By Pepper Parr
February 15th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Those unhappy with the Ontario Municipal Board decision will look for ways to appeal the decision.
OMB decisions can and have been appealed but only on an error on a question of law.
An appeal cannot be made on a matter of evidence that was presented. If the hearing officer, in this case Susan de Avellar Schiller, made a reference to or relied on some law and was wrong – that can be appealed.
The process for this is a motion to the Divisional Court for an order of the Court allowing the appeal to proceed.
In certain rare circumstances, you may be able to seek Judicial Review in the Divisional Court.
People usually hire a lawyer to appeal to a court or to ask for a Judicial Review because of the complicated procedures and issues.
The starting point for a Judicial Review is a call to the Registrar of the Court for more information about court processes and procedures.
If the Mayor’s blog and the media release from the city are any indication, the city is going to gulp, swallow the decision and move on. The spin, so far, has been that the OMB decision is all the more reason to press on with approving the draft Official Plan.
There is a Statutory meeting at which residents can have their say on the draft Official Plan:
Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2018
1 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers, level 2
426 Brant Street
That draft might want some additional modification based on the OMB decision. Taking their lumps for the failures in the city’s case – and that is what they were, the city now needs to take the time to fully assess what the decision says and figure out how to live with it and work with it going forward.
This isn’t the time for hasty decisions. It is the time to fess up and apologize for mistakes.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward has set out her position on the decision, the Mayor has thanked staff for all their fine work. The Gazette reached out to Mayoralty candidate Mike Wallace for a comment, they have said they will get back to us – nothing yet.
Burlington Transit Terminal is on John St. they can walk to catch a bus.
Why wouldn’t their children not be able to attend schools in the area? Central Public and Central High schools are far from being at capacity.
Emergency services have no problems getting into highrise buildings.
Here’s an idea to maybe turn things around a bit. Developers can get all the approvals they want, apparently, but they still have to sell units before they can break ground. So what if engaged citizens put up a few small billboards at the various sites and sales offices, something like:
“Attention potential buyers … should you purchase one of these units, you should be aware that…
* you will have no parking for a vehicle, for visitors and tradespeople, and there will be minimal transit service due to congested roadways
* if you have children, they will not be able to attend schools in the area
* you will receive limited emergency response to health, fire and safety incidents due to difficult access and the height of the building
* if you purchase soon, enjoyment of your property will be limited by nearby construction of other buildings like yours that will continue for years to come.”
Believe it or not, signs like these already appear on some development sites in Toronto. It might work.
At some point the issue of high rise concentration and existing disaster management and fire suppression procedures needs to be raised.
Example: last year there was a major fire at the Toronto Badminton Club. It took hours to bring the fire under control, and turned into a major fire. Because of high rise condos concentration and heightened density in the area firefighters could not gain easy access to the fire. They were compelled to try and fight the fire from balconies of nearby condos.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/one-year-later-staff-and-firefighters-remember-toronto-racquet-club-blaze/article37985488/
To quote from the article:
“It was the first time in Deputy Chief Bavota’s career that crews had to burst into units in a neighbouring condo building to get a better angle to fight the fire.”
Key questions:
1) has the City reviewed its fire suppression capabilities in light of the planned increased number of high rises in the downtown core?
2) has the City reviewed its Disaster Management Plan, and what provisions are in place for housing residents in the event of a fire or emergency?
3) you can’t fight a fire in a 26 storey high rise if the aerial ladder only extends to the 10th floor. What plans are in place to deal with emergencies such as this? Does the City plan on investing in additional fire suppression or rescue equipment, and if so, what, and at what cost?
4) have fire officials and first responders been consulted on plans to increase density in the downtown core? What are their thoughts and recommendations?
If we are going to warehouse increasing numbers of people in smaller areas and at higher elevations it is important to think through the ramifications of what happens in the event of an emergency. Failing that, then perhaps the folks from ADI and Carriage House might want to consider providing complimentary parachutes for new homeowners living above the tenth floor.
I can’t see this site being remotely suitable for a building this size. I don’t know the exact square footage but even eyeballing it the site looks smaller than my lot in Aldershot and I have a single family home of average size for my neighbourhood. As for more transit supportive, with our terrible bus service that is a joke. Since the OMB is no help and grounds for appeal are unlikely perhaps we have to get creative to find a way to run these unwanted predators out of our downtown.
There is no appeal here. The OMB is following the law. The cities own planners said the subject site was suitable for development at heights greater than 4 and 8 stories and had no real reason the ADI plan was incompatible.
This is completely consistent with everything we get from staff and council.
The problem is that the city is working up a plan – not driven by the citizens, but by utopian dreams of greater density.
All of the sudden public outrage springs up, then just enough is done to placate the anger back down.
“[107] The far more compelling evidence is that all of the land use planners and both urban designers testified that the Subject Site is not only suitable for development at heights that exceed the as of right four-storey height but is also suitable for development at heights that exceed the discretionary eight-storey height. In other words, all of these experts agreed that the Subject Site is suitable for development that is more transit-supportive than the four-storey, as-of-right OP designation.“