Council approves sale of former Queen Elizabeth school for housing, hub

By Sharon Harrison
The re-development of the former Queen Elizabeth school property at 35 Barker Street, Picton took a step forward at a packed special council meeting held Monday evening at Shire Hall.

In an 11-3 recorded vote (with councillors Nieman, Braney and Pennell opposed), council authorized the sale of the former school site, and its ultimate re-development for affordable housing and a community services hub, to New View Holdings Inc.

A motion put forward by councillor Brad Nieman to delay the decision until May, so a charette could be organized, lost in an 11-3 recorded vote (with councillors Nieman, Engelsdorfer and Pennell in favour).

New View will partner with the municipality in a public-private partnership initiative (known as a P3) where the proposed re-development is expected to bring 198 rental units (split evenly between affordable rent and market rent), along with a 22,000-square-foot community services hub.

“This is a partnership, so inherently both parties need to get something out of this deal,” said Adam Goheen, the County’s director of housing. “The County will benefit from 98 units of affordable rental housing, and 22,000-square-feet of at-cost rental space for the community hub proposal.”

He said the investment in the property through the partnership is estimated to be in excess of $100 million.

“That’s not taking money away from the community [as suggested by some public comments], that’s bringing money into the community, and that’s the construction costs, that’s not to count the spin-offs that we’ll see,” explained Goheen. “Local businesses will benefit from the construction activity in this area and this municipality. Those are big dollars, and there’s a lot to be said for that.”

Councillor Bill Roberts concurred: “$100 million brought to this economy, with a modest multiplier effect, with another $100-$150 million in the economy, plus what’s being put into this, that’s pretty damn impressive, especially when we are struggling to address economic development, so that’s a big plus.”

The purchase and sale agreement is to be executed on March 31 with a 10 per cent deposit ($150,000) to be paid to the municipality. The completion of the sale is to happen one year later on March 31, 2026, with the $1.35 million balance owing to be paid to the municipality at that time.

The municipality purchased the former 4.5-acre school property in July 2024 from the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board (who declared it surplus in November 2018), for $1.5 million (purchase price plus carrying costs) with taxpayer money with the intention of recouping the expense by the end of December 2024 by offloading the property, as well as finding a potential partner to take on the proposed community project vision.

The municipality has yet to recoup its $1.5 million investment and under the agreement will not collect the full sum owed ($1.5 million in taxpayer dollars), nor settle its debt (incurred July 2024), for another full year.

The sale of the property to Scarborough-based New View Holdings will be in the amount $1.5 million for the “as is, where as” condition property, where New View will be responsible for all costs associated with the re-development project and all fees and charges related to land use development, including absorbing the full cost of the proposed demolition and clean-up of the school building, along with all future operating costs.

The four hour meeting heard two-and-a-half hours of deputations from seven members of the public and comments from a further 25 audience members, bringing mixed viewpoints and opinions, both for and against the project, with many liking the general idea, but not in its present form as it relates to scale and intensity, with some suggesting a deferral would be appropriate to enable public consultation to take place prior to approval.

The general nature of the comments presented related to lack of meaningful public consultation and transparency, traffic safety and safety of pedestrians (and the need for a traffic flow and impact survey), inappropriate density for the area (proposed is up to 4.5 storeys, with density pegged at 109.08 units per net hectare), and respect for the character and nature of heritage communities and the official plan. Some cited the appropriateness of inserting high density zoning in the interior of a neighbourhood, indicating the proposed density is contrary to the low- density residential neighbourhood and will damage the heritage of the area.

Tensions were high as some speakers shared frustration and disappointment of the process, of the municipality, and even with their neighbours, with one councillor in particular, along with the housing director, calling out inappropriateness of some public comments (in order to correct the record) on several points as misleading, false, inaccurate or wrong.

A number of those who spoke represented the community group, Citizens for a Better QE Future, with most objecting to the proposal as it currently stands, noting major problems with the impending re-development, requesting the deferral of decisions tonight where the overall theme was “build better, not bigger”.

Others members of the public shared heartfelt personal stories and circumstances of hardship of the difficulty in finding and affording rental housing options in the County, highlighting the needs of many in the community, from those who work several jobs, to those who find themselves in unforeseen hard times, with others just needing a decent and safe place to call home to raise their families.

Resident Tim Johnson shared details of a community survey undertaken last month which resulted in 85 per cent of participants raising increased traffic concerns, and more than 90 per cent wanting studies and engagement before any approval. The survey asked such things as should the site design consider other options, what maximum height should be permitted, suitable level of density for the site, concern for increased volume of traffic, and need for fulsome public consultation.

The top concerns highlighted in the survey were traffic issues, followed by inappropriate level of density, then lack of public involvement. Others included loss of green space, damage of area’s heritage, contradictions with the official plan, and overall cost to taxpayers, among the list.
Only five percent of those surveyed indicated four storey buildings should be permitted, with largest percentage (57 per cent) indicating two storeys was preferable, and 30 per cent voted for three storeys.

Councillor Roy Pennell was one of several council members noting traffic concerns, where he asked why a traffic safety report hadn’t been done “as I believe that’s critical to this.” Goheen confirmed New View has done a preliminary traffic review, but it has not been made public, as he said the developer needs to do some new counts.

Other issues raised included a too-large parking lot (and why wasn’t it underground); sense of community and quality of life; need for parks, community gardens and outdoor recreation space (more green-scaping and landscaping); existing PECI school is overcapacity so where will expanding population go to school; community hub should not be the focus; and too much development already.

Councillor Chris Braney’s concern was the proposed scale of the development, where he said he cannot support the density and scale it’s at, adding that he didn’t even want to enter into an agreement to purchase the property in the first place.

“I am concerned about the cost, concerned with the density, I don’t believe it fits into the fabric of the community, I’m not supporting this; I’ve expressed these concerns right from day one,” Braney noted.

Speaking to the possible flexibility of density numbers, Goheen suggested New View would not entertain a change in proposed density.

“This is the smallest number of units to make the pro-forma work, but that doesn’t mean lots couldn’t change in terms of the way the site is laid out,” added CAO Marcia Wallace.

“I don’t like that this has divided the community as much as it has, and I think that together through this process (community charette) and what we are recommending in terms of next steps, that we together with the community can come together and build something here that we can all be proud of,” Goheen added.

He said, New View Holdings has listened to the concerns of the community and have revised their proposal by reducing the residential density (from 246 to 198 proposed units), adding amenities and green space, contemplating an architectural design that is compatible with the neighbourhood, and increasing the space allocated to the community hub.

New View Holdings has indicated a willingness to develop the property in two phases, he notes, with phase one comprising the hub component plus approximately 125 rental units with proportional parking, with phase two (to come at a future date) comprising the remainder of rental units (73 units) and the balance of parking.

Councillor Brad Nieman said he could not support the proposal.

“Overall, the County is missing an opportunity here to set itself up for the future. We’ve heard a lot about affordable housing, it’s a cascading effect. You can talk about housing, but you need to talk about industry, jobs, you need to have all that,” expressed Nieman. “For the County itself, we are talking about selling buildings to try and generate revenue. This was an opportunity that we could have used this building to get a bunch of things which would benefit the whole community.”

Council also voted to agree to the terms of a private-sector partnership agreement to facilitate the re-development of the property, along with approving various other agreements and bylaws related thereto which will enable the facility to be used for affordable housing, community services, and not-for-profit community services purposes, exempting it from property taxes for 20 years (for the affordable housing units and hub portions only).

A service connection charge pre-payment agreement bylaw was also approved by council that will facilitate the first phase of 125 residential units and the hub, as well as approving the preparation of a sub-lease framework and draft lease agreement between with New View Holdings.

Outlined in a report from the housing department are recommendations for a framework to implement the public-private partnership with New View Holdings Inc. which will address the short-term and long-term obligations, and facilitate the next steps of the project, such as public consultation, design details, and eventual construction and operation

In November 2024, council directed staff to conduct detailed negotiations with New View Holdings Inc. in order to facilitate the re-development of the former Queen Elizabeth school into affordable and market rental housing, and rental space to support sector agencies to collocate as a community services hub.

“There is significant potential for this property to be re-developed for the betterment of the citizens of Prince Edward County in terms of centralizing various services in the healthcare, youth and childcare, housing and food insecurity, education and training sectors, along with the opportunity to construct new much-needed affordable housing units that would be located in the heart of a walkable area and surrounded by services, commercial areas and employment opportunities,” noted Goheen.

While the original Queen Elizabeth school re-development community partner selection committee recommended a mixed model of community space with the re-use of the school and the balance of the site being affordable housing, in discussions with potential partners it is clear that no party can make the site work with everything the committee recommended, Goheen’s report said.

“It is now certain that a partnership with private sector or non-profit investors will mean greater intensification of the property than originally envisioned, in the form of mixed-market residential units in a multi-building, multi-storey arrangement to make the project economically viable for a builder,” he stated. “Ultimately, staff recommended moving forward with the New View Holdings proposal, as it satisfied all four objectives of this initiative.”

Background story can be found here

County to explore five expressions of interest for former Queen Elizabeth school

New View Holdings has agreed a fulsome public engagement and consultation process be undertaken the report notes. They anticipate a facilitated charette or visioning session with stakeholders from the neighbourhood, representatives from local support service agencies, local housing providers, representatives of the business sector, Picton ward councillors and County mayor, New View representatives and their consultants, municipal staff, and others.

“The work of this group, which will influence the design of the project, including elements such as streetscaping, landscaping, architectural design, arrangement and location of amenities such as the playground, community garden and greenspace, and more,” outlined Goheen. “That body of work would then be presented to the community at large for additional feedback and to inform the final plans to support the subsequent approvals.”

Speaking to housing being the number one priority for council, mayor Steve Ferguson said there is an obligation and a responsibility as a municipal government, as a community, “to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to live in the community in safety and security”.

“The proposal that we are considering tonight is going to go through considerable scrutiny, conversation, meetings, and consultation and that will be undertaken before we get this right,” Ferguson said. “Getting it right means providing and making sure that we take care of our residents that really need help. This project in this location can offer that assistance to some people, not everybody that needs it, but it’s a rare opportunity, it is so important, and I fully support it as it stands.”

All related documentation for the former Queen Elizabeth school property re-development process can be found on the County’s website.