondary units improve affordability, how many additional units could realistically be created, and whether these units would meaningfully address the County’s low rental vacancy rate.

Concerns were also raised about operating costs, particularly snow plowing, road maintenance, and long term municipal obligations. Some councillors questioned whether laneways and new parks would increase the tax burden. County staff and the consultant acknowledged these costs but emphasized that denser development patterns are generally more cost efficient than dispersed rural development, and that alternative designs such as private condo roads would shift costs directly onto homeowners.

Further discussion addressed parking, traffic, and transportation choke points, particularly around York Street, Lake Street, and County Road 10. Staff and the applicant confirmed that provincial legislation limits the ability to require additional parking for secondary units, and that traffic studies indicate no external road upgrades are required for Village A. Future intersection improvements tied to full build out would be the responsibility of the developer.

The applicant team then addressed the Committee directly. Mike Pettigrew, planning partner with the Biglieri Group, stated that the partnership fully supports the County staff recommendation and conditions. He emphasized that Village A is the first of several villages, intended to finance the long term revitalization of the Base 31 site. He outlined the potential for over 300 additional dwelling units through laneway houses, garden suites, and internal secondary units, and stressed that housing diversity is essential to both affordability and attainability.

Jack Winberg, CEO of the Rockport Group, spoke at length about the broader vision for Base 31. He described the project as a long term commitment to the County, citing heritage preservation, local hiring, local procurement, childcare, transit funding, and support for transitional housing initiatives such as Leeward House. He stated that the first rental apartment building will begin construction in the spring and that sales from Village A are critical to funding ongoing reinvestment across the site.

Winberg also addressed concerns about taxpayer impact, stating that the development does not impose additional costs on the County and estimating that Village A alone could generate over $4 million annually in municipal tax revenue at full build out. He confirmed that construction could begin as early as spring 2026 if approvals were granted.

After extensive questioning and debate, the Committee approved the draft plan of subdivision for Village A, subject to conditions. A recorded vote was requested, and the motion passed unanimously, with all members voting in favor.

Key Takeaways for Residents

1. Village A is the first residential phase funding the long term revitalization of Base 31 in Prince Edward County and supports heritage preservation and future site investment.

2. Housing Diversity Is the Core Strategy. The plan introduces townhouses, laneway houses, garden suites, and small apartments to expand rental supply and improve affordability.

3. Developer Funds the Infrastructure. All internal roads and services will be paid for by the developer, with the project expected to generate significant municipal tax revenue at full build out.

To continue: Part 2 of this coverage follows, focusing on who spoke and who voted, by name and by issue, with councillor positions clearly highlighted >>

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:45:49. 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.