Urgent appeal for more to speak up and say NO.
Council members and the public are being told that relocating the long-planned 30 acre Community Park in North East Oshawa represents good planning. In my view, IT DOES NOT!
I have tried to address this issue at Committee and Council. I saw it coming like a freight train September, 2019 and strongly questioned, objected, complained, reached out to others...but here it is on tomorrow's Committee Agenda and then onto Council January 16, 2021 for a final green light.
I am asking loudly now, so more can hear. Surely RED LIGHTS SHOULD BE FLASHING and ALERT BELLS AND WHISTLES GOING OFF!
This is a SUPER-SIZED planning area being affected. It involves over 1,000 acres, 10 massive plans of subdivision, with 10 proposed elementary schools site and 3 high school sites, and is planned for between 22,000 and 26,000 residents.
After the previous Council approved the majority of the 10 high-density plans of subdivision for this Kedron Part II planning area (between Ritson Rd. and Townline Rd. north of Conlin Rd. and three quarters of the way north to an unnamed future east-west arterial road, but not up to Winchester Rd.), suddenly out of left field staff began in September 2019 asking Council members to consider the developer Minto and Sorbara's request to relocate the Kedron Part II Plan 30 acre Community Park further north on land still designated Prime Agricultural located outside of the City's Major Urban Boundary.
oshawaexpress.ca/future_park_in_kedron_phase_2_could_be_on_the_move/
It has been 10 years since the consultants laid out the Kedron Part II concept plan for future roads, schools and park locations: the parkland was to be 10 small parkettes, 2 neighbourhood parks and the one large 30 acre Community Park...in total 75 acres of parkland among the plans for 22,000-26,000 residents.
There is a record of John Van Nostrand, the Planning Consultant, in his presentation to Development Services Committee April 2010 and to the public in May, 2010 describing "the different approach to the allocation of park space" See slide copied below from his presentation "DS-10-86".
Changing this key feature of the design, (imo the only real redeeming element of the concept plan) and now pulling the 30 acre parkland out to add in a 4 acre neighbourhood park and more houses, and then proposing another location outside the urban boundary, imo is not good planning rational:
1.The land around the relocated park will be undeveloped to the north and west (Harmony Rd. to the east and an unnamed arterial road which is the northerly limit of Kedron Part II to the south) because NO PLANS have been started for that area and consider it took 10+years to get to this stage with the construction of Kedron Part II roads and water/ sewer services installation just now starting.
2. To accommodate a relocation of the park, the City will be breaching its northern urban boundary and asking for a site specific policy to develop the park in an area designated agricultural. This is prohibited in the Durham Region Official Plan. In fact, Policy 9A.2.7 DOES NOT permit major recreational uses in general in Prime Agricultural Areas.
3. The City will need to ask the Region of Durham for a new site specific policy under Section 9A to allow a City-owned Community Park to be relocated to the Agricultural Area outside Oshawa's urban northern boundary. With the weak explanations given, it is hard to justify asking for a special exception to the Policy.
4. It seems a peculiar a 'one-off' and sets a bad precedent to skirt around the Comprehensive Planning Review Process legislated for urban boundary changes. (When did the City ever go beyond the urban boundary to include anything, let alone do a switcheroo to let a developer squeeze in more homes on land it knew was designated for a large park when it bought the large parcel in the first place?)
5. The Community Park was planned to be in the 'community'...not flanked on two sides by two main arterial roads. As the functional plan Consultants wrote: "In keeping with the sustainable approach for this community, the provision of parkland favours a centralized Community Park, to facilitate access, reduce maintenance liabilities, improve the City's CT-. ability to program sports events and reduce the impact of park permitting (particularly parking conflicts) at the Neighbourhood Park level."
Council members and the public are being told that relocating the long-planned 30 acre Community Park in North East Oshawa represents good planning. In my view, IT DOES NOT!
I have tried to address this issue at Committee and Council. I saw it coming like a freight train September, 2019 and strongly questioned, objected, complained, reached out to others...but here it is on tomorrow's Committee Agenda and then onto Council January 16, 2021 for a final green light.
I am asking loudly now, so more can hear. Surely RED LIGHTS SHOULD BE FLASHING and ALERT BELLS AND WHISTLES GOING OFF!
This is a SUPER-SIZED planning area being affected. It involves over 1,000 acres, 10 massive plans of subdivision, with 10 proposed elementary schools site and 3 high school sites, and is planned for between 22,000 and 26,000 residents.
After the previous Council approved the majority of the 10 high-density plans of subdivision for this Kedron Part II planning area (between Ritson Rd. and Townline Rd. north of Conlin Rd. and three quarters of the way north to an unnamed future east-west arterial road, but not up to Winchester Rd.), suddenly out of left field staff began in September 2019 asking Council members to consider the developer Minto and Sorbara's request to relocate the Kedron Part II Plan 30 acre Community Park further north on land still designated Prime Agricultural located outside of the City's Major Urban Boundary.
oshawaexpress.ca/future_park_in_kedron_phase_2_could_be_on_the_move/
It has been 10 years since the consultants laid out the Kedron Part II concept plan for future roads, schools and park locations: the parkland was to be 10 small parkettes, 2 neighbourhood parks and the one large 30 acre Community Park...in total 75 acres of parkland among the plans for 22,000-26,000 residents.
There is a record of John Van Nostrand, the Planning Consultant, in his presentation to Development Services Committee April 2010 and to the public in May, 2010 describing "the different approach to the allocation of park space" See slide copied below from his presentation "DS-10-86".
Changing this key feature of the design, (imo the only real redeeming element of the concept plan) and now pulling the 30 acre parkland out to add in a 4 acre neighbourhood park and more houses, and then proposing another location outside the urban boundary, imo is not good planning rational:
1.The land around the relocated park will be undeveloped to the north and west (Harmony Rd. to the east and an unnamed arterial road which is the northerly limit of Kedron Part II to the south) because NO PLANS have been started for that area and consider it took 10+years to get to this stage with the construction of Kedron Part II roads and water/ sewer services installation just now starting.
2. To accommodate a relocation of the park, the City will be breaching its northern urban boundary and asking for a site specific policy to develop the park in an area designated agricultural. This is prohibited in the Durham Region Official Plan. In fact, Policy 9A.2.7 DOES NOT permit major recreational uses in general in Prime Agricultural Areas.
3. The City will need to ask the Region of Durham for a new site specific policy under Section 9A to allow a City-owned Community Park to be relocated to the Agricultural Area outside Oshawa's urban northern boundary. With the weak explanations given, it is hard to justify asking for a special exception to the Policy.
4. It seems a peculiar a 'one-off' and sets a bad precedent to skirt around the Comprehensive Planning Review Process legislated for urban boundary changes. (When did the City ever go beyond the urban boundary to include anything, let alone do a switcheroo to let a developer squeeze in more homes on land it knew was designated for a large park when it bought the large parcel in the first place?)
5. The Community Park was planned to be in the 'community'...not flanked on two sides by two main arterial roads. As the functional plan Consultants wrote: "In keeping with the sustainable approach for this community, the provision of parkland favours a centralized Community Park, to facilitate access, reduce maintenance liabilities, improve the City's CT-. ability to program sports events and reduce the impact of park permitting (particularly parking conflicts) at the Neighbourhood Park level."
