Side note: On May 21, 2022 the Derecho storm took out my home internet service until Aug 2, 2022. Although I had access to high speed internet at City Hall and I could use a hot spot from home, something had to give during a busy summer without good internet connectivity and some family health issues. There were many constituent issues I was following up on, such as:
• neighborhood concerns about a rat infestation • high grass and overgrown tree complaints in the hydro easement and reaching out to Hydro One • illegal backyard chickens in a townhouse backyard • a community meeting subsequent to a troubling park design that indicated mature trees would be removed • traffic signs obscured by tree branches • another community meeting with residents over a park needing upgrading• meeting with forestry staff and residents concerned about City trees on City boulevard needing pruning, etc.
In addition, my mom was in emergency at Lakeridge hospital 3 times during that period, starting the day after the storm. On her return to our home, with my husband and daughter unable to rely on a stable internet connection using the ‘hot spot’ from our cell phones, they could not work from home. With them commuting to Toronto and Mississauga they were less able to help me with caring for my mom.
Something had to give, so there is a noticeable gap on my website and Facebook/Twitter accounts for the most part from the end of May to the start of Aug, 2022.
The biggest update missing from the Greenhill community tab is the fact that on May 16, 2022 the Appellant abandoned her appeal two weeks before the Hearing which was scheduled for June 3, 2022. City staff copied this news to Council members on June 9th, with a copy of the Ontario Land Tribunal's official Notice below:
• neighborhood concerns about a rat infestation • high grass and overgrown tree complaints in the hydro easement and reaching out to Hydro One • illegal backyard chickens in a townhouse backyard • a community meeting subsequent to a troubling park design that indicated mature trees would be removed • traffic signs obscured by tree branches • another community meeting with residents over a park needing upgrading• meeting with forestry staff and residents concerned about City trees on City boulevard needing pruning, etc.
In addition, my mom was in emergency at Lakeridge hospital 3 times during that period, starting the day after the storm. On her return to our home, with my husband and daughter unable to rely on a stable internet connection using the ‘hot spot’ from our cell phones, they could not work from home. With them commuting to Toronto and Mississauga they were less able to help me with caring for my mom.
Something had to give, so there is a noticeable gap on my website and Facebook/Twitter accounts for the most part from the end of May to the start of Aug, 2022.
The biggest update missing from the Greenhill community tab is the fact that on May 16, 2022 the Appellant abandoned her appeal two weeks before the Hearing which was scheduled for June 3, 2022. City staff copied this news to Council members on June 9th, with a copy of the Ontario Land Tribunal's official Notice below:
TRAFFIC SPEEDING PROBLEMS ON GREENHILL AVE between Wilson and Harmony Rd:
Early this term of Council Greenhill community residents reached out to me about about drivers speeding on Greenhill Ave. I requested the installation of two Radar Message Boards and data was collected in both directions for nine months. The City's traffic technologists reported back however that the the traffic volume and percentile speed observed was within the normal range for the road classification.
However, the following year more residents asked for assistance about the speeding, so I requested a motion to expand the 40km beyond Greenhill park and Elsie MacGill school zone. At the November 22, 2021 Council approved this and the new signs were installed so that all of Greenhill Ave from Wilson Rd. to Harmony Rd. has a posted speed limit of 40km speed limit. At the same time Councillor Neal, the City's Traffic Manager and I connected and agreed that a 3-way stop sign by the school could be installed either at Greenhill and Chilliwack or Greenhill and Clearbrook when weather conditions permitted in the spring.
A short time later in 2022, in response to area residents' further concerns about heavy trucks and continued excessive speeding on Greenhill.
Councillor Neal and I worked on two motions -one for a Community Safety Zone (CSZ) on Greenhill Ave from Wilson to Harmony, and another for no Heavy Trucks signage on Greenhill Ave. Committee approved the No Heavy Trucks sign motion, however, a couple Ward Councillors on the Community Services Committee, unfamiliar with the area made an amendment to the motion. They considered the distance of the requested CSZ too long and changed it to the shorter distance between Quail Run Dr. to Castlepoint. Dr.
Area residents wrote to Council objecting to the shorter CSZ distance. They requested the Greenhill Ave CSZ be from Wilson Rd. N. to Harmony Rd N. which Councillor Neal and I were advocating.
Happy to report that the No Heavy Trucks signs and a Community Safety Zone from Wilson to Harmony was approved by Council Feb 22, 2022.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
MIXED USE SITE PLAN FOR 633 Greenhill Ave (s/e corner Greenhill and Wilson Rd.)
Below is the evolving story of the proposed mixed use site plan for 633 Greenhill Ave, the vacant lot at the south east corner of Wilson Rd. N. and the City's Committee of Adjustment approving the developers application.
March 22, 2022, almost six months after area residents filed an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) concerning the Oshawa Committee of Adjustment approval of the minor variances application for the mixed use commercial/residential Site Plan at 633 Greenhill Ave, the OLT issued a Notice of Hearing.
The HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR June 3, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. It will be virtual and any individuals interested can observe.
The lawyer for the property owner (Respondent) is Russell Cheeseman and the lawyer for the appellant (Theresa Corless who filed the appeal) is Joe Neal.
I spoke with Ben Bath, the OLT case coordinator who gave his permission to share this with neighbours. He said he is available to answer procedural questions that anyone interested in this matter may have.
There are 3 levels for those interested: an observer (lowest level); participant (mid level) which permits you to send him a written submission); and then a big higher level is Party status who may speak at the Hearing.
"Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: Toll Free 1 888 299 1889 or (647) 497-9373. Access code is 709-076-365.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
If a person intends to refer to a document at the hearing that is not in the Tribunal’s case file, the document is expected to be pre-filed electronically with the Tribunal at least 10 days before the date of the hearing, unless another filing date is specified in the Tribunal’s Rules. All pre-filed documents shall be served on the other parties electronically.
Submissions larger than 10MB must be transferred to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator using an electronic file sharing link/service. Please see Schedule B for further submission requirements.
PARTY OR PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST:
Persons other than the appellant(s), applicant, municipality or approval authority who wish to participate in the proceeding, either as a party or as a participant, are expected to file a written status request with the Tribunal to outline their interest in the proceeding.
The Party Status Request Form and Participant Status Request and Participant Statement Form are available on the Tribunal’s website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/forms/) and are to be used to assist with the preparation of the request. If you are requesting status, this form must be provided at least 10 days in advance of the hearing to:
The assigned Tribunal Case Coordinator for this file: Ben Bath at [email protected]
***
Recall, six months earlier, Sept 13, 2021, after weeks of frustration, there was a bit of good news on the City's position with respect to the residents objecting to the Site Plan:
Development Services Committee unanimously passed a motion that Oshawa Council:
1) does not support the decision of the Committee of Adjustment with respect to File A--2021-46;
2) supports the residents in the general vicinity of the subject site; and
3) that the City does not seek party or participant status at the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing.
***
The Greenhill area residents' appeal originated after the City's Committee of Adjustment (C of A) decided to approve the minor variance application of the property owner 2532973 Ontario Limited.
On June 23rd. Greenhill area residents joined together to file an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal within the 20 day appeal period.
These Oshawa residents have said they are not opposed to the the commercial plaza, as they have known this has been the plan for this corner for at least two decades.
However, as the site plan copied below indicates, the building envelope will be pushed 1.5m (5 ft.) closer to both Wilson Rd. and Greenhill Ave than permitted. I understand this is at the crux of the residents' issues, that the minor variances contribute to the scale and design of the site plan being detrimental to the safety of the neighbourhood.
***
Some residents have written they will be asking to speak at the virtual Development Services Committee (DSC) meeting Sept 13, 2021 starting at 1:30 pm. At this meeting the Commissioner of Development Services, Warren Munro, has indicated he will have a Report about the resident's appeal to the OLT on the Agenda. This staff Report will follow the standard procedure when someone has filed an appeal of a C of A decision. It will recommend that the 6 elected DSC members vote either 1) to support or 2) oppose the C of A decision approving the minor variances, or 3) take no position.
Below see:
1) the site plan for the proposed building;
2) the Zoning for the property;
3) the site plan statistics, showing:
(Sidenote: when I was doing some comparable research on parking, it seems that although Oshawa's zoning regulations for residential units in mixed-use building is 1 space per unit and the City does not require visitor parking, the Town of Whitby requires 1.5 spaces per residential unit which allows for visitor parking. Example if this building were constructed in Whitby, instead of Oshawa's 13 spaces for the 13 apartments, the Town of Whitby would require an additional 7 spaces.)
4) the Notice of the June 9, 2021 C of A meeting
5) Questions I asked City planner Cambell Steuart June 3rd and his answers
6) Artists rendering of the proposed building
7) Specs on the Earth Waste Bin System
9) 8 Slide PowerPoint from June 29, 2021 virtual Meeting with Planning Staff, area residents & Ward 1 Councillors
10) Durham Region's collision stats for the intersection between 2011 to 2021
11) City of Oshawa's traffic volume stats for the intersection April 2019
12) the Landscape Plan
13) the 2nd Floor Plan
14) my Sept 8 email to City when the Clerk sent residents emails denying their correspondence & delegation requests
15) 5 Questions to City Clerk re process preventing public from speaking to DSC Monday
16) Development Services Staff Report DS-21-151 on the Agenda for 1:30 p.m. Mon Sept 13 2021 Development Services Committee meeting: http://app.oshawa.ca/agendas/development_services/2021/09-13/report_ds-21-151.pdf
17) Motion Sept 13, 2021 Development Services Committee passed passed unanimously was that Oshawa Council:
1) does not support the decision of the Committee of Adjustment with respect to File A-2021-46
2) supports the residents in the general vicinity of the subject site; and
3) that the City does not seek party or participant status at the OLT hearing
Early this term of Council Greenhill community residents reached out to me about about drivers speeding on Greenhill Ave. I requested the installation of two Radar Message Boards and data was collected in both directions for nine months. The City's traffic technologists reported back however that the the traffic volume and percentile speed observed was within the normal range for the road classification.
However, the following year more residents asked for assistance about the speeding, so I requested a motion to expand the 40km beyond Greenhill park and Elsie MacGill school zone. At the November 22, 2021 Council approved this and the new signs were installed so that all of Greenhill Ave from Wilson Rd. to Harmony Rd. has a posted speed limit of 40km speed limit. At the same time Councillor Neal, the City's Traffic Manager and I connected and agreed that a 3-way stop sign by the school could be installed either at Greenhill and Chilliwack or Greenhill and Clearbrook when weather conditions permitted in the spring.
A short time later in 2022, in response to area residents' further concerns about heavy trucks and continued excessive speeding on Greenhill.
Councillor Neal and I worked on two motions -one for a Community Safety Zone (CSZ) on Greenhill Ave from Wilson to Harmony, and another for no Heavy Trucks signage on Greenhill Ave. Committee approved the No Heavy Trucks sign motion, however, a couple Ward Councillors on the Community Services Committee, unfamiliar with the area made an amendment to the motion. They considered the distance of the requested CSZ too long and changed it to the shorter distance between Quail Run Dr. to Castlepoint. Dr.
Area residents wrote to Council objecting to the shorter CSZ distance. They requested the Greenhill Ave CSZ be from Wilson Rd. N. to Harmony Rd N. which Councillor Neal and I were advocating.
Happy to report that the No Heavy Trucks signs and a Community Safety Zone from Wilson to Harmony was approved by Council Feb 22, 2022.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
MIXED USE SITE PLAN FOR 633 Greenhill Ave (s/e corner Greenhill and Wilson Rd.)
Below is the evolving story of the proposed mixed use site plan for 633 Greenhill Ave, the vacant lot at the south east corner of Wilson Rd. N. and the City's Committee of Adjustment approving the developers application.
March 22, 2022, almost six months after area residents filed an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) concerning the Oshawa Committee of Adjustment approval of the minor variances application for the mixed use commercial/residential Site Plan at 633 Greenhill Ave, the OLT issued a Notice of Hearing.
The HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR June 3, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. It will be virtual and any individuals interested can observe.
The lawyer for the property owner (Respondent) is Russell Cheeseman and the lawyer for the appellant (Theresa Corless who filed the appeal) is Joe Neal.
I spoke with Ben Bath, the OLT case coordinator who gave his permission to share this with neighbours. He said he is available to answer procedural questions that anyone interested in this matter may have.
There are 3 levels for those interested: an observer (lowest level); participant (mid level) which permits you to send him a written submission); and then a big higher level is Party status who may speak at the Hearing.
"Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: Toll Free 1 888 299 1889 or (647) 497-9373. Access code is 709-076-365.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
If a person intends to refer to a document at the hearing that is not in the Tribunal’s case file, the document is expected to be pre-filed electronically with the Tribunal at least 10 days before the date of the hearing, unless another filing date is specified in the Tribunal’s Rules. All pre-filed documents shall be served on the other parties electronically.
Submissions larger than 10MB must be transferred to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator using an electronic file sharing link/service. Please see Schedule B for further submission requirements.
PARTY OR PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST:
Persons other than the appellant(s), applicant, municipality or approval authority who wish to participate in the proceeding, either as a party or as a participant, are expected to file a written status request with the Tribunal to outline their interest in the proceeding.
The Party Status Request Form and Participant Status Request and Participant Statement Form are available on the Tribunal’s website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/forms/) and are to be used to assist with the preparation of the request. If you are requesting status, this form must be provided at least 10 days in advance of the hearing to:
The assigned Tribunal Case Coordinator for this file: Ben Bath at [email protected]
***
Recall, six months earlier, Sept 13, 2021, after weeks of frustration, there was a bit of good news on the City's position with respect to the residents objecting to the Site Plan:
Development Services Committee unanimously passed a motion that Oshawa Council:
1) does not support the decision of the Committee of Adjustment with respect to File A--2021-46;
2) supports the residents in the general vicinity of the subject site; and
3) that the City does not seek party or participant status at the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing.
***
The Greenhill area residents' appeal originated after the City's Committee of Adjustment (C of A) decided to approve the minor variance application of the property owner 2532973 Ontario Limited.
On June 23rd. Greenhill area residents joined together to file an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal within the 20 day appeal period.
These Oshawa residents have said they are not opposed to the the commercial plaza, as they have known this has been the plan for this corner for at least two decades.
However, as the site plan copied below indicates, the building envelope will be pushed 1.5m (5 ft.) closer to both Wilson Rd. and Greenhill Ave than permitted. I understand this is at the crux of the residents' issues, that the minor variances contribute to the scale and design of the site plan being detrimental to the safety of the neighbourhood.
***
Some residents have written they will be asking to speak at the virtual Development Services Committee (DSC) meeting Sept 13, 2021 starting at 1:30 pm. At this meeting the Commissioner of Development Services, Warren Munro, has indicated he will have a Report about the resident's appeal to the OLT on the Agenda. This staff Report will follow the standard procedure when someone has filed an appeal of a C of A decision. It will recommend that the 6 elected DSC members vote either 1) to support or 2) oppose the C of A decision approving the minor variances, or 3) take no position.
Below see:
1) the site plan for the proposed building;
2) the Zoning for the property;
3) the site plan statistics, showing:
- The corner property is one acre (3,992 sq. metres).
- The proposed ground floor area foot print 839 sq. m (9,030 sq.ft.) and 2nd floor is 1,065 sq.m. (11,463 sq.ft.)
- The total building area: 1,905 sq.m. ( 20,505 sq.ft.)
- The rear surface parking lot consists of 50 spaces. with 36 for the commercial units, 13 for the 13 apartments, plus 2 barrier free spaces.
(Sidenote: when I was doing some comparable research on parking, it seems that although Oshawa's zoning regulations for residential units in mixed-use building is 1 space per unit and the City does not require visitor parking, the Town of Whitby requires 1.5 spaces per residential unit which allows for visitor parking. Example if this building were constructed in Whitby, instead of Oshawa's 13 spaces for the 13 apartments, the Town of Whitby would require an additional 7 spaces.)
4) the Notice of the June 9, 2021 C of A meeting
5) Questions I asked City planner Cambell Steuart June 3rd and his answers
6) Artists rendering of the proposed building
7) Specs on the Earth Waste Bin System
9) 8 Slide PowerPoint from June 29, 2021 virtual Meeting with Planning Staff, area residents & Ward 1 Councillors
10) Durham Region's collision stats for the intersection between 2011 to 2021
11) City of Oshawa's traffic volume stats for the intersection April 2019
12) the Landscape Plan
13) the 2nd Floor Plan
14) my Sept 8 email to City when the Clerk sent residents emails denying their correspondence & delegation requests
15) 5 Questions to City Clerk re process preventing public from speaking to DSC Monday
16) Development Services Staff Report DS-21-151 on the Agenda for 1:30 p.m. Mon Sept 13 2021 Development Services Committee meeting: http://app.oshawa.ca/agendas/development_services/2021/09-13/report_ds-21-151.pdf
17) Motion Sept 13, 2021 Development Services Committee passed passed unanimously was that Oshawa Council:
1) does not support the decision of the Committee of Adjustment with respect to File A-2021-46
2) supports the residents in the general vicinity of the subject site; and
3) that the City does not seek party or participant status at the OLT hearing
Many individuals and families in the Greenhill area have concerns both about the City's site plan process and the actual application for the proposed mixed use project.
Several residents are original owners who purchased in a specific north east Oshawa development 12 to 15 years ago: the 280 home community, which Bayfield Homes called 'the Ravines of Greenhill' and built in 3 Phases.
Over the years neighbours in the now long-completely-built-out community, except for this corner lot, watched as the corner property remained vacant, grew weeds and often gathered litter. (In fact I have pictures on my blog on this website of a community litter clean up I organized at this site in April, 2019).
It seems the 1 acre property changed hands in 2016 and very soon after the new owner applied to build a commercial/residential building.
Neighbours who had been looking forward to a commercial plaza being built on the corner were surprised. They say they were told it would be a one storey commercial plaza similar to the one at Ritson Rd. N, and Coldstream Dr.
Committee of Adjustment/Minor Variance/Site Plan Control
The neighbours only discovered that there was a mixed-use plan being processed by City staff when the owner applied for a minor variance. Minor variances are handled by the Committee of Adjustments (C of A).
The C of A is a 5 member committee of Oshawa residents who are paid a nominal meeting stipend.
Since 2007 the C of A was given the delegated authority of Council to make minor variance decisions.
Under the Planning Act S. 45(1) decisions on applications require that minor variance approvals must meet 4 tests:
1. Is the application minor?
2. Is it desirable for the development of the lands in question?
3. Does it conform to the City's Zoning By-law?
4. Does it conform with the City's Official Plan?
NOTE that although applications for plans of subdivision are required to have large signs installed to notify the public of the planned development and when a public meeting will be held, as well as provide notice to property owners within120 meters of the property, or publish the notice in the local newspaper, applications for Site Plans are different. The approval process for site plans was delegated to staff in 2007 (See Report DS-07-266 regarding Site Plan Control policy changes for context at time).
Site plans are not processed before Council. Under Council's delegated authority to the Development Services department site plans are processed by staff and no public meeting is required. However, if a site plan requires a minor variance the owner must make an application to the C of A, which has a public meeting.
Side note: long before I was elected to Council I advocated to make the C of A process more transparent. Back in 2012 as a private citizen I wrote that the C of A notice signs were too small and the City was remiss in not having the C of A Agendas and Minutes on the City's website. I asked this information be made more available. (See CORP-12-230 below)
The site plan application for 633 Greenhill Ave. requires a 1.5m (5 ft) front and side lot variance, as the building needs to be pulled closer to Wilson Rd. on the west side of the lot, and 1.5m (5 ft.) closer to Greenhill Ave on the north side of the lot to accommodate the required number of parking spaces on the rear surface parking lot. (See site plan for 633 Greenhill Ave above showing the permitted building envelope in red, and the proposed building envelope required to have the building fit on the lot outlined in pink)
Events from June 3, 2021 and forward
Thursday June 3rd I received a message from a Greenhill community property owner concerned about the proposed plan and asking for a phone call. The day before he had notice of the Wed June 9th C of A meeting concerning the 633 Greenhill Ave. minor variance applications.
Unfortunately the 8.5" x 17" notification sign was installed only a day or two before on the subject property by the owner and for some inexplicable reason was placed 20 ft. away from the sidewalk, behind a chain link fence and a snow fence and not legible to any passersby.
Several residents are original owners who purchased in a specific north east Oshawa development 12 to 15 years ago: the 280 home community, which Bayfield Homes called 'the Ravines of Greenhill' and built in 3 Phases.
Over the years neighbours in the now long-completely-built-out community, except for this corner lot, watched as the corner property remained vacant, grew weeds and often gathered litter. (In fact I have pictures on my blog on this website of a community litter clean up I organized at this site in April, 2019).
It seems the 1 acre property changed hands in 2016 and very soon after the new owner applied to build a commercial/residential building.
Neighbours who had been looking forward to a commercial plaza being built on the corner were surprised. They say they were told it would be a one storey commercial plaza similar to the one at Ritson Rd. N, and Coldstream Dr.
Committee of Adjustment/Minor Variance/Site Plan Control
The neighbours only discovered that there was a mixed-use plan being processed by City staff when the owner applied for a minor variance. Minor variances are handled by the Committee of Adjustments (C of A).
The C of A is a 5 member committee of Oshawa residents who are paid a nominal meeting stipend.
Since 2007 the C of A was given the delegated authority of Council to make minor variance decisions.
Under the Planning Act S. 45(1) decisions on applications require that minor variance approvals must meet 4 tests:
1. Is the application minor?
2. Is it desirable for the development of the lands in question?
3. Does it conform to the City's Zoning By-law?
4. Does it conform with the City's Official Plan?
NOTE that although applications for plans of subdivision are required to have large signs installed to notify the public of the planned development and when a public meeting will be held, as well as provide notice to property owners within120 meters of the property, or publish the notice in the local newspaper, applications for Site Plans are different. The approval process for site plans was delegated to staff in 2007 (See Report DS-07-266 regarding Site Plan Control policy changes for context at time).
Site plans are not processed before Council. Under Council's delegated authority to the Development Services department site plans are processed by staff and no public meeting is required. However, if a site plan requires a minor variance the owner must make an application to the C of A, which has a public meeting.
Side note: long before I was elected to Council I advocated to make the C of A process more transparent. Back in 2012 as a private citizen I wrote that the C of A notice signs were too small and the City was remiss in not having the C of A Agendas and Minutes on the City's website. I asked this information be made more available. (See CORP-12-230 below)
The site plan application for 633 Greenhill Ave. requires a 1.5m (5 ft) front and side lot variance, as the building needs to be pulled closer to Wilson Rd. on the west side of the lot, and 1.5m (5 ft.) closer to Greenhill Ave on the north side of the lot to accommodate the required number of parking spaces on the rear surface parking lot. (See site plan for 633 Greenhill Ave above showing the permitted building envelope in red, and the proposed building envelope required to have the building fit on the lot outlined in pink)
Events from June 3, 2021 and forward
Thursday June 3rd I received a message from a Greenhill community property owner concerned about the proposed plan and asking for a phone call. The day before he had notice of the Wed June 9th C of A meeting concerning the 633 Greenhill Ave. minor variance applications.
Unfortunately the 8.5" x 17" notification sign was installed only a day or two before on the subject property by the owner and for some inexplicable reason was placed 20 ft. away from the sidewalk, behind a chain link fence and a snow fence and not legible to any passersby.
I phoned and wrote planning staff right away asking for more information. I also wrote the Clerk and Commissioner of Development Services about residents having the opportunity to speak to the matter at the regular monthly Development Services Committee (DSC) meeting on Monday June 7th, to give the area residents the opportunity to address their concerns to elected members of Council. I pointed out that the City had not been allowing delegations at the C of A meetings during COVID, but the DSC meetings had been open for the public to make delegations during COVID some 9 months earlier.
Cambell Steuart, the lead City Planner for the 633 Greenhill site plan application answered my first questions the same day (see slide show below) and forwarded the rendering of the building below and some specs on the 'Earth Bin' (see photos below slide show). Note I added a red arrow to indicate where the 2nd floor apartments overhang the Wilson Rd. access/egress to the rear parking lot, and that the mixed-use plan is for 10 commercial units on the main floor and 13 residential units on the 2nd floor.
Cambell Steuart, the lead City Planner for the 633 Greenhill site plan application answered my first questions the same day (see slide show below) and forwarded the rendering of the building below and some specs on the 'Earth Bin' (see photos below slide show). Note I added a red arrow to indicate where the 2nd floor apartments overhang the Wilson Rd. access/egress to the rear parking lot, and that the mixed-use plan is for 10 commercial units on the main floor and 13 residential units on the 2nd floor.
The next day, Friday June 4th the Clerk and Commissioner of Development Services indicated that residents would not be permitted to speak to the matter at the Monday June 7th DSC meeting. However, the City would have the June 9th C of A meeting set up the audio to hear delegations, and the area residents interested in speaking to the C of A members would have to register ahead of time and test the audio.
At the Monday June 7th Development Services Committee (DSC) meeting I moved a motion to ensure notices of C of A meetings were installed correctly on subject properties so they would be visible to the public.
"Whereas residents can find that the notices posted on development sites for Committee of Adjustment meetings are not visible and that Committee of Adjustment notices the City sends by mail and posts on the City’s website can leave residents with concerns in a very constrained timeline, as has recently occurred with the application at Committee of Adjustment concerning 633 Greenhill Avenue on June 9, 2021;
Therefore the notices posted on development sites be sized at least 3x the current size of the notices currently being posted and be placed closer to pedestrian and vehicle traffic and both mail out and site signage and City website information be posted at least two weeks prior to the Committee of Adjustment meeting.”
The motion was approved by DSC and went to Council June 21st where it was replaced with a reworded motion carrying a similar policy, and endorsed by Council.
You can listen to the delegations made to the C of A on June 9, 2021 here: http://video.isilive.ca/oshawa/COA_2021-06-09.mp4.html (begin at the 20 minute mark)
You will hear how one member of the C of A commented at the June 9th meeting that the proposed project seemed like the building at the S/E corner of Simcoe St. N. and Conlin Rd., which he said turned out fine. However that building does not have residential units, plus Simcoe/Conlin is a much wider intersection than Greenhill/Wilson. In fact that area was made a community safety zone because of the accidents there. I posted the above on my other social media channels for clarification.
All C of A applications come with staff recommendations at the start of C of A meetings. The Staff recommendation for 633 Greenhill Ave at the June 9th C of A was to defer a decision. I believe staff were asking for the deferral due in part to the faulty placement of the C of A meeting notice sign on the subject property, and also as there had been at least one neighbour whose request to speak was turned down for being received one hour late.
I took the opportunity to speak as a private citizen, not as a Councillor, at the C of A meeting. I asked Mr. Henry Ma, the architect and presenter for the Applicant owner developer if his client had built before in Oshawa or Ontario. Mr. Ma said no. I also asked if he could arrange a meeting with the residents who have concerns related to the project. He agreed.
Irrespective of the staff recommendation to defer, the C of A members made a motion to approve the minor variance applications. That motion lost on a 2-2 tie vote. Then one of the C of A members made the motion to defer it to the next meeting, pointing out that Mr. Henry Ma had agreed to a meeting with the area residents and that could take place and hopefully see some of the issues resolved. The C of A members then approved a motion to defer the matter to the next C of A meeting.
Unfortunately a meeting between the Applicant owner/developer and the residents was not scheduled before the next C of A meeting.
The 633 Greenhill application was returned to the C of A meeting on June 23, 2021. You can listen here: https://video.isilive.ca/play/oshawa/COA_2021-06-23.mp4 (begin at the 4 minute mark)
Again the staff recommendation was to defer the C of A decision to give the residents and Applicant owner/developer the opportunity to meet and discuss issues. The C of A decided not to defer its decision, indicating they had listened to the delegations, but found the two minor variances - to build 1.5 metres closer to Wilson Rd. and 1.5 meters closer to Greenhill Ave. - met the 4 test criteria under the Planning Act. The C of A then approved the minor variances. The vote was not unanimous, but 3 in favour: Gord Foster, Andrew Johnson and Lindsay Smith and one against C of A Chair Rob Adams. The Oshawa C of A is a 5 member committee but was down to 4 members in June due to one member who was moving out of Oshawa having resigned the month previous. Two days after the June 23 C of A meeting the number of sitting members was down to 3 when Lindsay Smith submitted his resignation.
On Tues June 29th (after the C of A had approved the minor variance applications) the promised community meeting the with Applicant took place. It was an electronic meeting with the Director of Planning Tom Goodeve, 2 City Planners David Sappleton and Cambell Steuart, and once again Henry Ma representing the property owner, and area residents participating, including Councillor Neal and me. Attached are the PowerPoint slides the City submitted for this Community meeting, which started at 6:00 and ended around 8 pm.
At the Monday June 7th Development Services Committee (DSC) meeting I moved a motion to ensure notices of C of A meetings were installed correctly on subject properties so they would be visible to the public.
"Whereas residents can find that the notices posted on development sites for Committee of Adjustment meetings are not visible and that Committee of Adjustment notices the City sends by mail and posts on the City’s website can leave residents with concerns in a very constrained timeline, as has recently occurred with the application at Committee of Adjustment concerning 633 Greenhill Avenue on June 9, 2021;
Therefore the notices posted on development sites be sized at least 3x the current size of the notices currently being posted and be placed closer to pedestrian and vehicle traffic and both mail out and site signage and City website information be posted at least two weeks prior to the Committee of Adjustment meeting.”
The motion was approved by DSC and went to Council June 21st where it was replaced with a reworded motion carrying a similar policy, and endorsed by Council.
You can listen to the delegations made to the C of A on June 9, 2021 here: http://video.isilive.ca/oshawa/COA_2021-06-09.mp4.html (begin at the 20 minute mark)
You will hear how one member of the C of A commented at the June 9th meeting that the proposed project seemed like the building at the S/E corner of Simcoe St. N. and Conlin Rd., which he said turned out fine. However that building does not have residential units, plus Simcoe/Conlin is a much wider intersection than Greenhill/Wilson. In fact that area was made a community safety zone because of the accidents there. I posted the above on my other social media channels for clarification.
All C of A applications come with staff recommendations at the start of C of A meetings. The Staff recommendation for 633 Greenhill Ave at the June 9th C of A was to defer a decision. I believe staff were asking for the deferral due in part to the faulty placement of the C of A meeting notice sign on the subject property, and also as there had been at least one neighbour whose request to speak was turned down for being received one hour late.
I took the opportunity to speak as a private citizen, not as a Councillor, at the C of A meeting. I asked Mr. Henry Ma, the architect and presenter for the Applicant owner developer if his client had built before in Oshawa or Ontario. Mr. Ma said no. I also asked if he could arrange a meeting with the residents who have concerns related to the project. He agreed.
Irrespective of the staff recommendation to defer, the C of A members made a motion to approve the minor variance applications. That motion lost on a 2-2 tie vote. Then one of the C of A members made the motion to defer it to the next meeting, pointing out that Mr. Henry Ma had agreed to a meeting with the area residents and that could take place and hopefully see some of the issues resolved. The C of A members then approved a motion to defer the matter to the next C of A meeting.
Unfortunately a meeting between the Applicant owner/developer and the residents was not scheduled before the next C of A meeting.
The 633 Greenhill application was returned to the C of A meeting on June 23, 2021. You can listen here: https://video.isilive.ca/play/oshawa/COA_2021-06-23.mp4 (begin at the 4 minute mark)
Again the staff recommendation was to defer the C of A decision to give the residents and Applicant owner/developer the opportunity to meet and discuss issues. The C of A decided not to defer its decision, indicating they had listened to the delegations, but found the two minor variances - to build 1.5 metres closer to Wilson Rd. and 1.5 meters closer to Greenhill Ave. - met the 4 test criteria under the Planning Act. The C of A then approved the minor variances. The vote was not unanimous, but 3 in favour: Gord Foster, Andrew Johnson and Lindsay Smith and one against C of A Chair Rob Adams. The Oshawa C of A is a 5 member committee but was down to 4 members in June due to one member who was moving out of Oshawa having resigned the month previous. Two days after the June 23 C of A meeting the number of sitting members was down to 3 when Lindsay Smith submitted his resignation.
On Tues June 29th (after the C of A had approved the minor variance applications) the promised community meeting the with Applicant took place. It was an electronic meeting with the Director of Planning Tom Goodeve, 2 City Planners David Sappleton and Cambell Steuart, and once again Henry Ma representing the property owner, and area residents participating, including Councillor Neal and me. Attached are the PowerPoint slides the City submitted for this Community meeting, which started at 6:00 and ended around 8 pm.
Below are some other points of interest:
After the June 29th electronic Community meeting City planning staff provided the Developer's 2018 Traffic Study and its November 2020 Update, as well as its Acoustics Study and an Update to it too.
I pointed out the Traffic Study failed to recognize the intersection was changed to an All Way Stop in 2019 in its Update and the Noise Study presented data on the Greenhill Ave speed limit and grade that is questionable. They had the posted speed limit as 40km/hr when in fact it is 50km/hr and identified the road gradient as 0%...when there is a clear incline, after all the street name is Greenhill for a reason.
I asked how do City planning staff address these contradictions to ensure the conclusions of these Studies are reliable?
Road data, segment # 2: Greenhill
---------------------------------
Car traffic volume : 3192 veh/TimePeriod *
Medium truck volume : 14 veh/TimePeriod *
Heavy truck volume : 14 veh/TimePeriod *
Posted speed limit : 40 km/h
Road gradient : 0 %
Road pavement : Typical asphalt or concrete
City Traffic Staff confirmed that: 1) The speed limit on Greenhill Ave is 50 km/h. There is only a 40 km/h zone between Harmony Rd N and Quail Run Drive which is the area fronting Elsie MacGill School and Greenhill Park; and
2) The roadway grade on Greenhill Ave between Wilson Rd N and Eagle Ridge Drive varies from 1% to 6%.
I will try and ask the City to post these studies and other information concerning the proposed 633 Greenhill Ave project on the City's website for greater understanding and transparency.
Below are some traffic and collision stats: from the Region between 2011 and 2016 and from the City for the Greenhill/Wilson traffic counts for the 2019 All Way Stop study.
After the June 29th electronic Community meeting City planning staff provided the Developer's 2018 Traffic Study and its November 2020 Update, as well as its Acoustics Study and an Update to it too.
I pointed out the Traffic Study failed to recognize the intersection was changed to an All Way Stop in 2019 in its Update and the Noise Study presented data on the Greenhill Ave speed limit and grade that is questionable. They had the posted speed limit as 40km/hr when in fact it is 50km/hr and identified the road gradient as 0%...when there is a clear incline, after all the street name is Greenhill for a reason.
I asked how do City planning staff address these contradictions to ensure the conclusions of these Studies are reliable?
Road data, segment # 2: Greenhill
---------------------------------
Car traffic volume : 3192 veh/TimePeriod *
Medium truck volume : 14 veh/TimePeriod *
Heavy truck volume : 14 veh/TimePeriod *
Posted speed limit : 40 km/h
Road gradient : 0 %
Road pavement : Typical asphalt or concrete
City Traffic Staff confirmed that: 1) The speed limit on Greenhill Ave is 50 km/h. There is only a 40 km/h zone between Harmony Rd N and Quail Run Drive which is the area fronting Elsie MacGill School and Greenhill Park; and
2) The roadway grade on Greenhill Ave between Wilson Rd N and Eagle Ridge Drive varies from 1% to 6%.
I will try and ask the City to post these studies and other information concerning the proposed 633 Greenhill Ave project on the City's website for greater understanding and transparency.
Below are some traffic and collision stats: from the Region between 2011 and 2016 and from the City for the Greenhill/Wilson traffic counts for the 2019 All Way Stop study.
Below is the landscape plan for the narrow buffer area which has a graduated height retaining wall, due to the lot elevation increase from west to east. Also further below is a copy of the 2nd floor residential unit interior plan:
MY EMAIL TO THE CITY SEP 8, 2021
RE: 633 GREENHILL AVE.
It is my strong belief that Greenhill area residents should be given the opportunity to voice their views at next Monday’s Development Services Committee meeting.
Some of my constituents forwarded me the email they received from the Clerks Department yesterday which stated that the Clerk has decided their correspondence and requests to speak will not be permitted at the Monday, Sept 13, Development Services Committee meeting.
This is unfortunate and seems arbitrary and inconsistent considering that a Ward 1 resident made a delegation 3 years ago before the same Development Services Committee when he was appealing the C of A decision on the minor variances to the site plan for the Chartwell Phase 3 Seniors Residence on Ormond Dr. and Woodmount Dr.
He was permitted to speak at the Dec 9, 2019 DSC meeting when there was a staff Report DS-19-231 on the Agenda seeking direction with respect to the City’s party status regarding his appeal to the Tribunal. At that time the Development Service Committee members listened to his delegation and asked him questions.
The Appellant. and his neighbour actually spoke again at the Jan 13, 2020 DSC meeting and the a representative of the Chartwell Respondent also spoke. This was all while their appeal to the Tribunal was upcoming. The Report DS-20-09 on the Agenda again was “Direction of City Staff Involvement Respecting Appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal of Committee of Adjustment Decision concerning 1231 Ormond Drive, and 431 and 451 Woodmount Drive The Tribunal Hearing took place a few weeks later.
The Clerk may call the appeal of the C of A’s decision on 633 Greenhill a ‘legal proceeding’, but the appeal is part of the regular municipal decision making process.
The Commissioner of Development Services confirmed to me August 30th that there would be a Report on the Agenda concerning 633 Greenhill Ave. Denying the Greenhill Community residents the opportunity to speak to the Report and have their correspondence made public seems contrary to the guiding principle of the Municipal Act that Committee and Council meetings be open, transparent and accountable to the public.
For your information I will be posting this email on my social media accounts without naming who at the City I have sent this to. I consider it my responsibility as an elected representative to address my constituents’ concerns. It is not my intention to offend any member of staff.
Regards,
Rosemary
RE: 633 GREENHILL AVE.
It is my strong belief that Greenhill area residents should be given the opportunity to voice their views at next Monday’s Development Services Committee meeting.
Some of my constituents forwarded me the email they received from the Clerks Department yesterday which stated that the Clerk has decided their correspondence and requests to speak will not be permitted at the Monday, Sept 13, Development Services Committee meeting.
This is unfortunate and seems arbitrary and inconsistent considering that a Ward 1 resident made a delegation 3 years ago before the same Development Services Committee when he was appealing the C of A decision on the minor variances to the site plan for the Chartwell Phase 3 Seniors Residence on Ormond Dr. and Woodmount Dr.
He was permitted to speak at the Dec 9, 2019 DSC meeting when there was a staff Report DS-19-231 on the Agenda seeking direction with respect to the City’s party status regarding his appeal to the Tribunal. At that time the Development Service Committee members listened to his delegation and asked him questions.
The Appellant. and his neighbour actually spoke again at the Jan 13, 2020 DSC meeting and the a representative of the Chartwell Respondent also spoke. This was all while their appeal to the Tribunal was upcoming. The Report DS-20-09 on the Agenda again was “Direction of City Staff Involvement Respecting Appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal of Committee of Adjustment Decision concerning 1231 Ormond Drive, and 431 and 451 Woodmount Drive The Tribunal Hearing took place a few weeks later.
The Clerk may call the appeal of the C of A’s decision on 633 Greenhill a ‘legal proceeding’, but the appeal is part of the regular municipal decision making process.
The Commissioner of Development Services confirmed to me August 30th that there would be a Report on the Agenda concerning 633 Greenhill Ave. Denying the Greenhill Community residents the opportunity to speak to the Report and have their correspondence made public seems contrary to the guiding principle of the Municipal Act that Committee and Council meetings be open, transparent and accountable to the public.
For your information I will be posting this email on my social media accounts without naming who at the City I have sent this to. I consider it my responsibility as an elected representative to address my constituents’ concerns. It is not my intention to offend any member of staff.
Regards,
Rosemary
Questions to the City Clerk Sept 9, 2021
- How many Oshawa residents submitted correspondence concerning 633 Greenhill Ave for the upcoming meeting?
- How many Oshawa residents requested to speak at the meeting?
- Is it your determination that one person filing an appeal to the Tribunal prevents any other residents of Oshawa from speaking to their Mayor and Council members at a public Development Services Committee meeting about a proposed project?
- Would your determination be the same, if a developer files an appeal of a C of A decision to the Tribunal, that residents of Oshawa would be prevented from speaking about the proposed project at a DSC meeting to Mayor and Council?
- Does your determination under Section 6c) as to what constitutes an “ongoing legal proceeding” preclude members of Committee or Council from taking the opportunity under a 2/3 vote to waive the Rules and hear Oshawa residents who requested delegations and vote on receiving their correspondence to be included in the public record?
Since getting the word out to as many local residents as possible was important for the Greenhill Community to have a voice, I put together and delivered this postcard before the community meeting with Planning department staff.
Here is the link to the 34 page Development Services Staff Report on the 1:30 p.m. Mon Sept 13, 2021 Development Services Committee meeting. It concerns the Committee of Adjustment Decision on the Greenhill Ave Corner Lot Site Plan Minor Variances, and the positions the City can take, if any, on the Appeal of that Decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. http://app.oshawa.ca/agendas/development_services/2021/09-13/report_ds-21-151.pdf
On page 2 of the Report is the Staff recommendation to City Council:
2.0 That, pursuant to Report DS-21-151 dated September 8, 2021, the Ontario Land Tribunal be advised that City Council supports the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to approve application A-2021-46 to permit reduced front and exterior side yard depths for a proposed two-storey mixed-use building at 633 Greenhill Avenue but that the City will not seek party or participant status at the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing.
Attachment 9 (pages 21-34) is the Greenhill area resident's appeal of the Committee of Adjustments decision, which contains a list of the Appellant's reasons for the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal:
On page 2 of the Report is the Staff recommendation to City Council:
2.0 That, pursuant to Report DS-21-151 dated September 8, 2021, the Ontario Land Tribunal be advised that City Council supports the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to approve application A-2021-46 to permit reduced front and exterior side yard depths for a proposed two-storey mixed-use building at 633 Greenhill Avenue but that the City will not seek party or participant status at the Ontario Land Tribunal hearing.
Attachment 9 (pages 21-34) is the Greenhill area resident's appeal of the Committee of Adjustments decision, which contains a list of the Appellant's reasons for the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal:
Yes, there are many next steps ahead. But when 6 of Oshawa's elected members of Council unanimously voted to support the Greenhill Community residents yesterday, the goal of seeing a safer, improved new building project at 633 Greenhill Ave. became a bit brighter.
The good news came at the Sept 13, 2021 Development Services Committee meeting with the motion passed: that Oshawa Council:
1) does not support the decision of the Committee of Adjustment with respect to File A-2021-46
2) supports the residents in the general vicinity of the subject site; and
3) that the City does not seek party or participant status at the OLT hearing
The motion was approved by all six members of the Committee, Chair Tito Dante Marimpietri, Vice Chair Rosemary McConkey, Mayor Carter and Councillors, Bob Chapman, Jane Hurst, and Rick Kerr voting YES to the Mayor's motion means that this will be approved at the City Council meeting on Sept 27th.
The story began on June 3 when fortunately there was one area resident who started a movement. Then as more learned from him what was happening, with support from their Ward Councillors at the very outset to raise awareness, by September things had heated up. Recently another resident invited the Mayor to his front porch to discuss the 633 Greenhill Ave. site plan problem.
Both of these Greenhill residents are especially to be commended. The many involved who worked diligently to make the Greenhill Community concerns known have accomplished something important, a community becoming proactive and finding a Voice.
Approaching the problem together in various ways, with another one filing an appeal to the OLT, ultimately the goal has been to see a safer designed project built on the corner. As one said the focus has been on finding a "solution wherein all sides walk away with their goals achieved and not compromised."
The good news came at the Sept 13, 2021 Development Services Committee meeting with the motion passed: that Oshawa Council:
1) does not support the decision of the Committee of Adjustment with respect to File A-2021-46
2) supports the residents in the general vicinity of the subject site; and
3) that the City does not seek party or participant status at the OLT hearing
The motion was approved by all six members of the Committee, Chair Tito Dante Marimpietri, Vice Chair Rosemary McConkey, Mayor Carter and Councillors, Bob Chapman, Jane Hurst, and Rick Kerr voting YES to the Mayor's motion means that this will be approved at the City Council meeting on Sept 27th.
The story began on June 3 when fortunately there was one area resident who started a movement. Then as more learned from him what was happening, with support from their Ward Councillors at the very outset to raise awareness, by September things had heated up. Recently another resident invited the Mayor to his front porch to discuss the 633 Greenhill Ave. site plan problem.
Both of these Greenhill residents are especially to be commended. The many involved who worked diligently to make the Greenhill Community concerns known have accomplished something important, a community becoming proactive and finding a Voice.
Approaching the problem together in various ways, with another one filing an appeal to the OLT, ultimately the goal has been to see a safer designed project built on the corner. As one said the focus has been on finding a "solution wherein all sides walk away with their goals achieved and not compromised."