Colchester Development- Misleading presentations-clarification by MPP Leardi and supplemental Info
To: Council Members,
After reviewing notes from a discussion between the Colchester Matters group and MPP Leardi I can confirm, elaborate, and express continuing concerns about the proposed development for Colchester. I also see that false and/or misleading representations were made in recent Open Houses concerning the Official Plan as presented in attempts to pass (or share) the responsibility with the province.
MPP Leardi is identified as saying that "if any town official advises Bills 23 and 185 are responsible for high density housing and over-development plans, they are misrepresenting the facts". He has also indicated that the province has not imposed any growth requirements on the Colchester area through either Bill and that the Town of Essex is not listed as a municipality with growth targets under these Bills and related documents. In this regard the Town and its officials have been hiding/distorting and/or misrepresenting the truth by trying to suggest that the province is somewhat responsible for the development plan.
Clearly the Town has the authority to establish its own growth plans but we, as residents, expect growth plans to be in the interest of, and benefit to, all residents/taxpayers who are affected.
According to the discussion MPP Leardi appears uncertain why the proposed plan is for the Secondary Settlement area of Colchester and rather that such should be geared towards Harrow or Essex. I have made similar comments through e-mails and facebook postings and in personal discussions.
In any event the Colchester Development would result in significant infrastructure costs including roads, storm water drainage, water supply, hydro supply, natural gas supply, sewage treatment and distribution. It would also add significantly to the school busing needs, policing/fire/paramedic services, road maintenance and garbage collection. Are the developers prepared to incur all of these additional costs up front, or are they going to minimize their contribution expecting that the Town will absorb such through taxes- on both new and existing residents? Many of these costs will be ongoing so once the developer is finished Essex residents will be stuck with any associated and unanticipated shortfalls.
Many of the above-mentioned costs would be minimized and more manageable and beneficial if the development plan was targeted for Harrow or Essex, as MPP Leardi indicated. Alternatively ,if the developers faced the upfront burden for the related costs (including, but not limited to, a adequate sewage/water treatment plants) they would see the benefits of a location closer to Essex or Harrow where existing facilities can address such more economically. Such would also be more consistent with existing lifestyles and residences in these areas. Residents should not bear the costs created by developers operating solely for financial gain.
The population volumes, density and character of multi-story and multiple unit structures in the Colchester development plan as advertised are inconsistent with existing features of Colchester residents.
Putting financial and operational issues aside it remains that the vast majority of Colchester residents do not want their hamlet destroyed, which would happen under the Colchester development plan as presented. The generation or more tax dollars by such development does not offset the lifestyle enjoyment of Colchester residents and additionally creates opportunities for more hardships, taxes and other issues that are not wanted or needed by Colchester residents.
We expect our political leaders to represent us, not strictly their own additional taxation or growth targets that do not satisfy residents' desires.
Listen to your people!
John R
Letter re Building in Flood Prone Areas - Forwarded to Local MP, MPP, County, Town, Media
Correspondence
Sept. 30, 2024
Ms. Rebecca Belanger et al,
I'm apologizing in advance to you for the multitude of emails I continue to send; it does however appear to be the preferred method of contacting you with this information. My goal as a member of the Colchester Matters team, is to ensure that you are aware of the direction that the Town of Essex appears to be taking with regard to five housing developments south of County Road 50, on the western shores of Colchester.
Our concern is that the Town of Essex, by even giving consideration to these developments, is ignoring the existing residents as well as the potential new residents who could suffer disastrous and costly outcomes should the construction of up to 434 news proceed. This is all contrary to the proposed County of Essex 2024 Official Plan and the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement.
There are a number of factors which will affect these areas beyond the scope of the Official plan such as recent data from Environmental Scientists and Environment Canada which has determined the following;
a. Once a century rainfall events now happen every 20 years. If the world gets to 2 C of warming above pre-industrial temperatures, major rainstorms would happen once every five years.
b. Once every 20 year rainfall events, now take place every five years. If the world gets to 2 C of warming above pre-industrial temperatures, major weather events are now expected to occur about every other year.
Source - https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1921628117
Understand that not only would the existing residents be subjected to increased potential for damage, in general, because they primarily have living quarters above the flood waters, they would still have a place to live. But, the new homes, most likely with living quarters in lower units as now allowed by the Province, which are likely below the flood water line, residents would be forced onto the street with NO living quarters for possibly months. Furthermore, because of their inability to get flood insurance, they would also be responsible for all of the repairs.
It would appear that the construction of new homes would contravene almost all of the clauses, rules, regulations and intent of the Provincial Planning Statement and the County Official Plan. As noted above, Colchester residents are dismayed that the Town of Essex would continue on their path to approve these developments despite the above facts.
As support, I'm forwarding five small blowup maps of the County of Essex Proposed Official Plan, Schedule C1 (Areas Susceptible to Flooding), as well as a list of all of the pertinent Proposed Official Plan Sections which relate to flooding.
In the interest of fairness to the existing residents of Colchester, I would ask that the County of Essex Planning Department refuse to allow any large scale construction in these flood prone areas of Colchester.
Most sincerely,
Mike Piche & Nettie Ridley
Colchester Matters Civic Action Group
See attached
Letter to Remove Greenhouse Growers Ability to Grow Cannabis from Proposed Official Plan - To County Planning & Town of Essex Council
To County Planning Dept and Essex Town Council,
I am writing this email on behalf of not only the residents of Colchester but the entire population of the Town of Essex to have you reconsider the intent to allow the growing, cultivation and processing of cannabis anywhere within the Town of Essex confines.
The indoor growth of cannabis poses considerable problems with odour that is not likely to be controlled and/or eliminated and the stench from this growing process is unbearable to most people. The heavy smell of cannabis growth is almost like an oil mist and will remain on your skin, hair and clothing long after any exposure time. Neighbours within a few kilometres of any cannabis growing greenhouses will be hyper-exposed to these odours and their homes, carpeting and walls will eventually be soaked with cannabis odours. Most anyone who has lived in this area has noticed the extremely foul odours emanating from some greenhouse installations in Leamington and these are always cannabis growing facilities.
Note that greenhouse operators have indicated that they can control these odours with various forms of filters and other technology but it has been proven to seldom be effective, requires significant and costly maintenance and significant odours are still reported by neighbours.
The Town of Essex doesn't need these cannabis greenhouse producers to begin their growing operations in the Town as it would seem that the other locales have welcomed them. Close the door to the Town of Essex by removing Section 4.4 from the Proposed 2024 Official Plan and prohibiting the production of cannabis for the sake of the residents.
Most sincerely,
Letter re County of Essex 2024 Proposed Official Plan - To County & Town
Ms Rebecca Belanger et al,
If I understand the proposed Official Plan from the County as proposed, it will negatively affect the residents of the Secondary Settlement area of Colchester. I have read this document in detail and note that in a number of areas the plan appears to describe how the County is deeply concerned about numerous issues but then little is documented that suggest enough viable approaches to dealing with these concerns or ensuring that the written guidelines are actually followed by the Towns, in particular, the Town of Essex.
For example, The Town of Essex would appear to be ignoring any level of consideration for section 8.A.1.2 etc. of the County Plan for developments within a flood area. If the Town of Essex is even entertaining the thought about these projects then, they feel that the County Plan has no influence or control whatsoever. It appears that the Town of Essex has taken the position that they do NOT have to adhere to the County of Essex Plan. Why are these developments even allowed to be considered much less become a fait accompli? How much pain and cost do the residents in these areas have to absorb after every flood? I can't imagine that flood insurance will be available to the new homeowners in these lakeside areas, will we tell them this fact in advance?
Furthermore, the County has developed strict guidelines for developments within Secondary Development areas, yet more homes are being considered for the Colchester area than the Towns of Essex and Harrow COMBINED. What has become of the goal of focussing development upon Primary Development areas and with small developments and infill being left for Secondary. Is Essex immune to the requirements of the County Plan?
The whole Section 10 plan for Environmentally Sustainable Communities is weak and somewhat pointless given the focus of Towns like Essex indicating that they'll develop communities as physically far from the jobs and higher education sources as possible. In the Town of Essex for example, the 2 Primary areas are physically closer by many kilometers to most jobs and the University and College in Windsor yet where is most of the development being planned....in Colchester! This is a location many more kilometers away, requiring longer trips, using much more fuel and the production of much more greenhouse gas. The developers don't care, should the Town, should the County?
Agritourism and Tourism in general are again being focused upon despite the fact that the wineries, motel, Glamping facility and restaurants are indicating that their businesses are doing well. Do we really need to keep adding to the crowded beaches, the parking problems and the full restaurants despite the evidence to the contrary? The addition of more tourists also increases traffic as well as pollution. There are numerous towns and locations who are regretting the fact that they now have a tourism overload and have regrets about pushing so hard to expand their attraction. Which clauses in the County Plan detail how serious consideration is being given to the needs of existing residents?
The items above need serious and immediate attention. We all understand how Bill 23 and the Province are pushing for more new homes and the goal is to reduce the ‘red tape’ required to get homes built faster but I feel the only reason why any developer is considering Colchester is that the land is cheap relative to LaSalle & Tecumseh, the logical place for the developments planned for Colchester. The County needs to stick to its rules and regulations which clearly intend that Primary Areas are to remain the focus of growth and secondary areas are for infill and minor developments only. Step up the plate County, do your job and enforce the rules.
Sincerely,
Letter re Colchester Overdevelopment - Sent to Federal MP, MPP, County of Essex, Town of Essex
We represent a small grassroots organization 'Colchester Matters', located in Colchester, ON. Our goal is to inform and educate our residents as to changes and housing developments slated for our community.
The purpose of this letter is to advise of what we feel is inappropriate building and unreasonable growth including a push for Colchester to become a major tourism industry. These alterations to our hamlet are being planned by the Town of Essex, in contravention of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.
Colchester is designated a 'Secondary Settlement' area, yet gross overdevelopment is being planned, well beyond what a Secondary Settlement can manage, even beyond expectations of Bills 23 and 185.
Colchester has neither the infrastructure nor facilities to support these developments. As per the Provincial Planning Statement, the type and density of these developments should be planned for 'designated growth' areas and 'high density targets' which we are not. Land better suited to these developments is available far closer to employment and education facilities.
Presently, there is one major development, Colchester Bay, plus another five beach developments planned.
Colchester Bay has plans in Phase 1 for a build of 458 "dwellings", plus a Phase 2 development plan to include a hotel, all planned on 39 acres. Another, within a few KM's, currently at the approval stage with the County of Essex includes 52 "single unit dwellings" which we acknowledge could turn into 156 actual residences. This development is immediately north of a lakefront area designated by ERCA to be "flood prone".
Additionally, there are five more beach developments planned. Consideration of everything currently planned (of which we're aware), equals 892 units, many of which will allow 2 more dwelling units or ADU's within or attached. This places our density into one similar to that of New York. Our lack of necessary infrastructure and appropriate facilities to support these new residents renders these plans inappropriate and out of compliance. We are not a strategic growth area - period.
Additionally, more greenhouses are to be allowed, without consideration of valuable agricultural land. Essex County is touted as having the richest soil and most prime agricultural land in Ontario, yet it is being rezoned residential. Essex County has alternative land more suitable for future residential yet a village the size of Colchester is being exploited due to our proximity to Lake Erie.
Our expectations are that the Provincial Planning Statement will supersede the 2024 County of Essex and 2024 Town of Essex Official Plans. If so, much review of these developments and plans of expansion will require mitigation.
Respectfully,