By Pepper Parr
December 12th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The people in the Alton community are having a problem with a project that is proposed for their community – they aren’t opposed to development – but they don’t like the size of what the ADI Development g Group wants to build on Thomas Alton Way bounded by Palladium Way and Appleby Line.
Proposed design for stacked townhouses in the Alton Village
The developer has asked the city to let them build two 19 storey apartment buildings on land that is zoned for up to ten storey buildings. They want to add traditional townhouses, and stacked townhouses for a total of 612 units.
The size of the units is relatively small, suggesting, according to the community, that the market for these units is the singles 20-30 crowd and the 60+ crowd. Developers do their market research and usually understand where they will be directing their advertising.
The ward council member Blair Lancaster has said she is not going to support the project but does point out to the community that if Council turns the project down – there is every chance that the developer will take the project to the Ontario Municipal Board where the city apparently feels it doesn’t have all that much leverage.
The Planning department report recommends that Council approve the project.
Tough to have a project go to the OMB when the planners think it should be approved.
The two school boards have said in their reports that they have no objection to the project.
The proposal set out as of September 2016 will have 21 traditional townhouses, 150 stacked townhouses and 441 apartments along with the two 19 storey apartment towers joined by a six story podium.
The project has gone through a number of design changes.
In a city that is having serious problems accepting the idea that Burlington has to come to terms with the fact that a way has to be found to have fewer cars on the road, theCity staff are prepared to accept a reduced parking rate of 1.26 spaces per unit. Staff can support a parking reduction from 1,059 spaces to 759 spaces, a reduction of 300 spaces (equivalent to a 28% reduction from the current Zoning By-law requirement).
Support for a reduced parking requirement of 759 spaces is dependent upon the applicant providing no less than 2 carshare vehicles on-site, dedicated carshare parking, and continued unbundling of parking costs from unit prices.
As currently proposed, a parking deficiency of 14 spaces is anticipated. This is acceptable to Transportation Services staff. In this regard, the draft amending by-law provides for a minimum parking rate of 1.24 spaces per unit.
No mention is made of any road diets for the Alton Village.
The developer has talked nice about a Section 37 arrangement that has the developer turning over real dollars for community related improvements.
In a separate report going to the Standing Committee on Development and Infrastructure the following details were published:
Staff and the owners have agreed to the following direct and indirect community benefits:
• The applicant agrees to construct and the future condominium corporation will maintain a surface outdoor amenity space on the subject lands. These open space lands will be developed to a high standard and public access will be assured by way of an easement to be registered on title of the lands allowing public access to and use of this park space. This amenity space will be subject to a Landscape Plan and lighting review at the site plan approval stage. This indirect community benefit has been assessed at a value of $519,800.00.
• The applicant agrees to provide 20 residential dwelling units at a cost of $35,000 below market rate (approximately $262,000.00) to a housing provider (such as but not limited to Region of Halton Housing, Habitat for Humanity, etc.) for the purposes of delivering affordable housing on a long term basis. This indirect community benefit has been assessed at a value of $700,000.00.
• The applicant agrees to provide a direct community benefit valued at $60,000.00 towards improvements at Doug Wright park, located in close proximity to the subject lands. It is anticipated that these funds will be spent on the creation of a community garden. The City agrees to erect signage acknowledging financial contributions were made by ADI Developments Inc. by the community garden facility.
Is the goose cocked on this one? This city council doesn’t like OMB hearings – with some justification. Elsewhere in today’s paper there is an article on the changes the city and the Region would like to see made to the legislation that sets out the role and purpose of the Ontario Municipal Board. But any changes to the OMB are many months away.
The Alton community has planned strong delegations to the Standing Committee Tuesday evening.
The City and it’s residents need to realize the “Intensification” is code for onward and UPWARD, 20 stories tall will be the new normal.
ADI Development Group need more negative press then they “might” start to change their planning tactics which as far as I can tell is go for as big as possible then go to the OMB who will rubber stamp anything!
This problem reflects a lack of political leadership. The current policy of “Grow Bold” with one of its features, intensification, is destroying the quality of life in Burlington. The bureaucrats in the Planning Department would not have recommended this decision without the blessing of the political leadership. And therein, lies the problem. What we need in Burlington is a policy of “Grow Smart”. The Alton community will see the character of its neighbourhood destroyed, home values lessened, and increasing gridlock (of course, they may find walking and cycling delightful?????). It’s very clear that a new leadership and a new vision for Burlington is needed–it’s certainly beyond the abilities of the current mayor and council.
This developer really is a pain in the neck! They are fixated on turning Burlington into a carbon copy of downtown Toronto. They have absolutely no respect for the character of surrounding neighbourhoods or the interests of local residents.
I agree with Mr.Bean that we need to overhaul or scrap the OMB. The other thing we really need in this City is a strong ratepayers’ association. It is very obvious that the Planning Department at City Hall have no guts, and have provided no viable opposition to the ADI’s proposals.
When are we going to overhaul or delete the Ontario Municipal Board? I served it’s purpose many decades ago but not anymore. Kathleen Wynne looking into this?
I read a few red flags. Dense residencies with a park area in the middle that has public access. The park doesn’t look that big? Twenty units at below market value of other units in the area. These unit will be monitored? by an overseeing organization like Halton Housing. How does this differ from public housing ? Are units owned by the overseeing organization or could they be sold later for market value?
Affordable housing is an issue in Burlington. It might be interesting if the Gazette looked into this. Some below market value units were incorporated in to the development next to Burlington GO station but are not functioning yet?
Up to now, Burlington citizens have counted on the Planning Department to fight over-intensification. I guess that era has passed. Sounds like the train has already left the station on this file. Unlike Oakville, which is tough on planning and defending its Official Plan at the OMB, Burlington gets no respect for its Official Plan.
How does the Planning Department recommend approval of an application that doesn’t meet the Zoning Bylaw, and aims to nearly double the height permitted in an area surrounded by 2 storey residential homes? I thought the new Official Plan motto was “Grow Bold”, not “Grow Stupid”. There is a right and a wrong place for this type of development, and this is the wrong place. This is not an identified intensification area, this is a residential subdivision where people paid good money to be in an area where there were no highrise buildings. If THIS is the type of development that the Planning Department is approving, then the barn doors are open, and the precedent is set. Get ready Burlington, it’s going to be a bumpy ride. They don’t support 20 storeys downtown where intensification is supposed to happen, but they do support 20 storeys in a residential neighbourhood? This makes no sense!
James. No knows it but this development is zoned Secondary Intensification.
There are 18 “secret” secondary intensification zones and 4 new primary intensification zones. Look for PB 29-16 Appendix C on the City website for a real eye opener. The 4853 Thomas Alton ADI development is a precedent and an example of what’s to come.
Thanks for this valuable information, Ken. Indeed, while it isn’t “secret”, it sure hasn’t been communicated to citizens in any way. They would have to be acquainted with PB 29-16 and the details within it to have any inkling . According to PB 29-16, any current residential neighbourhood adjacent to a major urban roadway, especially a neighbourhood containing a public school, is ripe for “secondary” intensification in the future. Indeed, your figure of 18 such areas is believable given these criteria.
Do you know of any map of Burlington (on the City’s website or otherwise) that shows these areas of future intensification? All citizens should be made aware of this.
And we thought only the downtown and three mobility hubs were intensifying! We’re quite naïve and trusting, aren’t we?
Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you – intensification!
This is the source document on this issue I think.
“Official Plan Review: Urban Structure and Intensification Policy” Directions Report”
Date to Council: July 18, 2016
The issues stated here read from this doc;
Page 29: “Secondary Intensification Areas will be comprised of commercial/mixed use designated areas and generally vacant sites which are not located within a Primary or Employment Intensification Areas and which are located immediately adjacent to an arterial street.”
Page 29: “In addition, staff propose that sites containing publicly-funded schools be generally identified as forming part of the Secondary Intensification Area”
This was soft released back then, and I think will form part of the public consultation material for the new OP when it is launched next year. Fat chance of people getting through this and understanding what’s happening.
The overall document is loaded with things people aren’t going to like. Surprise, surprise, so people better get woke up if they are concerned about where this is going.
Greg Woodruff did a critical read in early July and had a lot of comments he sent to Council. No response that I know of, except I think Craven sent it to Planning. Nothing back from them that I know of.
Some might have appeared in the Gazette back then, but things move on. I recall something on this – July 5 and later.
Nothing to be happy about.
I forgot to mention that I don’t think this is OP policy and zoning yet. It is Planning jumping the gun, in my opinion, as ADI will go to OMB.
Thank you both for the clarification, I’ve never even heard of a secondary intensification zone. I thought all the intensification was planned downtown, along Fairview Street, and at the mobility hubs. They said existing residential neighbourhoods had nothing to worry about, and that the compatibility rules would protect us. Guess that’s not the case, and I guess I have some reading to do to find out what’s really going on!
Greg Woodruff has a website – try rdev.org.
Some of his views as I noted above are in there.
“The Planning department report recommends that Council approve the project”. Why do we even have a Planning Department? Don’t the developers just do whatever they want? Is there any value added by having a Planning Department?
I feel bad for the homeowners up there. Those houses are crammed together and the traffic is nuts. I wonder how many of them would change their mind and not have purchased a home in that location after experiencing it. No privacy, no quiet, speeders on the roads and now these towers? I bet those home values will go down if this gets built. For all the headaches they have to deal with, those homes just aren’t worth it.