Updated proposal heard for Queen Elizabeth school re-development

Administrator | Nov 07, 2025 | Comments 0

Story and photos by Sharon Harrison
Details on the latest proposed design for the former Queen Elizabeth Public School re-development were outlined to residents this week at a public information centre.

The Prince Edward Community Centre was well attended as folks browsed the various display boards set-up around the room. The informal and interactive format also allowed for design team members to discuss the proposal in more detail and answer individual questions.

After an introduction with several short speeches and then a brief presentation, the floor was opened up to questions with New View Holdings owner Alan Hirschfield taking questions and addressing concerns.

County mayor Steve Ferguson, along with affordable housing supervisor Elis Ziegler, spoke briefly to the project, with design consultants SvN Architects and Planners providing an update.

“There is an urgent need for housing in Prince Edward County, with a particular emphasis on affordable housing options,” stated Ferguson. “The QE site represents the last available parcel of serviced land in the area that is large enough to support the development of new housing.”

He said this location is particularly advantageous as it’s close to transportation, commercial businesses, schools and other local amenities. “Furthermore, the property at its capacity supports the creation of a hub for social and community services which would further benefit the community.”

The latest changes to the 35 Barker Street property in Picton come as a result of public comments received from a charette (visioning session) held Aug. 25 which heard concerns and input from around 25 residents and local agency groups.

The motive was to hear a diverse mix of voices and various perspectives, comments and concerns and areas that need to be looked at further, explained SvN’s Nicole Dilisi.

She outlined the key points raised included a strong focus on balancing density, height and affordability; compatibility with the existing neighbourhood; traffic considerations; and making it a pedestrian-friendly environment. She said they also heard that the emphasis should be on green space and trees.

“The information presented this evening reflects the valuable input the developer received from residents and community groups through that process,” noted Ferguson, “and as we continue to move forward with this project, as we work toward a final plan, there will be additional opportunities for public input regarding the proposals and concepts shared tonight.”

The most significant change to the design is Building D which will now be a seniors-only apartment building, and has increased in size from three storeys to four storeys. There are also other changes, such as the relocation of the community garden, and reconfiguration of the parking area.

“We hadn’t considered this [seniors apartment building ] to begin with, but in discussions with Elis [Ziegler ], 35 per cent of the community is seniors and it’s increasing,” said Hirschfield, “and a large portion of those are single women, and income goes down, so there is a need for smaller, one-bedroom units and that’s the reason for Building D.”

The modified design includes four apartment buildings to be built in two phases.

Phase one would include Building A (52 units), Building B (52 units) shown above, and Building C (44 units), each three storeys in height, for a total of 148 units for phase one. Note, Building A sits above the proposed hub.

Phase two would include Building D which will be a four-storey apartment building for seniors (age 65-plus) containing 63 units. The total build-out will result in 211 units, with 177 parking spaces, plus 32 on-street spots.

The total number of units has increased in this latest version, from 198 to 211, which Hirschfield said was as a result of incorporating smaller, one-bedroom units (in the newly-proposed seniors building), something that was highlighted in the public consultation process.

He also said these most recent changes do not change affordability in any way.

“We have to have this many housing; literally, if I start lowering the density, CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation) is just not going to fund it, and they also look for efficiency of land use. This is our best shot at it, but it doesn’t mean we are perfect.”

“As a developer that does a combination of market and affordable, we are always looking to increase the percentage of affordable as much as we can, that’s what we specialize in: we see the need.”

It was noted the buildings will be built of concrete, and will not be wood structure, with a masonry finish, and will be “built to last, and built to run efficiently”. In response to an audience question, Hirschfield also confirmed that the project will not include any commercial development, other than the non-residential component for the hub.

There will be no basements and no underground parking.

There was little information provided on what the proposed hub will look like.

“We don’t know whether the hub is going to be 20,000-square-feet, or 13,000 or 12,000, that’s a question of affordability, and need and capacity of the agencies.”

We really want the community hub to be a flexible and welcoming environment, and the design will continue to evolve, added Dilisi.

Audience questions and concerns varied from worries about soil conditions (minerals and structural capacity) as well as site contamination (asbestos), past flooding issues, the green spaces and gardens (size and distance from buildings), affordability, to will it create local employment opportunities.

One audience member asked about servicing capacity and what level of servicing upgrades will be required as “putting this much residential where there used to be a school, there is a question about capacity”.

He also spoke to the location and size of the park.

“I am wondering why a relatively skinny strip of land that is located at a busy intersection was chosen as the park space rather than pushing the building towards the busier intersection and creating a more separated parking space that brings the community more into the development, than keeping it at the edge,” he stated.

It was stressed the proposal is still in the very early phases of the design and approvals process with the application yet to work its way through the County’s planning process (an application has not yet been submitted). “The anticipated timelines are still being worked out based on a number of factors, but you are probably talking 24 to 36 months” confirmed Matt James with the construction management team.

“We still have to buy the building, we have put a deposit down and we are engaging on developing the CMHC financing application,” reminded Hirschfield. “We don’t intend to not build this. We wouldn’t have gone to this level without being sure that it would be proceeding; these are not easy projects to do, but so far, we see things developing positively.”

Hirschfield also spoke to the overall design concept and the reason behind it.

“The main design determinant here was to try to make it look like this development has been there a long time, and try to fit in with the context of the scale of housing around this, and also the historical heritage component of this area,” he said. “We didn’t want to do buildings that loomed over the neighbourhood, they do respect the streetscape.”

“We wanted this development to be porous, so that people could easily move from the neighbourhood, move through it and around it, and feel that the development belongs to everyone that lives there.”