Part 2: Council Debate, Public Opposition, and Housing Vote in Picton - 11/20/2024

The discussion revealed a sharp divide between those prioritizing urgently needed housing supply and those concerned about the long-term impact the project could have on nearby neighbourhoods, infrastructure, and environmental conditions.

While planning staff and several councillors argued the project represents an important opportunity to address housing shortages, nearby residents repeatedly warned that the surrounding area is not ready for a development of this scale without stronger protections and infrastructure upgrades first.

The debate ultimately reflected a broader issue increasingly shaping planning decisions across Prince Edward County: how to balance the urgent need for housing with growing concerns about neighbourhood compatibility, infrastructure capacity, and environmental impact.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

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

Planning Staff Recommend Approval Despite Concerns

Planning staff formally recommended approval of both the rezoning application and Official Plan amendment, stating that the land involved is privately owned and not designated parkland.

Staff emphasized that technical studies submitted with the application supported the proposal and that concerns involving infrastructure, stormwater management, and detailed site design would continue to be addressed through future site plan approval processes rather than through the rezoning itself.

One of the more debated issues involved sidewalks and road upgrades. Staff explained that major roadway improvements are typically handled through future municipal reconstruction projects and not as direct requirements attached to rezoning approvals.

For some residents, that response was frustrating because it left uncertainty around exactly when or how pedestrian safety improvements may eventually occur.

Kelly Graham, Pascal Monnet, and Paul Hirshfield Defend the Proposal

Kelly Graham and Pascal Monnet spoke extensively about the project’s affordability goals, environmental protections, stormwater controls, and overall design approach.

They argued the proposal attempts to balance density with environmental considerations while helping address the County’s growing housing shortage. Several design features and mitigation measures were highlighted, including drainage controls, landscaping plans, accessibility improvements, and efforts to reduce environmental impact where possible.

Paul Hirshfield also addressed council directly and expressed strong confidence in the project’s long-term financial viability and funding structure. He emphasized that the development team remains committed not only to constructing the project, but also to operating and maintaining it over the long term.

Supporters framed the proposal as a rare opportunity to deliver meaningful rental housing, including affordable units, at a time when many workers, families, and seniors are struggling to find stable housing within Prince Edward County.

For residents across the County facing housing affordability challenges, the approval means a significant rental project can now move forward, although many detailed neighbourhood protections remain deferred to later site plan discussions.

Residents Raise Safety, Infrastructure, and Environmental Concerns

A large number of nearby residents spoke strongly against the proposal during the public meeting.

Residents including Marie O’Neill, Lawrence Cornett, Max Soulier, Katie Harrington, Francine Landry, John Cockburn, Pat Heffernan, and others raised concerns involving traffic safety, infrastructure limitations, drainage issues, tree removal, and the overall scale of change facing the surrounding neighbourhood.

One of the most repeated concerns involved the lack of sidewalks and the narrow condition of surrounding roads. Residents argued that adding substantial residential density without major pedestrian infrastructure upgrades creates safety risks, especially for children, seniors, and park users.

Environmental and drainage concerns also featured heavily in the discussion. Speakers questioned how stormwater runoff may affect nearby properties and raised worries about cemetery drainage and long-term environmental impacts if construction alters existing water flow patterns.

Several residents also warned about the precedent created by rezoning land near park spaces and residential neighbourhoods for larger-scale development. Others described fears about years of construction disruption, increased traffic, noise, and gradual changes to neighbourhood character.

For nearby residents, the approval represents a major transition for the area, with many still uncertain about how effectively future site plan conditions will actually address their concerns.

Supporters Emphasize Accessibility and Urban Density

Not all public comments opposed the project.

Victoria Taylor, a landscape architect involved in Delhi Park planning, spoke in support of the development and emphasized the importance of improving accessibility and encouraging density within existing urban settlement areas rather than pushing growth farther outward.

Taylor highlighted the proposed AODA-accessible pathway connections and argued that site plan controls provide an opportunity to shape the development responsibly while still addressing important housing needs.

Supporters generally framed the project as an example of the type of compact urban development municipalities increasingly need in order to manage growth more sustainably.

For residents, supporters argued the project could eventually improve park connectivity, accessibility, and long-term walkability if site plan conditions are carefully enforced during future approval stages.

Councillors Debate Housing Need Versus Infrastructure Limits

Council members spent considerable time debating the balance between housing urgency and infrastructure readiness.

Councillor Roy Pennell ultimately voted against the project, citing unresolved concerns involving sidewalks, road safety, and the nearby cemetery area. His comments reflected the concerns raised by many nearby residents who felt important infrastructure questions remain unanswered.

Councillors Corey Engelsdorfer, Phil St-Jean, Kate MacNaughton, Janice Maynard, John Hirsch, Phil Prinzen, and others debated affordability, servicing limitations, planning fairness, and whether the County is asking some neighbourhoods to absorb disproportionate change.

Several councillors acknowledged the legitimate concerns raised by residents while also recognizing the broader housing pressures facing the municipality.

The debate repeatedly returned to whether delaying or rejecting housing projects because of infrastructure limitations simply worsens the County’s larger affordability and housing supply problems.

Bill Roberts Strongly Supports the Development

Councillor Bill Roberts emerged as one of the project’s strongest supporters during the meeting.

Roberts spoke extensively about workforce shortages, housing insecurity, and demographic pressures affecting Prince Edward County. He argued that many workers, younger residents, and even local employers are struggling because of limited housing availability and rising costs.

He also referenced county-wide housing data to support the position that additional rental and affordable housing supply is urgently needed.

Roberts framed the decision as part of a larger responsibility facing council to respond to the housing crisis even when projects generate strong neighbourhood opposition.

Mayor Steve Ferguson Supports Approval

Mayor Steve Ferguson also voted in favor of the project and emphasized confidence in both the funding structure and the overall need for additional housing.

Ferguson acknowledged that the proposal remains controversial but stressed that Prince Edward County cannot continue delaying major housing developments if it hopes to address affordability pressures and workforce retention challenges.

His comments reflected a broader policy direction increasingly visible within council discussions: prioritizing housing development even when projects generate significant local opposition.

Rezoning and Official Plan Amendment Pass 13–1

Following the lengthy debate and public comments, council voted to approve both the rezoning application and Official Plan amendment by a decisive 13-to-1 margin.

The approval now allows the project to move forward into the site plan approval phase, where more detailed technical conditions, landscaping requirements, servicing details, and neighbourhood protections will be reviewed.

For residents, the outcome signals that Prince Edward County is increasingly willing to support larger housing projects including affordable housing developments even in locations where surrounding communities remain divided or concerned about long-term impacts.

What This Decision Means Moving Forward

The meeting highlighted how future planning debates in Prince Edward County are likely to unfold in the years ahead.

Housing affordability pressures are pushing council toward supporting higher-density and rental-focused projects, while nearby residents continue raising concerns about infrastructure capacity, environmental impacts, neighbourhood compatibility, and quality of life.

The approval demonstrated that council is currently prioritizing housing development and long-term growth planning, even when some infrastructure questions remain unresolved at the rezoning stage.

For the broader community, the project now becomes another example of the growing tension between urgently needed housing supply and the challenges of integrating larger developments into existing neighbourhoods and infrastructure systems.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 3:27:42. 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.