Planning Update – Summer 2021

One of the more interesting things to learn from Council meetings is the status of projects going through the Planning and Development Department.  The Councillor with the Planning portfolio is Nicole Beatty and once again she gave a comprehensive report at Monday’s Council meeting.  You can see her full report in the Links below but with 42 items, let me summarize highlights.  For some reason, there are a lot more projects than usual or expected this year. The dollar value of “planning applications in the Planning & Development Services Division already sits at just over 121% of revenue budgeted for all of 2021”.  And in the middle of this surge in work, Director Glenn McGlashon has announced his retirement effective 27 August.

The choice of projects below is based on my judgement of the level of interest – if the project you are interested in is not included, download the full report below.

Cedar Shores (King Street West, west of Maher St) – marketing has recently commenced.  This project was first mentioned in March 2018 on this page.  The project will be selling lots intended for high-end homes. Go here for the Owner’s web site.

West Park Village Phase 5 (Elgin Street west of Canadian Tire): Originally called Van Dyke Homes, there was considerable controversy about the “72 unit mixed residential/commercial development”.  Council approved the draft plan and now Nicole reports that: “Municipal staff have been in discussions with the developer’s consultants regarding an upcoming submission for the clearance of draft plan conditions and final subdivision approval, expected in the near future.”  This development was the subject of a Post on 8 December 2020 – go here.

Joshani Homes Residential Enclave (377 William Street – south of the Balder project – see below): The Town is awaiting the re-submission of plans and reports for this 14 unit semi-detached/townhouse draft plan of subdivision, following which a Public Meeting will be scheduled in the Fall. The site has been vacant for many years – previously there was an automotive service station, which has since been removed, decontaminated and certified.

Densmore Meadows Subdivision (Densmore Road across from St. Mary’s High School): An application for Zoning By-law Amendment has been submitted by Marshall Homes for a 123 unit townhouse development. The Public Meeting is being held on August 9th [Details here].  This site was pre-serviced for approx. 110 townhouse and apartment units a few years ago, however the development stalled and a new developer has acquired the property with the intent to complete the development.

440-448 Elgin Street West (located across from the Fellowship Baptist Church): An application for approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision has been submitted by Heli Homes for the development of 24 townhouse units on the site. The Public Meeting has been scheduled for September 7th  [No details on this available]. First reported here.

Sobeys Foodland: The construction on the new Foodland supermarket at 990 Division Street is well underway.  Original report here 27 March 2018.

Brook Road North and King Street East Commercial Development: The construction on the new Tim Horton’s has begun and the gas bar convenience store is expected to begin soon.  First reported here.

TVM/Legion Development: Final interior work continues on the new Legion facility. The final condominium documentation has now been registered at the Land Registry Office. Once the Legion is complete and occupied, the existing Legion will be demolished and converted into a parking lot for the Legion this Summer or Fall (no firm timeline has been confirmed as of yet).  Most recent report here.

Cobourg Creek Lofts (415 King St W/former Cobourg Star) : The Development Agreement is executed and construction has commenced.  Report here.

Balder Corporation Mixed Rental Building (University & William): Construction on this 71-unit mixed affordable/rental apartment building is continuing (majority of the work so far is on-site servicing and the underground parking garage and foundation).  More here.

Northumberland Mall Outbuilding: Construction on the multi-unit commercial building is mostly complete.   No word on when or even if planned Starbucks will open.  Original post re Starbucks here.

Coast Guard Re-Development: The construction tender for the re-development of the Coast Guard station has been deferred due to excessive costs. The tender will be re-posted later in the Fall.  Council approval of planned building here.

Beachwalk Flats (179-185 Division Street at Albert St): The applicant is preparing for a re-submission to the Town in the next few weeks.  There were objections raised to their original plans – article here.

Joshani Homes Infill Development (296 George St): A number of public submissions has been received by the Town regarding this application and further updates will be provided as information is received.  There was a “Letter to the Editor” objecting to this development here.

Canadian Centre for Addictions (420 Division Street – Woodlawn): The application for Site Plan Approval was approved by Council and the owner is finalizing engineering details for a new water service to the building. Article here on re-zoning approval.

Goldmanco (545 King Street East at Willmott St): The application for Site Plan Approval has been approved by Council and construction on Phase 1 of the commercial development will occur once the legal paperwork, financial details and Development Agreement are finalized.  This is the long awaited East End SupermarketDetails here.

2 King Street East: The owner is conducting a multi-phase restoration plan for the building at the north-east corner of King and Division Streets in accordance with the approved Heritage Permit. Historic Brick & Carpentry Company is the contractor and the scaffolding has been erected along the south façade of the corner section of the building under Phase 1.

If you are looking for information on properties or projects not included above, download Nicole’s full report or try a search of this site from the box at top right.

Links

Related Posts

Print Article: 

 

38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Informed
30 July 2021 9:01 pm

Congratulations on your retirement Mr. McGlashon. Nice to see someone spend most of their career with the Town and being part of its growth over the years.

cornbread
30 July 2021 2:47 pm

Can’t wait to get the Old Star/Cooey Building finished..One less eye sore in the West end of town.

cornbread
30 July 2021 2:44 pm

One question…Nicole Beatty signed her name to her report followed by (she/her).

Is this something new in this world or part of our new “equity” deal in Cobourg?

Do I have to put (he/him) after my name now?

Kevin
Reply to  cornbread
30 July 2021 8:31 pm

cornbread, Nicole is letting people know which pronouns she would like everyone to use when referring to her. Perhaps Nicole is simply showing support of transgender and other people by including her preferred pronouns. In most cases it is obvious. A transgender person born female and identifying as male may want male pronouns or gender neutral pronouns (they). In this example using female pronouns could be offensive to the transgender person. A law has been passed related to this. How many times have you called a person by the wrong name? Parents often say the wrong name for a child. In most cases it is just an honest mistake and not meant to offend anybody. The same can happen with pronouns. But, if I write, ‘cornbread should use her real name’ knowing you prefer his then I could be accused of discrimination or even a criminal offence. You do not have to included your preferred pronouns after your name. There is no law against going off topic, except JD may delete our comments. I am OK with that.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Kevin
30 July 2021 10:56 pm

A law has been passed related to this.

Kevin, I must have missed it. Could you please provide a link to this new law?

Kevin
Reply to  Ken Strauss
1 August 2021 12:30 pm

Bill C-16. It has been said that it would be a crime to use a wrong pronoun but I now think that it could just mean a harsher sentence if guilty of a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act_and_the_Criminal_Code

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Kevin
1 August 2021 3:32 pm

Note that the word “pronoun” doesn’t appear in C-16 (https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/c-16/royal-assent)

Kevin
Reply to  Ken Strauss
3 August 2021 8:05 am

Yes, but some people thought that using the wrong pronoun could be harassment. “Gender-based harassment can involve: (5) Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun.” is from an article explaining Bill C-16. cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained.
Transgender people, like anybody, can buy a home or rent an apartment. Most of the projects listed are homes. Does anybody know what an appropriate ratio of homes to apartments is? Lower income people, of any gender, typically rent.

JimT
Reply to  Kevin
31 July 2021 9:03 am

Kevin: thank you for clarifying.

I can’t understand why anyone would downvote a simple clarification.

Don’t downvote the messenger just because you dislike the message.

cornbread
Reply to  JimT
1 August 2021 7:58 pm

When would you refer with the pronoun “it”? Those who cannot have kids?

This new stuff has gone too far…let’s Live and let live…

Ken
30 July 2021 1:36 pm

I am still trying to figure out why the planning dept. allowed such an ugly… and I say this with all due respect… home, that was built at 151 Sydenham St., right in the centre of our ‘Heritage District’! This home looks as much ‘heritage’ as I don’t know what!?

I often wonder what goes on between ‘developers’ and those in the planning department, ‘under the table’…so to speak! I guess it is more important that we should look at the amount of ‘property taxes’ that can be collected, as opposed to what the home looks like!?

This is just my opinion.

Thanks, John, for the update on all the other projects!

JimT
Reply to  Ken
31 July 2021 11:47 am

Ugg-lee. Approaching down Durham St, you first see what looks like a prison – flat gray wall with no decoration or window. A visual abomination.

Sandpiper
30 July 2021 9:18 am

Since when do letters to the Editor ??????????
count as objections such as in the case of George st
If thats the case then I would like to Object to The Obvious lack of parking
for this 2 7 unit mixed use Residential Commercial site that might have 20 parking spaces
and will certainly be causing issues at this very busy intersection as there is no provisions for
employee or patron parking nor for store front deliveries of product other than the usual double park method employed on King st
Intensification only works where common sense and knowledge of the area is applied

Sandpiper
Reply to  Sandpiper
30 July 2021 9:20 am

That was Beach Walk I was referring to .

Ahewson
Reply to  Sandpiper
30 July 2021 5:49 pm

Downtown should be built for pedestrians, not cars. An increase of parking spaces for the development in question would reduce the # of units that could be built. Intensification is about developing a critical mass of sorts. Downtown can become more self-sufficient, land isn’t wasted with parking lots and cars but rather with nearby residents that can walk to the stores. Also allows for more property tax revenue.

Sandpiper
Reply to  Ahewson
31 July 2021 7:01 am

Seniors and shoppers need parking , Stores need product . Product needs to be delivered .and then picked up safely , as it is with all the deliveries to Division st south its down to 1 lane a lot of the time as these big trucks are parked and double parked a lot of the time. In order to create jobs Commercial venues and stores need to be successful to pay at least a living wage and afford full time employees .
2 months of Beach goers won’t cut it .
How ever with 5 or 6 new Marijuana stores and Head shops on and around Division st may be a new festival might be in order each fall

Ahewson
Reply to  Sandpiper
31 July 2021 7:36 am

Cut the obsession with cars and parking. It’s about creating an environment where people can WALK to the stores, as is done in every successful downtown around the world. There are plenty of strip malls in Cobourg where people can drive directly to. Yeah, deliveries need to happen, but if they have to park on the road for a few minutes then so be it. That’s a necessary evil for creating a downtown built for pedestrians and not cars.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Ahewson
31 July 2021 7:48 am

Ahewson, have you considered that our downtown, King Street, is actually Highway 2 rather than a place for people to WALK? Have you considered that our weather makes it unpleased to WALK much of the year? Have you considered that it is difficult to WALK while carrying purchases? Have you considered that we have many residents who require mobility assistance which makes it impossible for them to WALK?

JimT
Reply to  Ken Strauss
31 July 2021 9:11 am

Have you considered how many of us seniors sold their cars years ago and now walk or bike everywhere? I moved here from The Big City mostly for that very reason.

There would probably be more apartments available for people like us if it were not for the requirement of providing a useless parking space along with each apartment.

Last edited 1 month ago by JimT
Sandpiper
Reply to  JimT
3 August 2021 8:38 am

I think its the Red Tape and the 4 +++ yrs it take s to get any thing approved Look at George st & Buck 15 yrs 3 owners . Elgin by the YMCA 15 +++ 4 developers latter and the new developer has been at it for 4 yrs now etc etc the cost of planning and holding land for such long periods drives the Developers away and the costs up

Mark
Reply to  Ken Strauss
31 July 2021 5:06 pm

There is no hiway 2 anymore , it is county rd #2 , it was download in 1998
“Virtually all of the 837.4 km (520.3 mi) length of Highway 2 was deemed a local route and removed from the provincial highway system on January 1, 1998, with the exception of a 1-kilometre (0.62 mi) section east of Gananoque. The entire route remains driveable, but as County Road 2 or County Highway 2 in most regions. In Toronto, “Highway 2” shieldsare still found along Lake Shore Boulevard and Kingston Road.”

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Mark
31 July 2021 7:10 pm

County Road 2 or Highway 2, is it perfect for walking?

Ahewson
Reply to  Ken Strauss
1 August 2021 7:23 am

Your argument is ridiculous and you know it. King St. thru downtown Cobourg does not function as any kind of “highway”. It is routinely shutoff for town functions, ironically enough so pedestrians can WALK unabated. These pedestrian friendly events are also the biggest money makers for downtown merchants. I will reiterate, every successful downtown is built for pedestrians, not cars. It is a simple undeniable fact. The most successful city-centres on the planet are in Europe. They were built before cars even existed. In North America the most successful downtowns are a nightmare to drive. They thrive on pedestrian foot traffic. Few people even bother driving. No store or area can be everything to everyone. The majority of Cobourg is built for cars, and all of those areas are ugly as sin. Do you find Strathy Rd to be beautiful? Is that the type aesthetic we would like to have in downtown Cobourg? Downtown Cobourg is beautiful because it is human scaled, the buildings are human scaled, it was built with pedestrians in mind. The convenience factor is always going to be less than driving to some stripmall or big box store but it’s a necessary evil to having a decent looking built environment. New developments must take the ball and run with it. Driving to shop downtown is never going to be easier than driving to a stripmall, so why even bother trying to compete on that level? Work with what you have, downtowns advantage is it aesthetics, people can and will walk further because the experience is better. Stripmalls/big box are about convinence, downtown can be about an experience. The other advantage downtown has is bringing in clientele that quite literally live above the shops or are a quick walk. That brings us to the development in question.… Read more »

Informed
Reply to  Ahewson
31 July 2021 10:03 am

I would love to see all storefronts downtown with canopies as i remember walking under many of them as a kid and hardley getting wet when it rained

Sandpiper
Reply to  Ahewson
2 August 2021 9:56 am

Just walk down Division st any given morning and look at the Truck and delivery vehicles check the time , then check out King st by the Oasis for double parked delivery food and beer trucks always around school bus hr. no one is there for just a few Mins Not Even the By Law officers are around This could be a Ticket Bonanza –15 to 30 Mins on average

If you want intensification then look to George and Buck st Type of locations access off of Buck less Traffic walk every where No trucks trying to make it around the busy corner . This site was originally proposed by the former owner Integrated Services and Development
as a 4 story Condo / Apartment with underground parking 15 yrs ago It meets provincial policy criteria for intensification yet the neighbours write letters to the editor but won’t show up to the planning meetings and the Planning department is still holding it up
WHY ?? what better place for intense infill but the Town insists
it should be at a main Division st intersection that already has turning Radis issues that even the Town Bus struggles with 15 times a day ! Don’t create a problem but rather Plan around it .

Sandpiper
Reply to  Sandpiper
3 August 2021 8:32 am

I guess a lot of people don’t walk –well its not safe to bicycle around all these Trucks

Sandpiper
Reply to  Ahewson
3 August 2021 8:45 am

No its a worsening Evil you plan around and for
fine get ride of the parking make sure the buyers and tenants of these downtown units don’t have cars and plan for back yard deliveries like in old Tor . with delivery lanes at the rear

JimT
Reply to  Sandpiper
30 July 2021 7:38 pm

Did you know you can edit and revise your comment – including weird formatting – for a couple of hours after it first appears?

No need to add a correcting or clarifying comment – just click on the little round symbolin the lower right corner.

Just for your information.

Last edited 1 month ago by JimT
Michael Sprayson
Reply to  Sandpiper
31 July 2021 8:16 am

Sandpiper — Letters to the Editor are much easier to execute than actual public discourse. Consider just what happens on this blog. Many are uncomfortable even offering their first names. Writing submissions is much easier than publicly and personally expressing oneself. Raising objections to things like aesthetics is a difficult battle to wage. Aesthetics are subjective. What some may think is ugly with the development on George Street, I may find quite modern and visually complimentary. It doesn’t matter. It matters to the people who choose to live there and are unlikely to do so if they don’t like the look of the building. Parking, on the other hand – not subjective. It’s quantifiable. Sight lines – quantifiable. Both of these projects have issues with parking in that there is not enough to compliment the proposed builds. George Street may use the seniors zoning regulations, Beachwalk may try to say ‘city people are used to no cars’. We both know cars are part of getting around in Cobourg – senior or otherwise. We live in the same development, surrounded by seniors. Most have more than one car and still, nowhere to park. The problem I have with you voicing your concern about parking at Beachwalk is that you had a useful opportunity to effectively do that and chose not to take it. That vote was 18 to 1. I was the 1. There was an opportunity to have our concerns heard over the parking, garbage, everything. That was squandered. I’m still asking myself – why did that happen the way that it did? The sight lines are terrible, parking is non-existent and where do you think the garbage is going to end up? Instead of taking the time to educate the neighbours and peacefully negotiate on equal footing, fear was… Read more »

JimT
Reply to  Michael Sprayson
31 July 2021 9:19 am

“…people who choose to live there and are unlikely
to do so if they don’t like the look of the building…”

That doesn’t seem to be the case with the Monolith on Orr, which apparently sold out quickly despite its ugly, brutalist appearance.

comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by JimT
Michael Sprayson
Reply to  JimT
31 July 2021 11:50 am

JimT – But, you’re illustrating my point precisely. It is subjective. Do you really think that the people who live there all hate what it looks like? Do you see how it comes across as offensive to call someone’s home ugly? Even if that is your opinion, what do you gain by sharing it?

Tiger Tail
Reply to  Michael Sprayson
31 July 2021 9:24 am

I know your comment was directed at sandpiper, and I agree with all that you said in regards to that, but the issue with parking is a lack of due diligence by yourself and your neighbours. Parking space availability would have been well known before purchasing. If it isn’t sufficient for your needs, do not buy. You’ve also moved yourself into the downtown of an urban area. Cobourg is a small town but downtown areas always attract new development and are higher density. If you aren’t comfortable with that, you shouldn’t have moved there.

Michael Sprayson
Reply to  Tiger Tail
31 July 2021 12:02 pm

Tiger Tail —
You’re making assumptions that I did not state nor imply. I knew how much parking there was at my house when I bought it. Both my wife and I grew up here. We knew exactly what we were getting into. I stated there was nowhere to park – I’m not complaining, I’m stating a well-known, measurable fact. I was commenting, instead on Sandpiper’s decision to give up an opportunity he was given, that would have actually allowed his comments to carry weight. Why complain after the fact when you already chose to give up your advantage?

About parking specifically – it’s an objective matter that many have subjective opinions about, but it’s still measurable. Appearance isn’t.

Dunkirk
30 July 2021 9:15 am

John–this is a great , thorough report. Thank you. I have read in this Blog and heard various comments positive and negative in the community about our Planning Dept. The process still remains quite a mystery to me. I think an candid interview with Mr. McGlashon after his retirement next month might be informative for your readers.

Sandpiper
Reply to  Dunkirk
30 July 2021 9:46 am

Better yet a Candid interview with the ones that have Skin in the Game and Money on the table
The Land Owners and Developers That Pay Taxes and Mortgages along with hundreds of thousands $$ in fees charges and professional service along with creating all the jobs .
And I mean the outside developers bringing New business to town not those good old boy builders that have been here for yrs . This would truly be an Eye Opening interview

Michael Sprayson
Reply to  Sandpiper
31 July 2021 12:05 pm

Sandpiper — I couldn’t agree with you more. Pulling back that curtain would be illuminating for the people paying attention.

Bill Thompson
Reply to  Dunkirk
30 July 2021 1:58 pm

Why not before his retirement ?

Concerned
Reply to  Dunkirk
1 August 2021 11:47 am

It would definitely educate those not in the development business and then probably stop most of the complaining about planning as most of the rules and regulations are provincial and federal not municipal. Municipal just enforces them when processing development applications.

Last edited 1 month ago by Concerned