Base31’s Village A to bring first 800 homes of 7,500 units in plans

By Sharon Harrison
Two separate sub-divisions proposed by PEC Community Partners Inc. for the Base31 (former Camp Picton) site, were before the planning and development committee meeting Wednesday night, namely the Village A sub-division and the Revitalization District sub-division.

Mike Pettigrew, with the Biglieri Group Ltd. (planning consultants representing PEC Community Partners), noted how the two draft plan of sub-division applications are for two distinct areas, but they are linked and are also very different formats. He explained that the Village A proposal is more of a traditional draft plan of sub-division with lots and blocks, and the Block Plan for the Revitalization District is a block plan.

“They are very different forms, but they ultimately are looking to achieve a very distinct type of development,” said Pettigrew.

(Below are details of the proposed Village A sub-division (Phase 1a). The second application for the Revitalization District sub-division (Phase 1b) story link here: https://www.countylive.ca/800-high-density-mixed-use-residential-units-for-base31s-revitalization-district/

This application is coming to the planning committee now after an MZO (ministerial zoning order) was issued by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on June 23 for a zoning change for the first phase of the Base31 project. The zoning change request was approved following a joint request by the County and PEC Community Partners Inc.

The zoning change applies to the first phase of the site, approximately 88-hectares (comprising a 58-hectare Revitalization District and a 30-hectare green field area known as Village A).

“PEC Community Partners Inc. plans to deliver a diverse mix of housing, including purpose-built rentals, to meet the needs identified in the municipality’s housing plan and support those who live and work in the community.”

The subject lands are zoned ‘industrial’, however, the lands are subject to an MZO, which re-zones the lands as ‘core” and includes provisions and development standards for permitted uses on this site,” notes Stantec Consulting.

“The site will then accommodate residential uses, such as single detached units, semi-detached units, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and apartments as well as non-residential uses such as retail stores, home businesses, and public uses, including open spaces, park space and walkways.”

Under a new two-step process, no decision on this planning application is made by council at this first statutory application overview meeting which is intended as information-gathering only. Decision by council will happen at a future second statutory public meeting where staff will provide a report and recommendation.

Village A sub-division
Being considered for Village A is an application for a proposed draft plan of sub-division for a mixed-use development totalling approximately 481 units, comprising 257 single detached units, 118 laneway townhouses, 53 bungalow townhouses, and also stacked townhouses.

If approved, construction could begin as early as the end of this year.

In addition, two blocks are designated for higher density condominium/apartment purposes with a total area of three hectares. While yet to be confirmed, the approximate unit count is expected to be in the range of 800 units.

“The total number of units for the entirety of the draft plan is yet to be determined, as the number of units within the high-density blocks will be finalized through detailed site plan approval submissions in the future.”

It is noted in the planning justification report that Village A will not provide any affordable or attainable housing options.

“The proposal supports the local economy, through offering more housing stock to the existing and future residents of County of Prince Edward. Although in Village A, affordable and attainable housing is not provided, but it will be met in other areas of the Base31 neighbourhood,” notes the planning justification report.

Referencing the area concept plan, Pettigrew explained how it is the guiding document for planning staff, not only for the two current applications, but also for future applications.

“The area concept plan consists of a series of villages (Village A being the first of those villages) surrounded by, and linked to, the Revitalization District by green fingers which are for active and passive recreational uses and trails, and it’s meant to get people out of cars, and be able to walk and cycle to the hub of this community, which is in the base.”

Several council members raised questions, specifically on water and sewer capacity for the site (there is currently no allocation), as well as the cost of infrastructure to the municipality, along with timelines for the project build-out, especially as it pertains to the economy and current market trends.

Councillor Roy Pennell questioned water capacity, asking if PEC Community Partners had been assured by the County that they have the water and sewage capacity to go ahead, to which Pettigrew said, “the exact details of the functioning are being worked on with the County right now”.

“There isn’t a single solution that is available right now, but it is something that the County is aware of, and that’s an on-going discussion,” Pettigrew said.

“Before I start approving something, I like to know where the municipality is standing,” said Pennell. “Have we got to put out a whole bunch of money immediately to get to this point, whether it be water or sewage. I’m not certain financially of where we stand,” adding that he had asked for report previously, but has yet to see one. “I was concerned, are we jumping too quick without the answers that’s needed?”

Mayor Steve Ferguson later stated his understanding a report concerning capacity issues was coming to council soon.

The proposed development is to include a 1.45 hectare central local park and other walkways and open space for a total area of two hectares. As well as some widening of existing roads, 13 new public roads are proposed.

The sub-division would occupy 28.7 hectares on the west side of the 53.25 hectare Village A study area. The site consists of approximately 260 hectares and is generally bounded by County Road 22, Kingsley Road, Airport Lane and Clarke Road.

The servicing report notes that in addition to the above unit counts, the development would likely include one to two schools across all villages (discussions with the County and school boards are on-going), as well as small non-residential (retail/office/park) space for each village development.

“The exact breakdown of each village is unknown at this time. The main commercial space will be provided within the Revitalization District, which will consist of a venue space and will host several long-term commercial tenants.”

Described as a large scale sub-division, a total of 16.62 hectares are considered net developable lands.

“Village A itself is intended to provide a limited amount of commercial uses, and will be predominantly residential in nature,” notes the planning justification report. “Through the implementation of the in-progress [now approved] minister’s zoning order, the future surrounding context will include a wide range of residential and non-residential uses that will serve the future residents of the Base31 area.”

The site is defined as urban centre in the official plan, and area concept plan in the secondary plan.

Pettigrew highlighted how at the open house (held last November), a lot of comments were received, resulting in a lot of changes being made to the plan.

“One of the main changes was to take the road pattern and make it more grid-like, so that it was easier to navigate and harkening to the grid of the military base, and obviously adapting it a little bit to the topography and the shape of the lands.”

He explained how the road that goes through the middle of the site is a collector road (Street A) and that is the first of many collector roads that will be proposed as part of the overall development. That road connects Kingsley on the south to County Road 22/Church Street on the north.

He said another change looked at was to increase the size of the village green and connect it with the stormwater management pond to create an open vista to County Road 22.

“We have also maintained and increased the number of connections: there is a number of green walkways that connect to the future green fingers, as well as the number of pedestrian accesses out to Kingsley Road to help with overall connectivity to the base.”

The proposed development will see the removal of a wetland on the property, the removal of a portion of woodland area, as well as tree clearing of nearly 32,000 trees, according to the planning justification report.

“The proposed development will clear 29.5 hectares, which includes approximately 31,881 trees. The eastern portion of Village A is currently to be retained as undeveloped. In this area, approximately 19,062 trees will be retained.”

Councillor David Harrison asked about the projected build-out timelines for Village A, where Pettigrew explained that two phases are being contemplated.

“Really, the build-out will be market-driven,” said Pettigrew. “They are intending to move forward, if there is approval, by the end of this year or beginning of next year to move forward immediately with construction. But really, it will be the market that will dictate how quickly they can get through those various phases.”

He confirmed that they don’t have a time frame for full completion built-out, at this time.

“In terms of how we get through the 450 units over the two phases will be dependent on the market,” added Chris Marchese, with PEC Community Partners, “but we are prepared and ready to react if the market is there to build this out as quickly as we can.”

Harrison pushed the issue further, asking how much build-out – whether it’s 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 80 per cent – did they want to see completed in Village A before moving onto another block, his question also relating to increased servicing needs.

Marchese said while they are planning for future villages, right now they are only focused on Village A, adding again that timing is dependent on the market. “I don’t see us building in multi different areas at one time.”

Harrison further noted that if the market does not improve, then the build-out is really indefinite. He asked if the market improves, at what stage the County would have to move ahead for more infrastructure; something as a council was a bit of a “dilemma”, he said.

Marchese said the timing is now.

“The [water/sewer] capacity across the County is well-known, capacity is being reached, the life expectancy of some of this capital infrastructure is coming to an end and it needs to be planned for now for these future villages, so when the market is there, we are ready to go.”

Harrison said he was very concerned about the gap if the project moves ahead.

“How we do bridge all this as a County for development that may not happen over an extended period of time, that is going to put a lot of strain on municipal resources?,” he asked. “Financially, we are not sitting in a position of doing all this infrastructure work, no development fees coming in, and basically we are bridging the whole thing. We really have to be in-sync on all this.”

Pettigrew emphasised that while the area concept plan envisions a lot of development over a very extended period of time, full build-out is a 20 to 30 year plan.

“The important part is to be able to plan for that infrastructure: what’s the capacity for services right now and what’s the next trigger point, and it can be planned for accordingly there.”

A funding agreement for development charges (DC) was a possibility, Marchese said.

“We are happy to work together in some sort of funding agreement where the DC recoveries are able to pay for some of that stuff, so the burden fully isn’t on the municipality,” he stated.

Village A is located at the north-east corner of the intersection of Kingsley Road and County Road 22 (Church Street), and is south of the proposed VineRidge sub-division (FLC Group) which is to comprise primarily of low-rise residential uses and some future residential development lands (background stories at the end of this article).

The overall area is just over 28 hectares which is all vacant land, with groups of mostly small trees and natural open areas. It is noted that a small area of the site within the eastern portion of the lands is within the regulated area of the Quinte Conservation Authority.

Two small wetlands are located on the site, one of which will be removed to facilitate the development, and the other is to be protected with a 30-metre setback.

“The proposed development of Village A will require tree clearing and grading, including the removal of portions of the eastern red cedar woodland area. The proposed development will also require the removal of the small thicket swamp wetland.”

“The woodland area on-site does not meet the official plan threshold for being significant, but appears to be significant according to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) criteria. A portion of woodland area will be removed, but a large portion will be protected,” the report states.

There is a 224-metre frontage along Country Road 22 (Church Street), and approximately 438-metre frontage along Kingsley Road.

Macaulay Conservation Area is east of the site, Macaulay Heritage Park is at the south-east corner of County Road 22 and Union Road. The Millennium Lookout, Mount Olivet Cemetery, Delhi Park playground, Prince Edward Dog Park, and Glenwood Cemetery are west of the site.

The entire site is approximately 304 hectares and is located south-east of Picton, on tablelands above the Marsh Creek escarpment, according to the environmental impact study (EIS). The Village A study area comprises an area of approximately 53.3 hectares north of Kingsley Road, of which 28.7 hectares is currently proposed for development

“The lands are primarily eastern red cedar dominated thickets and woodlands that are regenerating after clearing for farmlands and the Picton Airport, states the EIS. “Approximately half of the development application area appears to have been used most recently as sports fields for the military installation at the airport.”

It notes also a tributary of the East Lake watershed has its headwaters east of the proposed development area. Due to this headwater, some of the Village A study area is located within lands regulated by the Quinte Conservation Authority.

The EIS recorded 153 species of vascular plants in its surveys in the larger Base31 property, including the Village A study area, including 86 native species, and 47 non-native (to Ontario) species.

Six amphibian species were recorded within the overall property, including the American toad, chorus frog, gray tree frog, green frog, northern leopard frog and spring peeper.

A total of 52 breeding season bird species were observed, including song sparrow, American robin and house wren. The EIS indicates approximately 8.5 hectares of habitat for eastern meadowlark and bobolink has been confirmed on the Village A study area.

Review of the MNRF natural heritage information centre databases show that several species-at-risk (SAR) have the potential to occur on the study area: four-leaved milkweed (endangered), snapping turtle (threatened), eastern meadowlark (threatened), wood thrush (special concern), and barn swallow (special concern).

Seven SAR breeding bird species were observed on the property: eastern meadowlark (threatened), bobolink (threatened), and chimney swift (threatened), eastern wood-pewee (special concern), barn swallow (special concern), wood thrush (special concern) and grasshopper sparrow (special concern).

Documentation and related studies (including the full environmental impact study) relating to the Base31 Village A sub-division application can be found on the County’s website.

Site statistics
Site statistics proposed for the entire site through all development phases amount to approximately 6,285 units (14,805 persons), to include:

Phase 1a (Village A-pop. 1,710): 800 units (220 low-density, 80 medium-density, 500 high-density);
Phase 1b (Revitalization District-pop. 1,360): 800 units (high-density);
Phase 2 (Village B-pop. 1,465): 590 units (220 low-density, 220 medium-density, 150 high-density);
Phase 3 (Village C-pop. 1,465): 590 units (220 low-density, 220 medium-density, 150 high-density);
Phase 4 (Village D-pop. 1,465): 590 units (220 low-density, 220 medium-density, 150 high-density);
Phase 5 (Village E-pop. 1,465): 590 units (220 low-density, 220 medium-density, 150 high-density);
Phase 6 (Village F-pop. 3,600): 1,500 units (500 low-density, 500 medium-density, 500 high-density);
Phase 7 (Village G-pop. 1,115): 405 units (205 low-density, 200 medium-density);
Phase 8 (Village H-pop. 1,160): 420 units (220 low-density, 200 medium-density).

Further, it is noted that future Villages I, J and K, which are located outside the urban boundary, may add a further 1,215 units (3,345 persons), for a grand total of 7,500 units, for a grand total future population total of 18,150 persons:

Phase 9 (Future Village I-pop. 1,115): 405 units (205 low-density, 200 medium-density);
Phase 10 (Future Village J-pop. 1,115): 405 units (205 low-density, 200 medium-density);
Phase 11 (Future Village K-pop. 1,115): 405 units (205 low-density, 200 medium-density).

Details of a public meeting held last November:

Few details on Base31’s first development as it awaits MZO decision

Other related Base31 development background stories below:

Base31 gets further year extension to operate, as it waits for “permanent” status

Official plan amendment for Base31 development moves forward

Base31 development plans come with many questions from residents

Proposed VineRidge sub-division background stories here:

Virtual public meeting for Picton Heights development

Councillor concerned Picton Heights sub-division proposal displaces some residents