Part 1: Base31 OPA, Affordable Housing Changes, and Traffic Concerns – 12/13/2023
- PECConnect
- Dec 13, 2023
- 5 min read
The County’s Planning and Development Committee met on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, to hold a statutory public meeting under the Planning Act and decide whether to recommend approval of a major Official Plan Amendment connected to Base31 in Picton and Hallowell. The meeting was held as a hybrid session, with members in Council Chambers at Shire Hall and others participating by Zoom.
Councillor Roy Pennell, chaired the meeting and opened by outlining how public planning meetings operate, including how public comments become part of the official record and how participation affects appeal rights under the Planning Act. This meeting was convened specifically to consider Official Plan Amendment File No. OPA-04-23.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes>
The meeting’s main item: the Base31 Official Plan Amendment
After confirming the agenda, the committee moved into the statutory public meeting portion and formally called the Base31 Official Plan Amendment for lands at 343 County Road 22 and 204 Kingsley Road. Because members had questions, Chair Pennell moved the item out of the consent-style public meeting section and into Items for Consideration, allowing for extended discussion and debate.
From that point on, the meeting focused almost entirely on what the Official Plan Amendment would do, what it would not do, and what future approvals would still be required before development could proceed.
What staff and the County’s consultant said the OPA would accomplish
Stephen Willis, planning consultant to the County, presented the staff report and explained that the amendment functions as a policy framework, adding detail to lands that have already been identified for development through previous planning decisions.
Much of the discussion centered on how the amendment fits within larger County planning efforts, including the Picton Master Servicing Plan, the Regional Water Strategy, and long-term infrastructure planning. Several councillors asked whether approving the amendment now was premature given that major servicing decisions are still underway.
The response from staff emphasized sequencing. The Official Plan Amendment sets land use direction, but development cannot proceed without servicing capacity, and later approvals such as plans of subdivision and building permits remain the controlling gates.
Environmental questions were also raised, particularly about the site’s past use as a military air base. Staff explained that environmental review and remediation requirements are triggered at later stages of approval and must be resolved before construction can occur.
Transportation and traffic: existing strain and future impacts
Traffic and transportation emerged as one of the most persistent themes of the meeting. Councillors questioned how traffic studies prepared for Base31 interact with the County’s broader Transportation Master Plan work for Picton.
The discussion repeatedly distinguished between existing traffic problems in Picton, particularly during peak tourism seasons, and future traffic impacts tied specifically to Base31. Staff explained that while the applicant’s studies identify development-related improvements, the Transportation Master Plan is meant to address wider, pre-existing network issues.
It was emphasized that each phase of development would require additional transportation analysis, with mitigation measures tied to the scale and timing of each phase.
Housing and the meaning of the 5 percent commitment
Housing was a dominant topic throughout the evening, with repeated focus on the proposal that 5 percent of all units would be designated as affordable and attainable housing.
Councillors questioned how that commitment would apply across a long, multi-decade buildout and whether the definition of affordability should be income-based rather than market-based. Others raised concerns about delivery timing and whether affordable units would arrive early or late in the development sequence.
The discussion also touched on real-world constraints such as market absorption, availability of local trades, and the pace at which housing can realistically be built in the County.
The applicant’s presentation: long-term buildout and mixed-use vision
On behalf of the applicant, Eric Turcotte, planner and urban designer with Urban Strategies, presented the Base31 vision. He described the amendment as translating the already-endorsed area concept plan into detailed Official Plan policy.
Turcotte emphasized that the project is envisioned as a 20- to 30-year buildout, with a mix of residential, cultural, employment, and recreational uses. He outlined housing diversity goals, including purpose-built rental, smaller unit types, and partnerships with housing organizations.
Concerns about competition with Picton Main Street were addressed directly. The applicant described Base31’s commercial and cultural offerings as complementary, not competitive, and referenced ongoing collaboration with the Picton Business Improvement Area.
Public input: infrastructure costs, traffic choke points, and arts investment
Members of the public provided a wide range of comments, with recurring themes around servicing costs, traffic congestion, and economic impact.
Dorothy Bothwell raised concerns about the financial implications of approving the amendment, including how infrastructure costs would be funded and whether adequate tools, such as area-specific development charges, were in place. She also challenged the wording that said Council would “contemplate” affordable housing, urging stronger language and greater fiscal clarity.
Steve Sykes focused on traffic choke points, particularly during peak tourism months, and called for more detailed baseline traffic data to inform long-term planning.
Tim Jones, a partner with Base31, spoke in support of the staff recommendations, emphasizing confidence, momentum, and long-term partnership with the County. He referenced significant investment already made, including $10 million toward water and sanitary servicing, and described the growing Base31 revitalization district as a cultural destination.
Supportive comments also came from Greg Sorbara, who highlighted housing supply and four-season tourism benefits, and Krista Dalby, Artistic Director of the Department of Illumination, who described Base31’s tangible support for local arts and culture.
Break, motions, and a key amendment made live
After extended discussion, the committee recessed briefly before returning to deal with motions.
The main motion to receive the staff report and approve Official Plan Amendment OPA-04-23 was moved by Councillor Bill Roberts and seconded by Councillor Phil St-Jean.
Before the vote, councillors continued to probe issues around green space, a minor urban boundary adjustment related to a stormwater management pond, and the meaning of Service Area 1, 2, and 3 designations in the Picton Secondary Plan.
A pivotal moment occurred when Councillor Kate MacNaughton, Ward 1 (Picton), questioned why the draft amendment said Council would “contemplate” affordable housing rather than require it. Staff confirmed the applicant would accept stronger language.
MacNaughton introduced an amending motion that made two changes. The amendment revised wording to describe Base31 as “one of the primary areas for growth” rather than the sole primary area, and replaced “contemplate” with “require” in the 5 percent affordable and attainable housing policy. The amendment carried.
With those changes in place, the committee approved the Official Plan Amendment, with the recommendation forwarded to Council.
Key Takeaways
The Base31 amendment was treated as a policy framework, not an approval to build. Actual development remains tied to servicing capacity and future approvals.
Traffic and infrastructure funding remain central concerns, with major decisions still dependent on master planning and financial tools.
Council strengthened the plan in real time by changing affordable housing language from “contemplate” to “require,” making the 5 percent commitment enforceable within the Official Plan.
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.
Comments