Part 1: Housing Debate, Queen Elizabeth School Proposal, and Cold Creek Reconsideration - 11/26/2024
- PECConnect
- Nov 26, 2024
- 3 min read
The meeting included a long public input section where residents, community leaders, and service organizations spoke about two major development issues. One was the former Queen Elizabeth School site in Picton, and the other was the Cold Creek subdivision. Speakers were respectful but clearly divided between urgency and caution.
View the entire PEC Council meeting, or continue to speaker comments and councillor votes.
Many residents stressed that they were not opposed to affordable housing, but were worried about scale, traffic, pedestrian safety, infrastructure limits, and long-term planning. Several speakers highlighted nearby schools, narrow sidewalks, lack of buffers between pedestrians and vehicles, and the potential impact of hundreds of new cars entering residential streets.
Others strongly supported moving forward, especially representatives from social service organizations, who explained that people with disabilities, seniors, workers, and families are being forced to leave the County due to lack of housing. The community hub idea received broad support, especially as a way to keep essential services local rather than forcing residents to travel to Belleville or farther.
Queen Elizabeth School Redevelopment Proposal
Staff presented an updated proposal recommending New View Holdings as the preferred partner to redevelop the former school site. The plan included 198 residential units, reduced from an earlier proposal, with 50 percent designated as affordable by County definition. Units would mainly be one and two bedrooms. The plan also expanded the community hub space to 22,500 square feet, nearly double earlier concepts.
Staff emphasized that this was approval in principle only, not final approval. The next phase would involve site plan design, traffic studies, servicing studies, public consultation, and negotiations. Council was asked to allow the project to move forward so those detailed studies could even begin.
Debate Over Timing, Risk, and Financial Exposure
Council discussion showed a clear split. Some members felt this was a rare and critical opportunity to address housing needs with an experienced developer ready to build. Others felt the County was being asked to move too fast without having all financial, traffic, and infrastructure answers, especially with the budget coming up.
A motion was introduced to defer the Queen Elizabeth School decision and instead study retaining the building for staff use, seniors housing, or other purposes. Staff warned that this could take six months or more, cost at least $100,000 upfront, and risk losing the developer and future funding opportunities.
Cold Creek Subdivision Reconsideration
Council also reconsidered the Cold Creek subdivision decision. Staff explained that reconsideration would allow changes to conditions such as setbacks and environmental protections, potentially avoiding an Ontario Land Tribunal appeal. Council agreed to send it back to staff to work with the developer and return with revised conditions.
Other Major Decisions
Council approved awarding the long-term care facility construction contract, marking a major milestone for the County. Several housekeeping planning bylaw corrections were approved, including zoning adjustments and interim control bylaw clarifications. Council also dealt with committee appointments, consent items, and interim tax levy matters.
3 Key Takeaways
Residents and Council are aligned on the need for housing, but concerns about traffic, safety, and infrastructure capacity are slowing decisions.
Queen Elizabeth School Project Moves Forward (For Now)Council is considering a major redevelopment with affordable housing and a community hub, but only at an early approval stage with more studies ahead.
Cold Creek Sent Back for ChangesRather than risk an appeal, Council chose to revisit subdivision conditions, signaling a more cautious and negotiated approach to development.
Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 4:57:58. 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