The journey forward for the Columbus Part II Plan took some unusual turns in February 2022. The rush to get the Planning Act public process underway after the messy and inaccessible virtual PIC #4 at the end of 2022 suddenly flipped around on February 7th.
At the end of the Feb 7, 2022 Development Services Committee meeting the Mayor made two motions: one to study a Heritage Conservation District for the Special Policy area for Columbus; and the other to delay the Planning Act public process until 2023: His motions were: DS-22-41 and DS-22-42. It seemed that finally the Mayor had been moved by Columbus area residents concerns!
But alas, the next morning something new was revealed! The Provincial task force on housing made its recommendations public — "increase density in urban and suburban areas and drastically overhaul how cities approve housing projects". It seems the Mayor would have heard about this report since the CBC indicated the government provided CBC News with a copy of the Report in advance of the announcement.
""Less than two months after Ford and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark appointed the task force" the public learns it's "proposed changes would lessen the power that cities have over housing developments by giving the province the authority to impose standards related to zoning, density and urban design".
So the seeming 'reset effort' with the Mayor's motion did not appear to be good news after all for the development of Columbus community. The Mayor and the developers would have known about the Feb 8, 2022 announcement. If the Mayor's motion to slow the process next passes at Council on February 21st, the BIG QUESTION is: will the density for the Columbus Part II plan now be increased even more?
A constituent recently said it well — when considering the need for housing, there must also be consideration how development plans over the long term need to create sustainable and livable COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURHOODS!
Then on the Agenda for the Feb 22, 2022 Council meeting there was yet another of the Mayor's motions that begged suspension of disbelief. He plans to write the Premier asking to remove the Columbus Special Policy area from the Provincial Growth Plan intensification targets of 50 people and jobs per hectare. The goal being to decrease density. But one has to wonder why the Mayor didn't make this motion long ago?? Is it actually legitimate, or for show, like his show of asking for a reconsideration of the location for the new Durham hospital. l It would be awesome if it was possible, but chances are so remote it seems very ironic, coming from the Mayor, a politician who so often likes to go on about 'managing expectations'.
One letter writer, who also seems to be trying to understand what really is going on with the Mayor's motions, asked some very direct questions. Is it a positive, or is there another undercurrent? The letter, received at Council Feb 22, 2022 is copied below.
At the end of the Feb 7, 2022 Development Services Committee meeting the Mayor made two motions: one to study a Heritage Conservation District for the Special Policy area for Columbus; and the other to delay the Planning Act public process until 2023: His motions were: DS-22-41 and DS-22-42. It seemed that finally the Mayor had been moved by Columbus area residents concerns!
But alas, the next morning something new was revealed! The Provincial task force on housing made its recommendations public — "increase density in urban and suburban areas and drastically overhaul how cities approve housing projects". It seems the Mayor would have heard about this report since the CBC indicated the government provided CBC News with a copy of the Report in advance of the announcement.
""Less than two months after Ford and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark appointed the task force" the public learns it's "proposed changes would lessen the power that cities have over housing developments by giving the province the authority to impose standards related to zoning, density and urban design".
So the seeming 'reset effort' with the Mayor's motion did not appear to be good news after all for the development of Columbus community. The Mayor and the developers would have known about the Feb 8, 2022 announcement. If the Mayor's motion to slow the process next passes at Council on February 21st, the BIG QUESTION is: will the density for the Columbus Part II plan now be increased even more?
A constituent recently said it well — when considering the need for housing, there must also be consideration how development plans over the long term need to create sustainable and livable COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURHOODS!
Then on the Agenda for the Feb 22, 2022 Council meeting there was yet another of the Mayor's motions that begged suspension of disbelief. He plans to write the Premier asking to remove the Columbus Special Policy area from the Provincial Growth Plan intensification targets of 50 people and jobs per hectare. The goal being to decrease density. But one has to wonder why the Mayor didn't make this motion long ago?? Is it actually legitimate, or for show, like his show of asking for a reconsideration of the location for the new Durham hospital. l It would be awesome if it was possible, but chances are so remote it seems very ironic, coming from the Mayor, a politician who so often likes to go on about 'managing expectations'.
One letter writer, who also seems to be trying to understand what really is going on with the Mayor's motions, asked some very direct questions. Is it a positive, or is there another undercurrent? The letter, received at Council Feb 22, 2022 is copied below.
Disturbing to Report:
The Motion to REDO THE OCTOBER 28, 2021 COLUMBUS COMMUNITY PIC#4 DUE TO THE MEETING'S LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY was on the Monday December 13, 2021 COUNCIL meeting Agenda.
The Mayor said the motion calling for a replacement PIC #4 meeting required a 2/3rds Reconsideration vote.
I challenged the Mayor's ruling that needed the 2/3rds vote because a PIC #4 meeting had taken place and the motion being voted on was for a replacement, more accessible, meeting due to the poor internet connectivity of the one held October 28, 2021.
The challenge of the Chair failed 2-9 (with Councillor Neal and I the only ones voting against the Mayor and Clerk's claim that the vote needed to be a Reconsideration vote) This was unfortunate because moments later the vote could have passed with a simple majority. Here's how it played out in the second wonky round of voting:
The vote tally for Reconsideration at first was called by the Clerk as 7 in favour - 3 against, which would have been 2/3rds saying YES to the Reconsideration.
But Councillor Marimpietri sent his vote late into the chat to the Clerk, which she then counted so it became 7 YES and 4 NO, which meant there will be NO REPLACEMENT MEETING. (It was so close to 2/3rds of 11, which is 7.33....but over by .33...I had to look up the math...take the total votes, divide by 3 and multiply by 2)
The four Council members who voted against and thereby quashed the chance of having a replacement Columbus PIC #4 meeting that would have ensured public engagement in an accountable and transparent manner were:
BOB CHAPMAN 👎 )
BRADLEY MARKS👎
BRIAN NICHOLSON 👎
TITO-DANTE MARIMPIETRI 👎
Copied below is an email all members of Council received the next day from an Oshawa resident, someone who actually does not live in Columbus, but is concerned with the failure of due process:
"I want to register my total disgust at Council's decision to not support Councillor Jane Hurst's motion to reschedule another public meeting for the residents of Columbus. The first meeting had many complications and residents were not heard properly. They should be given another opportunity to speak and ask questions.This is another shameful display of bad judgement and lack of transparency by this present City of Oshawa Council. It also shows a definite pandering to developers. Yes, we need to grow and evolve in Oshawa but we do not need to ruin what we have to build poorly with no thought to community. Generations to come will have to live with the results of what appears to be this Council's back door decision making.
I would like to thank the Councillors who voted for the people they represent and work for. They voted for fairness. A concept this Council seems to lack more times than not."
SIDENOTE: I was one of the 7 on Council who voted in favour of the rescheduling Monday. I had legal advice I did not have to make a declaration, because the issue was not substantive to the Part II plan. The motion was about my constituents not being able to access a public community meeting hosted by the City. It bothers me immensely that I am unable to vote at Committee or Council about the Columbus Part II Plan. It is due to the fact that my husband and I have for many years both owned another property in Columbus apart from our home.
The Motion to REDO THE OCTOBER 28, 2021 COLUMBUS COMMUNITY PIC#4 DUE TO THE MEETING'S LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY was on the Monday December 13, 2021 COUNCIL meeting Agenda.
The Mayor said the motion calling for a replacement PIC #4 meeting required a 2/3rds Reconsideration vote.
I challenged the Mayor's ruling that needed the 2/3rds vote because a PIC #4 meeting had taken place and the motion being voted on was for a replacement, more accessible, meeting due to the poor internet connectivity of the one held October 28, 2021.
The challenge of the Chair failed 2-9 (with Councillor Neal and I the only ones voting against the Mayor and Clerk's claim that the vote needed to be a Reconsideration vote) This was unfortunate because moments later the vote could have passed with a simple majority. Here's how it played out in the second wonky round of voting:
The vote tally for Reconsideration at first was called by the Clerk as 7 in favour - 3 against, which would have been 2/3rds saying YES to the Reconsideration.
But Councillor Marimpietri sent his vote late into the chat to the Clerk, which she then counted so it became 7 YES and 4 NO, which meant there will be NO REPLACEMENT MEETING. (It was so close to 2/3rds of 11, which is 7.33....but over by .33...I had to look up the math...take the total votes, divide by 3 and multiply by 2)
The four Council members who voted against and thereby quashed the chance of having a replacement Columbus PIC #4 meeting that would have ensured public engagement in an accountable and transparent manner were:
BOB CHAPMAN 👎 )
BRADLEY MARKS👎
BRIAN NICHOLSON 👎
TITO-DANTE MARIMPIETRI 👎
Copied below is an email all members of Council received the next day from an Oshawa resident, someone who actually does not live in Columbus, but is concerned with the failure of due process:
"I want to register my total disgust at Council's decision to not support Councillor Jane Hurst's motion to reschedule another public meeting for the residents of Columbus. The first meeting had many complications and residents were not heard properly. They should be given another opportunity to speak and ask questions.This is another shameful display of bad judgement and lack of transparency by this present City of Oshawa Council. It also shows a definite pandering to developers. Yes, we need to grow and evolve in Oshawa but we do not need to ruin what we have to build poorly with no thought to community. Generations to come will have to live with the results of what appears to be this Council's back door decision making.
I would like to thank the Councillors who voted for the people they represent and work for. They voted for fairness. A concept this Council seems to lack more times than not."
SIDENOTE: I was one of the 7 on Council who voted in favour of the rescheduling Monday. I had legal advice I did not have to make a declaration, because the issue was not substantive to the Part II plan. The motion was about my constituents not being able to access a public community meeting hosted by the City. It bothers me immensely that I am unable to vote at Committee or Council about the Columbus Part II Plan. It is due to the fact that my husband and I have for many years both owned another property in Columbus apart from our home.
Below is some technical information regarding the servicing plan for the Columbus Part II Plan Area.
Although development charges and the so-called 'cost recovery' of water and sewer bills give the impression that development pays for itself this is far from accurate. The costs for asset management and operational services of roads, parks, schools, fire and police services exponentially grow, especially when the development plans are rushed and not well-planned.
For the Region of Durham to bring the needed WATER & SEWER SERVICE to develop Oshawa north of the 407 and also to service the Whitby/Brooklin expansion, look at what upgrades the Region needs:
• New Zone 4 storage facility in N/E Oshawa to be determined through a Class EA;
• New Zone 4 storage facility in Whitby which is expected to be in service by 2022;
• New feedermains along Winchester Road East from Ritson Rd N to Harmony forecast for 2026;
• New feedermains along Ritson Rd N from Winchester Rd E to Columbus Rd E forecast for in 2026;
• New feedermains along Columbus Rd East from Thickson Rd to Ritson Rd forecast for 2027.
PLUS NEW ZONE 5 pumping stations for Pressure Zone 5 from existing or planned reservoirs with timing, location and design details subject to a Class EA;
The above is from S.5.2 of the 2019 Background Review Water and Wastewater Report which states
"All projects noted are subject to Class Environmental Assessments and project dates are a forecast and subject to Durham Region Council Approval."
For the new feedermains clearly some land expropriations will be needed. (one clear example is along Ritson Rd. N. which is very narrow). Question why would the feedermains be planned for Columbus Rd through the historic Village, when the new east west roads planned on the developer owned lands would be the more logical, expedient and less costly to the taxpayer option.
Note that the estimated costs for these Water and Wastewater projects were published before the COVID 19 pandemic in 2018 at a now outdated ESTIMATED cost of $185 MILLION. Consider for example how expropriations along Columbus Rd are going to be much higher given the phenomenal property value increases.
Although development charges and the so-called 'cost recovery' of water and sewer bills give the impression that development pays for itself this is far from accurate. The costs for asset management and operational services of roads, parks, schools, fire and police services exponentially grow, especially when the development plans are rushed and not well-planned.
For the Region of Durham to bring the needed WATER & SEWER SERVICE to develop Oshawa north of the 407 and also to service the Whitby/Brooklin expansion, look at what upgrades the Region needs:
• New Zone 4 storage facility in N/E Oshawa to be determined through a Class EA;
• New Zone 4 storage facility in Whitby which is expected to be in service by 2022;
• New feedermains along Winchester Road East from Ritson Rd N to Harmony forecast for 2026;
• New feedermains along Ritson Rd N from Winchester Rd E to Columbus Rd E forecast for in 2026;
• New feedermains along Columbus Rd East from Thickson Rd to Ritson Rd forecast for 2027.
PLUS NEW ZONE 5 pumping stations for Pressure Zone 5 from existing or planned reservoirs with timing, location and design details subject to a Class EA;
The above is from S.5.2 of the 2019 Background Review Water and Wastewater Report which states
"All projects noted are subject to Class Environmental Assessments and project dates are a forecast and subject to Durham Region Council Approval."
For the new feedermains clearly some land expropriations will be needed. (one clear example is along Ritson Rd. N. which is very narrow). Question why would the feedermains be planned for Columbus Rd through the historic Village, when the new east west roads planned on the developer owned lands would be the more logical, expedient and less costly to the taxpayer option.
Note that the estimated costs for these Water and Wastewater projects were published before the COVID 19 pandemic in 2018 at a now outdated ESTIMATED cost of $185 MILLION. Consider for example how expropriations along Columbus Rd are going to be much higher given the phenomenal property value increases.
It's not like the City and Developers weren't already alerted that the internet would be a problem. The service in Oshawa north of Highway 407 is poor at best and when a whole community tries to get on broadband the signal becomes even more unstable and at times simply drops off.
Thursday, Oct 28, 2021, between 6:30 pm and 9:30 pm the Virtual Meeting conducted by the Developers' Consultant and the City of Oshawa Development Services staff was painful to listen to on many levels, but the immediate and big problem with the evening's intermittent internet is a reason many residents are asking for a DO OVER.
Dropped calls, static and scratchy reception were the norm. Many were unable to open the link and resorted to phoning in, but were not able to follow the presentation power point maps. For some reason instead of the fairly familiar Zoom platform, the City and Developers decided to use the Webex platform which was unfamiliar to a lot of people who complained to me. I tried to help a senior neighbor get on-line, but the connection was so brutal I lost track how many times we lost the connection.
I personally know of a single mom to the west, another local business owner to the south, and three other neighbours close by, who gave up, or were not allowed to join in because they didn't realize they needed to pre-register. Result: the meeting was not transparent and an undeniable accessibility fail.
Any attempt by those meeting organizers and promoters to claim the virtual meeting for Columbus area residents was a 'fulsome public process' I'd say are wanting to sprinkle fairy dust.
I support the area residents' request (see flyer above) for a do over in-person meeting in 2022. I sincerely hope other Oshawa residents have their back too.
p.s. more posts to follow related to this latest and largest Oshawa sprawl plan yet, and the absurdity of the process for the Part II Plan north of Hwy 407.
This is not objecting to development and not nimbyism. But it is about ensuring Oshawa's new planned communities north of Hwy 407 are designed better and actually are as promoted, complete, walkable communities.
Although Oshawa continues to experience a major growth boom, boasting record breaking total construction values and shattering monthly building permits numbers regularly in the past 7 years....
at the same time Oshawa residents shake their heads at new built subdivisions with:
- shortage of greenspace,
- frustrating parking problems,
- narrower streets called 'paths' presenting traffic safety concerns,
- lack of accessible paths of travel for seniors and school children from residences to commercial sites,
- a 25 story high rise tower with no underground parking!
- another typical box store plaza that former Mayor Henry touted would be a Shopping Mall larger than the Oshawa Shopping Centre
- the unsatisfactory result of retrofitting cycling lanes into existing busy roads, rather than including cycling lanes designed in place with the to be built new roads!
When the Consultant and staff give confusing and contradictory information for the Developer Group's 'preferred plan' at a virtual community planning meeting with such precarious internet service, in my opinion it is no surprise Oshawa residents are concerned. I believe the City can and should do better.
The Columbus Study Area Developable lands total is 1,247 acres*, which ultimately is the amount of prime Oshawa agricultural land to become more of the GTA 'urban fabric'.
*See Report DS-21-155 Page 37 Chart Below
(Chart is enlarged because of small print. Note: "Developable Area is calculated by excluding natural heritage features systems, existing rights-of-way, and prime agricultural lands, and non-developable Columbus Special Policy Area"
The projected estimates for development in this area are: a maximum of 11,345 residential dwelling units and
a maximum population of approximately 29,243
*See Report DS-21-155 Page 37 Chart Below
(Chart is enlarged because of small print. Note: "Developable Area is calculated by excluding natural heritage features systems, existing rights-of-way, and prime agricultural lands, and non-developable Columbus Special Policy Area"
The projected estimates for development in this area are: a maximum of 11,345 residential dwelling units and
a maximum population of approximately 29,243
The Provincial Growth Plan, which was to preserve agricultural land, protect the environment, encourage growth and development to create complete communities and foster economic growth, ironically brought about the loss of the Columbus area prime agricultural land.
BACKGROUND:
In 2005 the Province of Ontario passed the Places to Grow Act, which was followed with the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in 2006. The legislation required that all Regional municipalities amend their Official Plans to be in conformity with the Provincial Growth Plan.
The plan involved projecting housing needs to for the next 25 years, with forecasts set originally to 2031..(the timeframe 10 years later was to 2041, but recently the outlook has been longer term, to 2051...
The Province required each Regional government to conduct within 5 years of the legislation, a comprehensive Official Plan review to conform with the Growth Plan.
The Region of Durham Council passed its comprehensive review with Regional Official Plan Amendment 128 (ROPA 128).
However, the Province rejected ROPA 128 as it did not see the need for the Region to expand its northern urban boundary, especially in Oshawa from Hwy 407 all the way to Howden Rd. The matter went to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)
At the OMB in 2010 and 2011 the Province and Region's differences became complicated by the Province wanting to advance the long-planned model new community, Seaton, in the City of Pickering. As the many developers were aligned in pressing for the urban boundary expansion areas and they were already parties to an OMB appeal underway for the development of Seaton , the Province ended up declaring a Provincial Interest concerning Seaton.
This led to backroom ROPA Minutes of Settlement passed in 2012 by the developers, Region, Oshawa and Pickering, Whitby, Ajax and Clarington. When the Settlement Agreement was confirmed by the OMB in 2013 the Columbus area in red on the above map was redesignated from Agricultural and Hamlet to Urban residential and employment, except for the area outlined in orange on the above Attachment 1 to Report DS-19-04.
The developers went back to the OMB in 2017 to appeal the Deferral and were successful in 2019 having it also redesignated from Agricultural to Urban.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Several Reports and Studies can be found on the City of Oshawa's Columbus Study page.
Below is an attempt to summarize the backstory and current situation.
The first comprehensive Report DS-19-04 contains the City's Agreement with the Developers (Attachment 6). Note it was signed by Oshawa Mayor John Henry September 11, 2018, when he was campaigning for Region of Durham Chair and just two weeks before his last Council meeting as Oshawa Mayor before the Oct, 2019 municipal election.
Below is the 3 page Agreement between the City and the Developers (Attachment 6); and a map (Attachment 4 to the Report showing the Developer land holdings:
Below is a copy of Attachment 4, the Land Use and Road Plan in Report DS-21-155 with property lot lines overlaying the various proposed color coded land uses. The color code key: dark orange is High Density housing; lighter orange and cross-hatched gold are Medium Density; yellow is Low Density, dark green is natural heritage/greenbelt/environmental protection, bright green is for Parks; gray is for Storm Water Pond; the gray on white cross-hatch is the former Hamlet, which is a Special Policy Area.
Below is another copy of Attachment 4 with the color code key, but without the lot lines, and Attachment 5, the proposed expansion area on the west side of Ritson Rd., north of Hwy 407E.
Columbus area residents have not had any meetings concerning the Columbus Study for 2 years.
A number of Oshawa residents wrote the City in September 2021 when Report DS-21-155 was published to say a virtual meeting is not fair considering many Columbus residents have poor internet connections. They have asked for a live meeting now that COVID-19 room capacities have increased. They also have commented how the developer landowners seem in a hurry to push their development plans through.
Long-time Columbus residents and area farmers are asking for more consideration given the impact on their historic community and agri-food operations.
Other concerns expressed are that in the past 2 years there have been many new residents move into the Columbus community unaware of the planning changes, and that the Columbus Advisory Committee is down to 2 from its original 5 members. The vacancies should be filled before the virtual public meeting is called for Thurs Oct 28 2021.
To answer who is driving this Part II Plan, and its tight timeline, good indication is found in the one page letter dated June 7, 2017 Bryce Jordon, General Manager of GHD, sent to Paul Ralph, Oshawa's Commissioner of Development Services at the time and now the City's CAO.
BRYCE JORDAN'S LETTER STATES:
"We are the consulting planners for a group of landowners in the Columbus Planning Area which we will refer to as the Columbus Landowner's Group (CLG). The landowner's in this group consist of:
• Sorbara Developments/Tribute Communities Partnership
• Halloway Developments
• Menkes Developments
• G8 Oshawa Investments Limited
• Setcon lnvestments/Guglietti Brothers Investments
Together these owners hold over 60% of the land within the Columbus Planning Area that is outside the original hamlet We also expect additional lands to be added to the CLG ownership in the next few months"
This letter is Attachment 4 to Staff Report DS-17-125.
Below are 2 other attachments to the 2017 Report:
A number of Oshawa residents wrote the City in September 2021 when Report DS-21-155 was published to say a virtual meeting is not fair considering many Columbus residents have poor internet connections. They have asked for a live meeting now that COVID-19 room capacities have increased. They also have commented how the developer landowners seem in a hurry to push their development plans through.
Long-time Columbus residents and area farmers are asking for more consideration given the impact on their historic community and agri-food operations.
Other concerns expressed are that in the past 2 years there have been many new residents move into the Columbus community unaware of the planning changes, and that the Columbus Advisory Committee is down to 2 from its original 5 members. The vacancies should be filled before the virtual public meeting is called for Thurs Oct 28 2021.
To answer who is driving this Part II Plan, and its tight timeline, good indication is found in the one page letter dated June 7, 2017 Bryce Jordon, General Manager of GHD, sent to Paul Ralph, Oshawa's Commissioner of Development Services at the time and now the City's CAO.
BRYCE JORDAN'S LETTER STATES:
"We are the consulting planners for a group of landowners in the Columbus Planning Area which we will refer to as the Columbus Landowner's Group (CLG). The landowner's in this group consist of:
• Sorbara Developments/Tribute Communities Partnership
• Halloway Developments
• Menkes Developments
• G8 Oshawa Investments Limited
• Setcon lnvestments/Guglietti Brothers Investments
Together these owners hold over 60% of the land within the Columbus Planning Area that is outside the original hamlet We also expect additional lands to be added to the CLG ownership in the next few months"
This letter is Attachment 4 to Staff Report DS-17-125.
Below are 2 other attachments to the 2017 Report:
Attachment 1 to the 2017 Report (showing outlined in RED the north and west sections of the Columbus area that the OMB did not approve to be taken out of the agricultural land base when the Columbus area was redesignated urban in 2013...the owners of these lands, the Sorbara Group and Halloway Holdings filed another appeal to have this section redesignated. The Ontario Land Planning Appeal Tribunal granted their appeal in 2018.)
Attachment 3 to the 2017 Report showing proposed trails, bicycle lane and off road multi use trail
Note how City planning staff responded quickly to supporting the Mr. Jordan and the Developers, even copying the name of the Group.
In January 2019, I made the motion approved by City Council, to eliminate any confusion the public may have in distinguishing who the Columbus Landowners Group represent as they do not represent all Columbus landowners:
"That going forward, the Columbus Landowners Group will be formally referred to as the Columbus Developers Group’.”
However, clearly some developers didn't get the memo, because in Sept, 2021, among the several Oshawa residents letters of concern submitted when Report DS-21-155 was published for the Sept 13, 2021 Development Services Committee meeting there are four from developers who still refer to their Columbus Landowners Group. See the correspondence here: app.oshawa.ca/agendas/Development_Services/2021/09-13/ADDITIONAL_CORR_DS-21-178.pdf
One however, Delta Urban, combined the two names. Delta Urban's letter also indicates that the Group now has doubled from 5 members in 2017 to 10 in 2021.
Considering this particular letter, one can ask:
a) how do the long-time community residents stand a chance in having a voice if as Bryce Jordan wrote in his 2017 letter that the 5 member Group at that time "hold 60% of the land within the Columbus Planning Area", and now the Group has 5 more Developer members and therefore hold maybe 70-80%+ of the Columbus Planning Area; and
b) if the Developer Group members say they appreciate City staff efforts to continue to keep the Group members engaged; when in the same month local residents have written expressing concern they have not had any contact for two years, how can the process be balanced when Oshawa residents are finding left out?
Copied below is the passage in the Delta Urban letter that underscores the dichotomy:
"We are writing to you as the Group Manager on behalf of the Columbus Landowners (Developers) Group (the “Group”), which consists of landowners within the Columbus Part II Planning Area in the City of Oshawa.
For your reference, the Columbus Landowners Group consists of the following landowners: o Tribute
- Sorbara
- Valleymede
- Menkes
- Halloway
- Setcon/ G8 o Guglietti
- Tercot
- Delpark Homes
- Brand Development
- Oxford Developments
- 276 Columbus Road West Inc.
Specifically, we are writing regarding the recently released Integrated Columbus Part II Planning Act and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Act Study (Report #: DS-21-155) dated September 8, 2021.
The purpose of this letter is to:
- Confirm the Group’s support for Council to endorse staff’s recommendation to hold Public Information Centre (PIC #4) in October/November 2021 to allow public review and input on the preferred land use and road plan.
- The Group has been actively reviewing the above noted report and background documents and will be providing comments/concerns on the preferred plan through PIC #4 and Developers Committee Meeting commenting periods.
- Acknowledge the appreciation for City Staff efforts on this project and for continuing to keep the Group engaged in the Columbus Part II Plan process. The Group is eager to continue to work with Staff in continuing the Columbus Part II Plan process and look forward to receiving additional updates in the coming month
Bryce Jordan was a principle with the engineering and consulting firm G M Sernas (before it merged with GHD) and was involved with the Columbus developers at the OMB in 2011 and 2012, very much supporting the Region's Official Plan amendment expanding Oshawa's urban boundary to Howden Road and designating all of the Columbus area from agricultural to urban and employment.
He has been the planning manager with GHD since the merger and responsible for much of the coordinated planning with developers behind the Kedron Part II Planning Area north of Colin Rd. which Council approved in 2014 for an estimated buildout for more than 22,000 new residents.
The Kedron Part II development currently has heavy equipment installing the services and roads and likely some of its first homes may be constructed in 2022.
This 2016 newspaper article describes how just 4 of the 11 plans of subdivision for the Kedron Part II Planning area at that time were said to amount to one of the biggest developments in Oshawa's history
In 2017, before any of the actual Kedron Part II subdivision plans were approved and before the north west deferred section of the Columbus area was approved by the Land Tribunal in 2018, Bryce Jordan was in on the even larger project in Columbus, forecast to have 29,000 new residents.
It seems Mr. Jordan, has very much been at the helm driving the Columbus Developers Group, dialoguing with City staff to advance this vast change to the City of Oshawa northern rural landscape. Consider further:
- Bryce Jordan's statements in his June 7, 2021 email that the Columbus Developers Group will be "funding the necessary studies leading to and including the adoption of a Part II Plan based upon mutually agreeable terms of reference to be finalized in the near future with the Commissioner of Development Services";
- The Group anticipates "that the City will retain consultants to complete the work with funds provided by the Group";
- Due to their financial commitment, the Group "would insist on membership on the Steering Committee and adherence to a strict timeframe, including regularly scheduled meetings of the Steering Committee";
- one year after Mr. Jordan spelled out these terms to the City, former Oshawa Mayor John Henry signed the Agreement with the Columbus Developers Group just three weeks before the October 2018 municipal election.
- Then first Public Information Centre (PIC) was scheduled Dec 5th, 2018 just two days after the new Council members were sworn into office.
7. The only members of Council in attendance at the PIC meetings in 2018 and 2019 were the Ward Councillors, John Neal and myself.
- 8. There have been zero presentations to the Oshawa Development Services Committee and/or City Council by the Consultant for the Developers Group to City Council.
September 2021 a number of documents were added to the City's COLUMBUS STUDY PAGE
In addition to the 79 page Report DS-21-155, there is the 142 page Columbus Master Transportation Study and the 67 page Columbus Urban Design Guidelines... and others
At the Sept 27th 2021 Council meeting two Councillors attempted to make two motions concerning the Columbus Study Report DS-21-155.
The first was to refer the report back to the Development Services Committee until the area residents were more informed.
When that failed, the second motion was to defer it until November. Ward 3 Councillor Bob Chapman grabbed the opportunity to speak vigorously in favour of advancing the Developers plan in October. Commissioner Warren Munro spoke backing up this position. He articulated his plan was to have the Columbus Advisory Committee meet on October 5 for their input on the Reports and stated then the Public Information Meeting would follow at the end of October. (Note at this time Council was not apprised of the fact that 3 members of the Columbus Advisory Committee had left and only two remained.)
The day after the Council meeting, the October 5 Columbus Advisory Committee meeting was cancelled. City Staff put out a notice to fill the 3 vacant positions on the Columbus Advisory Committee for interested community members to apply by Oct 22, 2021 When Council approves the new members they will have a meeting after the end of October public meeting. This might seem perfunctory and out of sink with the Committee's terms of reference.
The same day Staff moved ahead to accommodate Mr. Jordan's original request for 'adherence to a tight timeframe' and issued a Notice for the 4th Public Information Centre virtual meeting to be held on Thurs. Oct 28, 2021 6:30pm -8:30 pm
To participate in the virtual meeting you must register by emailing Laura Moebs [email protected]
Below is a slide show of the Developers' Consultant PowerPoint for the Thurs. Oct 28th meeting. NOTE: Public comments will be accepted until November 12, 2021.
.