By Staff
January 22nd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Does a delegation a citizen make have any impact on both member’s of city council and staff?
There are people who sometimes wonder.
A number of months ago a resident delegated. The city does not release the name of the citizen but in a report to Council, Jamie Tellier, Manager of Urban Design reported on a meeting with a citizen.
The concern was with the Tall Building Guidelines (TBG) the city put in place some time ago.
The issue came out of a Staff Direction from the adoption of the new Official Plan which was approved by city council, sent to the Region who sent it back due to what the Region thought were some deficiencies.
“A motion from Council arising from the adoption of the new Official Plan “Directed the Director of City Building to review the suggested changes from the delegation presentation on the tall building guidelines and report back to Council with any updates.
“This memo will serve to provide members of Council with an update on this staff direction.
“In September 2018, staff met with the delegate to discuss their presentation to council. This meeting allowed the delegate to share observations and to ensure staff understood the submission. The delegation to council suggested that the City of Burlington Tall Building Guidelines (TBG) did not reflect best practices with regard to sun/shadow impacts and that they did not address the issue properly. The delegation made reference to the City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines as an example of best practice.
“There were three main areas of concern related to the guidelines:
Application of sun/shadow impacts
“The delegate reviewed the rationale component of the City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines without the benefit of reviewing the associated detailed guidelines. Through further discussion the delegate and staff agreed that the City of Toronto and the City of Burlington TBG are virtually identical in how they deal with sun/shadow impacts.
Excluding December 21 in measuring sun/shadow impacts
“The delegate also made reference to the TBG only measuring sun/shadow impacts for five consecutive hours of sunlight on the opposite side of street during the equinoxes (March 21 and September 21) and suggested including December 21 (shortest day of year) to these measurements. Staff and the delegate discussed why the shoulder seasons are most important for evaluating sun/shadow impacts as daytime and nighttime are of approximately equal duration during the equinoxes. Not including the shortest day of the year is intentional and a reflection of municipal best practices (City of Toronto and others).
Silent on the Cumulative Effect of Shadow Impacts and Wind Effect
“Lastly, the delegation also indicated that the TBG was silent on the cumulative effect of shadowing and wind effects. Staff, in discussion with the delegate confirmed that Section 3.1.b) of the TBG requires a 25 metre separation distance between towers to minimize cumulative shadow impacts.
“Separation distances between towers along with other design guidelines such as maximum tower floor plates are commonly used techniques to manage the cumulative effect of shadows. Similarly, Section 3.2.c) of the TBG requires the building design to not have an adverse wind effect at the street level.
Next Steps:
“As a result of the above, our conversation moved away from any perceived shortcomings of the TBG and focused more on how sun/shadow and wind studies are prepared by applicants and evaluated by staff.
This was a topic on which staff and the delegate were in alignment. Staff confirmed that in 2019 the departmental work plan includes exploring the related policy structure and development review procedures as they relate to sun/shadow and wind studies. The intent is to ensure clarity and consistency in how sun/shadow and wind studies are prepared and evaluated and to improve our overall decision making processes .
“The delegate appreciated that this was on our workplan and reinforced the importance of standardized criteria to evaluate wind and shadow impacts. Staff will provide further updates later in 2019 as this initiative progresses.”
Is the above a meaningful dialogue between staff and a citizen? Will anything come of it? Was the resident satisfied?
Jamie Tellier is one the best people in the Planning department when it comes to inteligently and cheerfully explaining an issue to anyone who will give him the time.
Who was the resident and what did he or she think of the process?
Can’t say – but we do know that staff listened and that the resident was given ample opportunity to make a case.
Relevant news stories published previously.
Delegations will not be ignored if they support the The Provincial guidelines on development. Politicians and Planning staff are mandated to incorporate them in their decisions. Some people and politicians pretend they can disregard Provincial guidelines. Put up a fuss asking for 12 stories when the OMB gives the applicant 24 stories and we get stuck with the legal bills as taxpayers. Delegations should understand the rules of development. Not try to reinvent the wheel with no reasonable expectation of winning. Tom, Roseland is getting a tree by-law. Creating a deal more shade It appears a 30% tree canopy is desired Since North Burlington homes have lots so small their is no room to plant a tree. It would appear the folks in South Burlington will be walking around in the shade most of the time. I like you, believe sunlight in moderation is a good thing. .
NIMBY or Not, that is the question, the proof fellow citizens is in the pudding. I beg you to stand at the corner of Pearl and Pine in order to experience first hand whether you like what you experience in terms of wind and shadows and sky view. Then try to imagine what it will be like when the 26 and 28 story buildings are added to the mix.
I’ve seen and met Jamie several times at different City events, and “yes”, undoubtedly, he is always professional, thoughtful, reflective and considerate…no question about it. However, there is a contextual difference in framework and perspective between Jamie’s approach to the issue and that of the delegate.
The delegate approaches the issue from that of a stakeholder who, in all likelihood, lives in the immediate vicinity and is directly impacted by the development. Their viewpoint is likely coloured by the impact of the development upon their home and immediate surroundings. In all likelihood, they are a long-time resident who has a vested interest in the outcome because not only will the development impact their lifestyle but it could, potentially, impact their financial investment in their home as well.
Jamie, and planners in general, conduct their evaluations from the standpoint of a detached, objective, third-party City employee. They follow their planning principles and academic training, and apply it to the development proposal at hand. They don’t much care about what the homeowner thinks, and considerations such as impact upon immediate surroundings, lifestyle, etc., are tertiary considerations at best. Unlike the delegate, they have no “skin in the game”. As an aside, I would love to know how many of them actually live in Burlington.
The City’s Planning Department want to apply rationality, uniformity and standardization across the City. That is their mantra, and really what is behind “Grow Bold” and all the other initiatives such as the OP. For them, it is nothing more than a business process. For many of us however, it is a whole lot more.
We live in this City. We shop in this City. In some cases we work here too. We made a conscious decision to move and live her because we love the character, the qualities and the ambiance this community offers. For us, it isn’t about density ratios, or shadow effects, etc. It is about preserving the character, charm and history of where we live. We recognize things have to change, and contrary to myth, we aren’t Luddites seeking to thwart change or development. However, it is very much about a blended approach that supports greater intensification while appeasing residents’ needs and concerns. The fact that planning officials and developers approach planning issues from the same strictly rationalist theoretical framework creates an aura of exclusion that isn’t lost on the rest of us who are compelled to watch hopelessly from the sidelines.
Context matters. In the case of the Planning Department, when you get fixated on the numbers, the mechanics and your own agenda you lose sight of what is really behind citizen anger and opposition. Until you change the framework of the discussion and indeed, the planning/consultation process, and until you level the playing field, things won’t improve anytime soon.
I believe it was Joe Gaetan and I was there at the meeting. It was a great delegation.
Someone listened, but I don’t think all those tall buildings cheek by jowl can be mitigated for shadows and wind.
In summer, 5 hours of sun during the day does not help a worker coming home and wanting to sit on a deck or by a pool later in the day where and when the 5 hours is up and everything is in shade for the duration.