Monday evening's virtual Planning Act Public Meeting for the redevelopment of 400 King St. W. has a PowerPoint presentation with a number of slides detailing the application's mixed use commercial residential building. The building will have varied heights from 4, 6, 8 and 20 storey heights, with 245 condo apartments and 2 levels of underground parking.
See the 12 page Report DS-22-01 for more of the proposed building specs https://pub-oshawa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=1536&fbclid=IwAR1S2FdVjcu8BTc3KC5HbfpHxzGQUZma8dcdvHBh9yABWxOqWRqnETCXJpw
But there happens to be this one slide among the 31 in the slide deck that I find problematic...
Note: a slideshow of the entire PowerPoint is at the bottom of this Post.
My concern about this one slide has to do with Development Charges. It is not spelled out, in fact, it is very oblique and I will ask for for confirmation Monday night if the request in "A)" for an Official Plan amendment to "redesignate the property as Downtown Oshawa Urban Growth Centre" is the owner's ask to be exempt from paying Development Charges?
Hopefully there won't be a repeat of the motion recently made where the Mayor and a majority of Council voted in favour of continuing to exempt Storage Units developers from paying DCs, when the Region and many other municipalities have moved away from this practice.
Development Charge exemptions for the Downtown Oshawa Urban Growth Centre have been around for a number of years...previously the area exempted in the downtown was called the Central Business District Community Improvement Plan (CIP) and the goal was to help improve the 'older' downtown area. The Downtown Oshawa Urban Growth Centre does NOT extend west of the Oshawa Creek over to the Oshawa Centre shopping centre area...expanding the development charge exemption to 400 King St W. would set a very problematic precedent.
Although the owner simply may be seeking to improve its chances of approval for the higher densities by pitching "A)" in this slide, you know the old adage 'give an inch, take a mile'.
As I wrote on my Facebook Page today, it is very important for the public to have input, raise concerns and recommend improvements to planning applications in their community, for the scales to be balanced and not tipped unfairly to the developer.
I recognize this corner will see redevelopment. I actually do not see it as a terrible plan... but it will need to be tweaked and safety of the intersection is paramount. What I have a problem with is the City caving on development charges if that is what is going to be asked...it sets a bad precedent. The Region doesn't cave on their development charges. Why would Oshawa?
The exemptions are spelled out in Oshawa's DC By-law:
See the 12 page Report DS-22-01 for more of the proposed building specs https://pub-oshawa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=1536&fbclid=IwAR1S2FdVjcu8BTc3KC5HbfpHxzGQUZma8dcdvHBh9yABWxOqWRqnETCXJpw
But there happens to be this one slide among the 31 in the slide deck that I find problematic...
Note: a slideshow of the entire PowerPoint is at the bottom of this Post.
My concern about this one slide has to do with Development Charges. It is not spelled out, in fact, it is very oblique and I will ask for for confirmation Monday night if the request in "A)" for an Official Plan amendment to "redesignate the property as Downtown Oshawa Urban Growth Centre" is the owner's ask to be exempt from paying Development Charges?
Hopefully there won't be a repeat of the motion recently made where the Mayor and a majority of Council voted in favour of continuing to exempt Storage Units developers from paying DCs, when the Region and many other municipalities have moved away from this practice.
Development Charge exemptions for the Downtown Oshawa Urban Growth Centre have been around for a number of years...previously the area exempted in the downtown was called the Central Business District Community Improvement Plan (CIP) and the goal was to help improve the 'older' downtown area. The Downtown Oshawa Urban Growth Centre does NOT extend west of the Oshawa Creek over to the Oshawa Centre shopping centre area...expanding the development charge exemption to 400 King St W. would set a very problematic precedent.
Although the owner simply may be seeking to improve its chances of approval for the higher densities by pitching "A)" in this slide, you know the old adage 'give an inch, take a mile'.
As I wrote on my Facebook Page today, it is very important for the public to have input, raise concerns and recommend improvements to planning applications in their community, for the scales to be balanced and not tipped unfairly to the developer.
I recognize this corner will see redevelopment. I actually do not see it as a terrible plan... but it will need to be tweaked and safety of the intersection is paramount. What I have a problem with is the City caving on development charges if that is what is going to be asked...it sets a bad precedent. The Region doesn't cave on their development charges. Why would Oshawa?
The exemptions are spelled out in Oshawa's DC By-law:
An Oshawa resident reached out to me this morning concerned that new residents for the 245 condos at this corner likely would want access to a park within walking distance. He suggested that maybe a tunnel under King St. could give safe access Radio Park.
I wrote back it was a good point...that a pedestrian tunnel would be something to consider. They've done it in many places in Toronto for years. With the intensification planned in the GTA and the number of 20 storey + buildings in the offing, likely there will be more skywalks and tunnels. Perhaps Ivanhoe Cambridge might be interested in helping make it happen, especially if they built a new complex across the street at the OC.
To another Oshawa resident's questions "is there not any nod to affordable housing in the project".
I wrote back that the City's Official Plan contains General Policies about including opportunities for AFFORDABLE HOUSING in development in the downtown:
2.1.1.1 "CENTRAL AREAS shall provide an integrated array of shopping (including opportunities for food stores and convenient access to healthy food), personal and business service, office, institutional, community, cultural and recreational uses and transportation facilities, mixed with a range of higher density residential housing types, including opportunities for affordable housing and assisted housing. (OPA 179)"
2.3.1.1 It is the intent of this Plan to ensure that the City has an adequate supply and variety of housing types, including affordable housing pursuant to Section 6.2 of this Plan, and a high quality residential environment with minimal land use conflicts between residential areas and other land uses. (OPA 179)
and then the Oshawa Official Plan definitions for Affordable Housing are in section at 6.2 copied here:
I wrote back it was a good point...that a pedestrian tunnel would be something to consider. They've done it in many places in Toronto for years. With the intensification planned in the GTA and the number of 20 storey + buildings in the offing, likely there will be more skywalks and tunnels. Perhaps Ivanhoe Cambridge might be interested in helping make it happen, especially if they built a new complex across the street at the OC.
To another Oshawa resident's questions "is there not any nod to affordable housing in the project".
I wrote back that the City's Official Plan contains General Policies about including opportunities for AFFORDABLE HOUSING in development in the downtown:
2.1.1.1 "CENTRAL AREAS shall provide an integrated array of shopping (including opportunities for food stores and convenient access to healthy food), personal and business service, office, institutional, community, cultural and recreational uses and transportation facilities, mixed with a range of higher density residential housing types, including opportunities for affordable housing and assisted housing. (OPA 179)"
2.3.1.1 It is the intent of this Plan to ensure that the City has an adequate supply and variety of housing types, including affordable housing pursuant to Section 6.2 of this Plan, and a high quality residential environment with minimal land use conflicts between residential areas and other land uses. (OPA 179)
and then the Oshawa Official Plan definitions for Affordable Housing are in section at 6.2 copied here:
I believe in promoting new development. It is needed for growth and economic vitality and NEW inspires! However, as I’ve said many times, putting new land use plans together must be BALANCED and decisions should not be driven by the side known to have deeper pockets and special relationships with some of the decision makers.
Community engagement is key for the planning process to be fair. That is why it is legislated under the Planning Act... and there should be no short cuts! Public consultation needs to be transparent and accessible and not given just a superficial kind of talk the talk and then, done that, now we can check the box. The goal ought to be to prioritize the long term vision, what is best for the well-being of the City and its future generations.
Community engagement is key for the planning process to be fair. That is why it is legislated under the Planning Act... and there should be no short cuts! Public consultation needs to be transparent and accessible and not given just a superficial kind of talk the talk and then, done that, now we can check the box. The goal ought to be to prioritize the long term vision, what is best for the well-being of the City and its future generations.