Zoom call that got hacked managed to preserve much of the data - Mayor Meed Ward showed just how strong a grip she has on the Millcroft issue

By Staff

October 12th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

 

There was a virtual meeting that took place on October 4th that got hacked and ended very suddenly.

The police are investigating.

Fortunately, much of the broadcast was saved and has been made public.

Screen shot of the Zoom call that took place – it was hacked before it ended.

It is lengthy – fascinating if you care about this kind of thing and the people in Millcroft certainly do.

What is really interesting is how Mayor Meed Ward acquitted herself

Councillors Bentivegna and Nisan were on the call;  Bentivegna asked questions and gave long answers, some of which did more harm than good.

The Mayor did a superb job – she understood the issues and was able to give solid answers and make the complex much less complex.

The Gazette has its issues with much of what this Mayor does but on the Millcroft file she has it down pat.

Credit to her for taking on the task.

If you can’t find something you like on Netflix – give this an hour of your time.  Well worth it.  Click HERE for the link

In the announcement from MAD: “For those who were unable to attend the October 4 meeting with MAD and the City of Burlington, we include herein a video of the meeting. Regional Chair Gary Carr, Mayor Marianne Meed Ward, and Councillors Angelo Bentivegna and Rory Nisan fielded questions about the application and its status. MAD also spoke about its plan to oppose the application at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Due to an unanticipated interruption, many questions went unanswered. Such questions will be answered in a subsequent recording, which MAD will release.

MAD is officially launching its fundraising campaign, requiring approximately $150,000 for lawyers, planners, and experts. Please give generously to help us maintain the golf course as open space.

 

Return to the Front page

Millcroft residents look at how City Council is handling their concerns: they don't appear to be impressed

By Staff

October 5th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

“It seems that the City follows the same process over and over again and expects different outcomes. This is frustrating and the residents of Burlington are tired of the “in camera” nature of the decisions. How can we assess the City’s “best” when it is secretive. Trust is now an issue. This Council was elected partly on a promise of transparency.”

Millcroft residents are deeply concerned with changes a developer wants to make to the golf course their homes are built around.  The plan is to add 98 homes to the site and a small medium  rise apartment building.  The homes are expected to sell in the $1 million plus range.

The development application is still in review by the Planning Department – the developer has taken the application to the Ontario Land Tribunal \9olt0

There are a number of players in the game; all with similar names.

 

The developers.

One of the two community groups

The other is the Millcroft Greenspace Alliance

We are asking Burlington’s City Council to pass a resolution at today’s special Council meeting to enable further discussions with the Province to protect this invaluable greenspace. Allowing the Millcroft Greens development application to proceed without this public declaration is unacceptable. Greenspace does not require studies or reports and this narrative from our elected officials is unacceptable.

Proposed City Resolution
The City of Burlington resolves to protect the Millcroft Golf Course property greenspace and its zoning of Major Parks/Open Space. We commit to working with the Province of Ontario, the Government of Canada and community groups to protect this mature tree canopy and green stormwater infrastructure consistent with our Climate Policies.

A significant number of taxpayers have requested that this application be stopped and further expense through an OLT hearing would be shameful.

We trust that our politicians will act responsibly and publicly state their position before the municipal election on this October 24.

It was to be a community built around a golf course – innovative at the time.

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward, who attended the community meeting, responded to the request by the Millcroft Greenspace Alliance for a council resolution that would be sent to the provincial government.

Meed Ward responded with the following

Thank you so much for reaching out on this critically important community issue. We all appreciate the great work, research and insights that the Millcroft Greenspace Alliance and Millcroft Against Bad Development groups have provided to us. Thank you also for engaging the Millcroft community, and beyond, on the issues at stake with the Millcroft Greens application. We’ve all heard from thousands of residents, and that input and lived experience will be very valuable for us once we are in a position to take a position on this matter.

You have asked Burlington City Council to pass a resolution about the Millcroft Greens development application, specifically to adopt a resolution to preserve the golf course prior to the Ontario Lands Tribunal Case Management conference on this matter in November.

Thank you for hosting and leading the Millcroft Greenspace Alliance public meeting last week, which myself and Councillor Stolte had an opportunity to attend to listen to residents, where I first heard of this proposed resolution. As you will recall, I was asked by residents and permitted by you and the organizers to speak and answer their question about the resolution.

I provided the following comments at that meeting but restate them here with some additional information, so you have a written copy. Feel free to share this with any of your members or neighbours who may have similar questions about such a resolution.

Such a resolution would be both ineffective and damaging to the city’s case, and to community interests.

Passing a resolution now would be ineffective, because no resolution from council can legally stop the OLT process that is underway. That hearing will continue, and a decision will be made there. Additionally, current council members cannot bind future councils. Any resolution passed by this council could be undone by a future council. The new council will need to take their own position on this matter and direct staff to defend that position at the OLT.

Passing a resolution now would also be damaging to the city’s case at the Tribunal because the Tribunal doesn’t look kindly on positions that are arrived at without the benefit of completing the full review, in a fair and impartial way to all parties. Such a resolution would be seen as circumventing the review process, and would not be based on any informed reports and recommendations from our own staff, because we don’t have them yet. It would be viewed as a purely political move by incumbents in an election to save their seats.

This is not how we do planning in Burlington. Circumventing the process, giving the Tribunal reason not to support whatever position we do ultimately take, would go against community interests – not help them.

Right now, we are waiting for staff to complete a full review of the application, including all relevant studies and community feedback. That review is not yet complete given the nature of this project on a flood plain and greenspace – which is different from any other project we have received which are usually tear downs/rebuilds of existing buildings, without the same complex issues.

That is why this project has taken longer than others for our staff to properly review, and come to an informed recommendation to bring to council.

Mayor Meed Ward: “We serve the community’s interests best by allowing staff and the independent consultant who reviewed the flood plain studies, to complete their work, and bring a recommendation to council.”

We serve the community’s interests best by allowing staff and the independent consultant who reviewed the flood plain studies, to complete their work, and bring a recommendation to council. This is expected in December or more likely January of 2023. Council will then be in a position to take a well-informed position, backed by expert studies that can be defended at the Tribunal. To short circuit that process for political gain during an election period would hinder the city’s case at the Tribunal, which isn’t in anyone’s best interests.

What I can tell you, though, and what I shared at the meeting, are the principles I hold that will be front and centre in evaluating any recommendation from staff and ultimately the position I will take on this matter. Council does have the prerogative to take a position that is different from the staff recommendation.

These principles include: this is on greenspace (which we need more of in Burlington, not less); it’s on a flood plain which serves as natural storm water management (and our experience in the 2014 flood reminds us how important natural storm water management systems are); the biodiversity of plants/animals on the course; the trees that would be lost, at a time we are trying to increase our tree canopy; and the fact that this isn’t in an identified growth area of the city – we can accommodate our share of growth at GO stations, retail plazas and other strategic areas of the city, without impacting greenspace. I believe many of these issues will be central to the case at the OLT.

Finally, it’s also important to note that the case management conference isn’t the hearing. The case management conference will identify the issues to be discussed (some of which are likely the ones I’ve outlined above), what expert witnesses need to be called, and as a result how long the hearing will need to be. Then a hearing is scheduled. That hearing is unlikely to get into the Tribunal calendar before fall of next year. There is no need to rush this, to our own detriment.

My position on the OLT is that it is an undemocratic, ineffective and inefficient body that should be abolished. I brought a motion to Regional Council in 2019 to eliminate the OLT (then called the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) which was unanimously approved, and that remains Regional Council’s position. Read more here: https://mariannemeedward.ca/halton-regional-council-unanimously-supports-resolution-from-burlington-and-halton-hills-mayors-to-eliminate-lpat/

As a delegation at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference, myself and other members of council met with Provincial Attorney General Doug Downey and advocated for reforms of the Tribunal. We will continue to do so.

I have never avoided, nor has anyone on this council, making tough development decisions. Based on the unanimous support for the resolution to abolish the OLT, we all would like the OLT to get out of our way, get out of our democratic process, and let us make these decisions, with full participation by our community and accountability by elected representatives for our decisions. I will stand behind all the decisions I’ve made, and you can see what they are because I tell people how I voted and why in my monthly newsletter, so residents can hold me to account. Decision-making should always rest with local councils, our professional and qualified staff, and the community, for maximum accountability and democracy. I will continue to fight for that and I will continue to be transparent with residents about every vote I cast on every development.

In due course, once our professional staff have completed their review and brought a recommendation forward to council, council will take a position and direct our staff to defend that position at the Ontario Lands Tribunal. The public will be aware of our position, and the rationale behind it. We will follow this process, because it’s the best way to protect community interests, your interests.

Daintry Klein  followed up with

Marianne

Daintry Klein: Millcroft Greenspace Alliance

Thank you for your response. I am hearing the narrative and I am following the ongoing development outcomes in the City of Burlington.
I am also following what is happening in other municipalities to see how outcomes can be different.

It seems that the City follows the same process over and over again and expects different outcomes. This is frustrating and the residents of Burlington are tired of the “in camera” nature of the decisions. How can we assess the City’s “best” when it is secretive. Trust is now an issue. This Council was elected partly on a promise of transparency.

We cannot afford to lose another City planning decision at the OLT, particularly of such importance to our health and well being, and we are imploring you and the rest of Council to look beyond to find a positive outcome. We are asking that this Council stretch beyond its current perceptions and explore what can be possible rather than continuing to tell us what isn’t.

A previous Council enacted OPA 117 to protect our City and its residents. The current Council appears to be ignoring their responsibility to uphold it. Consideration of future Council decisions does not absolve this Council from responsibility for its (in)actions and decisions.

Our understanding from planning experts is that obtaining a political intervention such as we are looking for here is different from the “technical” process of the planning stream which ends with the OLT. A delay by this Council of making a public declaration precludes the political process of the Province assisting with a solution. We have proposed a possible solution to our MPP but she is unable to help without the City’s initiative. With the pending election and interruption of Council’s cycle of business it is more critical than ever that Council proceed with a resolution ahead of the pending OLT hearings. We have little to lose given the City’s record at the OLT.

The Millcroft Property is different from other areas which are zoned for development. It is becoming clearer by the day that the tree canopy as well as the benefits of the grass, “green infrastructure” cannot continue to be hacked and slashed. Replacement small saplings that may or may not survive, and hardened surfaces that cause further problems for climate change will have an exponentially negative impact on our City. No studies change the nature of greenspace.

Lastly, the engineering studies completed in the 1980s were definitive that this greenspace should never be built on. There should be nothing new that would lessen that impact given climate change and the severity of the weather. While the updated mapping is important, we will be reviewing the parameters closely as very recent experience is challenging the previous thinking on the 100 year storm. New precedents are looking at 200 year storm events. In addition, the parameters of studying the downstream impacts are critically important. Our City has substantial drainage and flooding issues which are the responsibility of Council and the City.

The site has a story book setting and w storm water management program that works very well. The addition of 98 new homes would change the balance and put everything at risk.

To be clear, passing a resolution could enable a possible alternative positive outcome without the costs and risks of the OLT. There is no indication that the OLT will change so that is not a concern to this file.

Regards,
Daintry Klein

Council met on Tuesday and did not pass a resolution.  The matter wasn’t even on the agenda.

Related news feature

It is a big story – a community could be destroyed

 

Return to the Front page

Millcroft residents were not able to get the Mayor to put a resolution on the Council agenda in the morning - so they decided to demonstrate virtually in the evening

Millcroft – it was built as a unique community – and the residents want it to stay that way.

By Staff

September 30th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

 

They are mad as hell and don’t want to take this anymore.

Millcroft Greens has appealed their application to the Ontario Land Tribunal bypassing a public decision by Burlington City Council.

MAD along with the City of Burlington (Mayor Marianne Meed-Ward, Councillor Angelo Bentivegna and Councilor Rory Nisan) and Halton Regional Chair Gary Carr have arranged a virtual meeting on October 4th at 6:30 P.M. with all MAD supporters to cover the following:

1.Expected Ontario Land Tribunal Process and how MAD is going to participate

2.What the City/Region is now doing on this application and how they will participate in the Ontario Land Tribunal Process

3.What MAD has done to date

4.MAD Call to Action

5.Questions from Supporters to MAD or the City

They are asking that as many people as are able to participate in this call to both get the update as well as show their support.

Please email your questions in advance to Mayor@Burlington.ca before Monday October 3rd at noon. We will endeavour to answer as many questions as possible.

Join Zoom Meeting

Meeting ID: 875 1631 2735

Passcode: Sqnj8d

OR

Dial in at 647 558 0588

Meeting ID: 875 1631 2735

Passcode: 626012

This meeting will be recorded for all those unable to attend.

They will only be able to accommodate 1000 attendees. Please be sure to sign on early to secure your spot.

 

Join us in making the voice of our community heard…
 Sign the Petition 

 

Return to the Front page

Millcroft residents want Mayor to recall Council and pass a resolution standing behind the needs of the community

By Pepper Parr

September 28th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Why was Rick Greenspoon, candidate for the ward 6 council seat left standing outside the location of the Millcroft Greenspace Alliance (MGA) yesterday having been told that politicians were not permitted to attend the meeting.

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte made unexpected arrivals and no one was prepared to uninvite the two of them.
Greenspoon didn’t make it past the door; he was left standing outside holding up his campaign sign.

Daintry Klein, the person heading up the meeting, said she didn’t see the Mayor until she had started the meeting.

More than 120 people attended the meeting with 15 questions – what is happening now and what are we going to do next.

It was a community built around a golf course – seen as very progressive in the 1990’s.

Millcroft Greens is a joint-venture partnership between Argo Development Corporation and Millcroft Golf Club.

The development is currently before the Ontario Land Tribunal with a Case Management session scheduled for November 7th

Klein, an original owner in the Millcroft community, has become a staunch supporter of planting more trees and doing what has to be done to end the rate at which the climate is changing.

Millcroft Greens, notified some residents and the City of their intention to submit an application to develop a portion of Millcroft Golf Club in February of 2019 and their application was accepted by the City in December 2020.

The City of Burlington has neither approved nor declined the application.

Millcroft Greens appealed to the Province of Ontario Land Tribunal for a hearing to approve their applications.

MGA is not confident the city could successfully defend the application at OLT – 97% of cases are decided in favour of developers and the City of Burlington has not successfully defended an application during this term of Council.

Through significant research and numerous meetings with experts and the Province, MGA believes that the City of Burlington should pass a resolution. Potential wording could be:

Proposed City Resolution

The City of Burlington resolves to protect the Millcroft Golf Course property greenspace and its zoning of Major Parks/Open Space. We commit to working with the Province of Ontario, the Government of Canada and community groups to protect this mature tree canopy and green stormwater infrastructure consistent with our Climate Policies.

In order to pass such a resolution the Mayor would have to call a Special Meeting of Council – there aren’t any council meetings until the election has taken place. Klein’s response to that is to “let the Mayor have at it.

As the municipal election approaches (October 24), candidates will be looking for taxpayer and resident support. Our existing Council has the opportunity to prove their support for our community by passing a resolution.

Klein points out that Glen Abbey and the Stoneridge Golf course were able to work out their differences with developers without having to go to the OLT – he hope is that Burlington can do the same.

The MGA people want the city to take the lead on this issue. There doesn’t appear to be very much confidence in ward Councillor Angelo Bentivegna’s efforts.

There are two organizations in Millcroft solidly against the plans to further develop the golf course.  There is MAD – Millcroft Against Development and MGA –  Millcrogt Green Alliance

Related news stories

The story behind the flooding problem.

 

Return to the Front page

Millcroft residents keeping the focus on their opposition to plans a developer has to significantly alter the character of the community

By Staff

September 18th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

 

October 4th, 6:30 pm

Virtual meeting to be led by MAD along with the City of Burlington (Mayor Marianne Meed-Ward, Councillors Angelo Bentivegna and Rory Nisan) have arranged a virtual meeting on October 4th at 6:30 P.M. with all MAD supporters to cover the following:

1. Expected Ontario Land Tribunal Process and how MAD is going to participate

2. What the City is now doing on this application and how they will participate in the Ontario Land Tribunal Process

3. What MAD has done to date

4. MAD Call to Action

5. Questions from Supporters to MAD or the City

Designed and sold to residents as a community built around a golf course. Developer saw a way to squeeze in 98 new houses and a mid rise tower – took the case to the Ontario Land Tribunal

The organizers of the event want as many people as are able to participate in this call to both get the update as well show their support.

Details in respect of how to participate will be provided to everyone closer to the call.

This is a major issue: maintaining the integrity of a community matters.

Related news stories:

Last of a 4 part series on what the issue really is:  flooding

The first three parts are appended to the 4th part.

Return to the Front page

Storm water management is not a simple task in Millcroft

background graphic greenBy Pepper Parr

April 7th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Fourth in a series

When Allan Taylor, the Planner hired by Millcroft Against Development (MAD)to state their case against a proposed development that would result in a shorter golf course and 98 detached homes and 130 apartment units, he referred a few times to the storm water problem.

When the community was designed much of the storm water management was handled by the wide open spaces where the water would evaporate.

Start taking out some of the land and there is less space for the water to lie while it evaporates. The infrastructure in place to handle the water was predicated on the open space remaining open.

Storm water is a pretty dull subject – until your basement is flooded.

The people living in Millcroft provided a number of pictures to give you some idea as to just how much water there is to be drained away or left to Mother Nature to handle.

Credit for the pictures goes to Millcroft Against Development (MAD).

flooding 1

 

flooding 2

 

flooding 4

 

flooding 3

 

In his report as a planner Allan Ramsay said: “The Millcroft community was designed on the basis that the golf course lands would provide a benefit in dealing with rainfall and storm water by providing open storage of stormwater. Recent storm events have identified several flooding and storm water management issues in the Millcroft community.

“The redevelopment of the fairways in the Areas A-D with housing, roads and other hard surfaces will, according to our stormwater management review, increase runoff and worsen the flooding potential. In particular, Millcroft Greens’ proposed mitigation measures such as increasing the topsoil to 300 mm and disconnecting downspouts to rear yards will not likely achieve effective stormwater management.”

Related news stories:

1st in a series

2nd in a series

3rd in a series

Return to the Front page

Planner representing the Millcroft community puts their case forward

News 100 greenBy Pepper Parr

April 5th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Third in a series

MAD – Millcroft against Development realized they had a problem on their hands and went looking for a planner who could create the case they believed they had against the development.

The proposal the developer has taken to the Planning department is to add 98 detached dwellings and one mid-rise apartment building containing 130 dwelling units.

The community knew they had a serious problem and went looking for a planner who could point to the deficiencies in the proposed development in language that would equal what the planner for Millcroft Greens was putting forward.

A sort of “planner speak” going against another “planner speak”.

Alan Ramsay

Allan Ramsay – independent planner hired by the MAD community.

Allan Ramsay was their choice; he made a delegation which set out what the proposed development would mean to the community.  Before going into private practice Ramsay worked in the city planning department; while he did not work on the Millcroft file he was fully aware of the development.  At that time, in the mid 80’s it was a big deal for Burlington.

When the issue first became public – all the homes in the community got a letter from the then golf course owners – operators inviting people to a meeting.

The Mayor and the ward Councillor were all over the issue with emails and statements equaling the production of a healthy female rabbit.  Truth of the matter is that they could only offer words and do their best at council to grill the consulting planner on what the changes would really mean.  At that level the mayor was very good – let’s not equivocate  – she was superb.

She left Glenn Wellings searching for words and saying he did not have much of the information at his finger tips – and promised to get it for Her Worship and place it on the developers web site.  As of this writing – there are none of the promised answers.

Millcroft is a community with a mission to preserve the integrity of the existing Millcroft golf course said Allan Ramsay as he began his delegation.

Millcroft current Sept 21

The development as it exists today.  A par 70 course with 5700 feet .

revised golf course layout

The revised golf course will be a par 62 3900 foot Executive Style layout.  The yellow spots are where the detached homes will be placed.

Areas A - B C

98 detached homes will be located in the gray areas.

He had just ten minutes to speak as a delegate – and chose to answer questions.  He had sent a copy of his delegation to the city planners and every member of Council.

In his response to the development application he said what we have set out below:

The proposal by Millcroft Greens Corporation (“Millcroft Greens”) seeks to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and register a plan of subdivision to allow five portions of the existing Millcroft Golf Course (“Areas A-E”) to be developed with residential uses. A total of 98 detached dwellings and one mid-rise apartment building containing 130 dwelling units are proposed.

The subject lands are currently designated “Major Parks & Open Space” (Areas A-D), and “Residential – Medium Density” (Area E) in the City’s Official Plan.

Millcroft Greens is proposing to redesignate Areas A-D to allow low-density residential uses, and redesignate Area E to allow high-density residential uses with a maximum density of 200 units/ha. All of the subject lands are currently zoned “Open Space (O1)” in the City’s Zoning By-law.

In preparing our planning opinion we have undertaken an examination of the following:

i) the application submission and supporting documentation;
ii) neighbourhood context applicable to the subject property;
iii) the policy context; and
iv) the appropriateness of the application.

The following outlines our evaluation and conclusions in relation to these matters and concludes with the opinion, as professional planners, that the applications should not be approved.

Neighbourhood Millcroft

Wide streets, good medians and space between the houses.

Neighbourhood Character – the Millcroft community was planned as a prestige residential area built around a privately operated golf course. Inherent in the community concept is the integration of residential areas with the golf course and other forms of open-space and recreation areas.(1) Some of the defining residential characteristics of the community are the large lots, spacious setbacks and separations between dwellings and an abundance of open space. The Millcroft Greens proposal will result in development that is not in keeping with the established character of the existing community. The proposal, if approved, will facilitate an undesired change in the character of the area. For example:

i) Development Standards – As illustrated below Millcroft Greens is proposing significant reductions to the zoning regulations in comparison with the R2-3 zone found on most of the abutting and adjacent properties.

table

The differences between what the current zoning permits and what the developer is asking for – this is really the nub of the argument.

Zoning Regulation R2-3 Standard on Adjacent Lands Proposed
Exception Zoning
Min. Lot Frontage 18 m 15 m
Min. Lot Area 680 m2 425 m2
Min. Front Yard (Dwelling) 7.5 m 4.5 m
Min. Side Yard (1) 1.8 m or 10% of lot frontage 1.2 m
Min. Rear Yard (2) 9.0 m 7.5 m
Min. Building Height (2) 10 m 12 m
Min. Lot Coverage (2) 25% n/a

The proposed zoning standards will result in development that is not in keeping with the character of the existing area. The new lots will be significantly smaller and narrower with much smaller front, rear and yard setbacks. Millcroft Greens is also proposing taller dwellings with no restriction of lot coverage.

ii) Separation Between Buildings – one of the defining characteristics of the Millcroft community is the spaciousness between dwellings as seen from the street. Many of the existing dwellings are separated from dwellings on the opposite side of the street by large front yards and the full width of the municipal road. The separation distance from the front door of one dwelling to the front door of the dwelling on the opposite side of the street is typically between 34 m and 44 m (2). Millcroft Greens is proposing both reduced front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks and narrow private streets. As a result the separation between dwellings on opposite side of the street will be reduced to 19.3 m. The visual difference between a separation of 19.3 m and a separation of 34 m to 44 m is dramatic.

iii) Lot Coverage – Millcroft Greens is proposing a zoning exception to the normal requirement of a maximum 25% lot coverage. For Areas A to D, Millcroft Greens is proposing that there be no maximum lot coverage. The elimination of the lot coverage regulation is required in order to accommodate larger dwellings that would not normally be permitted. This situation is indicative of the overdevelopment of the lots and is not in keeping with the character of the area.

Millcroft golf course

The green space and the golf course were why people bought into the community. The golf course was never a top tier competitive location – but it worked for those who just enjoyed the game.

Loss of Open Space –The Millcroft community was planned in the 1980s with the approvals occurring through Official Plan Amendment 117 (OPA 117). According to OPA 117 the community plan was based on the integration of residential development within the open space land of the golf course and other natural features. Specifically OPA 117 indicated:

“…It is also the intent of the Plan that, should the operation of the golf course discontinue, these lands will remain as permanent open space, since portions of these lands contain creek features which are part of the stormwater management system for the Community. The open space associated with the golf course will be an important element in the concept and therefore the marketing of the Community. It is also the policy of this Plan that the City neither intends nor will be obliged to purchase the golf course lands in order to ensure their existence as permanent open space.” (Emphasis Added)

Although OPA 117 is no longer in force and effect and it is not applicable policy it clearly demonstrates the intention of the City to maintain the open space lands in the community as a permanent feature.

The Millcroft Greens proposal represents a significant loss of open space in the community and City. The adverse impacts include the loss of tree canopy, increased runoff due to additional roads, buildings and hard surfaces and the loss of wildlife habitant and natural features.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Issues – The Millcroft community was designed on the basis that the golf course lands would provide a benefit in dealing with rainfall and storm water by providing open storage of stormwater. Recent storm events have identified several flooding and storm water management issues in the Millcroft community.

The redevelopment of the fairways in the Areas A-D with housing, roads and other hard surfaces will, according to our stormwater management review, increase runoff and worsen the flooding potential. In particular, Millcroft Greens’ proposed mitigation measures such as increasing the topsoil to 300 mm and disconnecting downspouts to rear yards will not likely achieve effective stormwater management.

On behalf of M.A.D. we request the City investigate and report on the following:

(i) What strategies have been put in place to compensate for the loss of the golf course on river flooding?

(ii) Have the proponents conducted an assessment of potential basement flooding within the areas where foundation drains are connected to storm sewers?

(iii) What is the volume (cubic meters) of storage currently available for stormwater in the golf course and what is the volume of storage proposed through the developers functional servicing report? (and later why aren’t they the same?)

(iv) Will residents be compensated in the case that basement flooding damages occur?

Reduced Right-of-Way Widths – Millcroft Greens is proposing to develop Areas A – D using private roads instead of the standard municipal road. According to their submission these private roads have right-of-ways of 10.3 m rather than the 20 m right-of-ways found on the nearby municipal roads. These reduced right-of ways provide 8.3 m of pavement width and may not accommodate on-street parking.

Although private driveways are found in many condominium developments the use of private roads having reduced right-of-ways is new to the Millcroft community.

tight development

Some of the new detached units are show in full colour. The existing structures are shown in a light grey. Looks tight

Roads Introduced Along Rear Property Lines – Millcroft Greens is proposing development along a single loaded road in Area A. In this situation the new road is located near the rear lot line of the adjoining properties on Hadfield Crt. The new street will create a “sandwich effect” for several existing properties. Homeowners in this location will now have streets running along their front and rear yards. This situation raises issues of noise, privacy and nuisance for the abutting residents and will undoubtedly impact their use and enjoyment of their back yards.

Loss of Housing Adjacent to Golf Course – The Millcroft Community is one of only three locations in the urban areas of the City that provides a unique opportunity where housing is located adjacent to a golf course. The proposed redevelopment of the golf course lands will mean that approximately 65 dwellings that currently back onto the golf course will back onto new housing or a new subdivision road. The loss of this unique housing adjacent to golf courses is not desirable and significantly reduces the supply of this unique form of housing.

Redevelopment of Additional Golf Course Lands – At this time Millcroft Greens has not indicated if it has any plans for any further redevelopment of the remaining golf course lands. However, in considering the current proposal it is important to understand how the remainder of the golf course lands could be used and/or redeveloped. In particular, an assessment is required in order to ensure that the current proposal does not preclude the continuing use or orderly redevelopment of any adjacent lands.

Functionality of the Remaining Golf Course – The proposed realignment of the golf holes to accommodate the removal of some lands from the golf course use may create issues with respect to the functionality and viability of the golf course. One issue relates to extended distance and travel required to get from one green to the next tee. In several instances the distance and travel has increased significantly. For example, the distance from the tenth green to the eleventh tee will be approximately 230 m and the distance from the fifteenth green to the sixteenth tee is approximately 471 m. Another issue involves the overall desirability of the re-aligned and much shorter golf course. These factors are directly related to the long term viability of the golf course and the need to assess its future in a comprehensive rather than ad hoc or piecemeal basis.

Maintenance Building Relocation – Redevelopment Area E necessitates the relocation of the existing golf course maintenance building located on this site. Millcroft Greens has not indicated where the maintenance building will be relocated. While we understand the maintenance building is a permitted use under the zoning by-law on all the golf course lands, the future location of the facility is an important consideration and should be evaluated when considering the redevelopment of Area E and the re-alignment of the golf course resulting from the proposed residential development. The future location of the maintenance building may have traffic, noise, dust and other impacts.

Proposed 6m Buffer – the proposed draft plans of subdivision identify 6 m buffer blocks adjacent to the rear property lines in Areas A to D. The proposed buffer blocks are also shown on the Conceptual Open Space Plans submitted by Millcroft Greens. According to the Planning Justification Report the proposed buffer blocks will be a common element in a future condominium application and will be owned by the future condominium corporation(s). The purpose of these buffer blocks is not clear nor is it readily apparent the nature of the landscaping that will be provided, how maintenance of these areas will take place, what, if any, fencing will be provided and whether or not there will be any public or private access to the blocks.

The proposed development is not compatible with the well established character of the area. Though compatibility does not necessarily mean “same”, it also does not mean out-of-step with a stable environment. The proposed zoning regulations seek significant reductions in minimum requirements for lot area, lot frontage and front, rear and side yard setbacks. As well, the proposal seeks to eliminate lot coverage requirements.

Collectively these zoning changes will result in an over development of the Subject Lands.

The Gazette and Wellings Planning Consultants are involved in a libel dispute

Related news stories

Part 1 of the series

Part 2 of the series

Return to the Front page

Planner for Millcroft Greens gets grilled by Councillors after his delegation

graphic community 5By Pepper Parr

March 28th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Part 2 of a series.

 

Statutory Meetings are part of the development approval process.

During the Statutory meeting held March 2, 58 people delegated – each had 10 minutes.

Glenn Wellings, the planning consultant for the developer  spoke and answered questions.

A transcript of his delegation and the questions answered by follows.

Wellings chose to focus on four matters in his delegation – they were:

Public vs. Private Open Space

Land Use Compatibility

Future Phases of Development

Maintenance Building Relocation

 

Glenn Wellings  (GW)

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Committee members.

Wellings

Glenn Wellings

Starting with the area of public vs private open space.  When the Millcroft community first developed, the city acquired a significant dedication of parkland and open space.  It is important for the community to understand that the golf course lands were not considered nor credited toward the contribution of public parkland and public open space.  The city instead took its full complement of park and open space lands independent of the golf course.  The golf course was private open space when it first developed over 30 years ago and it remains private open space today.  The golf course is not considered part of the city’s parkland system.

Turning to the next point, Land Use Compatibility.  Compatibility does mean identical or the same as.  Compatibility is an assessment of the co-existence and impact between land uses.  Millcroft Greens has chosen a built form that is compatible with abutting land uses.  In the case of Areas A through D, large lot single detached dwellings are proposed adjacent to large lot single detached homes.  This occurs already throughout the Millcroft community even in cases where the lot sizes are not identical.  With respect to Area E, the mid rise built form was chosen as it is situated along a major roadway, that being Dundas Street and the building could achieve a significant separation from the townhouses to the west without impact.  In the case of all development parcels, Millcroft Greens has taken the added step of proposing a six metre landscape buffer between existing and proposed land uses.

Turning to future phases of development, there has been plenty of speculation regarding additional development of the golf course lands beyond these applications.    MG decided very early on in the process that maintaining the existing golf course would be an integral part of the proposal.  Therefore, to speculate what might happen in the future is not relevant to the applications before Committee today.  To reiterate, the MG proposal before the city is to consider the development of five parcels of land with a retention of an 18 hole golf course in a reconfigured format.  There would be significant investment in the golf course redevelopment.

A final point dealing with the maintenance building relocation, due to the proposed redevelopment of Area A, the plan is to remove the current maintenance building and build a new smaller maintenance building closer to the clubhouse.  The maintenance building would be approximately 40% smaller than the existing facility.  The new building would be designed to architecturally complement the design of the existing clubhouse.  The maintenance building relocation does not require planning permission provided the current zoning by-law setbacks are complied with.  These setbacks include a minimum 15 metre setback abutting a residential zone together with a nine metre landscape buffer.

Before moving to the video presentation, a few housekeeping matters.

Wellings MAr 2 A

Glenn Wellings during his March 2nd, delegation.

First, Millcroft Greens (MG) has no concern with the staff recommendation to extend the period to process the applications.  In terms of further public consultation, MG is planning to hold a virtual drop in open house some time in later April.  Due to the continued limitations on gatherings and concerns with public safety, this will need to occur virtually.  More details are expected shortly in this regard.  And finally, MG team of consultants is available in the waiting room to answer any questions of Committee.  We have Frank Bond, the Project Manager from MG, we have Dave Leighton, the consulting engineer from Urban Tech, Ash Baron, the ecologist and arborist from Beacon Environmental, Aaron Wignall, Traffic Consultant from Crozier & Associates, and Steven Johnson our golf course expert from TGA Partners.

In addition, any responses to new questions from this afternoon and tonight’s public meeting will be provided on the MG website, www.millcroftgreens.com as on the bottom of the slide.  Thank you for listening.  I’d be pleased to answer any questions following the video.

Millcroft golf course

The development, created in the mid 1980’s with a golf course in the middle of it. It quickly became one of the most desirable communities to live in. Residents now feel threatened ny plans to add 98 home and a six story apartment.

QUESTIONS from members of Council

Meed Ward at BSCI

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward

MMW Mayor Marianne Ward :  This question is around the recommendation you did touch on it Glen but I want to elaborate a little bit, the recommendation to allow staff to work on the file and you said you were ok with that.  Of course as we are all aware, when we go past the provincially legislative time frames for rendering a decision, we expose ourselves to a potential appeal to the LPAT for non decision.  So I’d like to get a sense of your intent.  Will you be filing a non decision appeal after the 120 days if we allow this recommendation to go through.  Then I’ll have a follow up.

GW:  Good question.  The LPAT process is complicated and I think Your Worship you understand that.  Just to be clear, we are in support of the staff recommendation which would extend it beyond the 120 days and as long as we’re moving forward in a positive manner and there is no hiccups in the process and then we don’t have an intention of filing an appeal for non decision but at the same time we need to protect that right your worship and if things do go off the rails, then that option needs to be available to MG but just to be very clear I think MG has shown a cooperation and willingness to work with the public and city staff to move this forward and engage with the public so that is still the goal.  At this point in time there has been no decision to file an appeal of these applications.  Hope that clarifies.

MMW:  Thank you for that.  Caveats noted that it could come.  Second question is a follow up to that around your expectation of time lines.  So where do you think you’re at and what are your expectations in terms of when you are expecting staff to provide a recommendation report for council decision?

GW:  I was a little bit surprised by the presentation by planning staff that the report would come back in September 2021.  That’s not information that we had before today’s meeting.  Also I can say that as we will continue to work with staff, there is a lot of public agency comments we have not received, so we’re waiting for some feedback from public agencies as well as city departments.  Once we get that feedback, we’ll probably have a sit-down with staff and work through the concerns and comments.   So it’s a little bit early to start speculating on time lines other than that we’re prepared to work with staff and try to have a report to committee as early as possible.

MMW:  Ok, so just a quick follow-up on that.  The September 2021 is that a concern for you?  You said it was a surprise today.  Are you troubled by that or are you prepared to work in that projected timeline?

GW:  Tough question.  We’re certainly prepared to work within those timelines as long as we’re moving forward in a positive way.  I can’t stress that enough.  If this goes off the rails then things could change but right now where we stand and where we sit in the process we are working cooperatively to work through the issues and the process with city staff and we’ll continue to do so.  So I think I’ll reserve judgement on the September 2021 timeline right now until we get further feedback and have further dialogue with staff.

AB Councillor Angelo Bentivegna:  Thanks Glen.  Wondering if we can go back to the video that had the two fences side by side with the buffer in between.

GW:  I’m not in control of the video and based on our technical difficulties today, I’m scared about going back.

Angelo watching Roru

Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna

AB:  Ok, that’s ok.  If we can visualize the two fences and all the greenery in between, I’m getting these questions over and over again, that is going to be a condominium area that will be maintained by I’m not sure who at this particular point, and will those fences be, what will they look like?  I think we saw chain link fences.  What will that look like when people are looking at their backyards.  What are they going to be seeing?

GW:      Good question.  Right now the plan is to provide a six metre landscape buffer strip between existing and proposed development and at this point in time the six metre landscape strip is intended to be managed and maintained by the condominium corporation for each one of the parcels and that’s certainly a matter that MG is willing to discuss but the intent is to provide a fairly robust planting strip where there would be a screen between existing and proposed development.   The details still need to be worked out and certainly we’re receptive to any comments in that regard.

AB:  The biggest concern I keep hearing is that if the condominium level of service is typically being paid by one side and not the existing residents who are already there, it will affect the visual upkeep of their back.  That is their big concern.  What is the intentions of MG to make sure that doesn’t happen?

GW:  Couple of things, first of all it would be zoned for protection.  The draft zoning bylaw that’s been provided to the city does provide an open space zone within the 6 metre landscape buffer.  As far as the condominium corporation is concerned, the mandate of that corporation would be to maintain that 6 metre landscape buffer strip in perpetuity and have proper reserves to ensure that maintenance.  That’s the plan now but we’re certainly  open to any comments or alternatives that may come forward to discuss how that landscape buffer unfolds.

AB:  Second question.  Is the maintenance shed that’s going to be relocated, I understand it’s 40% of the existing, and it’s going to be where the clubhouse is and it’s going to take the look of the clubhouse.  Is that building going to be above ground or in the parking lot or grass area and is there any digging downward that needs to happen to construct that?

GW:  The precise location of the maintenance building has not been determined but you’re correct, it would be 40% smaller than existing.  The existing facility up on Dundas is pretty large and it’s much larger than what they require.  In terms of the relocation of that, it’s expected that it be in close proximity to the clubhouse off the parking lot but the precise location and the building details really aren’t known at this stage.

Rory chair July 9

Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan

Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan (RN) :  Thank you  First question relates to your response to the mayor about possibly appealing.  So you say if things go off the rails, you might appeal, and as long as they are proceeding in a positive manner, are you deciding that if you think you’re going to get approval you’ll stick around but you may appeal if you get a report you don’t like?  What does that mean?

GW:  We’re starting to get into a legal discussion and to be honest I’m not prepared to go into that today because we’re just speculating in terms of what may or may not happen.  The Planning Act is pretty clear as to when you can appeal an application or decision and at this point in time I’m not prepared to come before you and suggest that MG will give up any of those rights.  But I can tell you that MG has every intention of working with this council, with city staff and the public on further dialogue.  I had mentioned the open house that we’re planning to hold in later April so that dialogue and engagement will continue in a cooperative fashion but Councillor Nisan,  I do appreciate the question, I just can’t speculate on what may or may not happen if there is a future LPAT appeal.

RN:  So thank you for that.  I just want to make sure it’s understood that you cannot make any promises about an appeal at this stage.

GW:  No promises.

RN:  Ok.  That’s fine.  That’s your prerogative, I understand.  But it’s important for us to understand that as well.  I have a second question.  I know this one quote you had where you said you’re proposing large lot single detached homes beside other large lot single detached homes.  So point taken there, but I want to know why you’re asking for so many changes to the R3.2 regulation.  So you’re asking for a change from open space and obviously that’s a major thing to be considered by all of us, but within the R3.2 regulation you’re also asking for exemptions there and you’re asking for more exemptions than you’re willing to follow the requirements.  For example, front yard down to 4.5 metres when it’s supposed to be 6, reductions to the rear yard, the side yard, the street side yard, lot covefage, dwelling depth, building heights where you want to be able to build a flat roof 12 metre structure where we only allow 7, if I’ve got that right, two stories, so why are you asking for all those changes and why aren’t you just asking for a bunch of townhouses here?

GW:  A lot in those questions.  First of all, townhouses were not considered as I mentioned about the compatible built form and MG thought that singles adjacent to singles made the most sense in terms of Areas A through D and with respect to Area E, the mid rise building being proposed.  With respect to the zoning and the number of changes, I think Committee members need to realize your zoning by-law is extremely out of date.  It’s not current and it’s not reflective of the built form today for single family homes so there was a number of suggested changes.  I would imagine when the City does get around to updating its zoning bylaw, that it will reflect more current standards but your by-law is really out of date and that’s one of the reasons for the number of changes being requested through the draft zoning bylaw.  And we’re certainly prepared to discuss that draft zoning bylaw with City staff as well as Committee members as we move forward.

sharman with sign

Ward 6 Councillor Paul Sharman

PS Councillor Paul Sharman (PS):  Thank you for the presentation Glen.  Question about the concerns from the community about flooding.  We’ve seen a series of photographs of storm impact and water all over the golf course.  We’ve seen a number of effects on peoples’ properties.  So as you are now into the process and you have engineers looking at that, what plans are there to mitigate the risks that they have concerns about?

GW:  I’m going to have to rely on Dave Leighton (DL) to respond to that question.  So I think he needs to be brought out of the delegate room to respond to the concern of flooding.  Sorry for the awkwardness Councillor Sharman but I’m just not an expert on storm water management.

PS:  No it’s fine.  I appreciate having the experts, the professionals to talk about it.  Thanks you.

DL:  You’re correct.  The Millcroft community was designed to flood.  The golf course was designed to flood to protect the residents of Millcroft.  Our application, we cannot increase flooding.  We cannot aggravate flooding.  We have to secure a permit from Conservation Halton and approval from the City of Burlington, so we can’t make any existing condition any worse and our goal is actually to improve it.

PS:  Thank you for that.  From a technical perspective, can you talk about the kind of mechanisms available to you please.

DL:  Absolutely.  We have our hydraulic models that we received from the conservation authority that calculate flood levels.  We’ve gone out and done detailed topographic surveys so we have all the correct elevations.  Some of the mitigation methods that we’re using, those who are familiar with Appleby Creek and specifically down by the existing pond, that is used both for irrigation for the golf course and as a water hazard, there is a concrete weir on the north side of Upper Middle.  Through removing that weird, it was artificially backing the water up.  With removing the weir, and reshaping the flood plain, we are actually going to be lowering the water levels in that region of Appleby Creek between Millcroft Parkway and Upper Middle Road.  So we have certainly used all the stormwater and technical tools available to us to assess the existing flooding and what is our proposal to reshape the flood plain and ensure that we don’t aggravate or increase any flood levels upstream or we wouldn’t be able to secure any approvals from any of the agencies.

PS:  Can I ask a question for clarification.  Do I understand you to say that you’re actually improving the current condition of the Millcroft neighbourhood as a result of the actions you’re taking with the weir?

DL:  Yes, we are.  With the lowering or the removal of the weir, there’s two benefits.  One is the opportunity for ??? upstream and the lowering of the flood plain so our submitted functional servicing report does show that water levels have lowered.

Lisa Kearns

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns (LK) :   My question centres around the public engagement and the vast amount of communication that has come through all of our offices and is captured within the report before us  today.  My question for you is can you give two demonstrable examples of where you’ve taken that community feedback and have changed or modified the plans before us from per-consultation or preliminary concept to what was finally presented.  Can you demonstrate at all that that community feedback has been taken into account to make any changes?  (**hear someone in background say “that’s so funny”)

GW:  Good question.  I need to take that one under advisement.  I don’t have the answer off the top of my head but it’s something that I’ll go back and have a look at but there were a number of comments that came out of the September meeting that did inform the applications that were filed.  I just don’t have an answer at my fingertips.

LK Ok, then maybe just as a follow up question. How would you define what we should be looking out for as indicators that MG has worked with the community, worked with council, worked with staff to bring about a plan that works for all of those stakeholders?  What should we be looking for if we’re not able to identify modifications at this point in the evolution of the application?  What should we be looking for?

GW:  I think you should be looking for opportunities.  Has there been an opportunity to engage.  Has there been an outreach by MG which there certainly has been, and a dialogue with the public and I think as a councillor that’s obviously pretty important to focus in on pubic engagement and whether that informs any changes to the applications, that’s a completely different matter.  If there is some constructive comments that we feel would benefit the applications, it’s certainly something we’d take into account.

LK:  My second question is of the 800 pieces of literature we’ve received and the numerous comments that have come through your office what would be maybe the top two constructive recommendations or interest that MG would say maybe has some value to explore for further consideration?

GW:  I think we’re still looking for some constructive feedback because all we’ve heard from many people is “we don’t want it” and frankly that doesn’t help.  If there is constructive comment on how if this were to move forward and how this could move forward in the best possible way, those are the constructive comments, quite frankly we haven’t received a whole lot of and we’re open to receiving those comments and see if that can inform.  I think change is really difficult and we all understand that and appreciate that but residents as far as change is concerned, they are fine with change if it’s in someone else’s backyard and if it’s in their backyard, they tend to resist it.  Change is inevitable.

RN:  Point of Order Chair .  This is going off the rails and not on point of the application.

Chair Galbraith:  I agree.

Galbraith slight smile

Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith – Chair of the meeting

Kelven Galbraith – Chair of the meeting and Councillor for ward 1. (KG):   I’m going to jump in with a first question before we go to second time questions.  Thanks for the presentation Glen.  We’ve heard some concerns about safety of the current golf course and how the changes are going to improve on that.  Can you just elaborate a little bit on how that will happen?

GW:  I’m probably better to direct that comment to Mr. Steven Johnson. (SJ) He is our golf course expert that’s available.

SJ:  So if I heard the question right, it is what modifications have taken place in order to rectify some of the safety concerns.  One of the key things when you’re getting into the changes is when you’re modifying the golf course is basically the landing areas and the distances.  So basically, par 3s, when you change from a 4 or 5 to a par 3, you mitigate the dispersion patterns and therefore just by doing that alone, will impact and improve safety.  From the point of view of the tee boxes, locations and modifications in that regard, they will also change safety precautions because right now the centre lines will change under the new program and therefore the landing areas will move the ball away from, as best they can, into areas that will be larger landing areas away from backyards.  You’re never going to mitigate all issues.  But this plan definitely makes the proposed course much more safety factor from balls going into backyards.

KG:  So shorter course, safer course, basically.

SJ:   And also centre lines.  So shorter course, safety, that’s number one.  But also changes in centre line and tee areas into landing areas also changes and creates safety.  It’s the same as when you see any community that’s being built with a golf course, you see trees and buffers going up and sometimes you find it going up after the fact.  With this you find that you’re already able to move some of the tee decks and (a) shortening the hole but (b) changing the centre lines you also make it safer as well because of dispersion patterns.  And then when you take longer clubs out of your hands, the dispersion factor changes as well.

KG:  yes, noted.  Thank you.  Second time speaker, Councillor Bentivegna.

AB:  The question has to do with roads and the new roads that we’re putting down.  I just want a visual here.  We’re going to have a road and we have a row of homes and in behind there will be another road and another row of homes and the question is when a home is between two roads, are these roads standard width roads and because it’s private property I don’t know how it works and I can ask staff that as well but what is the width of that road in front of the homes and behind the homes and is it legislated?

GW:  These are condominium roads that are being proposed and the width of the condominium roads, the paved surface, is roughly equivalent to the paved surface of a local road without the extensive boulevards  so they would serve the same purpose and there are other condominium roads within the Millcroft community and servicing some of the development parcel so they would be similar to those roads.

AB:  So can cars park on the street on those condominium roads, in front of their homes?

GW:  The intent is on one side that there would be some on street parking.  That is the intent.  What you need is to make sure is you keep 6 metres free and clear for fire access and emergency access purposes.

AB:  Second question.  Has to do with air quality compatibility.  And I know one of the 30 plus studies you did talked about air quality.  When we do air quality, and again I’m new to all this, do they take into consideration 30 years of golf green spraying?  And obviously those chemicals are no longer in use anywhere else other than in golf courses, we know that.  Is that taken into consideration when they do those tests?

GW:  Shorter answer is I don’t know.  We’ll have to take that one back.  We don’t have our air quality expert here today but we’ll certainly take that one back and put a response on the MG website and share it with city staff.

MMW:  Follow up question.  I wanted to ask you a question about the distinction you made in your presentation between public open space and privately owned open space and try to understand a little better sort of what you were getting at there.  The lands of course are privately owned, nobody disputes that, but they are zoned, the vision for them in terms of the use in the city’s OP are for open space, in both the OP and the zoning, so regardless of ownership tenure, the vision is to keep that open green space.  So can you just talk to me about what difference it makes, what you were trying to get at in your presentation, what difference it makes that it’s not publicly owned at this point, still zoned as green space?

GW:  I was simply trying to make the distinction that these were not taken as public open space and parklands through the consideration of the Millcroft community when it first developed.  They were not accounted for or considered as parkland or public open space.  So it was just making the distinction between ownership and to me there is a difference.

MMW:  So that’s what I’m trying to understand.  Can you tell me what the difference is on ownership?

GW:  In terms of ownership, if it were publicly owned then the City certainly has control over the use of those lands currently and in the future when they’re privately owned, the City can zone those lands and of course an owner of those lands can bring forward an application for consideration of a different use so it was really just trying to distinguish between public vs. private ownership.

MMW:  Right, sorry, I think the question was more around what difference does it make for the ongoing use given that regardless of ownership public or private, the use as defined in our OP even at the time of this development is for open space, in both the OP and the zoning.  That’s the vision for this in our plans.

GW:  That is what the OP and zoning bylaw do with the exception of Parcel E.  Parcels A through D is open space.  I do acknowledge that, but MG has made an application to propose a different use of portions of those lands with the retention of the golf course and they’re asking for those applications to be considered.  If they were publicly owned lands, these applications wouldn’t be on the table.

MMW:  That wasn’t my question but you’ve kind of touched on it so that’s fine.  I gather that you’re still waiting on comments from the regional OP.  Their plan also, on page 10 of the report, their plan designates this as Regional Natural Heritage System in Section A of A to D.  E is completely different so we won’t talk about E.  But A is definitely Regional Natural Heritage System and any alteration of the components of a Regional Natural Heritage System are not permitted unless it’s been demonstrated there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or areas or their ecological functions.  So have you heard back from the Region whether they are even on for that in Section A?  Feel free to answer why is this not also a regional OP amendment.  I guess they do their comments through our process, I guess that’s why.  But what have you heard from the Region?

GW:  We haven’t received regional comments so I‘m hoping those will come soon but it’s important to note that the whole golf course is not a Regional Natural Heritage System, it’s just a small portion of it – the vicinity of Appleby Creek and the pond are considered Regional Natural Heritage System.  So these lands are in the urban area under the Plan; they’re in the urban surfaced area.  And of course municipal services are available to these lands and to the community so we will see what the region has to say.  I’m not going to speculate.  No answer yet.  There’s quite a few comments still outstanding.

MMW:  Sometimes because of the time delay between the report and a meeting like this there could be a time delay so I’m trying to ascertain if they have provided anything in the interim.  So yes it’s just Area A, but it is one of the areas being proposed for redevelopment, so thank you for that.

RN:  Coming back to the zoning bylaw for a second, and the reason I brought up the townhouses is that it seems like all the changes that you’re proposing reflects more of a townhouse form than a detached form.  I’m certainly not suggesting that townhouses aren’t a good idea here, far from it, but I’m just wondering can you provide comments at some point about why you think these are appropriate using neighbouring zoning bylaws because you’ve asked for no maximum lot coverage.  Is there precedent for that?

GW:  Zoning is complicated and in terms of lot coverage yes there is precedent for zoning bylaws that do not have lot coverage and the reason being is the coverage is actually controlled through different means, being setbacks from the side, the rear and the front.  So sometimes the controls result in a lot coverage yield.  What we’ve done in terms of the zoning bylaw, and certainly Councillor Nisan, we’re prepared to spend much more time on the zoning bylaw and discuss with City staff, is we’ve also provided for the opportunity of bungalow product in the zoning bylaw but I do want to remind you and committee the proposed lots through Areas A through B are 50 foot lots so that’s a large lot in the urban surfaced area, so I would not equate these in any shape or form to townhouses.  But the zoning bylaw is prepared in draft form, it’s submitted to the City, the City is reviewing it and I expect to have comments back on it, so there is some provision that will warrant further discussion.

RN:  I’ll have more questions for you and staff about that and I’ll save my comments on it for later.  Just getting back to Councillor Kearns’ question, which I thought was a very pertinent question, you mentioned that you’ve mostly heard just opposition but I’ve heard very specific opposition for specific reasons, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss those concerns as just being opposition, so I want to know what you’ve done to mitigate concerns that have been raised.

GW:  By no means are we ignoring public concerns and I want to be really clear on that point.  I spent last night going through a couple of hundred submissions just trying to get a handle on the public concerns, so it’s a process that’s going to evolve, we’re going to go back and look at the public concerns.  A lot of those concerns are common.  Some of them are a little bit different.  So the goal of the MG group is to take those public concerns, evaluate them and discuss them with city staff and if there are some solutions or changes that could be brought forward, we would do that, but the public comments are important, as what we are going to go through today is important in hearing the feedback from the public and there has been lots of correspondence I know.  Councillors, you have all received that correspondence.  It’s pretty daunting.  There are a lot of letters and materials to go through and we will go through them and provide an assessment.

RN:  Thank you.  I would just note that is the point of the pre-consultation meeting that we had months ago.  Chair, I have two more questions if the board is clear and then I’m also finished.

Chair:  Yes, I’ll just remind committee that this is delegate 1 of 57.  Go ahead with your questions councillor.

RN:  Promise not to be as hard on the rest of the delegates in the community.  In E, is it going to be a six storey building or a seven storey building because the staff report says seven.  And what will be the actual linear height of that building?

GW:  The proposal is six storey.  As far as the linear height, I don’t have that at my fingertips but I can certainly follow up on that.  It’s on the plans, I just don’t have them in front of me.

RN:  Well just to clarify, the report says Unknown Linear Height so I’m wondering why you didn’t know at the time or perhaps I’ll ask staff why this wasn’t presented at the time of the report and it says seven storeys, not six, in the report so something’s not right here.

GW:  I think staff will have to confirm that CN, because it’s definitely a six storey building as far as I’m concerned and if you want a metric equivalent to the six storeys, we’re happy to provide that, I just don’t have it at my fingertips.

RN:  That would be great, thank you.  Final question, why are you offering compensation to homeowners?  It’s unusual to do that.  Why aren’t you just presenting the plans to go ahead.  Why are you offering compensation?

GW:  First of all, the offer of compensation, the principle of compensation is something that was put forward by MG and it’s something that’s still on the table.  Because it’s not a planning matter, it’s not something I’m prepared to discuss at today’s public meeting.  It is a matter between MG and the adjacent residents.

RN:  Well it was in your video, so is there someone on the line that could respond to that?

GW:  No there isn’t, Councillor Nisan, and that’s not something we’re going to discuss today.

RN:  You brought it up.  It’s in the video.  So you brought it up.  So that’s why I’m bringing it up.

GW:  Councillor Nisan, I think you’ve heard my answer.

Chair:  I think the answer’s clear,

RN:  Yes it’s clear.  I don’t understand it, but you’re right, it’s clear.  Thank you very much.

Chair:  OK, thank you Glen.  I see another question from Mayor MW.

MMW:  One final question on the public engagement piece and two excellent questions earlier, so just to follow up on that.  One of the requirements that our planning department has, and it may be somewhat unique to Burlington, it’s why we do a pre-consultation public meeting is so that the applicant can demonstrate that they modified plans in respect of the public input they heard and we’ve heard very similar comments at the pre-consultation public meeting as are in, certainly some of the comments now as residents have seen some of the public reports are much more detailed, but certainly some of the same themes.  So I did want to go back and give you a chance to say how you have satisfied that city requirement in your plan to take into account and modify your plans in respect of the information that you heard from the Community, partly through the pre-consultation process which was quite extensive.

GW:  It’s not something I have at my fingertips tonight.  I can tell you that the pre-application meeting had a number of comments.  There was also comments from the BUD, the City’s Urban Design Review Panel and those were all sort of gathered and looked at in terms of the submission.  In terms of pinpointing, your Worship, on specific areas where changes occurred, I’m going to have to just take that back and follow up on that.  I just don’t have it at my fingertips.

MMW:  Ok, that was the answer.  However, my understanding was that the Planning Justification Report that would be submitted is required to show those things in the actual report and as the author of that report, that’s why I’m asking you the question.  So, granted it may not be off the top of your head, and I’ve looked at the Planning Justification Report and I can’t find it there either, unless it’s sort of woven in, but it’s a requirement that it be documented when you apply for the application so I guess I’m just asking where to find that and if that requirement has actually been met.  I don’t know, but …

GW:  Yes it has your Worship and what is required of city staff on a pre-application meeting is that detailed minutes be prepared, there was actually a transcript prepared and the latter part of the Planning Justification Report does go through the areas that were raised through that pre-application meeting.  But I think you’re wanting to know how some of those comments facilitated change and I’m saying I don’t have that at my fingertips.  It’s something I’m prepared to come back with.

Meed Ward style

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward

MMW:  Ok, that would be extremely helpful and I will also ask staff as this may be something we need to make even more clear to applicants that they are required to be quite clear in their application how they’ve addressed those.  That’s the intent of the policy framework that we have and we have followed for some time.  But I suppose there’s more to come all around.  There are technical comments to come and you’ve certainly heard from us that that’s really something we need to see.  Thank you.

Chair:  Ok, thank you Glen.

The meeting then went on to hear other delegations.

The Gazette and Wellings Planning Consultants are involved in a libel dispute

Part 1 of the series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return to the Front page

Millcroft: Fundamentals of an established community being challenged.

News 100 greenBy Pepper Parr

March 27th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Part 1 of a series

Millcroft logoThe proposal by Millcroft Greens Corporation (“Millcroft Greens”) seeks to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and register a plan of subdivision to allow five portions of the existing Millcroft Golf Course (“Areas A-E”) to be developed with residential uses. A total of 98 detached dwellings and one mid-rise apartment building containing 130 dwelling units are proposed.

The development resulted in a Statutory meeting that was stretched over three different days, heard from more than 58 delegations, and ended up with Staff directed to continue working with the developer to see if there was a compromise.

The Statutory meeting, something required by the Planning Act, was the largest and longest in the history of the city.
Planning department staff set out what was being proposed when they presented a series of graphics.

All 5 sites

Illustration shows where the developer wants to put in new homes. All are single family dwellings – with E being a 6 storey apartment.

Areas A - B C

A close up an sites A and B – with zoning shown.

Area D and E

Sites D and E – E will be an apartment building

Area A and B detail

Sites A and B appear to be the most problematic. The location and space that existing homes take up is shown in light grey.

There are a number of agencies and departments that have to give consent on a development of this nature, which has taken up a lot of time – so much so that there is concern the 120 day time limit will not be met. If it isn’t met, the developer has the right to take an appeal to the LPAT – Local Planning Act Tribunal.

The developer has said that at this point they are not thinking in terms of going to LPAT. The residents don’t believe them.

The concern at the home owner level is intense. There are two groups. MAD – Millcroft Against Development – and I Love Millcroft.

MAD has hired an independent planner who at one point worked with the city planning department when the project was being processed. Alan Taylor didn’t work on this particular development but he appears to be fully aware of the problem areas: what rights the developer has over what is described as privately owned open space.

That space is the land the developer wants to re-develop. Most of it is a golf course which is said to no longer be profitable. By changing the design of the golf course the developers argue that it will be safer and that a smaller golf course will be profitable.

This is part 1 of a multipart series.  Next – the delegation for the planner, Glenn Wellings, a very active developer in the Burlington market with at least three major developments in the hands of the Planning department.

The Gazette and Wellings Planning Consultants are involved in a libel dispute

Millcroft current Sept 21

The current golf courses layout.

Return to the Front page

Millcroft development meeting with residents in a virtual setting - certainly a technical challenge.

News 100 greenBy Staff

September 21st, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

 

A Pre-Application Community Meeting will take place this evening between 7 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.

Millcroft Greens is hosting a virtual consultation meeting this evening to discuss a proposal to redevelop portions of the Millcroft Golf Course. The owners are proposing to develop five (5) parcels of land for residential uses. The intention is to also make design improvements to the existing course layout while retaining an 18-hole golf course.

Millcroft current Sept 21

Current golf course layout.

 

Millcroft proposed Sept 21

Proposed golf course layout.

 

 

The meeting will have an interactive format with live questions and answers.

Telephone and video-conferencing participation options will be available. Millcroft Greens is working with representatives of residents’ groups (Millcroft Against Development and We Love Millcroft), city staff, the Mayor and Council to design the format of the meeting.

This consultation meeting is the first step in a comprehensive review of the draft proposal. The purpose of the consultation meeting is for Millcroft Greens to address key questions and obtain community feedback prior to the submission of any development applications.

The City will assist with hosting the meeting in a virtual capacity and the meeting will be hosted and broadcast live from Council Chambers. Councillor Bentivegna and Mayor Meed Ward will be in attendance to listen to the discussion and hear from residents, they also welcome any resident feedback.

Participate On-Line via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/94419494959

Webinar ID: 944 1949 4959 (internet connection required – Zoom User Guide available at www.burlington.ca/millcroftgreens)

Participate by Telephone: 1-647-374-4685 (audio only)

Return to the Front page

Who sold the Millcroft land to who and what did they pay?

News 100 blueBy Staff

March 8th, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The public record indicates that:

Gord Buck, developer “ARGO Land Development (Argo (Millcroft) Limited)” paid $5M to Edward Liptay President “Millcroft Golf Club (2079610 Ontario Ltd.)” for 131.80 acres on January 29, 2020 for a 50% interest in the land.

$3M cash with a $2M vtb mortgage for two years at 0%.

Millcroft golf course

Millcroft: A large well established community built around a golf course.

Our source asked: “Does Gord Buck lives in the Millcroft neighbourhood?”

“This is going to be an interesting exercise in watching the threat of potential land development unfold and the impacts on the neighbouring housing backing onto the golf course; it is unlikely that there will be any new housing built on the golf course lands if evidenced alone by the purchase price; at the very least, this will be one of the most heated fights to watch and how the local Councillor gets killed. Those people who are directly affected are going to lose their minds.

“There may potentially be something else going on here.

“Also, not sure if the City missed this situation during the Official Plan review process; must check and see what the proposed OP designation is, not the zoning.”

The source is a professional with deep knowledge on land assembly. For personal and professional reasons we are withholding the name of the source of the information.

Return to the Front page

Millcroft resident are MAD - preparing to take on the developer who wants to add 98 homes to the golf course lands

News 100 redBy Staff

March 4th, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

 

If you live in Millcroft – you know all about this issue – Millcroft Greens is proposing a residential development on the Millcroft golf course. This development has the potential to significantly decrease existing property values, increase traffic, disrupt ecosystems and wildlife, reduce green space, lead to the rezoning of existing school districts, overburden infrastructure, and alter the character of one of Burlington’s most iconic neighbourhoods.

Millcroft MADThe residents set out to create a non-profit organization called “Millcroft Against Development” (MAD) with a mission to preserve the integrity of the existing Millcroft golf course and retain its original and current zoning of “Zone O1 – Open Space.

The developer has chosen to portray the development of additional housing on gold course land as a public safety issue – the residents aren’t buying it. They argue that the “recreational green space defines the Millcroft we all chose to make our home. It is the heart of the community and our purpose is to keep it whole. “

The development proposal eliminates the existing 6th and 7th holes entirely, shortens the 1st and 16th holes, and adds 98 new homes and several new roadways to the land. We believe that this proposal is merely the beginning of residential development of the entire golf course, with this phase alone eliminating a staggering 411 mature trees from our neighbourhood.

Miillcroft-aerial

It started out as a golf course that housing was built around – the residents loved it and paid a premium to live in Millcroft.

The developer held a meeting in February at the Burlington Convention Centre where a development proposal was presented to a select group of residents whose properties would be most adversely affected. The developer cited “safety concerns” of errant golf balls as the impetus for the proposed development – calling it a public safety issue.

The presentation included a compensation package for the invited residents, which many view as a covert attempt to buy approval of its developmental plan.

A public meeting is to take place on March 23rd, at the Burlington Convention Centre.

It will be a doozy.  There are 728 people registered on the web site opposing the development.

The City of Burlington has not yet received a formal development application from Millcroft Greens for this property.

Related new articles:

The scope and scale of the proposed development

Return to the Front page

An additional 100 new homes reported to be planned for the Millcroft community. Couple of golf holes to disappear

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

February 21st, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Sometime during Mayor Goldring’s second term he said that the intensification that was going to take place would not change the character of the city.

Guess what – intensification is smacking Burlington where it hurts – in the middle of those upper middle income communities that have made Burlington the city it is.

Residents of the Millcroft community learned this week that the owners of the property are going to apply for permission to add as many as  100 homes to the community by re-arranging the golf course that was the reason for the creation of the community in the first place – back in the mid 1980’s.

A meeting took place recently – it was “private” only for invited Millcroft home owners affected by the changes. The developer is Argo.

Residential blocks

The alphabet letters indicate where the developments would be located.

A Millcroft resident reports that “The letter sent to us was cryptic and the meeting scripted.”

Every household in Millcroft got a hand delivered letter inviting them to the meeting.

“When we got there we were met by security guards” which resident Louise Taylor, a retired nurse said she and her neighbours found “kind of scary”.  “Our names were checked off on a list.”

“After a presentation, that really didn’t say very much, we were broken up into five groups – each group was one of the areas that were going to be developed.

“During the presentation we were told that safety was an issue and then shown a graphic showing how many window complaints there had been.   One woman stood up and asked the people in the room if anyone had had a window damaged by a golf ball.  No one stood up.

Broken window complaints

The red dots indicate where the operators of the golf course maintain there were complaints of golf ball damage.

“When the group presentations were done there wasn’t an opportunity to gather as a large group again and ask questions.”

The audience was told that the ward Councillor was “on side”.  Councillor Angelo Bentivegna has said he had not formed an opinion on the development.  The Gazette has reached out to him for comment.

Bentivegna won the ward seat by a slim 41 votes in 2018.  The challenge for him will be to shore up his support for the people in Millcroft.

We could find nothing on either the Bentivegna Facebook page or his Twitter account.

Tweet to AB

Councillor Bentivegna was asked if he had any comment. We could find nothing on either his Facebook page or his Twitter account on the development.

The Gazette is hearing that “There are a lot of very angry residents”, angry over the “butchering of our beautiful neighbourhood. We paid a premium for our home to back onto a golf course – and we won’t even be on the course if this plan goes through.”

Block a 33 homes

An aerial rendition of where 33 homes are planned. This is block A

“Hole number 6 and 7 are getting wiped off the map (behind Country Club, Hadfield and Parklane) .

The feeling in the community is that the “value of our houses lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in one night.”

Residents believe this “this has all been couched as a safety issue by the course owners when it is truly a plan to jam many more homes into green space area with huge profits for the company – all on the backs of all of the present homeowners.”

There is talk about forming a homeowners association to work together to stop this plan.

Block b aerial view 42 homes

An aerial rendition of Block B – where 42 homes are planned.

Block b 42 view 2

A rendition of Block B where the 42 homes would be located.

The community meeting takes place March 23rd at the Burlington Convention Centre on Burloak.  We assume the Mayor has been invited to this one.

The development was done by Monarch Group in the mid 80’s; they who were bought by the Mattamy Group in 2015.

The Mattamy interests were apparently sold to Argo who are 50% partners with the people who own the golf club – which we assume means the golf course itself.  It is golf course land that is being used for the development of the the 100 additional homes.

That creates some serious hurdles for the developer.  Land that is zoned for recreation doesn’t just get changed to land that is zoned for housing without approval from city council.

Burlington is currently working with an Official Plan that is more than a decade old while they complete the revision of an Official Plan that was approved but not adopted by the previous city council.

This development proposal looks as if it will have to get cleared by the Conservation Halton authority as well.

Related news story:

Integrity of the Millcroft community threatened.

Return to the Front page

Plans to re-design the Millcroft golf course and add some housing: Mayor not in the loop at the beginning

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

February 20th, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

 

This morning, at around 10:00 am, the Mayor and a councillor issued a joint statement related to some development on the Millcroft Golf course property.  Within minutes of the statement from city hall there was a media release from the public relations people working for the golf course owners.

There is an interesting situation developing.  Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and Councillor Angelo Bentivegna jointly said:

Angelo watching Roru

Councillor Bentivegna joined the Mayor in issuing a statement on the development plans at the Millcroft Golf Course.

“Some residents in the immediate vicinity of Burlington’s Millcroft Golf Club have received a notice from property owner Millcroft Greens Corporation outlining an intent to redesign parts of the golf course and develop small parcels of land for residential uses.

“Millcroft Greens is a joint partnership between the Millcroft Golf Club and Argo Development Corporation. The partnership was created with a mandate to continue to operate an 18-hole golf course while introducing select parcels of land for new development.

“The property owner has noted for reasons related to safety and the length of the course, it would like to reduce the size of the playing area.

MMW confused look

The Mayor was not invited.

“It is our understanding that Millcroft Greens met with selected residents earlier this week and that this meeting was an introductory conversation about their preliminary plans with the community. This was an invite-only meeting that I and Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna did not attend.

“Separately, Millcroft Greens met with me and Councillor Bentivegna, along with city staff, to provide an overview of its preliminary concept.

“The City of Burlington has not received a development application from Millcroft Greens for this property and has not even held a per-consultation meeting to discuss a proposal.

“A second neighbourhood meeting with the community will be required by the City before any applications are submitted. At this second meeting, City staff will be able to provide details about application requirements and conditions, and Millcroft Greens will collect feedback that can be used to inform any future development applications. This meeting will be taking place on Monday, March 23.

“Once a development application is submitted to the City, it will trigger a formal process that includes additional public engagement prior to any Council decision.

Miillcroft mill

A well designed community that was started in the mod 80’s

“Any property owner has the legal right to submit an application and the City has a legal obligation to process any applications submitted. City staff review and make recommendations to Council to either approve, modify or deny the development proposal.

“Input from the public is always welcomed and considered throughout the application process.

“We will continue to update the community throughout this process, including once details for a general public meeting are finalized. Formal notice of that meeting will be mailed out to all homeowners in the vicinity of the golf course.”

Minutes later the public relations agency for the land got its side of the story out. KG&A, a corporation the Mayor will certainly know something about, sent the following.

“Representatives from Millcroft Greens, a new 50:50 joint venture between Millcroft Golf Club and Argo Development Corporation, are pleased to announce their intention to redesign and develop select portions of the Millcroft Golf Club. The golf course will continue to operate and offer a new challenging, executive 18-hole experience for golfers.

Miillcroft aerial

The development has a golf course mixed in with the housing.

“Millcroft Golf Club has enthusiastically served golfers in the Burlington community and beyond for approximately 30 years,” says Ed Liptay, owner, Millcroft Golf Club. “However, throughout our history, the property owners surrounding the course have faced numerous challenges including damages directly related to stray golf balls.”

“This new partnership gives us an opportunity to address longstanding issues with the golf course, while introducing a few parcels of residential development that respect the existing fabric and residents of this community,” says Gord Buck, Principal, Millcroft Greens.

“To mitigate property damages experienced by community members for decades, the redesign of the golf course by Millcroft Greens will include complete hole redesigns, changes to course length, repositioning of tee boxes, strategic removal and replacement of bunkers, and additional tree planting, while maintaining an 18-hole course. Based on these golf course improvements, five select areas have been earmarked for residential development, focusing on new, high-quality, single family homes to extend and elevate the existing community.

Millcroft 2

The aerial view of the proposed redesign and development of Millcroft Golf Club, which will improve the course and introduce new, single family detached homes keeping in character with the community

.

“Located between Upper Middle Road and Dundas Street, Millcroft Community is a premium neighbourhood in the city of Burlington. With nearby schools, retail businesses, parks and recreation, and calming natural landscapes, the Millcroft community is connected, convenient, and an attractive option for couples, families with children, and empty nesters.

“The redesign of Millcroft Golf Club is still in the conceptual stage; Millcroft Greens will be formally consulting and then making an application to the City of Burlington in the coming weeks.”

“Millcroft Greens is eager to collaborate and cooperate with the City of Burlington, Halton Region and residents. A public open house will be held on March 23rd at the Burlington Convention Centre.”

Noses are out of joint at city hall for not being invited to those early meetings; the owners of the golf course see an opportunity to do something about the safety issues, and you can never go wrong talking about safety in Burlington, and at the same time put up some very tony and high priced homes in a very desirable community.  These will be million dollar plus homes that will sell very, very quickly.

The corporate web site for the golf course is: www.millcroftgreens.com

Some background:

Launched together with the Millcroft Golf Club course in 1986, the Millcroft project in Burlington was a Monarch Development flagship community for more than a decade.

The 650-acre community already includes more than 2,400 single-family houses and townhouses, which wind their way around the rolling greens of the golf course. And as the community moves toward the 20-year milestone, Monarch launched the final phase of executive, single-family homes in the community, called Classic Greens.

They comprised of 166 houses on large lots. Some will back on to the 18-hole, semi-private golf course, and others will have basement walkouts. Homes will range from 2,051 to 3,778 square feet, and lots will be 50 and 60 feet wide.

Millcroft golf course

A large, safe community with a golf course built into it and now has a superb community centre, high school and library on the northern border.

Bungalows on 50-foot lots start at $422,900 while two-storey homes on 50-foot lots are priced from $427,900. The prices of houses on 60-foot lots range from $475,900 to about $585,900.

Millcroft residents will be able enjoy attractive natural surroundings, and be conveniently close to schools and shops. In addition to golfing, residents will have access to a 32-acre community park, which includes tennis courts, baseball diamonds and soccer fields. A short distance away is the Tansley Woods Recreation Centre.

Square footage: from 2,051 to 3,778

Price: houses on 50-foot lots from $422,900; on 60-foot lots from $475,900

Prices like those haven’t been seen in Burlington for some time.

The Monarch Homes Corporation was purchased by Mattamy in 2015

Return to the Front page

Sport Field Status - Clay Diamonds closed at Nelson, Millcroft and Ireland

notices100x100By Staff

May 15th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

The following Clay diamonds are closed Monday May 15th due to wet conditions:

Nelson D1

Millcroft D1 & D2

Ireland D1, D2, D3 & D4

baseball_in_rain_large

Return to the Front page

The installation of free WiFi at Millcroft Park to begin next week.

notices100x100

October 9, 2015

 BURLINGTON, ON

Beginning October  13, construction will begin in Millcroft Park to install free Cogeco Wi-Fi.

The construction and installation of equipment is expected to take four to five weeks.

The free Wi-Fi is a pilot test with Cogeco Cable to provide free internet access within certain areas of the park. Most of the city’s arenas, city hall and recreation and community centres already have free Wi-Fi access.

The park will remain open during construction.

Return to the Front page

Ireland and Millcroft ball diamonds closed

Newsflash 100By Staff

June 12, 2015

BURLINGTON, ON

Millcroft Park diamonds D1, D2, D3 and

Ireland Park D1, D2, D3 are closed for today due to the rain.

All other sport fields remain open.

That’s the word from Parks and Recreation

Return to the Front page

Property values rise 8.6% in Millcroft and the Orchard year over year; sales down 4%

News 100 redBy Staff

January 28, 2015

BURLINGTON, ON

Rocca Sisters & Associates have produced a bullish report on real estate in Burlington, They report a gain of 8.6% year over year for freehold homes in Burlington. They add that sales volume was down 4% over the same period of time.

Millcroft home

Homes in Millcroft are selling well

The hotspots in Burlington continue to be the Orchard and Millcroft, with most southeast communities either exceeding increases or not far behind. We believe the southeast is experiencing a renaissance due to three factors: ¬ affordability, proximity to Toronto (traffic patterns) and schools (Pinedale and Tuck both scoring very high on the Fraser Report).

We are expecting prices to hold steady in Millcroft and the Orchard with modest increases in 2015 but that will depend entirely on supply. If inventory levels remain low, prices may continue to rise in the double digits.

The Plains Rd neighbourhood has seen a significant increase due almost entirely to the resale of recently built townhomes. Finally, the Palmer neighbourhood has seen some significant gains. This community has proven to be a very good investment area for renovators as the property values have been kept fairly low.

We expect that in 2015 this community will continue to see some very strong gains. Overall, we expect to see a more balanced market in Burlington by the middle of 2015.

The banks continue to make it easier to finance the purchase of a home. The Bank of Canada cut its target for the overnight lending rate last week from the already low 1% down to 0.75%. Royal Bank of Canada was the first to announce yesterday that they would be cutting their prime lending rates by 0.15% down to 2.85% effective today. This announcement prompted Toronto-Dominion Bank, Bank of Montreal, National Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Bank of Nova Scotia to quickly lower their offerings as well.

This drop in rates has come at the perfect time for potential home buyers and sellers at the start of the Spring Market.

Return to the Front page

Series of break-ins in the Headon, Millcroft, Alton Village and Orchard communities – they are looking for gold jewelry for the most part.

By Staff

BURLINGTON, ON  June 7, 2012  They first of all ensure that you aren’

The police cannot protect our propert without help from the public.

t home by either ringing your doorbell or calling the house.

If you`re not home – they kick in the door and proceed to ransack daytime residential break-ins that have occurred in the Headon Forest, Millcroft, Alton Village and Orchard communities of Burlington.

The Halton Regional Police are investigating a number of daytime residential break-ins that have occurred in the Headon Forest, Millcroft, Alton Village and Orchard communities of Burlington.

Eight reported incidents have occurred since February 25th and investigation has revealed these occurrences are likely connected.   In all eight cases the front door is kicked open and the suspects primarily search for gold jewellery. Gold jewellery of South Asian origin is particularly sought after.

What can a homeowner do?  Short of putting a stout piece of wood or an iron bar across the door – which kind of takes something away from the décor of the house doesn’it – all the public can rely upon is watchful neighbours or some kind of home alarm system.  These are not that expensive and certainly worth looking into.  There is one with a $99 set up and $495 a month -0 less than the repairs you would have to do if you got an unwelcome call.

As always – keep the police informed – they can`t do their job without your help.

 

 

 

Return to the Front page

Klein: elections 'allow the community through candidacies and investigations, to bring areas for improvement to light. 

By Daintry Klein

October 25th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

OPINION

First, Congratulations to the entire Council for achieving re-election. Their work on the challenges of the pandemic and their extensive initiatives and policies which set a framework for our great City should be commended. The continuation of this Council allows them to own their plans and initiatives.

The benefits of an election, whether it is status quo or not, allows the community through candidacies and investigations, to bring areas for improvement to light.

Perhaps the seclusion of the pandemic contributed to the issues surrounding transparency, but we have heard the Mayor commit to improvements highlighted in the Aird & Berlis report.

The Millcroft residents want to keep the community that was created and not change the layout of the golf course and tamper with the storm water management system that is in place.

The return to in-person meetings will also facilitate more genuine discussion.

The benefits of an election, whether it is status quo or not, allows the community through candidacies and investigations, to bring areas for improvement to light.  Perhaps the seclusion of the pandemic contributed to the issues surrounding transparency, but we have heard the Mayor commit to improvements highlighted in the Aird & Berlis report.  The return to in-person meetings will also facilitate more genuine discussion.  Millcroft Greenspace Alliance looks forward to collaborating with the Council to contribute ideas and possible solutions to keep Burlington as the best City in Canada.

In the Municipal government, there is no “opposition party” which highlights the importance of engaged taxpayer Citizens and independent press to provide the forum for accountability.

The Gazette asked a number of people to comment on the 2022 election. Daintry Klein is part of the Millcroft Greenspace Alliance that wants to ensure that the Millcroft community does not have to experience changes that will alter the original design or tamper with the storm water management system in place. 

 

Return to the Front page