Former Queen Elizabeth School Redevelopment

As to Erynn's comment why isn't affordable housing part of every housing development?? The 900 units being built at Cold Creek? The 3000 units being built at the base??? The builds in Wellington?? The apartments by the Foodland?? What happened to the truly subsided units for desireli street (48) and a street in Wellington (54), in which 500K was already invested. Where is the county's plan. It seems like the "affordable" units at QE will tick a box for poor planning. And the subsequent burden on existing taxpayers is significant. What about all the old firehalls?? why not convert them into affordable housing. There is one in Picton that would convert to at least 4-5 stories or could be added to.

And this is the reality check:
· The County’s growth rate is low, averaging 0.5 % (if we adjust for mortality )- 1.0% annually over the next 20 years.
· Growth is driven by in-migration, especially retirees and remote workers, rather than natural population increase.
· The County’s aging population and infrastructure challenges may temper future growth unless addressed proactively.
Prince Edward County
Period Annual Growth Rate (Approx.)\ (October 2025
2025–2030 - 0.8% to 1.0%Ministry of Finance 2023 projections
2030–2035 - ~1.0% Ministry of Finance reference scenario
2035–2045 ~1.0%Ministry of Finance long-term forecast
Not yet adjusting for increase in mortality of population – rates should be 0.5 – 0.6%
Canadian Rates and impacts:
2026–2030 - 1.0%–1.3% annually Growth moderates as immigration targets stabilize and aging population slows natural increase.
· Total Fertility Rate (TFR): in 2024 — a record low, placing Canada in the “ultra-low fertility” category (below 1.30).
· Annual decline: -1.6% from 2023
Impact of Aging Population
Prince Edward County has one of the oldest populations in Ontario:
Median age: 57 years (vs. 41.6 provincial average)
Over 65: More than 33% of residents, with the 75+ age group growing 4x faster than the rest of the population
Consequences:
Slower population growth: Projected at 0.5–0.6% annually, significantly below provincial averages
Higher mortality rates: Expected to outpace births, further dampening growth
Healthcare strain: Rising chronic disease rates among seniors (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, COPD) and limited access to primary care providers
Housing turnover: Aging population will release housing stock over time
Impact of Infrastructure Limitations
Despite increased development approvals, infrastructure investment has lagged:
Water and wastewater systems: At or beyond capacity in Picton and Wellington; over $350 million in capital needs identified
Roads and bridges: Over 100 km rated in poor condition, with minimal upgrades.
Healthcare and education: Schools are at capacity, lacking basic amenities; healthcare services are stretched with insufficient doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals
Recreation and senior services: Facilities like PEFAC are maxed out and less than 1% of budget is dedicated to health and wellness of residents; there’s a shortage of assisted living and hospice options
Financial Implications:
High local taxes and fees: PEC has the highest water bills and debt per capita in Eastern Ontario
Municipal obligations: The County may be responsible for leasing community hubs and receives no tax revenue from affordable housing units, placing further strain on public finances
Significant allocations for LTC facility redevelopment and hospital support in the capital budget (2024: $116.1 million).
Prince Edward County municipality committed $4.5 million toward the hospital build. This was funded through a 1% annual tax levy on property tax bills, adopted in 2019, to fulfill the pledge over several years.
Staff Remuneration Growth
High-earner category (> $100K):
2023: 34 employees earning over $100K
2024: 46 employees earning over $100K (+35% increase)
Total compensation for these staff:
2023: $4.3 million
2024: $6.0 million (+39.5% increase)
Overall operating budget impact:
2024 operating budget: $75.2 million, with wages and benefits cited as a major driver of increases.
· PEC has one of the highest ratios of staff earning over $100K per capita among similar municipalities.
· Structural imbalance: 2024 expenses ($116.1M) exceed revenues ($75.2M), creating a $40.9M deficit.
Strategic Considerations
Growth projections from the Ministry of Finance suggest a population of ~30,786 by 2050, with growth slowing due to aging and infrastructure constraints.
Local planning assumptions may overestimate growth if they don’t account for rising mortality, declining fertility, and limited immigration.
Real estate available units
Picton Ward: ~140–150 listings (includes condos and single-family homes)
Ameliasburgh Ward: ~90–100 listings
Bloomfield Ward: ~40–50 listings
Hallowell Ward: ~35–40 listings
Sophiasburgh Ward: ~30–35 listings
Wellington Ward: ~25–30 listings
North Marysburg Ward: ~20–25 listings
Athol Ward: ~15–20 listings
Hillier Ward: ~15–20 listings
Total across all wards: ~530 active listings.
Continued growth in inventory, reflecting cooling demand and higher interest rates

As a resident and someone deeply engaged in innovation and transformation, I want to begin by acknowledging the importance of thoughtful development in our community. The Queen Elizabeth School redevelopment presents a significant opportunity to address housing needs and revitalize public space. However, I—and many others—have concerns that deserve to be heard and respected.

First, I want to address the proposed building height. The current plan shows a four-storey structure at the front of the property. This contradicts the community’s earlier input during the design charette, where a three-storey front and four-storey rear configuration was preferred. This change feels like a departure from the collaborative spirit that guided the initial planning process.

Second, the placement of the community gardens—now tucked away in a shaded, less visible area—raises questions about safety, accessibility, and the garden’s role as a vibrant, inclusive gathering space. These gardens were envisioned as a cornerstone of community connection, not an afterthought. These gardens are not just aesthetic features—they are vital tools for local food security. In a time when food prices are rising and supply chains are vulnerable, community gardens offer residents a way to grow fresh produce, reduce grocery costs, and build resilience. Their placement should reflect their importance, not diminish it.

Third - traffic safety and infrastructure burden - The scale and density of the proposed development will inevitably increase traffic in an already constrained area. This raises serious safety concerns, especially for pedestrians and children. Moreover, the existing infrastructure—such as water mains and roadways—is insufficient to support this level of growth. Without clear commitments from the developer, these upgrades may fall on taxpayers, adding financial strain to the community.

Fourth financial model and municipal risk - The financial structure of this development also warrants scrutiny. The municipality is expected to lease the community hub, creating long-term financial obligations. Meanwhile, affordable housing units are exempt from property taxes for 20 years, meaning the County may not recover costs through traditional revenue streams. This model shifts risk to the public while limiting financial return.

I also want to speak to a broader issue: the use of the term “NIMBY”—Not In My Back Yard. In recent discourse, this label has been weaponized to silence legitimate concerns. Opposing certain developments is not obstructionism—it’s responsible stewardship. It’s about asking the right questions: Will our infrastructure support this growth? Are we preserving the character and safety of our neighborhoods? Are we truly listening to the people who live here?

Labeling concerned residents as “NIMBYs” oversimplifies complex issues and undermines the democratic process. We must move beyond moral framing and embrace nuanced, inclusive planning that reflects both community values and long-term sustainability.

I urge the County and New View Holdings to revisit the design with transparency and integrity. Let’s ensure this development is not just about density—but about dignity, safety, and shared vision.

As a homeowner living in Picton, I am very excited about the plan for the Queen E site to be used to develop more affordable housing units for the community. I would strongly urge council to push for a higher density of affordable units both through 1) reverting back the story reduction, having all buildings at 4+ stories (ideally over 4) and 2) maintaining the proportion of affordable units at 50%. This would represent a really solid and hopeful first step to addressing the housing crisis our community is facing, and would set excellent precedent for further development.

I believe it is imperative to prioritize long term housing affordability in our community. Not only is it the morally right thing to do, but neglecting to take every opportunity to do so will also deteriorate the quality of the County and the features that draw folks to visit and support our corner of Ontario. Personally, I moved to Picton in 2023 and have since worked at two farms, had a public-facing role in the hospitality industry, have contributed multiple pieces to major art shows, have hosted community events, participated in community initiatives, and made invaluable local connections. Quite literally none of these actions would have been possible had I not had the privilege of moving to this town with prior savings from corporate Toronto-based work, which I have been using up to finance this level of local work and involvement. Furthermore, I am deeply uncertain that my future participation in the County economic and social landscape at a this continued pace is financially feasible if cost of living does not dramatically shift. I am an exception, and most folks making the County run do not have the option to subsidize their lives for two years. We are relying on people to live at or just above poverty so that we can enjoy a vibrant, artistic, farm-to-table lifestyle, a reality that truly keeps me up at night.

If we collectively agree that we need workers for hospitality, agriculture, and arts industries to continue to make the County vibrant and attractive for locals and visitors alike, we absolutely must take strong action to provide affordable housing which will attract - and critically, keep - folks around to staff these industries. Furthermore I'd like to argue that the Queen E site is ideal for this type of development as having higher density in the heart of Picton will improve walkability, improve quality of life, and provide more opportunity for in-person community building. I am confident that short-term accommodations for construction and traffic management can be worked out in order to fulfill this critical mandate. The character of every town and neighbourhood evolves over time, and this is an excellent opportunity to be proactive and shape the character of our town to be one that is more accessible to the folks trying to better the community and work hard to make ends meet.

As a community member who also lives around the corner from the QE site, I am happy to see we are headed in the right direction.

However, I am confused why we are accepting so few affordable units. Building 4 is off the road and away from street view. So adding an additional floor won’t change the vibe of the neighbourhood.

We already have apartment buildings around the corner that are 3 and 4 stories. Why not add a story to the 4th building with more affordable units? Let’s push the builder to maintain 50% affordable units.

We know that as a society we need the housing now, let alone in 5 years when the units are actually rentable.

We are on the right track, but we could be doing more!

Prince Edward County is, much like quite a lot of Ontario, is deep in a housing crisis, and this is very well known. As a young person who has struggled with housing myself, I am quite pleased that the County is attempting to improve this situation.

However, as many others have said, the plans that have been released for this project are rather underwhelming. I continue to see lots being taken up by huge homes that nobody can afford instead of smaller, more affordable places. There are so many people living in Prince Edward County that are in small families, or even on their own.

I urge a reconsideration the plans and return to the idea of a 4-story building. Maximizing the amount of affordable units is most certainly critical. Homelessness and housing insecurity are serious issues now more than ever, as the cost of living continues to skyrocket.

All things considered however, it is definitely relieving to hear that the higher-ups are aware of the crisis and are willing to put forward ideas to improving it.

After attending the meeting this past spring where the land sale was finalized, as well as the communnity Charette this past August it is beyond refreshing to see County Council placing the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens first in the midst of a housihng crisis.

Further to that, it is fantastic that this decsion was made based on the overwhelemling feedback from various organizations that work with those living in poverty, members of the business community and the large number of citizenns who spoke out in favour of a higher density and therefore higher number of affordable units at this site that is truly a rare oppurtunity to build housihng where it's needed most. What a win for democracy, council and the greater county community on the whole.

As mentioned in the spring meeting, if this was to be fully built tomorrow, the number of afforable units would still only cover approximately half of the affordable housing waitlist, which is a fantisic start but of course, not nearly enough to address the mouting housing crisis here.

To that, it would be an amazing addition to this already good start to see the second phase of the building plan, building four, increased in both height and densitiy. This idea is reflected in the report from the charette so I know I am not alone in this want.

Given that the neighbourhood the development is being built in already houses a number of 3-4 story apartment buildings (not to mention a number of private homes that are also 3+ stories), a new building composesed of a minimum of 5 stories is more than in line with the future and growth we are seeing in the county. Creating a building that is taller will also open up more green space at the back of the lot, something that was collectivlty agreed upon as an important feature of this build by the bulk of residents and people who attened the charrete. This also leaves space for the potention of a small number of town houses on the site and the possiblity of 3-4 bedroon units being included in the final site. All of which would help meet the housing needs in the county more than most developments.

Overall, this current plan is an excellent start however an increase in the number of units would also allow for greater flexbility when it comes to having some units being deeply subsidized as well as the potentional for a larger number of affordable units. Both of which the developers have expressed repeated interest in seeing come to fruition.

This is a great start, but I would urge council and the developers to push for more.

A question maybe better directed to Council, but of great relevance to the proposed redevelopment. The initial priority for the acquisition of the Queen E site was to create a community hub, among other things. Under the proposed plan, the taxpayers of Prince Edward County will rent the entire 22,500 sq-ft hub with the County being responsible for securing tenants and managing all leases. The County could definitely benefit from the consolidation of services into the hub, but multiple reports commissioned by Council indicate the County has an excess of vacant and underutilized real estate. What is the anticipated cost to the taxpayers to rent an additional 22,500 sq-ft? If the County is unable to fully lease the space, what will be done to occupy the vacancies? Earlier proposals, and comments by council members, suggested the County occupy the Queen E site, as opposed to, for example, paying premium rent to place staff in the Edward Building. Would moving staff into the "Hub" in lieu of other leased properties be considered if the Hub is not fully occupied? While the Hub is a critical need, the current proposal incurs tremendous financial risk and burden on the taxpayers - I would like the Municipality to make publicly available a report outlining all costs (rent, utilities, any tax waivers, etc.) and duration of commitment associated with the proposed obligation to rent the entire Hub from the developer.

Contrary to the proponent's summary report dated Sept 11, 2025 and to correct statements made by Councillor St Jean at the charette session on Aug 25, 2025 both interim CAO Goheen and Affordable Housing Supervisor Ziegler have confirmed in writing to me that there is no "detailed reconstruction design of Barker Street to address these issues ["reconstructing Barker Street to allow two-way traffic with sidewalks on both sides", p11 of Sept 11 Engagement Report]. To quote Mr Goheen "I can also advise that the most significant proposed change to the surface of Barker Street was the addition of barrier curb and gutter (and associated drainage appurtenances) to the sections that currently have none, with lane widths formalized at 3.5m". I arranged to view the drawings and there are no additional sidewalks proposed, nor formal delineation of altered traffic flow. Per my previous comments, the current road & pedestrian infrastructure is not designed to accommodate the proposed increased densification and anticipated traffic flow associated with this development.

As to Karim, point there were 2 other developments one on Dessareli and one in Wellington that were around 30 -50 units each. None of that has gone ahead. And why isn't affordable housing part of every development instead of trying to create a check box in one place. I am sure people on The Wellington side of the county or close to Belleville don't all want to live in Picton where businesses are closing, and jobs are disappearing.

I am involved in the design of the new hospital in Campbellford. For the parking lot we have included plantings that are esthetically and functionally more appealing. https://globalnews.ca/news/9942112/campbellford-memorial-hospital-rendering-proposed-campus-of-care/


BTW as to some health, wellbeing and safety risks.

Health Hazards of Light Pollution
1. Human Health Hazards
a. Circadian Rhythm Disruption

Exposure to artificial light at night (ALAN) suppresses melatonin and disrupts the sleep–wake cycle.
Leads to insomnia, daytime fatigue, and reduced cognitive function.
Evidence: Falchi et al. (2016); Cho et al. (2015).
b. Chronic Diseases
Metabolic & Cardiovascular: Misaligned circadian rhythms increase risks of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.
Evidence: Scheer et al. (2009).
Cancer: IARC (2010) classified circadian-disrupting shift work as probably carcinogenic, linking ALAN to breast and prostate cancer.
Evidence: IARC Monographs, Vol. 98.
c. Mental Health
Excessive nighttime light exposure is associated with depression, anxiety, and mood disorders.
Evidence: Ohayon & Milesi (2016).
d. Vision and Eye Health
Glare and overexposure to blue-rich light cause visual strain, impair night vision, and may damage retinal cells.
Evidence: Pauley (2004).
2. Animal and Ecological Health Hazards
a. Disruption of Nocturnal Wildlife
Many species rely on darkness for foraging, navigation, and reproduction. ALAN interferes with these behaviors.
Evidence: Longcore & Rich (2004).
b. Birds
Migratory birds use moon and stars for navigation. Artificial lights disorient them, leading to collisions with buildings.
Evidence: Cabrera-Cruz et al. (2018).
c. Insects
Light pollution attracts insects, disrupting pollination and increasing mortality.
Contributes to insect population declines, which affects food chains.
Evidence: Owens & Lewis (2018).
e. Plants and Ecosystems
Alters flowering times, photosynthesis, and interactions between plants and nocturnal pollinators.
Evidence: Bennie et al. (2016).
Key References
Falchi, F., Cinzano, P., Duriscoe, D., et al. (2016). The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness. Science Advances, 2(6), e1600377.
Cho, Y., Ryu, S. H., Lee, B. R., et al. (2015). Effects of artificial light at night on human health: A literature review. Chronobiology International, 32(9), 1294–1310.
Scheer, F. A. J. L., Hilton, M. F., Mantzoros, C. S., & Shea, S. A. (2009). Adverse metabolic and cardiovascular consequences of circadian misalignment. PNAS, 106(11), 4453–4458.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2010). Shift-work, painting and fire-fighting. IARC Monographs, Vol. 98. Lyon: WHO.
Ohayon, M. M., & Milesi, C. (2016). Artificial outdoor nighttime lights and mental health: A population-based study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 84, 9–16.
Pauley, S. M. (2004). Lighting for the human circadian clock. Medical Hypotheses, 63(4), 588–596.
Longcore, T., & Rich, C. (2004). Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(4), 191–198.
Cabrera-Cruz, S. A., Smolinsky, J. A., & Buler, J. J. (2018). Light pollution is greatest within migration passage areas for nocturnally-migrating birds. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 3261.
Owens, A. C. S., & Lewis, S. M. (2018). The impact of artificial light at night on nocturnal insects: A review and synthesis. Ecology and Evolution, 8(22), 11337–11358.
Witherington, B. E., & Bjorndal, K. A. (1991). Influences of artificial lighting on the seaward orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Biological Conservation, 55(2), 139–149.
Bennie, J., Davies, T. W., Cruse, D., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Ecological effects of artificial light at night on wild plants. Journal of Ecology, 104(3), 611–620.

Demolition and asbestos
Health Hazards of Demolition of Buildings with Asbestos
1. Primary Hazard: Asbestos Fiber Release

When asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are disturbed during demolition, microscopic fibers are released into the air.

These fibers are inhaled and can lodge in the lungs or swallowed and reach the digestive tract.

The fibers are durable, resistant to breakdown, and bio-persistent in the human body.

Reference: World Health Organization (WHO, 2014); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2023).

2. Acute Health Risks (Short-Term Exposure)

Asbestos-related pleural effects: Thickening and inflammation of the pleura (lung lining).

Respiratory irritation: Shortness of breath, coughing, wheezing from fiber inhalation.

Risk is higher for workers at the demolition site without protective equipment.

Reference: ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2001).

3. Chronic Health Risks (Long-Term, Latent Effects)
a. Asbestosis

A chronic, progressive lung disease caused by scarring of lung tissue from prolonged asbestos exposure.

Symptoms: Shortness of breath, persistent cough, chest tightness, and reduced lung function.

Often develops after years of exposure.

Reference: Mossman et al. (2011).

b. Mesothelioma

A rare but aggressive cancer of the pleural or peritoneal lining, strongly linked to asbestos exposure.

Can occur decades after exposure.

Reference: Carbone et al. (2019).

c. Lung Cancer

Asbestos exposure significantly increases the risk of lung cancer, especially among smokers.

Reference: Straif et al. (2009, IARC Monographs).

d. Other Cancers

Evidence links asbestos to cancers of the larynx, ovaries, and possibly gastrointestinal tract.

Reference: IARC (2012).

4. Secondary / Community Hazards

Environmental contamination: Fibers can spread beyond demolition sites via air, soil, and dust.

Household exposure: Families of demolition workers may be exposed through contaminated clothing (“para-occupational exposure”).

Reference: Ferrante et al. (2007).

5. Occupational Safety Risks During Demolition

High fiber release during uncontrolled demolition, especially if ACMs are dry-cut, broken, or pulverized.

Risks elevated when proper asbestos abatement, wetting, containment, and disposal protocols are not followed.

Reference: OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2023).

Key References

WHO. (2014). Elimination of asbestos-related diseases. World Health Organization.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2023). Asbestos: Health effects and exposure.

ATSDR. (2001). Toxicological profile for asbestos. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Mossman, B. T., Shukla, A., & Heintz, N. H. (2011). Asbestos: Mechanisms of toxicity and carcinogenicity in the respiratory tract. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 51, 451–472.

Carbone, M., Adusumilli, P. S., Alexander, H. R., et al. (2019). Mesothelioma: Scientific clues for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 69(5), 402–429.

Straif, K., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Baan, R., et al. (2009). A review of human carcinogens—Part C: Metals, arsenic, dusts, and fibres. The Lancet Oncology, 10(5), 453–454.

IARC. (2012). Arsenic, metals, fibres and dusts: A review of human carcinogens. IARC Monographs, Vol. 100C.

Ferrante, D., Bertolotti, M., Todesco, A., et al. (2007). Cancer mortality and incidence of mesothelioma in a cohort of wives of asbestos workers in Casale Monferrato, Italy. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(10), 1401–1405.

OSHA. (2023). Asbestos Standard (29 CFR 1926.1101) for the construction industry.

In summary: The demolition of asbestos-containing buildings is one of the most hazardous construction activities, with risks spanning from acute respiratory irritation to fatal chronic illnesses such as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.

Health Hazards of Prolonged Noise and Dust Exposure in Construction
1. Noise Hazards
a. Hearing Loss

Continuous exposure to high decibel levels (>85 dB) damages inner ear hair cells.

Leads to Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL), often irreversible.

Reference: Basner et al. (2014), WHO (2018).

b. Cardiovascular Effects

Chronic noise exposure linked to hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and stroke.

Mechanism: stress response activation (elevated cortisol, sympathetic nervous system).

Reference: Münzel et al. (2018).

c. Sleep Disturbances & Fatigue

Construction workers exposed to prolonged noise often suffer from poor sleep, which worsens accident risk and mental health.

Reference: Basner & McGuire (2018).

d. Mental Health and Cognition

Long-term noise exposure contributes to stress, irritability, anxiety, and reduced concentration.

Reference: Stansfeld & Clark (2015).

2. Dust Hazards
a. Respiratory Diseases

Inhalation of construction dust (silica, cement, wood, metals) leads to:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Silicosis (from crystalline silica dust)

Asthma and bronchitis

Reference: Hoy et al. (2018); OSHA (2023).

b. Cancer Risks

Prolonged inhalation of silica dust is a known cause of lung cancer.

Reference: IARC (2012, Group 1 carcinogen).

c. Eye and Skin Irritation

Dust particles cause conjunctivitis, corneal abrasions, and dermatitis.

Cement dust is alkaline and corrosive, worsening skin and eye problems.

Reference: Al-Neaimi et al. (2001).

d. Systemic Effects

Fine particles (PM2.5 and PM10) can enter the bloodstream, contributing to cardiovascular disease and systemic inflammation.

Reference: Brook et al. (2010).

3. Combined Risks (Noise + Dust in Construction)

Accident Risk: Noise masks warning signals, while dust reduces visibility → higher injury rates.

Cumulative Burden: Simultaneous exposure increases fatigue, stress, and long-term morbidity.

Vulnerable Populations: Older workers, smokers, and those with pre-existing respiratory/cardiovascular conditions face higher risks.

Key References

Basner, M., Babisch, W., Davis, A., et al. (2014). Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. The Lancet, 383(9925), 1325–1332.

WHO. (2018). Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. World Health Organization.

Münzel, T., Sørensen, M., Schmidt, F., et al. (2018). Environmental noise and cardiovascular risk: Clinical review. European Heart Journal, 39(13), 1075–1084.

Basner, M., & McGuire, S. (2018). WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines: Evidence review of health effects of noise on sleep. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(3), 519.

Stansfeld, S., & Clark, C. (2015). Health effects of noise exposure in children. Current Environmental Health Reports, 2(2), 171–178.

Hoy, R. F., Brims, F. J., & Musk, A. W. (2018). Occupational lung diseases in the 21st century: An update. Respirology, 23(4), 367–375.

OSHA. (2023). Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

IARC. (2012). Arsenic, metals, fibres, and dusts. IARC Monographs, Vol. 100C. Lyon: WHO.

Al-Neaimi, Y. I., Gomes, J., & Lloyd, O. L. (2001). Respiratory illnesses and ventilatory function among workers at a cement factory in a rapidly developing country. Occupational Medicine, 51(6), 367–373.

Brook, R. D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., et al. (2010). Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 121(21), 2331–2378.

BTW - the other thing is that this neighbourhood is going to have to endure years of construction. I really worry about my and my community's health and wellbeing dealing with noise, dust, disruption, etc (never mind the demolition). Honestly seriously considering moving -out of the county - and so are a lot of my neighbours. I get what you are trying to do but not what I want in my life. We moved here to be part of a quiet rural town. My husband and I have contributed so much to this area, including taxes that have supported many initiatives (hospital), we have been on boards and school council, done programming at school, support community needs - reaching for rainbows program, the ROC, dance programs, breakfast programs, coats for kids, books for kids, hospice, the marathon, etc.). So sad we have lived here for over 20 years, raised my family here and honestly no one on council or in the municipal government seems to care about our community - just money and biggering (Lorax reference). BTW no one in council lives here in this neighbourhood. What are you going to do about the asbestos in the school - yet another health concern - when airborne it is a major health concern - again health and wellbeing of the community - is it on your radar.

Have the following concerns with the redesign:
1. Your community engagement is still lacking - having 3 members from the community at a charette is NOT community engagement.
2. Is building A now 4 stories? That was not an acceptable height.
3. Traffic flow still appears to be a nightmare. 100+ units will empty onto ELM (tiny road)- right into the middle of school traffic zone - a huge safety concern. We are talking K-12 students. approximately 1000 of them plus parents and teachers.
4. Very concerned about the HUGE parking area. What about underground or using over parking areas - school after hours?? This is a concern for drainage - huge weather events. Drainage on Centre and Barker is already poor
5. Very concerned with my health and wellbeing and the potential light pollution from the parking lot - this is a huge public health concern for circadian rhythms /sleeping and general wellbeing. Light pollution is also a concern for birds and bats and other animals that cohabit the space.
6. Garbage and HVAC - also noise and congestion and issues with wild animals coming into town.
7. We have yet to actually see the site design - exterior??? the other site, the only one by this firm, looks like concrete barracks.
8. And I harp on this point, and no one listens but - For Prince Edward County

5 year projection to 2030 - 0.5% per year, growth slowing 0.2% to 0.5%
Same over next 10 year cycles with projected population 2050 - 30,786

Current rates have not accounted for anticipated increase in mortality rates.

Even the Canadian population growth rate is slowing: The Canadian population growth stalled in the first quarter of 2025, with the smallest increase since the third quarter of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The second quarter rates are flat lined with no growth. Fertility rates are also the lowest in decades.

BTW - economic updates and there could be more.
Wellington Mushroom farm closing - 200 jobs
Starbucks Closing - Picton
Waupoos Cider - reduced staff by1/2
Fat Face - Picton closed
Post Office impact - unknown at this time. - approx. 250 to 325 jobs

BTW - real estate markets have seen a 91% decrease in sales, with Prince Edward County having the highest listings over 500 homes (currently at 582) since May 2025.

Public safety should be number one concern. Road and pedestrian network in north Picton can not accommodate proposed increase in traffic. Traffic studies aren't being released. Making Barker St 2-way will increase, not reduce traffic. Paul, Centre, Elizabeth, and Bowery all end at Barker or dead end north of Barker -- all traffic will be routed through designated school zone (speed reductions & stop signs have already been installed over existing safety concerns) but continued failure to address volume in a "dead end" road network.

We have gone from 123 affordable units to 50 since this project's inception.

Initial Proposal - 246 units with 50% affordable units. This provides 123 affordable units.

November 2024 Update - 198 units with 50% affordable units. This provides 99 affordable units. Community feedback reduced affordable housing by 24 units by reducing all buildings by 1 storey.

Sept 11 2025 Update - It seems the above storey reduction cut even more affordable units from this most recent report. "Some participants expressed concern that the commitment to affordable units had decreased from 50% in earlier versions to 25–30% in the revised plan.". I assume the total unit count hasn't changed from 198, so we have ~50 affordable units after all community consultations.

We need councillors who can push for housing denisity in our housing crisis; with a 0.2% vacancy rate, we need to be focussed on density over aesthetics.