New Residential Development in PEC and the Plans Behind the Promises

A young person looking for a first apartment, a senior hoping to downsize, and a homeowner worried about rising water bills can all want the County to make good decisions about housing. They may simply be looking at different parts of the same problem.

That was the challenge in the Quinte Homebuilders Association’s question at the mayoral debate: how would candidates balance housing, infrastructure and economic growth with the concerns of existing communities?

Brad Nieman emphasized uncertain demand and the risk of investing too soon. Terry Shortt proposed a possible moratorium on large-scale development. Ernie Margetson supported growth proceeding methodically, with better development-charge planning.

Each approach deserves consideration. Each also needs enough detail for residents to understand what would happen next.

Nieman’s concern was direct:

“If we put $255 million into a regional plant right now, that's money that is wasted.”

Nieman’s argument was that projected construction might not materialize quickly enough to justify the investment.

Shortt also questioned demand, citing limited employment and the County’s appeal to younger residents.

“If I am made mayor, I will, if possible, put a moratorium on large scale development.”

Shortt proposed using that time to examine applications and negotiate better arrangements.

Margetson focused on how development would be financed:

“I think as far as DCs, we need to get a DC study in place for the county.”

Existing subdivisions could proceed through what he described as “organic growth,” provided it happened methodically.

The differences matter. So do the assumptions underneath them.

Start with the numbers. Shortt cited 2,956 planned and approved homes, suggesting their construction would double a population of 24,500. Using those figures, doubling would require approximately 8.3 additional residents per new home.

At an illustrative two to three people per home, those units would accommodate roughly 5,900 to 8,900 people. Even that assumes every occupant adds to the permanent population, rather than moving from elsewhere in the County or occupying a seasonal residence.

Statistics Canada counted 25,704 County residents in 2021, up 3.9 per cent from 2016. That is a dated census baseline, rather than a current population estimate, but it reinforces the need to identify where the debate figures came from.

Shortt should clarify which projects comprise his total and what “approved” means. A project awaiting servicing, a draft-approved subdivision and homes ready for construction are different propositions.

Nieman’s construction figures also need definition. The County’s 2023 development-charge background study recorded permits for 115 residential units in 2020 and 172 in 2021. Single and semi-detached units accounted for 65 and 95 respectively.

His suggested ceiling of about 100 homes may refer to particular housing types or completed construction. Permits are not completions, and past activity does not guarantee future demand. But those distinctions should accompany any argument about what the County can reasonably expect.

The more useful question is which forecast council should use, how often it should update that forecast, and what decisions should change when construction falls behind expectations.

There is another distinction worth making over coffee: modest population growth does not necessarily mean modest housing needs.

A couple separating can create two households without adding two residents. An adult child moving out needs a home without being new to the County. A senior leaving a large property may need an accessible apartment that the existing housing stock does not offer.

The Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation’s 2025–2029 business plan identifies smaller households, gaps in purpose-built rentals and a need for more housing choices for seniors and first-time buyers. It also identifies workforce housing as a constraint on business growth.

That complicates the argument that limited employment means limited reason to build. People need work to settle here, but employers also need workers who can find somewhere to live.

It would be equally simplistic to assume that any new housing automatically solves those problems. A costly detached home and a modest rental apartment serve different households. Neither a large planning pipeline nor a quieter resale market establishes that local renters have suitable options.

Candidates should therefore explain the housing mix they want to enable, including homes for workers, young families and older residents, rather than treating every proposed unit as interchangeable.

This is where Shortt’s moratorium needs particular clarification.

“Large scale” can describe the number of homes, the size of a building, the acreage involved or the impact on servicing. A spread-out subdivision and a compact apartment building could both attract that label while using land very differently.

More homes on suitable serviced land can reduce land consumption and share infrastructure among more households. Smaller units can also create options that a market dominated by larger homes does not provide.

Affordability still depends on construction costs, financing, rents or sale prices, and who the homes are intended to serve. Density alone cannot promise an affordable home. CMHC’s research connects restrictive land-use rules with higher costs and slower supply, particularly in high-demand markets, while its work on housing filtering cautions against expecting new supply to immediately meet deeply affordable housing needs. 

Would Shortt’s pause exempt purpose-built rentals, affordable housing, infill and compact developments? Would it allow smaller homes in existing settlements while restricting more land-intensive projects?

Those answers would help establish whether his approach supports land protection and housing choice together, or places them in conflict.

The infrastructure discussion needs similar precision.

The August 2026 financial strategy describes approximately $279 million in infrastructure costs, expressed in 2026 dollars, and $255.5 million in new borrowing between 2026 and 2036. Of that borrowing, approximately $180.5 million is non-growth-related and $75 million growth-related.

The $255-million figure therefore describes borrowing for a broader program, rather than the price of one regional plant.

The model projects debt servicing peaking at approximately 17.4 per cent of own-source revenues, above the County’s 15 per cent internal policy. Its typical combined annual water and wastewater bill rises from approximately $1,867 in 2026 to $2,724 in 2036.

Its no-growth scenario reduces borrowing but produces a higher 2036 bill, approximately $3,409. These are projections under particular assumptions, not approved bills or guaranteed outcomes.

The report also estimates that approximately $89.4 million of developer front-end funding could avoid the forecast growth-related borrowing. Agreements for that proposed approach were not in place.

That leaves a difficult decision. Borrowing ahead of development exposes residents to uncertainty. Delaying investment also requires an explanation of how existing infrastructure will be maintained or replaced, and how those costs will be shared.

Nieman’s caution deserves a practical alternative: which works would proceed anyway, which would be phased, and what would trigger the next investment?

Margetson’s approach needs equally clear safeguards. Would infrastructure commitments depend on signed developer agreements, contributions received, construction milestones or confirmed servicing demand? What would happen if a developer’s schedule changed?

Residents concerned about debt are asking a reasonable question. Residents who need housing are asking one too. A workable plan must connect the answers.

Rural development is not a simple escape from this trade-off. Wells and septic systems bring installation, maintenance and replacement responsibilities, along with site suitability and servicing constraints.

Provincial planning policy generally directs growth toward settlement areas and prefers municipal services there. Individual on-site systems depend on suitability and long-term viability without negative impacts.

That does not make either arrangement universally cheaper or better. It does mean that shifting development toward private servicing requires its own financial and land-use explanation.

Nor would a development pause be an entirely new approach for the County.

Council passed By-law 155-2024 in November 2024, establishing interim controls in Picton, Wellington and Bloomfield. Contemporary reporting described a one-year pause on new third-party applications, with exemptions for existing applications and specified affordable housing projects, while servicing and financing were studied. 

Its present status needs clarification before anyone treats it as an ongoing restriction. But its history gives Shortt a concrete question to answer: what would his proposed moratorium accomplish beyond that earlier pause?

A useful pause needs a defined problem, a work plan, exceptions and a way to end it. Residents should know which study or agreement would permit development to resume, and what housing could proceed meanwhile.

Government incentives also require more scrutiny than a headline about getting homes built.

The federal-provincial development-charge reduction program requires participating municipalities to reduce residential charges by 30 to 50 per cent or more for at least three years. Infrastructure funding has eligibility and municipal contribution requirements; it is not automatically a dollar-for-dollar replacement for forgone revenue.

Temporary new-home tax relief also comes with eligibility and timing conditions. These measures may help qualifying projects and buyers, but candidates still need to explain their local effect: what housing becomes viable, what funding the County receives, and what residents remain responsible for paying. 

The proposed water and wastewater financial strategy was rejected by council in September. Mayor Steve Ferguson subsequently decided against using strong mayor powers to advance it, leaving further consideration to the next council. 

That makes the debate’s unanswered questions especially relevant.

Shortt should define his moratorium and the housing it would still permit. Nieman should explain his alternative infrastructure plan and its costs. Margetson should translate “methodical” into conditions residents can recognize and council can enforce.

All three should explain how they would address traffic, services, farmland and environmental impacts alongside housing needs, and what safeguards would apply if growth disappointed.

PEC Connect invites each candidate to provide written clarification through the comments or by email. We will update this article to reflect their responses.

Residents deserve enough detail to weigh the choices. A promise to pause, proceed or reconsider becomes useful when it explains what happens next, who benefits, who pays and what would cause the plan to change.