Re: Municipal request for a…

Re: Municipal request for a Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator for mixed-use and residential development in Prince Edward County

ERO number 019-8619 – Comment period May 10, 2024 – June 9, 2024

I am submitting the comments noted below for the Minister’s consideration with respect to Prince Edward County’s MZO request for the 88-hectare portion of lands identified as Base 31, owned and operated by PEC Community Partners Inc (DECO Communities - TACC Group of Companies / Tercot / Rockport / PEC Placemaking).

The Zoning Framework identifies documents required to support the application. These documents do not appear to have been provided to the public through the ERO notice, or by link to the submitter’s website. After reviewing the Municipality’s website and after emailing the ERO and Municipality to obtain this information, it appears that some supporting documents still have not been publicly provided, including:

• a copy of a draft zoning order for the use of the lands under the MZO
• rationale on why the project requires ministerial zoning relief rather than following municipal planning processes
• anticipated timelines related to applying for downstream approvals (for example, site plan, plan of subdivision, building permit)
• anticipated timing for project completion
• information related to how and when servicing (water/wastewater) will be addressed

The Municipality’s request states: “The County and PEC Community Partners Inc. are making a CIHA request for two reasons: to address an urgent need for affordable housing, and to facilitate the Revitalization District which promotes protection of cultural heritage assets and promotes economic development.”

The 58-hectare Revitalization District has already been significantly redeveloped. It is also currently under a temporary use site specific zoning bylaw amendment that came into effect May 24, 2022 and will expire May 18, 2025. The Revitalization District has been operating successfully as a vibrant music, food and arts/cultural event destination for over a year.

The Revitalization District temporary use ZBA does not permit residential - only bunkhouses and live/work units.

The CIHA/MZO request does not provide a draft zoning order to identify what the changes to the current temporary uses would be, or what further redevelopment is “critically and urgently needed”, requiring the need to bypass regular municipal planning protocols, under an MZO.

The Municipality’s CIHA/MZO letter - Attachment 1 (map), shows Village A and Village F, as well as the Revitalization District as areas under consideration, yet the rationale does not explain the priority for Village F (which, according to the Master Servicing Report, is not expected to be under development until Phase 6).

The November 2023 Area Concept Plan still includes the portion of the site (Block 3 abutting Clarke Road) that is not within the urban boundary. In order to fully develop the lands following the ACP, a further urban boundary expansion would be required, which is currently not supported under Provincial policy outside of an MCR.

From the Dec 13/23 – DS-77-2023 OPA 4-23 Stantec (PEC consultant) report to Council: “The original Official Plan Amendment application was for 304 ha (750 acres). As discussed later in this report, the revised submission is for 255 ha (630 acres). The rural industrial lands to the east which were originally included in the application cannot be redesignated at this time in an individual application. Under the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), that needs to be considered as part of a municipally led comprehensive review process. The applicant elected to remove that request from the application at this time.”

The development is proposed to be phased over 25-30 years with only 5% affordable housing committed by the developer over the entire site.

From the consultant’s Agency/Stakeholder Comment matrix:

“PECCPI looked to the recent More Homes Built Faster Act, which places a 5% cap on affordable units. Given the density proposed here, PECCPI is confident 5% (up to approximately 375 units) affordable (a mix of ownership and rental) across the site is appropriate and consistent with provincial policy.”
“The affordable housing targets set out by the County are targets and not a requirement. This needs to be balanced against a number of other considerations including infrastructure, feasibility and investment into the revitalization of Base 31. The 5% target committed to by PECCPI is similar to other projects of similar size across the province…”

The definition of what is “affordable” needs to be clarified, as well as the location and number of units to be required in the MZO. Considering that the 5% affordable housing threshold is a minimum, and the Picton Secondary Plan requirement for 33% of new housing to be affordable are only a “target” that according to the developer they do not have an obligation to meet, it is difficult to see how this application for an MZO meets the “addressing an urgent need for affordable housing”.

The planning justification report supporting the CIHA provided to Council (Sept 20/23 DS-58-2023 Stantec Report to Council requesting CIHA endorsement), as well as a presentation by the Municipality at the October 25, 2023 OPA public meeting, indicated that the CIHA would apply to only 30 hectares, yet the Municipality’s MZO request notes it applies to 88 hectares. This has not been publicly clarified.

“Should a CIHA be put in place by the Minister, it would apply to 30 ha of the site (see Attachment 3). The Base 31 proponents are proposing an overall affordable housing commitment that a minimum of 5% of the number of housing units will be constructed in accordance with the statements set forth in the ACP. That is 5% will be "Affordable" in accordance with the provincial definitions (i.e., rents at 80% of average market rents)…

… The CIHA order will set the built form parameters for the site, very similar to what zoning would typically do. Base 31 would then identify exactly which part of the site they will use for the affordable housing project(s), including the layout and types of units that can be built within those CIHA parameters. Both the County and Base 31 acknowledge that we are in a quickly evolving environment where rental housing is a top policy priority of all three levels of government, and should additional programs or incentives become available during the planning and construction time frame, which will facilitate Base 31 providing more such housing, they will undertake to do so in good faith, as the economics of the project will permit.”

The Municipality has prioritized the provision of dedicated affordable housing and currently has two other projects moving through the planning process; one on Niles Street in Wellington (36 units) and another on Disraeli Street (12 units) in Picton. As well, a retirement home in rural Picton was recently converted to transitional housing (9 units) for those unhoused.

It is difficult to understand how Base 31, committing only 5% affordable or attainable housing across the entire site, being constructed over 30 years, would justify an urgent MZO.
From the consultant’s Agency/Stakeholder Comment matrix:

“Environmental investigations have been underway at the Base31 Site since 2019. An environmental consultant and Qualified Person (QP) has been retained to oversee the completion of soil and ground water sampling programs to support the proposed redevelopment across 304-hectares of land, some of which were formerly associated with the historical Picton Airport operations.

To-date, the environmental investigations have identified two isolated areas of contamination in soil and ground water within the northwest corner of the former Base 31 Site, spanning across an area less than 3-hectares in size. Environmental investigations are on-going and are being overseen by a QP in accordance with provincial regulations to support the proposed redevelopment. As a result of the contamination identified in soil and ground water, remediation of contaminants, including a Risk Assessment, will be completed to ensure that the most sensitive land use is possible at the Site, which will be acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP).”

Considering more analysis and a risk assessment of the entire site’s contamination is still outstanding, the potential development of the Revitalization District for additional uses and/or intensified residential dwelling units should be held in abeyance pending completion of these studies and remediation recommendations. It would be premature to approve an MZO on lands potentially contaminated without an adequate remediation plan.

Details of timelines for downstream approvals (site plan, building permits, etc) has not been provided.

Considering that Class Environmental Assessments (EA’s) for the Wellington water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades have not yet been finalized, and the Picton and Regional Master Servicing Plans remaining outstanding, it is premature to confirm that servicing will be ready and available to the site to accommodate the growth proposed.

The public has voiced numerous concerns with respect to the financial viability of the proposed costs to accommodate infrastructure for forecasted long-term growth, including Base 31. A review of the growth projections and financial model to support the capital costs for water infrastructure was tasked by Council to the Audit Committee and is currently being undertaken. The developer’s consultants have also identified servicing as a constraint requiring a phased approach. A timeframe for when water and wastewater servicing will be available to accommodate the defined area of the MZO (Village A and F – potentially 2,300 units as per the Master Servicing Report) has not been provided and cannot be assumed to be in place in the near future.

An Enhanced Cost Sharing Agreement between the Municipality and the developer includes the hiring of three dedicated staff with the mandate that: “All of the foregoing Dedicated Municipal Staff shall be exclusively dedicated to the review, processing and expediting of the Application(s) and the Development Plans”.

As well, the Enhanced Cost Acknowledgement Agreement notes that a Development Plan Steering Committee, comprised of the developer, consultants, the Dedicated Municipal Staff and others as necessary, shall meet monthly to provide updates on the progress of the Application(s) and the Development Plans.

The 2023 taxpayer Budget included a specific line item for Base 31 for wages & benefits for Base 31 totalling $346,240. Details of the total costs expended to date for all dedicated staffing/consultants since the Enhanced Cost Acknowledgement Agreement was put in place is not publicly available.

The public perception of this Enhanced Cost Sharing Agreement, and the recent MZO request, is that one developer may be receiving preferential treatment over others in the processing of their planning applications (as per submissions in the Comment matrix).

I would respectfully ask that the Minister consider all of the above when making a decision on the MZO request submitted. These comments and supporting documents will also be submitted to the ERO/MMAH by email.