Delhi development spurs school capacity questions

Luke Edwards

Grant Haven Media

A plan to bring 57 more housing units to Delhi, on a section of the former railway, is bringing with it questions about school capacity.

Coun. Michael Columbus brought up the issue as Norfolk County councillors voted to support a staff recommendation approving zoning bylaw amendments for the property. During a review of the application, the Grand Erie District School Board noted Delhi Public School is operating at 90 per cent capacity, and “and accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students possibly requiring temporary facilities or bussing to schools further afield,” the staff report said. Columbus asked staff if they should be meeting with their counterparts at the local school boards to discuss capacity issues.

“The concern is out there that the schools are over capacity,” he said, adding this was not the first report that came before council identifying potential school capacity issues.

Acting director of planning and realty services Alisha Cull told councillors those types of meetings have already occurred, and GEDSB has acknowledged a need for new schools in Delhi, Waterford and Simcoe. However, simply being over capacity isn’t enough.

“They need to be very over capacity before the board will fund a new school site, but we are having those conversations more so than ever in the past,” Cull said.

School capacity wasn’t the only issue raised regarding the Delhi railway lands development. Technical analysis identified the need for a holding provision to determine water, sanitary and storm service capacity before the project could move ahead. A second issue noted that since the commercial aspect of the property hasn’t been specified, zoning compliance can’t be determined and parking needs can’t yet be calculated.

Most of the technical issues will be dealt with at the site plan stage, while school capacity would be dealt with “by the school board when this becomes clearer,” the report said. 

Residents also raised some concerns at a public hearing held earlier this year. They included a potential loss of privacy, the narrowness of the property, and worries about noise and dust during the construction phase.

Those concerns weren’t enough to deny the application, as council supported the staff recommendation to approve it.