Proposal selected for re-development of former QE public school property

By Sharon Harrison
In the next step to re-develop the former Queen Elizabeth School property in Picton, council voted to move forward with pursuing the New View Holdings proposal, one of five expressions of interest received in August.

At Tuesday’s regular council meeting, council heard the final recommendations from the housing department for the private sector partnership to facilitate the re-development of the former school property.

In a 9-4 recorded vote, opposed to proceeding were councillors Chris Braney, Phil Prinzen, Brad Nieman and Roy Pennell (Sam Branderhorst was absent).

County staff will enter into detailed negotiations with New View, to provide a draft agreement for council consideration at the earliest possible opportunity, to include a clause that New View develop a fulsome public consultation process, to be implemented as the project moves into the detailed site planning phase.

Councillor Nieman said he was against the proposal and paying $1.5 million for the property and selling it for $1.5 million. “To me it’s worth a lot more than that. This parcel of land is worth more than what the money value is.”

Preferring the site be used for administrative office space, Nieman spoke to cost saving and efficiency, highlighting the expense of the two floors of the Edward Building the County is renting. He sought direction for staff to include discussion at next week’s budget deliberations, on the parking lot, and a feasibility assessment and business case (at an estimated cost of $100,000) to explore retaining ownership of the former school for staff accommodation, rental community hub space, affordable seniors housing, and a full market commercial rental space.

Resulting was a deferral motion put forward by Nieman that the County retain ownership that lost in a 9-4 recorded vote (with councillors Nieman, David Harrison, Sam Grosso and Pennell in favour).

Nieman also noted in terms of completed projects, there was “nothing to show from the municipal housing corporation that has been in existence for six years”.

Councillor Harrison said he wasn’t against proceeding with the New View proposal (but was against purchasing the property to start with), and wanted it deferred for a short period as he has concerns about budget deliberations, saying the County has a lot on its plate.

“I’m not comfortable with our financial situation, and would like to get through budget and see where our financial situation is. We should be taking and getting a very firm grounding by the time we are through that exercise,” said Harrison, who noted the upcoming expenditures for the County, such as the new long term care home, increase in OPP budget, equipment purchases and “increase in everything”.

County mayor Steve Ferguson said he “wholeheartedly disagreed” with the deferral motion, citing in particular the lack of confidence it would indicate to developers, particularly affordable housing developers.

“(With the deferral) We will absolutely not achieve our objective of creating affordable housing for those that need it,” said Ferguson. “That is wholly wrong and it violates the principles under which we formed our strategic objectives, and we are not dealing with the problem at all, we are kicking it down the road, and that is fundamentally wrong.”

Councillor John Hirsch also spoke to losing “our best possible chance”, reminding that to rehabilitate the existing building could cost up to $2 million.

“How can we pass-up this opportunity to look after our number one priority?” said Hirsch. “I absolutely can’t condone the idea of scaring away the best affordable housing developer around.”

Adam Goheen, the County’s director of housing, said the implications of deferral would bring different elements of risk, including timing, and could cost millions of dollars.

“A risk all the way around this, risk offending our prospective partner to delay too much into the future as these partners also rely on CMHC funding programs and we don’t know the future of those either,” said Goheen.

New View Holdings’ revised conceptual development plan includes a proposal to construct a mixed-market residential development, but they have reduced the number of residential units from the initial proposal (from 246), to 198 (114 one-bedroom and 84 two-bedroom), with 50 per cent (99 units) designated as affordable or supportive housing, and 50 per cent at market rate.

The 99 “affordable” units are to be guaranteed over the long term, 20 years or more, Goheen said, and will meet the affordable definition used in Prince Edward County, with a one-bedroom unit coming in at $400 per month less than market rate, something he described as a “substantial amount”.

Proposed is a total of 237 parking spaces to accommodate the apartment units as well as the hub centre users.

“New View has demonstrated experience in the development of housing projects, specifically in the affordable and supportive housing realms and has been very engaged throughout this process,” Goheen said. “They have listened to the concerns of the community and have committed to continuing to listen.”

Density for the project is high at 109 units per hectare, even though it is described as a low-density, pedestrian-friendly and a small-scale development, with four smaller structures (instead of three, four-storey blocks) occupying just 24 per cent of the site.

“The density I have no problem with, but making concessions has to be the part of the development community as well as the residential community,” said Ferguson.

The mixed-use and residential building design has been changed to a combination of three, three-and-a-half, and four-and-a-half storeys, notes Tim Neeb, president of Scarborough-based New View Holdings Inc. (Neeb is also partnering with Alan Hirschfield on the recently-approved Nicholas Street development).

“The half storey concept means the lower residential floor is set 40 per cent below ground level, and 50 per cent of the upper-most floor is located either mansard-type or gable roofs to lower the overall building mass, lower height and reflect the existing neighbourhood design,” stated Neeb.

The new proposal also provides for an increase in space allocated to the community hub, to 22,500 square feet, to be located at Barker and Centre Streets.

The revised proposal also includes a playground and community garden space, as well as significant tree planting.

While the proposition is expected to be built in one go, the developer indicates a willingness to complete the project in two phases, if desired.

Around 10 members of the public spoke to the proposal, most of whom were neighbours to the site, and while some were in favour of the development in principle, almost all were against it proceeding in its current form, where a number noted their concerns had been ignored, with “the failure to address and meet the concerns of the community, particularly the idea of the density”.

Concerns ranged from density and massing, size and style of the development, too many parking spaces, inadequate infrastructure, lack of green space, a few said the site should not only meet affordable housing needs, but the decision should not be rushed, with safety (especially children’s safety) top of mind especially due to increased traffic concerns.

Centre Street resident Gary Olsen, said the proposal is not acceptable.

“I support affordable housing, I support a hub for community services. What I don’t support is high, high density and the overwhelming number of units, and space used up in this area which doesn’t at all blend in with the existing community.”

He also took issue with one of the apartment buildings increasing to four-and-a-half storeys, the overwhelming number of parking spots (up from 207 to 237), non-existent green space, and concern for where kids would play.

“New View proposal describes it as very, very low-density, small scale development for a location in central Picton. I disagree. We are talking 200 units in a small two acres, land that increases the density immensely.”

Nearby resident Barbara Mason said, “We can and should do better than that with a site as sizeable, rare and valuable as this one”.

Goheen noted in response to early feedback, New View has revised its proposal by reducing the residential density, adding amenities and green space, contemplating an architectural design that is compatible with the neighbourhood and increasing the space allocated to the community hub.

“They have the infrastructure in place to operate purpose-built rental housing at the scale being proposed. In addition, connections have already been forged with local service agencies who may occupy the future community services hub, as well as a local, deeply-affordable housing provider, Quinte’s Isle Non-Profit Housing Corporation (QINPHC).

New View’s initial EOI submission had proposed a re-development of the site into three four-storey apartment buildings with a total of 246 units (40-50 per cent affordable or supportive housing), along with 12,000- square-feet of community hub space.

“New View has also leveraged their significant experience with intensified and in-fill residential development projects to propose an architectural design concept that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood by functionally and visually lowering the height and massing of the proposed buildings,“ noted Goheen.

He notes that while the original recommendation was for a mixed model of community space with the re-use of the school, and the balance of the site being affordable housing, those expectations have to be managed.

“It is clear that no party can make the site work with everything the committee recommended,” Goheen said. “It is now a near certainty that a partnership with private sector or non-profit investors will mean greater intensification of the property than originally envisioned, likely in the form of mixed-market residential units in a multi-building, multi-storey arrangement to make the project economically viable for a builder.”

Councillor Chris Braney was one of several councillors who indicated they were against the County purchasing the school property in the first place.

“I didn’t feel we had the money to buy the property and I was concerned; there are a number of issues that we could be and should be focused on and I felt this was not going to be a smart purchase and we are starting to hear that tonight,” Braney said.

“To put a development like this in this could completely destroy the fabric of a community like this.”

Councillor Phil Prinzen asked what happens if a traffic study doesn’t support the property.

“We are approving a plan, but if the study shows we don’t have the infrastructure to support it, or the roads, what happens to said property at that point?” asked Prinzen. “The reason it’s in front of us now, to divest ourselves before the end of the year for financial, because we don’t have the carrying – when are we going to see the money from the developer?”

Goheen confirmed the County would get the money in hand or for deposit when the agreement gets negotiated.

Of the four initial objectives recommended by staff, the proposal should include as many affordable housing units as possible, and provide up to 37,000-square-feet of rental space (for community service agencies at reasonable rates).

Also outlined was the recommendation that would allow the municipality to re-coup its investment in the property (approximately $1.5 million) within the current calendar year (2024).

The municipality had initially intended to purchase the property, where the undertaking for the school’s re-development project, originally intended to be supported by the federal government’s housing accelerator fund, was thwarted when the application was refused.

As a result, in July 2024, the municipality bought the property, paying $1.5 million.

The County will now sell the land at the amount it was purchased for, plus carrying costs ($1.5 million), where it was confirmed New View Holdings is still offering to purchase the property immediately for $1.5 million.

Goheen noted that since August, the five potential interested partners were given opportunity to visit the Barker Street site and engage further with municipal staff, where they had the opportunity to refine their proposals.

What resulted was only one revised proposal being received of the five original expressions of interest.

However, it was noted that QINPHC (one of the five initial EoIs) indicating they would require a development partner, said there is a strong potential to partner with New View Holdings to provide some deeply-affordable and supportive housing units as part of the New View re-development proposal in conjunction with Prince Edward Lennox and Addington Social Services.

Details of the initial five expressions of interest and background announced in August can be found here:

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

A public meeting was held in September where comments and concerns, suggestions and desires and general feedback were received from attendees.

General themes of note were affordable housing needs, density, water and wastewater infrastructure, increased traffic, integration of green space and recreational amenities, and massing of structures and architectural design must compliment existing neighbourhood.

Timelines and phasing of the proposed re-development will be contingent upon completion of the Picton master servicing plan.

“If sewer capacity is insufficient to support this project in the near term, any activation of this site could be several years in the future,” added Goheen.

“This proponent is ready and willing to build when we are ready, and infrastructure in place, can move quite quickly,” said Goheen.

Ferguson noted an opportunity that will not present itself again.

“The site in the serviced area with access with employment, to amenities, transportation, this is a last gasp to find a situation where we can help people that need help,” said Ferguson. “We’ve heard on numerous occasions about the situation people find themselves in. We have a situation here with a developer who has ticked all the boxes, has extensive experience in this kind of project, he is ready to go and will pay the deposit, and will incorporate the hub and other amenities.”

Below are the conclusions of the housing department of the four proposals no longer being pursued:

A3 Partners
A3 Partners offered to purchase the school property and lease it back to the County for a dollar for two years. During the two-year period, the ultimate re-development plan for the site would be created and the feasibility of opening their Wellington lands for development, which includes an affordable housing component, would be further investigated. At the end of the period, the County would have the option to purchase the school property back or enter into a long-term lease agreement with A3 Partners.

“The A3 Partners proposal provides the flexibility to develop a plan over a longer period of time while allowing for the County to re-coup the investment in the property immediately. However, the school building would require major investment to prepare it for tenancy and staff do not envision a funding source would be available to facilitate this work.”

A3 Partners has indicated that the terms of their initial EOI submission remain in play.

Port Picton Homes/Cleave Group
Port Picton Homes and Cleave Group had initially conceptualized a scenario whereby the school building would be completely renovated into leasable commercial space with the vacant portions of the property being developed into a mix of affordable and market housing.

“Recognizing that there is a significant amount of risk, financial and otherwise, associated with the conversion of an institutional building into commercial use, this prospective partner indicated that more investigation and due diligence would need to be undertaken, and as a result, Port Picton Homes and Cleave Group ultimately decided not to submit a revised proposal.”

Quinte’s Isle Non-Profit Housing Corporation (QINPHC)
QINPHC indicated in their initial submission a desire to increase the stock of deeply affordable and supportive housing in Prince Edward County.

“As they acknowledged they would require a development partner, staff facilitated QINPHC’s connection with other EOI respondents. QINPHC has advised that subsequent conversations have occurred, and they are pleased to report that there is a strong potential to partner with New View Holdings to provide some deeply-affordable and supportive housing units as part of the New View re-development proposal.”

Sterling Group
“In their strong and detailed initial EOI submission, a total of 234 residential units were proposed over two phases, with one phase being the adaptive re-use of the school building, along with 10,275-square-feet of community hub space.”

A revised proposal was not received from Sterling Group.