Video – Cobourg Council – Town Delays Action on 117 Durham Street

Cecilia Nasmith

3 weeks ago

Categories: City Hall, Local

(Today’s Northumberland file photo)

By Cecilia Nasmith/Today’s Northumberland
Cobourg council put aside a motion to rezone 117 Durham St. for residential use and, at its April meeting, voting instead to delay action on the property.

Almost a dozen speakers outlined their concerns at the meeting, and their supporters attending the meeting overflowed council chambers into a downstairs room.

Many of them were members of Canopy Cobourg, a newly formed group to oppose the residential development of this piece of land that formerly served as a playing field for students of CDCI West.

Marie Van Hammond offered some computer-generated pictures of what the area could look like in five years if developed as a natural treasure vs. if developed as a residential development – taking into account the doubling in capacity to 400 units at neighbouring Legion Village.

Shannon Draper of the Cobourg Saxons appealed to have it left for recreational purposes, as it has been an essential space for their club and others.

A Willow Beach Field Naturalists member brought a letter of objection from that organization, noting the flooding risks and vulnerability of the wildlife there.

Katharine Spavins provided some technical details, such as flood risk and low-lying land.

As well, the property lies at the dead end of Durham Street, lined with heritage homes that leave no further room for setback, leaving a 26-ft.-wide road instead of the required 66 ft.

“It’s simply not physically possible to bring this road up to safe standards,” Spavins said.

“In an emergency such as a fire in one of the houses, there would be no access out to safety for the cars and vehicles in this proposed development.”

Naturalist and author Richard Pope noted the “almost insuperable problem with flood plains, traffic congestion and the like,” but said the basic problem is that the town is under-parked.

“And the population of the town is going to grow rapidly, and available natural space is not going to grow. Human beings need more natural space for their well-being.”

Pope wondered if some kind of compromise might not be possible, such as looking at “some kind of market opportunity in the north end” that leaves most of the field intact.

In a recent meeting, Mayor Lucas Cleveland referred to “misinformation” circulating in the community about plans for this land without saying what the misinformation is. Councillor Brian Darling offered a clue correcting speaker Alan Levy in his understanding that development contemplated for this land is 250 units – it’s closer to 70, Darling said.

Deputy Mayor Nicole Beatty made the motion to defer the decision until such time as the Asset Management Plan can be considered by council, and to direct staff to draft options for a community consultation on future use of this property, while also taking into consideration staff reports and engagement requirements for declaring municipal land surplus.

Her motivation is that there are so many moving parts that – the Asset Management Plan and Parks Master Plan, for example – that need to be in place and lined up before a good decision will be possible.
Resistance was expressed by Councillor Randy Barber and Mayor Lucas Cleveland, who stressed the housing shortage – Cleveland noting that six to seven buses of workers are bused into town daily from as far away as Burlington.

Councillor Miriam Mutton noted that the town already has enough approved land for residential development that it could double its current population.

“This pause, I believe, is one of the smartest decisions to be made, in order to get all the facts together and, as a community, figure out what we want to do,” Councillor Adam Bureau remarked.

“Green space doesn’t grow – we only take it away. Why would we rush to do that right now?”

Some of the letters/delegations presented to council

THE WATERFRONT NATURE PARK AND ONGOING CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 117 DURHAM
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
I am writing as a taxpayer, resident and active community member/volunteer of Cobourg to express my concerns about the proposal to allow development on the former Football Field/playgrounds of the former West High school. Please insure that this e-mail is on the meeting agenda for the public meeting on April 30th and as a matter of public record.

The playing field on the west side of the south end of Durham Street, at 117, has been bought by the Town of Cobourg, which plans to sell it on the open market for development, having rezoned it from Open Space (OS) Zone and Environmental Constraint (EC) to Residential 4 Exception 36 (R4-36) Zone — which means high-density housing.

In this statement I will focus on my concerns about the likely impact of the proposed development at 117 Durham on the Waterfront Nature Park.

My concerns are due to the unsuitability of the land at 117 Durham for development because of: its low-lying level; high water table, sewage challenges—existing and probable—and the realistic threat of damage from such proposed development to the Waterfront Nature Park—a protected area which includes the West Beach, West Headland and the adjacent and supportive Ecology Gardens, as defined by the Town of Cobourg. The risk of flooding in this era of Climate Change is also a concern.

The Parks Master Plan (2013) and the Recreational Users Plan (2018) show this property as parkland. The Waterfront User Needs Assessment is due for a review, and it needs coordination with updated planning of waterfront parks.

The Waterfront Nature Park is constantly under threat and needs strong protection. The delicate dune ecology, bird and butterfly habitat is at risk from this proposed development and necessary infrastructure.

A motion to establish a Waterfront Nature Park Task Force passed at the February 26th 2025 town council meeting. The priority of the task force is to protect the unique dune ecology in the area, which is valued by both Cobourg natives and tourists. Of course, we all know that Cobourg attracts warm weather tourists because of the beautiful natural setting of its harbour—east and west. In addition to the love Cobourg locals have for the waterfront area, I am aware of Toronto and Scarborough residents who regularly walk the whole of Cobourg harbour from the East Beach to the end of the West Beach in spring, summer and early fall. Just like locals, they enjoy strolling with their dogs, having picnics with friends and family, bird and butterfly watching and sitting in quiet reflection—especially on the less busy West Beach.

Many nesting birds are present in the Waterfront Nature Park from April to July 1st weekend, including very close to the West Beach boardwalk. Those include flickers, killdeer, song sparrows, tree swallows and northern rough-winged swallows. Hundreds of dragonflies, Monarch butterflies, and 22 other butterfly species are often spotted feeding on milkweed and goldenrod in the Waterfront Nature Park from August to October.

Development of the land beside the West Beach, the noise, pollution risk, potential flooding risk (based on high water levels in 2018 and the higher precipitation levels predicted with Climate Change), and need for installation of more infrastructure for such an extensive development would put that habitat in the parkland at risk.

***
I strongly oppose high density residential development at 117 Durham. I am certainly not alone. I will finish by sharing some statistics, gathered from members of the public who attended the Spring Sizzle Market on Saturday April 26th. Sixty-one people who live all over Cobourg as well as outside the town, took the time on that chilly day to fill in my questionnaire about their connections to the Cobourg Waterfront. Asked if they walked the West Beach Boardwalk 58 said yes; 39 of those people mentioned bird watching as a regular activity in the area and 38 mentioned watching other wildlife as something they enjoy doing in the area.

As mentioned, people who took the time to fill in the questionnaire live in various parts of the town: a total of 31 people came from Cobourg’s East, West and North ends. Only 17 respondents came from the East Village and harbour area near 117 Durham. Six out-of-towners from Grafton, Campbellford and other locations who said they come to shop in Cobourg, took the time to respond to the questionnaire. When asked to share their opinion of development plans for the playing field at 117 Durham all 61 respondents said development in that green space is a “bad idea,” that sports teams need somewhere to play and nature and people need green space to thrive. Several respondents mentioned recently moving to Cobourg from Whitby and Oshawa to get away from the intense development in those communities. Many people come to the Waterfront and Waterfront Nature Park to be close to nature and de-stress. Housing development at 117 Durham would not only threaten the habitat of migratory birds and butterflies, but also deprive people who visit the Waterfront Nature Park of rest and relaxation.

***

Please insure that this statement is registered as a matter of public record. I request being added to the list of persons who would like to receive further notice of this item.

Kate Rogers
#405-1 Queen St.
Cobourg ON K9A 1M8

—————————————————

Speech to Council for Apr 30 V2

Thank you to all Council Members for allowing me to speak. My name is Marie-Lynn Hammond. I’m a taxpayer and active resident of Cobourg, and and also one of several founding members of CANOPY Cobourg. I’ve only lived in Cobourg ten years, which, in a small town, makes me still a newbie. But I’ve fallen in love with this place and I’ve no plans to leave. And the area I’m most passionate about is the West Beach, the Ecology Garden, and the Waterfront Nature Park, a 20-minute walk from my home.

PHOTOS #1, West beach, 1-A goslings (to be shown one after the other)

Now I am, clearly, far from alone in feeling this way. So I’d like to convey two visions for 117 Durham Street. But before I describe them, I want to note, Mr. Mayor, you’ve written that you consider it — I’m quoting here — “the highest responsibility to assess all situations for the benefit of Cobourg and its citizens.” I applaud you for that. And I believe that 117 Durham needs to be assessed with those goals in mind: the benefit for Cobourg and I assume you mean for all Cobourg’s citizens.

So one vision involves leaving the playing field as public parkland, as in the Town’s User Needs Assessment. I believe this is the wisest choice, for many reasons, not least of all because our director of Community Services described Cobourg as “under-parked.” In other words, we already has less parkland than is recommended by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

And while Cobourg is growing exponentially, there’s no place in the downtown area where new parkland can be created. It’s considered a Recreational Desert, and that’s where I live. This is from a town document:

PHOTO #2 Recreational Desert – town document

Yes, housing is an issue these days, but the town owns other properties, such as part of the Tannery lands, that can be built on. So, if we keep 117 Durham as parkland, it could remain a playing field, but picture this: more native wildflowers and bushes, more trees around the perimeter. Plants that would attract birds and other pollinators. And we know that monarch butterflies, an endangered species, cluster in one of the trees at the north end of this property.

PHOTO #3 of monarchs in tree

Maybe there could also be a little gazebo somewhere, some park benches…?

PHOTO #4 Gazebo

Because we know that nature is extremely therapeutic physically, emotionally and mentally for humans, and we know we are in a full-blown climate crisis. So even more reason to keep this as green space and plant more green things in it. This would indeed benefit ALL Cobourg citizens.

PHOTO #5 of people enjoying playing field w. more trees

The alternative vision, picture this: 200 to 250 residential units on these three acres, including a 6 story building, maybe even 7 or 8. I say that because across the street, the Legion Village is also proposing an expansion from 204 units to a maximum of 400, almost double in size, Also, they’ve already removed the seniors-only designation for these units. So there will be much competition for them. But all this is what the town classified as a “minor variance.”

PHOTO #6 This is from a town document, about this Minor Variance

Remember that phrase, it will come up again. Now: picture the construction phase, which could last five years: the noise, the pollution, trees around the field being cut down, wildlife fleeing in terror, maybe never to return… including the 150+ bird species that migrate through here, attracting birders to Cobourg.

PHOTO #7: trees we could lose AND note the low rise Legion Village building: it will be replaced by a multi-story one

And when construction is completed, even if only half the total residents own cars, picture many hundreds of vehicles going in and out of these two developments daily. More noise, more pollution, more risk of accidents. Less buzzing of beneficial insects, less birdsong, far less peace.

And most crucially, none of this new housing at 117 Durham is designated affordable. Only the wealthy or the well-off, which by the way doesn’t include me, will be able to afford to buy or rent these lake-side units. Again, how does this benefit ALL the citizens here?

So I worked with artificial intelligence to create images of these developments. They’re not architectural drawings, they’re not to scale in relation to the property: they simply express what I think it will feel like emotionally and psychologically to walk the boardwalk with these buildings so close by. Note I did ask the AI program for five-story buildings, but it kept giving me 8 or 9. So I figure it also considers those to be merely a “minor variance,” and, a developer might also ask for such a quote-unquote “minor” change, who knows?

PHOTO #8 – buildings on playing field

So there’s my impression of what we could see on the playing field. Now let’s put some of the Legion expansion in on the other side of the street. And this shows only a little of what will be happening there:

PHOTO #9 Two buildings side by side

Other people speaking or writing to Council have described the environmental impacts that will result from destroying this piece of parkland. Plus, it will compromise the safety of cyclists and pedestrians using the area. Because Durham is a narrow, dead-end street that cannot be widened. Also, given that flooding is a concern in this area, why would a developer even want to build on this land?

All the more reason to preserve what precious green space we have for ALL our citizens, because as Joni Mitchell sang, don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone, pave paradise and put up, in this case, a high-density development and a parking lot.

PHOTO #10 two saplings

One last thought, this old Greek saying: “A society grows great when people plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” So I urge Council to do the right thing: keep the playing field as parkland, and plant trees around it in whose shade you’ll never sit. But future citizens of Cobourg will, and they’ll be forever grateful to you for doing the right thing.

Thank you

April 30 Re: The By-Law change concerning the playing field at 117 Durham St.

I laud the Mayor and Council’s recognition of the need for affordable housing and the desire to begin addressing the problem as recommended by our provincial government.

I laud the town for its wisdom in buying the key piece of property at 117 Durham St.

I laud the town for severing off the bottom part and protecting the boardwalk and

Waterfront Nature Park.

I just cannot laud the choice of beginning to redress the housing problem by rezoning the playing field for high density housing and “putting it on the open market” “ready for residential development.”

The opposition to this plan is simply that this particular piece of land is not the right one on which to begin the necessary and pressing task of providing housing. The problem is the inappropriateness of this piece of land for this plan.

Let’s leave aside the fact that the proposed development does not really involve much, if any, “affordable” housing.

Let us leave aside the fact that the Town owns other properties better-suited to such development (such as the Tannery Lands).

Let us leave aside the fact that the proposed development raises almost insuperable problems concerning flood plain, sewers, traffic congestion and the like.

Let us even leave aside the unavoidable collateral damage to the nature part of the Waterfront Nature Park.

Let us instead concentrate on what I see as the basic problem. Cobourg is under-parked. The population of the town is going to grow rapidly but available land for natural park space will not grow. Unlike Hawaii, Cobourg is not making more land.

Everyone by now understands that human beings need natural space for their well-being. This basic human need can be addressed by keeping most of the 117 Durham St playing field as some kind of green space where there will be no other.

The excellent 16-page Staff Report submitted by Director Geerts (April 3, 2023), exhaustively sums up the pros and cons of 117 Durham and recommends that Council direct staff to proceed with one of 2 options as the preferred land use for the developable portion of 117 Durham St, being either

“Option A: Parkland and open space in its entirety. OR

Option B. A balanced mix of parkland, market and affordable residential units … with direction to staff to commission studies necessary to determine the development limit.”

I, of course, favour Option A. But I am a realist and have given this further thought.

Option B may be the way to go with its balanced mix of parkland, market and residential units. Is such a compromise really not possible? Can the town planners not be asked to present the public with a new plan that keeps most of the playing field as a green option and offers a plan for some kind of housing or market opportunity in the north end – to help recoup the $2 million investment?

The Town of Cobourg Strategic Plan 2023-2027 and Beyond lists “strategic priorities to guide decision making.” The first action for ensuring a thriving community is to “provide the physical infrastructure to support a healthy community that will enable each of us to flourish” and the questions are asked: “Does this [action] foster community wellbeing?” and “Does it give us more to do and a place for all to enjoy?” Our answer vis-à-vis 117 Durham would have to be no.

One of the Strategic Plan’s actions for ensuring sustainability is to “Take a community approach to making the future of Cobourg equitable, resilient, and sustainable in response to our ever-changing natural environment, including efforts to address climate change” and asks the questions: “Is this taking care of what we have in ways that are adaptive, resilient, clean, green and beautiful?” and does this “Take a community approach to making the future of Cobourg equitable, resilient, and sustainable in response to our ever changing natural environment, including efforts to address climate change.” Again, our answer vis-à-vis 117 Durham would have to be a resounding no. It would make a mockery of our Strategic plan.

So, let us not go off half-cocked. It seems that with good intentions the Town rushed into this plan to put high-density housing on this central greenspace. We can do better. Compromise is possible.

Please reconsider. Please vote against approving the new By-Law. And please do not see this vote as a “win or lose” proposition. If the no side prevails, no one has lost anything. It simply means opening the future of the playing field to public discussion and a re-think.

The Cobourg electorate want to be more deeply involved in the fate of this last remaining substantial central greenspace.

Richard Pope

——————————————————–

First I share Mr Oliver’s hearing challenges and being a Senior, Senior, I am slower to process what people are saying especially the younger people who speak so quickly so I was unable to hear and grasp what the planner said. I confess also to not having known until this evening that Council has already in December made a decision to sell the property. I hope this is a decision that can be changed.

I also wonder, as a former planner with the Ontario government to learn why there is no concurrent the Official Plan amendment also being considered if the Official Plan designation is Institutional or Open Space. Normally the Official Plan Amendment would be proposed prior to the zoning by-law amendment.

I am writing as a taxpayer, resident and active community member/volunteer of Cobourg to express a number of concerns about the proposal to allow development on the above lands, the former Football Field/playgrounds of the former West High school, and the above by-law’s intention to establish the principle of residential development on the site. Please insure that this e-mail is on the meeting agenda for the public planning meeting on February 25th and as a matter of public record.

Apart from the process of publicizing this proposal – poor choice of timing to hold a public meeting on such an important asset during the winter months when many are away and with the public’s attention very much on the Provincial election underway and the limited notice of the meeting to neighbouring property owners when the site is of great interest to the Town as a whole, I have significant concerns about the by-law that I will group under three headings:

1) Loss of open space, parkland and lakefront vistas;

2) Suitability of the site for residential (or other) development; and,

3) Absence of overall planning for municipally/publicly owned properties in the area and the need for a Secondary Plan for the entire area. Details follow.

1) Loss of Open Space access to the lakefront and a valuable lake vista, and need to preserve one of the last remaining large publicly owned properties in the Town. As the Town continues to grow, access to parks and the Town’s prime asset – the lake – will become even more important, especially considering the dearth of park space in the core area where residential development is the densest. The attached map graphically illustrates that there is minimal park land in the Town’s core where the most dense development (mostly without private open space) occurs and where the need for public open space is the greatest and critical. By allowing this site to go out of public ownership, the Town is squandering our future generations’ rights to open areas and play space. The recent changes in Provincial government planning legislation, which I understand puts serious limitations on the amount of parkland a municipality can request of a developer, make the need to preserve what open space is already in public ownership even more crucial.

2) Suitability of the site for development – I understand that the site is low-lying and below the Town’s sewer service lines meaning pumping stations and/or considerable fill would be required to develop it, thus changing the elevation and thus possibly increasing run off to other properties in the area.
In addition, the parking needs of the residents for any development which is allowed to occur on this property, and their visitors, could be significant. Presumably, due to the below water table level nature of the site, these needs cannot be provided below grade (underground parking). If these needs are met in the form of paved parking lots, this will exacerbate the storm water runoff onto land that is not capable of handling it.

The site also has limited vehicular access from a dead-end road, Durham Street, meaning heavy traffic, limited on-street parking for those wishing to access the lake and potential blockages for emergency vehicles, and there is a liability issue here, not to mention the disruption for nearby existing residents.

The nearby Waterfront Nature Park could also be seriously impacted by development of the site.

3) Need for an overall plan for the area. There are already a number of public properties and uses in the area, along with the large seniors’ accommodation at Legion Village (also to be expanded), the west beach and headland, the waterfront nature park, the boat storage area, parking and access to the boat launch, summer school for sailing and dragon boat racing, the boardwalk and the ecology garden. It is evident to me that some sort of overall plan and co-ordination of the future development of the entire area is needed.

Added to the above concerns, I am skeptical that the proposal to limit development to 3-storeys will be the final outcome. This will be the proverbial “thin edge of the wedge” to ask for more! With the physical constraints of the property and the expenditures that will be required to overcome them, I have no doubt that any developer who undertakes to develop the site will be back – asking for increased density and higher maximum height allowances in order to justify the expenses. I appreciate (and fully support) that we need more affordable housing in the Town but know that this site will not be the place for it – it’s too valuable a site and, in light of the constraints outlined above, too costly to develop for anyone to contemplate affordable housing here. (Private views of the lake and the natural area next to it, will undoubtedly be prime marketing pitches with associated sale prices that will be affordable for a limited segment of the population.) We all know from past experience, that promises for a certain % of housing to be devoted to affordable units are often forgotten and/or dropped in the interests of reasonable investment.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns.
Jennifer Darrell

————————————————-

April 30 Council meeting
My name is Katharine Spavins and I am a founding member of CANOPY Cobourg and I am opposed to the rezoning and sale of 117 Durham Street for development.

Please raise your hand if you are here to oppose the bylaw.

I believe that many of the issues have been discussed at previous meetings and tonight.

I will focus on a few of the factual details that I believe are relevant and may not have been fully documented.

In regards to the purchase, we understand that the land was purchased to keep the West Beach and the Boardwalk as green space. We all think that is wonderful and thank you.

When was the decision made to not keep 117 Durham as Parkland but to Sell for Development?

Which Council?

It has been stated by both the Mayor and members of Council at numerous town meetings and in conversations that it was the previous Council that made the decision to not keep the field as parkland and it was always intended to sell 117 Durham. Let’s look at the timeline.

Under Former Council

Early 2022 GHD was contracted to perform a Phase I Environmental Assessment, but due to contaminants a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment was required. Phase 1 documents are not available to general public. GHD’s instructions stated in Phase 2 were that “the property is proposed for purchase and the future use is to remain as Parkland”.

September 20, 2022, Town purchases 117 Durham

Under New council
October 24, 2022, Election of new Council April 3, 2023, (5 1/2 months into term) Staff Report proposed two options for Council to consider:

Option A: Parkland and open space in its entirety.

Option B. A balanced mix of parkland, market and affordable residential units
Another option for consideration was proposed by Mayor Cleveland:

Option C.
Sale to Williams Academy who offered to buy the property for use as a football park for their school.

Result April 3, 2023 this Council votes on Option B a balanced mix of parkland and residential units, with the requirement that public engagement occurs early in the process to invite public feedback on the
use of the lands.

December 18, 2024 Council Meeting Date:
This currently proposed bylaw for medium to high density development, with NO affordable housing and NO parkland is approved by this Council.

Results of timeline analysis:
In recapping the timeline, The Former Council stated Parkland as the use. The New Council considered 3 options on April 3, 2023, retain as parkland, OR a balanced mix of parkland and residential units OR sell to Williams Academy.

Option 2 of parkland/ residential combo was approved with the requirement for public consultation as to use.

In December 2024 this council advanced the rezoning of no parkland and medium to high density we are looking at tonight. Lets be clear, this means high density because the developer will maximize opportunity.

It was not previously decided by former council, it will be solely this Council’s decision to not retain 117 Durham as Parkland, should you vote for that tonight, but rather up it to high density consideration, without getting the committed to public opinion.

Infrastructure Road

I note the Staff Report states it is up to the developer to provide the required infrastructure. Is it even possible?

I pulled from the Archives and measured Durham Street to verify Durham Street Right of Way width, the dimension is 40’ or 12.2m. The Sifton-Cook structure on the East side of Durham is on the lot line of both Durham and Orr and the 1860’s house across Durham on the East side is also on the lot
line. Therefore there is no physical way the road can be made any wider than 12.2m or 40’. Other homes on both west and east sides do not have any room for further setbacks either.

The Town Transportation Plan requires a Local Road to be 20m or 66’ wide. This means Durham Street’s maximum possible width is 26’ physically too narrow to meet town safety standards as a local road. With
the density proposed it should be a Collector Road which is required to be 20-30m and with 2 directional traffic, 2 sidewalks and boulevards.

It is not possible to bring this road up any were close to safe standards.

Also consideration would have to be given to the requirement of stop lights at both Albert and King Streets.

In addition the road is a dead end, in the event of an emergency event such as a fire in one of the houses on Durham, there would be no roadway access out to safety from this proposed development.
Sewers
We have spoken about the land being low lying and requiring a private sewer pumping station up to town sewers. No assessment has been done to the town sewer line to see if it could handle the addition capacity from the 2 developments proposed at the base of Durham.

I note a January 27, 2025 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Assessment has been commissioned west of this area. It ends at Ontario Street and goes up and around this area. Why wasn’t this area included when there is a known two potential developments?

Staff Report
Classification of Park
I note in the Staff Report that it states that based on the size of the land and use, the classification would be a “District Park”, and it continues to state, as such there would be infrastructure requirements and it would be best for a developer to pay for them rather than the Town.

In the Parks Master Plan Classification Schedule a District Park minimum size is 10 Acres. This property is only 3.364 Acres in size. Therefore, it is not a “District Park” classification in fact it only just meets the minimum size of the lower classification of “Local Park” that has lesser infrastructure requirements.

Cambium Environmental Impact Assessment
Firstly, it was performed utilizing the GHD Phase 2 Environment tests that were performed to the standard of Parkland. No tests were assessed for developmental use and as a result the Cambium report may be flawed.

The staff report states that potential negative impacts can be minimized if the recommendations in the Cambium report are followed. What are they?

The Cambian Environmental Impact Assessment states the negative impact associated with the site alterations can be minimized provided the recommended mitigation measures are followed. These include but are not limited to:

Full perimeter sediment fencing keyed to the ground, inspected and maintained regularly.

Earthworks to be scheduled to avoid heavy rainfall.

Nesting of turtles May – Oct. Stockpiled materials must be covered to prevent nesting. If turtles found, construction site must be shut down immediately and until nesting completed in September.

Nesting of birds and vegetation clearing restrictions between April 15 to August 15. – if vegetation must be cleared then it needs to be investigated by a qualified biologist.

Snakes and Turtles observed must be reported to the Natural Heritage Information Centre.

These are significant restrictions to a contractor. Who will monitor that the Contractor abides by these restrictions?

Finally, only a few handful of individuals adjacent to the property were notified of this Bylaw proposal.

CANOPY Cobourg has attempted to perform the community engagement that was committed to by the Town in a very short time, without resources to notify the population.

Just 13 days ago we set up a Facebook and we currently have over 200 members. This past Saturday we attended the Spring Market and held a rally around Victoria Hall to provide awareness. The response has been overwhelmingly consistently against development at 117 Durham.

I hope that the Council will consider all the information made available as well as the communication from the public opposing this. Please do not approve this bylaw tonight.

Video – Cobourg Council – Town Delays Action on 117 Durham Street

Author: Cecilia Nasmith