Part 2: Speakers, Amendments, Voting Outcomes, and Housing Policy Changes – 12/13/2023

This portion of the Planning and Development Committee meeting was where positions became clear, concerns were put directly on the record, wording was changed in real time, and votes were cast.

The meeting was chaired by Councillor Roy Pennell who guided the committee through a long statutory process and repeatedly clarified when the discussion was still part of the public meeting versus when the item was formally before the committee for debate and voting. Pennell controlled the flow of speakers, confirmed when public comments were closed, and ensured motions were properly moved and seconded before any vote took place.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap.

Staff explanations and clarifications

Stephen Willis, planning consultant retained by the County, was the primary technical voice throughout the meeting. Willis repeatedly explained that the Official Plan Amendment was a framework decision, not a development approval, and emphasized that servicing, environmental clearance, and traffic mitigation are enforced at later stages such as subdivision approval.

Willis also addressed concerns about land near Clark Road, explaining that the small boundary adjustment involved land intended for a stormwater management pond and green space, not residential or commercial development. He stated that any future attempt to develop that land would require a new planning amendment.

Michael Michaud, Manager of Planning, reinforced this position and played a central role in answering questions about Service Area 1, 2, and 3 designations. Michaud stated clearly that, in his professional opinion, the service area system does not control growth in the way some councillors assume and can actually delay housing if developers sit on land without building. He said infrastructure timing is ultimately controlled through subdivision approvals, servicing capacity, and development charge tools, not by the service area label itself.

Councillors raising concerns and probing details

Councillor Phil St-Jean supported the amendment overall but pressed repeatedly on housing delivery, particularly rental housing, affordability definitions, and whether partnerships with the Prince Edward County Affordable Housing Corporation were being explored. St-Jean later stated that Base31 was the first proposal he had seen in the County that attempted to plan an entire community rather than just housing blocks.

Councillor Kate MacNaughton raised some of the most detailed policy concerns of the night. She questioned the timing of the amendment relative to unfinished infrastructure studies, the potential impact on Picton Main Street, and the strength of the affordable housing language. MacNaughton was explicit that soft wording creates long-term risk and pushed for enforceable commitments rather than aspirational language.

Councillor Janice Maynard focused on planning consistency and long-range implications. She questioned why the amendment described Base31 as the primary growth area for Picton and challenged the logic of placing the entire site into Service Area 1 when some phases may not be built for decades. Maynard repeatedly asked whether Council would be able to pull back commitments if circumstances changed in the future.

Councillor Bill Roberts expressed strong overall support for the project and framed Base31 as mindful economic development. He acknowledged concerns about affordability definitions but stated his confidence that the project would be transformational for the County if momentum was maintained.

Councillor Sam Branderhorst questioned the urban boundary adjustment near Clark Road, asking directly whether land shown as green space could later be developed. His questions prompted clear staff responses confirming the land’s intended infrastructure function.

Mayor Steve Ferguson spoke firmly in support of the amendment. He praised the Base31 team’s community engagement, local hiring, and financial investment, noting that the site had seen decades of stagnation before the current ownership. Ferguson requested a recorded vote and thanked staff for producing a comprehensive report that allowed Council to make an informed decision.

The applicant on the record

Tim Jones, partner at Base31, spoke near the end of the public portion and framed the decision as one about confidence and momentum. Jones emphasized the long-term nature of the project, the financial risk already taken by the partnership, and the importance of not pausing progress while larger infrastructure questions continue to be studied. He referenced existing investment, including the stated $10 million toward servicing, and described Base31 as a long-term economic and cultural anchor for the County.

Other applicant representatives, including Eric Turcotte and Chris Marchese, addressed questions related to housing types, affordability strategies, market absorption, and willingness to enter into front-ending agreements for infrastructure costs.

Public voices on the record

Several members of the public spoke, with contrasting positions clearly stated.

Dorothy Bothwell raised concerns about infrastructure costs, fiscal responsibility, and whether Council was committing itself to future servicing obligations without having the necessary financial tools in place. She also criticized the original affordable housing wording and urged Council to strengthen it.

Steve Sykes focused on traffic impacts, particularly seasonal congestion and the lack of detailed baseline traffic data during peak tourism months.

In contrast, Greg Sorbara spoke in strong support of the project, emphasizing housing supply, tourism, and the suitability of the land for development. Krista Dalby, Artistic Director of the Department of Illumination, spoke about the tangible benefits Base31 has already provided to local artists and cultural organizations, framing the project as a meaningful economic partner.

The amendment that changed the outcome

The most significant procedural moment of the night came when Councillor Kate MacNaughton formally moved an amending motion. Supported by Councillor Bill Roberts, the amendment changed two key pieces of language.

© Base31

First, it revised the description of Base31 from the primary growth area of Picton to one of the primary growth areas. Second, it replaced the phrase “contemplate the provision of 5% affordable and attainable housing” with require 5% affordable and attainable housing.

Staff confirmed on the record that the applicant agreed to both changes. The amendment passed unanimously among those present.

The main motion, moved by Councillor Bill Roberts and seconded by Councillor Phil St-Jean, recommended that Council approve Official Plan Amendment OPA-04-23 as amended and bring forward a by-law for adoption at the next Council meeting. A recorded vote was requested by Mayor Steve Ferguson. The motion carried, with no opposing votes recorded in the minutes.

What this means for residents

The decision confirms that Base31 is officially part of the town’s long-term growth picture, while Council explicitly reinforced that Main Street remains central and that Base31 is only one growth area, not the sole focus.

For residents near Clark Road and the site edges, staff confirmed that nearby lands added to the boundary are intended for stormwater infrastructure and green space, not housing, reducing immediate concerns about unexpected development.

The meeting made clear that future housing supply, including required affordable and attainable units, is now written into policy, but that actual construction timing will depend on servicing capacity, infrastructure funding, and future Council decisions at the subdivision stage.

Most importantly, the meeting demonstrated that Council is willing to amend major planning documents in real time, on the record, when public concerns and councillor scrutiny expose weaknesses in the original language.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:00:42. 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.