 By Pepper Parr
October 12th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON.
The ground breaking took place, the backhoes have moved in and the big dig begins.
The contractor overseeing the actual construction don’t always know what’s in the ground they are digging into.
 Looking over the site to the south. They are professionals and the work through and or around the problems. The top dog on the construction site – James – has done a lot of work in Burlington. He did the Performing Arts Centre, He did the Pearl on Pine retirement home. Home for him is in Newmarket – which is one hell of a commute.
We will work at keeping in touch with James as the building goes through the various stages of construction.
 Back hoes ripping through the surface. Thirty months to do the job and make room for the moving trucks.
Things got off to a good start with the formal part of the ground breaking.
The trick with these events is to get a dignitary to head up the event; a politician will do.
As the first of the latest round of tall buildings in Burlington one would have looked for the Mayor to take part.
Not with this situation – The Gallery – which is what the building is going to be called, was not a favourite of Mayor Marianne Meed Ward.
Had the previous city council been in office the Mayor would have been wearing his best and the city manager at the time would have burst with pride.
The best that could be done with the current political climate was the provincial member of the Legislature who can usually get a giggle out of people.
When the announcement was made about the first contractor for the Bridgewater development was made, Meed Ward, the ward Councillor at the time was there front and centre.
 From the left: Suzanne Hammel, Nick Carnicelli, Jane McKenna, MPP, Mark Bales, VP with The Gallery. The name of the man on the right is not known to us. The Smile Carnacelli is wearing is a rare sight. For Nick Carnicelli it was a day to celebrate and be happy. In all our years of working with Nick we have never seen a smile as big as the one he wore the day ground was broken.
It has been a grind.
 The Gallery opposite city hall. Carriage Gate, the Carnicelli family holding company, is known for a quality product. The Gallery is their first tall tall building in the downtown core (not counting Bridgewater which is mired in problem after problem) and getting to the point where Carnicelli was able to put a shovel in the ground was not a short happy trip.
This is the building that was the beginning of the change in what Burlington is going to be, like it or not.
By Pepper Parr
October 11th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
There is a group of people who live on the eastern side of the city, south of New Street, along Lakeshore Road in the tonier part of town where there is a tendency for those flush with cash to want to build what Burlington calls “mega monster” houses. 5,000 square feet seems to be the minimum.
 Located at the corner of Goodram and LAkeshore, the house is for sale and being rented out for events. The problem for those in the Lakeshore – Goodram – Oak Cr neighbourhood is an 8,000 sq. ft. dwelling that is on the market; first offered at $4.9 million now priced at $4.3 million.
There are people who have seen an opportunity with these buildings – they buy them and rent them out for weddings and large family gatherings using the Air BnB platform.
While waiting for the property to change hands the owner (or someone representing them) is renting the space out as a banquet hall.
Renting a house for a large family gathering is one thing – no one is offended by that kind of operation. Where things have gotten out of hand are with those who rent the space – at a fee of $1,250 per night – for graduation parties, wedding parties, family reunions or events when there is excessive drinking and all kinds of noise – at three and four in the morning.
People throw up on the lawn – and on the lawn next door as well. You can only image the behavior.
The area residents have organized as a Committee – ACT – Active Community Team, and have done everything they can think of – they have found the by-law enforcement to be of little use.
They appeared before city council earlier this week asking for an immediate Interim By-law that can be enforced by the city. The Staff report prepared for the meeting didn’t offer much in the way of relief.
Here are the relevant parts of that report:
The City of Burlington’s Zoning By-law 2020 does not specifically address short-term accommodations. The Zoning By-law identifies zones and provides regulations for areas that permit residential uses, but it does not regulate ownership or rental duration of residential dwellings. Dwelling units have historically been rented via monthly or annual leases and there are no current regulations that prohibit the rental of dwelling units for shorter periods of time.
The Zoning By-law also defines Bed and Breakfast Homes as:
An owner-occupied detached dwelling offering short-term lodging for compensation to the travelling and vacationing public. Guest rooms or suites may include a private bath but shall not include cooking facilities. Breakfast and other meals, services, facilities, or amenities may be offered exclusively to guests.”
Regulations under Part 1, Section 2.21 of the By-law, indicate Bed and Breakfast Homes are a use permitted in all zones, in detached dwellings only, on lots greater than 18 m in width, are limited to 3 guest rooms, and require an additional parking space for each guest room in addition to the parking requirements for the dwelling. A short-term accommodation is not currently regulated in such a fashion as it is not currently defined.
In recent years many municipalities have initiated studies to assess the impacts and develop regulations for short-term accommodations in response to issues arising in their respective communities. This includes larger municipalities such as Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa and Oakville, and smaller jurisdictions like Niagara on the Lake, Prince Edward County and Kawartha Lakes. The studies identified positive impacts such as financial benefits to homeowners struggling with housing affordability and increases in tourism; as well as nuisance issues related to traffic, noise and property maintenance in residential neighbourhoods, and potential negative impacts on the long- term rental market if it is more profitable to rent for short terms. Concerns have also been raised by hotels, motels and businesses traditionally involved in tourist accommodations that different rules and taxation apply to short term accommodations.
The studies also identified the range of stakeholders to be consulted in assessing benefits and impacts, and a variety of tools that could be implemented to regulate short- term accommodations. These include updates to policy documents and enactment of zoning by-laws, and licensing and registration tools. For example, some municipalities have restricted rentals to specific types of units; or only to units where the host is the principal resident; or specific zones or geographic areas. Licensing can be required only for the host or may also be required for the company providing the booking platform.
In Burlington, staff respond to many public inquiries seeking information on requirements to permit short-term accommodations within an existing dwelling unit, as well as questions from neighbours concerned about the potential for short-term accommodation uses when an accessory dwelling unit is approved. Additionally, complaints are received about noise, parking, traffic management, safety and garbage that residents attribute to short-term accommodations; as well as complaints about dwellings that frequently host events such as large parties and weddings.
 By law enforcement officer Burlington needs to develop an approach to short-term accommodations that responds to the issues and concerns raised above, provides the appropriate policy and regulatory framework to accommodate this emerging land-use and minimizes neighbourhood impacts. A study to assess impacts of the sharing economy was initiated by planning and licensing staff several years ago but was suspended to respond to other Council priorities. The specific issue of short-term accommodations was subsequently added to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review study that is scheduled to begin in Q3 2020 and will require a multi-year timeframe.
In response to the September 23, 2019 Council motion, options to address development of short-term regulations are presented below.
Immediate:
• Planning, Zoning and licensing staff will continue to gather research on short-term accommodation studies, policies, by-laws and regulations being prepared by other municipalities.
• Planning staff will monitor the outcome of LPAT hearings related to short-term accommodation by-laws enacted by other municipalities.
• By-law Enforcement staff will continue to respond to and investigate complaints and fully enforce current bylaws such as noise, property standards, exterior maintenance and parking.
• By-law Enforcement staff will continue to collaborate with other enforcement agencies/stakeholders and communicate with the Integrated Municipal Enforcements Team (IMET) which consists of Halton Regional Police Services, Halton Public Health, Burlington Building & Bylaw Enforcement, Burlington Fire Services and the Alcohol Gaming Commission of Ontario.
Medium-term (2020):
• Planning staff will initiate work on a Terms of Reference for a Short-Term Accommodation study to be incorporated with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law study with assistance from Zoning, Licensing and By-law Enforcement staff.
• Licensing and By-law Enforcement staff will monitor the effectiveness of licensing and registration by-laws enacted in other municipalities.
Long-term:
• The Terms of Reference for a Short-Term Accommodation study will be presented to Council for approval and the study will be undertaken in conjunction with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review.
• The study process will involve stakeholder and public engagement, and address matters including impacts on the rental housing market; housing affordability and tourism; potential policy and zoning by-law amendments that consider types of units, applicable zones, geographic areas, parking impacts and specific regulations; and licensing and registration options.
Options considered
Council could direct staff to proceed immediately with a short-term accommodations study. However, there is no capacity with the current staff complement. Should Council wish to initiate a short-term accommodation study in advance of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, staff would need to report back on additional resource requirements, including one-time funding sources.
 Mary Alice St. James. ACT was stunned – they expected something that would put an end to the problem; they had been living with it for more than a year.
The city has not been able to handle this kind of problem. For one – none of the bylaw enforcement officers are on duty when the behaviour takes place.
There is a lot of confusion within the municipal sector on just how to handle this kind of problem.
The Burlington approach to by law enforcement is to wait until someone complains. They then send someone out to see if they can solve the problems; if that doesn’t work they then issue letters and eventually a ticket.
With the income reaching $1250 per night a ticket would be seen as just part of the cost of doing business.
ACT wanted an Immediate Interim Bylaw
 Mary Alice St. James, a retired elementary school teacher who ran against Councillor Paul Sharman who chaired the meeting at which St. James delegated. They argued that it is Irresponsible to put public safety second when every week we hear about a new shooting, a new throwing of a chair out a building, a new prom party gone wrong, a death.
Act said it was inexplicable to see in writing that citizens should continue to do what they are doing. It is not working. “We have contended with this for over one year and we have spoken with City Staff and every Bylaw service imaginable” said Mary Alice St. James, founder of the community organization.
Inexcusable and Intolerable that nothing would be done immediately. She added.
The Mega Mansion is in ward 4, where Councillor Shawna Stolte has been working with staff to find a way to solve this problem.
 “We have approx. 150 known Short Term Accommodation (STA) arrangements in Burlington. Of these, the Lakeshore property is the most challenging to the surrounding community, but there are 2-3 others that are occasionally causing issues.
“I have been aware of the Lakeshore AirBnB and the neighbours concerns for the past 6 months. The property is not only being advertised as an event venue but has also been rented out almost exclusively for weddings, bachelor parties and other events.
“I have been researching the issue, meeting with residents and advocating on behalf of the neighbourhood since June of this year.
“The police are responding to the best of their ability, but have made it clear that they consider noise and nuisance complaints lower on their “response priority”. Clearly they need to respond to citizen safety and crime related calls first.
“Burlington Bylaw officers have responded repeatedly to this property when neighbours call but they do not have the same mandate or training to engage in difficult or conflictual situations. Their job is not to intervene in a situation, but to educate, advise and enforce bylaw infractions.
“The biggest challenge is that the City of Burlington does not have a Short Term Accommodation Bylaw for our Bylaw officers to actively enforce.
“I have been researching the issue, meeting with residents and advocating on behalf of the neighbourhood since June of this year. I began meeting and corresponding with our Bylaw Dept in June and it quickly became clear that their ability to deal with this particular situation would be limited due to a lack of policy (bylaw) to enforce.
“At that point I engaged our Planning and Legal Departments in an effort to explore what policy amendments we could create to deal with this, and other Short Term Accommodation issues.
“This process was complex and my ability to get all departments on board to collaborate was challenging so at Council in September I brought forth a Staff Direction that read as follows:
Direct the Director of City Building to report back to the Planning and Development Committee meeting of October 8, 2019 with options to regulate operations related to Short-Term Accommodation rentals, including immediate, medium term and long-term options.”
“The report that we received this week somewhat addressed the medium and long term goals but by no means addressed the direction to provide immediate options to address this issue.
“The Committee meeting ended with this agenda item being “referred” to Council with the expectation of staff to report back to Council on October 28 with concrete, actionable, immediate options to deal with this issue.
“I’m trying to not take over Staff’s role but I do look forward to hearing about Temporary Bylaw or Licensing options when staff report back on October 28.
“The suggestion of a Citizen Working Group was an attempt to engage those citizens most impacted by the situation, in an advisory capacity and give them the opportunity to contribute ideas and suggestions as the City moves forward to create a Short Term Accommodation Bylaw.”
There is a similar Airbnb Mega Mansion in Aldershot. It is currently advertised as the Bong Mansion.
Short-term accommodations are a new type of land use that can provide positive impacts to the community. A comprehensive assessment of issues related to short- term accommodations is required to develop the policy and regulatory tools that will best serve the Burlington community. This study is proposed to be undertaken as part of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law review study to be initiated in Q3 2020.
Council wasn’t prepared to sit on this for a year. There will be something that will be immediate at the council meeting on the 28th.
Let’s see just how this council responds to a disgusting problem in a part of the city that is used to getting what it wants.
By Staff
October 11th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
There are all kinds of ways to communicate – tweeting being the one that some people can’t stay away from.
A reader who follows all this stuff sent us a tweet with an in depth comment on what can and perhaps cannot be done with the “football” between Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road.
It is described by another reader as “One of the best comments we have read regarding development and the Downtown Urban Growth Centre. Thank you James, whoever you are. “ There are some suggestions that the James is someone Burlington has experienced.
You can read the viewpoint here.
A thought some might want to ponder: Just how long does one think city hall itself will sit on that land?
 These are the two developments to be built across the street from city hall. The on on the front left is now under construction; the other has been approved for 17 storeys – they want what the other has been approved at 23 storeys.  City hall will be dwarfed by the developments on the other side of the street. A former Deputy City Manager described it as “iconic”.  This might well be the view that people have as they enter the downtown core via Lakeshore Road. The building is stunning. Let’s not limit the view to just what can be seen from the upper floors of city hall. The “football” is going to offer some stunning views that might get added to what will be visible right across from city hall.
 The downtown that some think is Burlington’s future.
 By Staff
October 11th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The stuff is sitting in a locker at Police Headquarters waiting for someone to claim it.
The “stuff” is recovered stolen property that police discovered when they arrested Bradley MARK (37) of no fixed address and charged him with:
Break and Enter with intent
Possession of Break in instruments
Possession of property obtained by Crime
Fail to comply with probation order
The Halton Regional Police Service are still trying to identify the rightful owners of property seized in relation to the arrest made last July. You can Click Here and review the photos of the property on the police Flickr account.
 Some of the jewelry recovered by police. If you are the rightful owner and can identify any of the property or have information concerning this investigation please contact Detective Constable Jacques Brunelle of the 3 District Criminal Investigations Bureau at 905-825-4747 ext. 2334 or the 3 District Criminal Investigations Bureau general line at 905-825-4747 ext. 2316.
This situation goes back to July 4th 2019, when the Halton Regional Police Service arrested a suspect attempting to gain entry into the Kings Carwash located at 1448 Grahams Lane in the City of Burlington. At the time of the arrest a large quantity of jewelry believed to be stolen was recovered.
Investigators are currently liaising with Hamilton Police and further charges are pending.
Anyone who may have additional information concerning this investigation is asked to contact Detective Constable Jacques Brunelle of the 3 District Criminal Investigations Bureau at 905-825-4747 ext. 2334 or the 3 District Criminal Investigations Bureau general line at 905-825-4747 ext. 2316.
Tips can also be submitted to Crime Stoppers “See Something? Hear Something? Know Something? Contact Crime Stoppers” at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS), or through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.ca
People charged with a criminal offence are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
By Staff
October 11th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Beginning school is a big step for children and parents, and the Halton District School Board wants to make that transition as smooth as possible. In October and November, the Board is hosting Calling All Three-Year Olds Kindergarten Open Houses in Acton, Georgetown, Milton, Burlington and Oakville for families to learn more about making the first school experience a happy one.
Future students and their families are invited to attend any of the following Kindergarten Open Houses, to be held between 6:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Acton: Thursday, Oct. 17 – McKenzie-Smith Bennett Public School (69 Acton Blvd)
Georgetown: Thursday, Oct. 24 – Silver Creek Public School (170 Eaton St)
Milton: Thursday, Nov. 7 – P.L. Robertson Public School (840 Scott Blvd)
Burlington: Thursday, Nov. 14 – Alexander’s Public School (2223 Sutton Dr)
Oakville: Thursday, Nov. 28 – Emily Carr Public School (2255 Pine Glen Rd)
At the Open House, students and parents will:
• Explore a Kindergarten classroom
• Learn about play-based learning
• Pick up information and resource material in a free backpack
• Access information about community agencies and resources in Halton
• Get information about before and after school care
• Connect with special education staff to discuss any developmental concerns
Registration for Kindergarten begins in January 2020 and takes place at the school your child will attend. Children born in 2016 can start Kindergarten in September 2020.
Parents/guardians can learn more about the Calling all Three-year Olds Kindergarten Open Houses on the HDSB website (www.hdsb.ca and search: Kindergarten).
Learn more about the Halton District School Board’s Kindergarten Program.
By Pepper Parr
October 9th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The Gazette received the following from the city three days afrer the article appeared.
“I wanted to take the opportunity to provide a clarification to a recent article, https://bit.ly/2q5unMg.
“The article includes a lengthy opinion in which the writer states that City staff had no responses or barely participated in the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) hearing for the proposed development on 92 Plains Road. However, neither the article itself or the opinion make clear that the hearing before the LPAT was a settlement hearing in which the City and the appellant were in agreement on the proposed development and the associated amendments to the City’s planning documents.
“In a settlement hearing, evidence must be provided to the Tribunal to support the settlement. This evidence typically is in the form of the expert opinion of a land use planner from one of the settling parties, as it was in this hearing. The other settling parties, such as the City in this case, do not call further duplicative evidence to support the settlement. It is in hearings where parties such as the City and a developer are not in agreement on the development proposal where the parties call their own witnesses to provide expert opinion, and cross examine opposing witnesses.
“It would be misleading to suggest that because the City did not have its planner provide an expert opinion that she did not act appropriately or that she did not represent the interest of Council’s decision to support the proposed settlement. Rather, the City’s legal counsel made submissions on the appropriateness of the settlement, including in the context of the in-force Official Plan. The LPAT hearing officer will consider the expert evidence provided, along with the submissions of the appellant, the City and the two participants to the hearing, and make a decision in the matter.
“The Notice of Settlement Hearing was also posted on our website, https://www.burlington.ca/en/services-for-you/92-Plains-Road-East.asp so residents could be aware of the hearing.”
If you have heard of LPAT; know what the acronym stands for – read on.
If you don’t – quit now.
LPAT is Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.
It is the level the developers and city can turn to when there is a difference over a development proposal.
Few of the people who follow this stuff have much that is positive to say about the tribunal.
A handful of people chose to sit in on an LPAT hearing at city hall recently.
Tom Muir, one of the types that keeps up to date on this stuff attended – here is what he had to say on what he saw and heard,
I want to provide you with a short briefing on my experience. I have provided you with extended notes and comments on this appeal evidence so I will stick to key points and, as it turned out, a long one page of 13 points.
1. The Lawyer representing the City, David Klacko, and the City Planner, Melissa Morgan, indicated to the LPAT Chair that they would not be presenting any testimony or evidence. Over all, from my perspective over the entire Hearing they might as well have not been there.
 Architectural rendering 2. The Applicant lawyer and Planner disturbed me when they went straight to the adopted Official Plan as the first argument in the Policy Frame supporting the proposal (Item 12 of 112 in the Evidence Outline).
I was further disturbed when the City Lawyer and Planner said nothing at this time about this and as supposed professionals with obligations of disclosure, did not indicate that this adopted OP was not in the City Policy Frame for policy and thinking in this application.
It was only at the very end of the Hearing after all the testimony was done, did the City lawyer say about 20 words to indicate that the adopted OP was not in the City policy frame here, but that the proposal conformed with the in force OP.
3. This indicates that the City agreement with the proposed settlement included agreement that the adopted but not legal OP was on the Table and they agreed to let the applicant Planner use it right from the start – they had the evidence from the applicant lawyer and they had to have agreed to it in order to say they had a settlement. The applicant Planner used an anonymous authority to say that someone at City told him this was the City directions anyways so he used it.
4. This applicant Planner stated that the amendments requested conform with the general policy directions of the new draft Burlington Official Plan (EO 107). He also stated that this adopted OP conforms to the Halton Region Official Plan when this is patently false as the Region did not approve it on the grounds of non-conformity. The applicant lawyer tried to argue that the adopted OP is legal and can be used.
5. Overall, in this Planner testimony, there was a great deal of emphasis on the adopted OP in support of the application and settlement. In this testimony, given under oath, there was a total disregard and no mention for the “shall” or mandatory OP and Zoning policies specific to this site. City staff made no comments. There was no explanation or planning rationale provided for disregarding the “shall” provisions. City staff said nothing.
6. I was given 20 minutes to testify under oath and I raised a large number of issues from this previous testimony and from my own evidence. I will provide only a few of the key issues here. The City Lawyer did not cross examine my testimony.
6. There was applicant Planner disregard to compatibility policies with only 1 criteria mentioned (upper floor setbacks) out of the City policy number of 13. City staff said nothing.
7. Nothing was said or evidence provided about the City policies on intensification adjacent to existing low density neighborhoods. City staff said nothing.
8. There was no evidence or testimony about the City Policies around Urban Design and City Guidelines for Mixed Use and Residential Mid-Rise Buildings. City staff said nothing.
9. These policies are indicated by the City as policies subject to “shall” be done for all proposals. Nothing was said or done by either Party on these.
 Site rendering. 10 The applicant Planner misleadingly wrote in EO item 10 (Subject; Surrounding Land Uses), and further stated under oath, that a “property at 105 Plains Rd received approval in 2013 for demolition (done) in order to construct a mixed use building, however, building permits for the mixed use building have not yet been issued. In addition, in oral, he stated that an 11 storey building was planned. This was not only misleading and untrue, but there is no such application in the City files.These statements were presented as I noted, as a surrounding land use and were taken by the Chair as a factual support for the 92 Plains proposal.
City staff said nothing to factually clarify the truth of the matter. I wrote the Planner yesterday asking for this information, which she should have, but I have not heard anything back.
11. The applicant Planner repeatedly (10 times; EO 11, 39, 54, 56, 62, 67, 72, 83, 99, 111i) and incorrectly stated, that the proposal at 92 Plains Rd was within 500 meters of the Go Train station, which is a MTSA, and therefore the site is in the Mobility Hub area having a 150 unit/ha target. He used this to repeatedly argue support for the proposal and this is misinformation used in a misleading way repeatedly.
This estimate of distance is important because of the MTSA target boundary, so I had two different distance estimates to dispute this in testimony. The first is an estimate from Google of 600 meters straight line, and a second is by car from parallel to the Go station building estimated straight down Waterdown Road to Plains RD corner light, which is about 650 meters. Note that these are straight line distances and nothing moves to the GO in a straight line from the site on 92 Plains Rd.
City staff said nothing to clarify.
12. In EO 86 the Planner rewrites the statement of the in force OP so as to remove the second of the “shall” policies wording and change it to “is intended to” with respect to maintaining the residential appearance and character of the property.
This is a frank and deliberate lie to falsify the policy statement wording. City staff said nothing.
In my view, this blows up the Planners credibility and trust. I would also cite my point 10 above.
13. In the written and spoken under oath testimony the applicant Planner committed a significant number of omissions of relevant evidence, states partial evidence resulting in misinformation, untruths such as above, fallacies such as non sequitors, false dilemmas, begging the question or circular arguments that have the conclusion wanted based in the premises, and others beyond this space.
 Tom Muir making a point at a community meeting. I have written more here than I expected and there are many more points I could cover. I will also say that the City staff, and the applicant Planner, having professional and disclosure duties associated with the law and planning professions and oaths of office, could have helped me and the Hearing and Chair, with getting to the truth and the facts, but they chose to remain silent and not assist in this.
What was clearly wanted, and certainly delivered, was a set of OP and Zoning amendments that is custom made to fit the settlement proposal. What the real plan or truth is has nothing to do with it.
In conclusion, I will say again that this settlement will have implications and consequences as a precedent setting model for what is to be willingly enabled, permitted and allowed in Burlington. It will be carried into whatever size you want to think of everywhere.
This is where your new Plan is going. “Ye who enters here, abandon all hope.”
Tom Muir is an Aldershot resident who knows more about Development Charges and far more than anyone should know about development in the western end of the city.
 By Pepper Parr
October 9th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Figure this one out.
There is a development proposed for some of the property on the land between Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road – referred to as the “football”
 The first of two 24+ storey structures planned for the “football”. The development is controversial.
The city sent out a notice with the following note:
updated supporting documents
Application received – September 13, 2019
Then there is a list of the supporting documents.
 The property to the right of the CORE development (outlined in blue) also has a 24+ development proposal, • Arborist Report
• Architectural Plans
• Construction Management Plan
• Construction Management Plan 2
• Construction Management Plan 3
• Environmental Site Screening Checklist
• Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report
• Geotechnical Investigation
• Grading and Site Servicing
• Heritage Impact Statement
• Landscape Concept Plan
• Noise Impact Study
• Pedestrian Wind Study
• Phase I ESA
• Phase II ESA
• Planning Justification Report
• Reliance Letter
• Remediation Plan
• 7th Floor Amenity Plan
• Shoring and Excavation Plan
• Site Plan
• Sun Shadow Analysis
• Survey
• Transportation Impact Study
• Urban Design Brief
• Waste Management Plan
No mention of which document was updated or what part of the document was revised.
The Planner on the file, Melisa Morgan, will know what and where the updates are – could she not have shared this information?
This sort of thing happens again and again – and is accompanied by that bit of tripe that talks about an engaged city.
Related news stories:
CORE public presentation
Old Lakeshore Burlington Inc. development.
There are other options.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
 By Staff
October 8th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Charo: Instantly recognizable for her witty humour, lovable accent and mastery of the flamenco guitar. The Burlington Performing Arts Centre presenting: Charo: Hot Flamenco Night on Saturday, October 12 in the Main Theatre, the only Canadian date for this legendary performer.
Instantly recognizable for her witty humour, loveable accent and mastery of the flamenco guitar, Charo has been an integral proponent of contemporary Latin music since the 1970s.
is also smoking hot!
Although popular as a musician, singer, comedienne, stage and screen performer, it is Charo’s trademark quirky comedy and expressions – Cuchi-Cuchi! – which has endeared her to the world.
Charo: Hot Flamenco Night will feature a mixture of her patented rhythms and mastery of classical guitar. It is a combination of the most exciting and original music of today and the most famous classical masterpieces in the world. Charo performs passionately throughout, blending heart and soul with her unique Flamenco style.
Charo is an American music and pop culture icon who has entertained millions throughout her career. She also teams up with top-name DJs and producers from around the world, who add their dance mixes to Charo’s virtuoso guitar performance to creates dance hits.
Charo: Hot Flamenco Night
Saturday, October 12 at 8pm
440 Locust Street, Burlington, Ontario
Tickets can be purchased by telephone, online or in person:
905-681-6000, https://burlingtonpac.ca/events/charo/
Tickets: $69.50
Sponsored by Andrew Peller Ltd.
 By Staff
October 8th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Thanksgiving should be something special for Burlington. Deep within the DNA of the city is an attachment to the land that is evident in the city crest.
Time to be aware of both the changing of the season; farmers are beginning to roll out large sheets of plastic over some of their crops, there are pumpkins for sale at the supermarkets and almost every rural cross road.
For those who get to church – that time honoured hymn: First the blade and then the ear, then the full corn shall appear – come ye thankful people come …comes to mind.
What’s open and closed in Burlington on Thanksgiving
Most administrative offices will be closed Monday, Oct. 14, 2019 for Thanksgiving. For a complete listing of hours of operation, phone numbers for City facilities and available services, please visit burlington.ca.
For information about what to do in Burlington on Thanksgiving weekend, please visit burlington.ca/calendar and tourismburlington.com.
 Sign of the season changing. For hours, City facilities’ phone numbers and services, please visit www.burlington.ca.
Looking for things to do?
Please visit www.burlington.ca/calendar and www.tourismburlington.com
City Hall
Closed Monday, Oct. 14, 2019.
Parks and Recreation Programs and Facilities
Hours vary.
Activities and customer service hours at City pools, arenas and community centres will vary over the holiday weekend. For drop-in program times, please visit burlington.ca/dropinandplay. For customer service hours, please visit burlington.ca/servicehours.
Burlington Transit
On Monday, Oct. 14, 2019, Burlington Transit will operate a Sunday service and the downtown Transit Terminal and Specialized Dispatch will be closed. Regular service resumes Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2019. The administration offices are closed Monday, Oct. 14 and will reopen Tuesday, Oct. 15. For real-time schedule information, please visit triplinx.ca or use Google or Apple maps.
Roads, Parks and Forestry
Closed Monday, Oct. 14. Only emergency services will be provided.
Animal Shelter and Control
Closed Monday, Oct. 14. Open 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturday. For more information or to report an animal control-related emergency, call 905-335-3030 or visit www.burlington.ca/animals.
Halton Court Services
Halton Provincial Offences Court will be closed Monday, Oct. 14.
Parking
Free parking is available in the downtown core, on the street, municipal lots and the parking garage on weekends and holidays.
NOTE: The Waterfront parking lots (east and west) do not provide free parking on statutory holidays.
Do you have family and friends visiting for the holiday weekend? A reminder that there is no parking on city streets overnight between 1 and 6 a.m. Exemptions to allow overnight parking on city streets may be obtained by calling 905-335-7844 or visiting www.burlington.ca/parking.
 By Ray Rivers
October 8th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Just Trudeau and Andrew Scheer – they hammered away at each other. Neither managed to land a really hard punch. There were fleeting discussions around some issues, but all anyone will remember is the storm of insults hurled by adults acting like children.
And it all started with Andrew Scheer using his opening speech to level insults, and stunning hyperbole, at the prime minister.
“He puts on a middle-class mask and then raises taxes on middle-class Canadians. Mr. Trudeau you are a phony and you are a fraud and you do not deserve to govern this country….”
The concept of a single national leaders forum to discuss policy in both official languages is a worthy goal. But the proof is in the execution and there was so much wrong with this so-called debate. There was way too much on the program plate to being with. And when one tries to do everything one seldom does anything well.
 Elizabeth May, Green Party leader held her own – was it enough to advance their number of members in the House. For another thing there is no such thing as an ordinary undecided Canadian voter. And I’m getting really tired of seeing some random uninformed person pretending to represent me and asking a poorly constructed question to the leaders. That time would have been better utilized in the debate proper by the party leaders to actually explain their policies.
Then there were too many people involved for an effective debate. And while everyone wanted to be there, not everyone benefitted from that experience. Maxime Bernier, for example, might have stood a better chance of winning, at least his own seat, had he just stayed home. And what is a separatist party doing in a debate about national issues?
While the Greens, NDP, Bloc and the People’s Party all serve a useful function in our political system by bringing ideas to the table, there is no hope any of them will be forming government.
 Maxine Bernier on the left Yves-François Blanchet of the BLOC, center and Jagmeet Singh – they won’t form a government but they could determine who does govern. And how is it fair that a party without official party status, and currently holding only a couple seats, like the Greens, Peoples or BLOC, get equal debate time with the Liberals or CPC which hold the vast majority of seats and popular support? Shouldn’t they have just mailed in their questions instead?
But it was the negativity which almost sent me off to bed for an early night. Real debates are supposed to be beyond insults and slander. And Scheer wasn’t the only one trying to brand his main opponent, though he was the worst. That is after all, the sum total of how the Conservatives are running their campaign this year. Almost half of everything (47%) coming out of mouths of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) is negative and personal, and all of it aimed at Mr. Trudeau. And, despite Mr. Singh claiming the high moral ground, the NDP is almost as bad.
Oh sure, negative campaigns work. At least they did in the USA for Donald Trump, who falsely accused his opponent of being crooked, accompanied by a charming chant of ‘lock her up’. It was a lie but if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. And though Trump lives in a glass house, none of the stones have ever bounced back to hit him – at least not yet.
And so it is with Mr. Scheer. He lied on his resume about being an insurance broker. He tried to hide his dual nationality. Doesn’t he break US law every time he crosses the border without his US passport? And he lies every time he talks about the federal carbon tax.
 Andrew Scheer – he was better in the English language debate – French is not a language he is comfortable with. Scheer has never taken responsibility for his actions. Unlike Trudeau who recognizes his mistakes, Scheer never apologized for misleading people with his fake resume, not his previous stand on LGBT rights, nor holding back on his citizenship. And how ironic to label Trudeau with ‘not as advertised’ and ‘can’t be trusted’.
There are serious policy differences between the two leading political entities in this country. Let’s have a serious debate about the future of fossil fuels and whether we need more pipelines and petroleum resource development.
Let’s discuss the merits of doing more of what we have always done or taking more drastic climate action. Let us address the still growing wealth and income gaps in this country. Let us resolve the importance of balancing the budget versus borrowing for investment in our human and physical capital, and growing the economy.
Maxime Bernier has invited Canadians to have an adult discussion on immigration and our refugee policy. Elizabeth May has demanded that we ban the internal combustion engine by 2030. Jagmeet Singh would like Canada to reopen the constitution and find a new accommodation for Quebec.
Mr. Scheer has promised to bring back a partisan Senate and Mr. Singh’s party has long called for its abolition.
What about defence policy and Canada’s contribution as it applies to NATO spending targets? There is discussion of a wealth tax and of raising the capital gains tax to 100%. What about China?
This week’s debate may have been good entertainment, though for me it was depressing. Government should be about policy and not just theatre. It is unclear if any one of the six party leaders ‘won’ in the so-called debate, but we all lost an opportunity to be better informed on the issues before us and what these characters would really do if we elect them PM.
 Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Five key moments
Two two mainline parties.
Where do they stand on taxes
By Staff
October 8th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
If you’re driving on the major highways you know how many trucks there are on the road. And you have every right to wonder just how safe those trucks are – the Regional Police completed a Commercial Motor Vehicle Blitz.
Despite very poor weather conditions they inspected more than 300 commercial motor vehicles.
 The police arrive well equipped to do through inspections. The two-day enforcement blitz, that involved officers and inspectors from the Halton Regional Police Service, along with assistance from neighbouring police services, the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Finance/ Environment yielded the following results:
• Total commercial motor vehicles inspected: 308
• Total commercial motor vehicles taken out of service: 99 (33 percent failure rate)
• Total charges laid: 239
• Sets of licence plates seized by police: 11
2018 Results:
• Total commercial motor vehicles inspected: 443
• Total commercial motor vehicles taken out of service: 143 (32 percent failure rate)
• Total charges laid: 268
• Sets of licence plates seized by police: 13
 Is the load properly and safely secured? Top five charge categories laid during 2019 blitz:
• Failure to complete daily inspections
• Vehicle maintenance
• Failure to obtain annual inspection certificate
• Cargo securement
• Weight violations
New this year, officers also implemented impaired driver screening tests through the use of SFST (Standard Field Sobriety Testing), ASD (Approved Screening Device) for alcohol and ADSE (Approved Drug Screening Equipment) for drugs including THC and cocaine.
The blitz resulted in a total of 182 impaired driver screenings (83% of all heavy commercial motor vehicles drivers inspected during the blitz). These screenings showed a high level of compliance with 179 pass results (98%). The drivers who did not pass were given suspensions for being in violation of the zero alcohol or drug provisions for commercial motor vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act.
“1 in 3 trucks being removed from service as a result of our annual blitz says a few things. Credit to the trucking industry who make safety their priority – as many truck operators do recognize the thin margin for error that exists in operating complex trucks on our roadways. Mechanical fitness, load security and driver fitness are not an option – it’s an obligation.
 Tractor trailers get very close inspections. For those who don’t, Halton Police and our partners will continue to hold truck operators accountable to elevate safety for all road users. Safe trucks, safe loads and safe drivers benefit everyone” said Sgt. Ryan Snow, Traffic Services Unit.
 By Pepper Parr
October 7th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The city is having the private tree by law debate – again.
We are in different times and different actions have to be taken.
Burlington declared a Climate Emergency – many many others have done the same thing. This city council wants to go a lot further than any past council in saving the trees and it is going to cost – quite a bit.
 This is what the urban canopy is all about. Lose it and the value of the houses on the street plummet. At the Burlington federal candidate debate Liberal Karina Gould said there was no problem with people agreeing that climate change was real – where we have the problems she said is their willingness to pay for the changes that are going to have to be made.
Council had four options in front of them: Here they are with the costs attached.
 These trees were cut down to allow for the building of a retirement home on Pine Street. OPTION 1: Status quo
A status quo approach was considered as part of this report. This would allow the current Pilot Private Tree Bylaw in Roseland to run the original 2-
Pros: Allows for more time to evaluate the pilot.
Cons: This does not consider the implications of a declared climate emergency, and delays protection of trees citywide.
COST: Option 1 – no impact
OPTION 2: Expand the Bylaw to Ward 4 Only
The expansion of the bylaw to ward 4 was considered as part of this report. The staff requirement would be reduced to 1 full time staff, with associated cost reductions.
Pros: Provides for a slightly larger pilot area.
Cons: This does not consider the implications of a declared climate emergency, and delays protection of trees citywide.
COST: The operating budget impact is $95,000 for 1 full-time tree protection officer. The capital budget impact is $51,000 including the purchase of 1 electric vehicle and charging station.
 This group of trees beside a popular church on Guelph Line were cut down because the geese were eating the apples and pooping on the church drive way. OPTION 3: Repeal the Pilot Private Tree Bylaw and approve a bylaw for the urban area only
This option would protect all private trees within the urban area of the City and exclude all agricultural and rural areas north of Highway 5/407.
Pros: Provides protection for private trees in the most populated area of the City.
Cons: Does not provide protection for residential properties in the rural area that are not covered under the Regional bylaw for woodlots.
COST: Option 3 and 4 – The operating budget impact is $300,000.00 including 5 full- time staff (1 supervisor and 4 tree protection officer)
OPTION 4: Repeal the Pilot Private Tree Bylaw and approve a city-wide private tree bylaw
Pros: This option provides the highest level of protection by including the entire city.
Cons: Increased resource requirements in both operating and capital budgets.
The capital budget impact is $250,000 including the purchase of 5 electric vehicles and 2 charging stations to be installed at the City’s Operations Centre.
Source of Funding
The Private Tree Bylaw will be funded through both the operating and capital budget, and a business case has been prepared for consideration in the 2020 budget process. There will be partial cost recovery of administrative costs through permit fees, as well as bylaw contravention fees through site inspection, estimated at approximately $200,000.
 BurlingtonGreen Executive Director Amy Schnurr Contracted service costs are expected to decrease by $12,000 per year. The impact to the property tax rate is estimated at 0.18%.
In the ensuing debate we will see how our city Councillors handle the issue and what the public has to say.
There were two delegations to the meeting Monday evening; the Executive Directors of both Burlington Green and Oakville Green.
The report will come back to city council in December.
By Pepper Parr
October 7th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The Marsdens (Dave and Anne) were never in the business of making life easy for their elected officials.
It has cost them dearly. They have been treated with contempt, not permitted to talk to city staff and then barred from city hall as well as barred from Regional Council.
They are prickly.
 Anne and David Marsden – delegating at city council. They are now permitted to delegate at city hall; they appeared during the Provincial Review earlier this year at the Region.
This morning they were at the podium in Council Chambers pointing out an embarrassing situation.
The Agenda for the meeting this week had several problematic entries.
Several of the important items did not have a report attached which meant that anyone who wanted to know what the Agenda item was about was basically out of luck. All they had was a headline.
The Marsdens don’t take to that kind of behaviour and they stood at the podium and asked, first; why there were no reports attached to the Agenda item, and because one was of particular interest to them they wanted any discussion to be deferred to the November round of Standing Committee.
At one point it got rather testy when Ms Marsden made a statement that the chair wanted her to strike from the comments she had made.
That didn’t go down all that well with the Marsdens.
The issues for the Marsdens was that in order to delegate on a matter you had to register with the Clerk’s Office not later than the Friday before the scheduled meeting.
The following agenda items had no report attached to them.
Infrastructure Funding CM 22-18
Note: This item will be distributed under separate cover.
City Wide Private Tree bylaw Implementation RPF 15-19
Note: This item will be distributed under separate cover.
2020 Calendar of meetings for Council and Standing Committees. CL 16-19
Note: This item will be distributed under separate cover.
The private tree bylaw issue was extremely divisive; there were a lot of harsh words said at several of the meetings. How city hall thought they could actually get away with something like this is astounding.
Not sure which is worse – that it was deliberate or a stupid administrative error.
Without knowing much about the report that was going to be debated – the Marsdens didn’t feel they could delegate. They did manage to scoot down to city hall late on the Friday and get a copy of the report – which when they saw the details they were very certain that they would be delegating.
How do things like this happen? Who lets an Agenda like this get sent out? The city Clerk is responsible for the Agenda – but the city manager signs off on everything.
 Is there something about his building that prevents the left hands of those who work there from knowing what the right hand is doing? There wasn’t much in the way of an explanation – other than a media release sent out by the city later in the day saying they were “Making it easier for residents to find information about development applications, construction and road restrictions.”
On a separate matter Heather MacDonald, Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility said: “We understand that at any given time, there can be a lot of activity happening in the city and it’s not always easy to know where to go to learn more information.”
Something isn’t right here.
 By Staff
October 7th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
More than 150 visitors came from across Halton Region to attend Nelson Aggregates’ Quarry Open House and Bus Tour.
Nelson President Quinn Moyer said: “We were pleasantly surprised. Attendees showed a lot of interest and support for our operations, our expansion plans and our vision for turning the site into a park over 30 years.”
 The golf club property that is on the western side of the properties would be turned into a very large park. The Open House featured bus tours of the quarry and interactive exhibits, including quarry machinery such as crushers, loaders, bulldozers and excavators.
“It’s great to see residents interested in the types of operations that form the foundation of our daily lives,” Moyer said. “It’s easy to forget that the building blocks of where we live come from quarries like ours.”
The Mt. Nemo quarry has played an important role as Burlington’s main source of limestone for more than 50 years. Its aggregate forms the foundation of most roads, buildings and infrastructure in Burlington.
 One quarry that is close to be mined out; two new quarries that would be open and then everything would be turned over to the public. A proposal is underway to expand the quarry over the next 30 years, and to donate the rehabilitated land in parcels over that time to form the largest park in Burlington.
The proposed park would be nearly six times larger than Burlington’s City View Park. The size and scale of the park would allow for abundant recreational opportunities, from biking and swimming to rock climbing and soccer.
 A lake – 77 acres in size will be formed out of a mined out quarry. The Gazette asked a reader to take the tour and come back to us with his views. He didn’t take out his wallet to buy into it – but did say that he wanted to hear more. “Was this a gift horse whose mouth we should be looking into” he asked “or is it a Trojan horse that we would regret letting in.”
The Nelson Aggregate people have yet to have a conversation with the ward Councillor, Rory Nisan, who has said he doesn’t want anyone to shape his opinion of the project, has shown no interest in hearing what the aggregate producer has in mind.
So far, the only Councillor who has been to the site is Angelo Bentivegna who was with our reader.
Our reader has said he is of two minds. The one thing he is certain about is that the city should be talking to the Nelson people and learning more about what they have in mind.
The Planning department, who have more on their plates than they can handle now, are certainly not out there looking for things to do.
Our reader said he was really impressed with the potential but did wonder if Burlington needed another park.
What our reader did find interesting was that no one he talked to came out and said they did not want a park in that part of Burlington.
With the public tour behind them Nelson now has to craft the application it has to take to the city and at the same time think through the various levels of government they are going to have to satisfy and how best they can do that.
The next step is to have a pre-consultation meeting with the Planning department – expected to be sometime in November.
The big picture question is: Is another park needed? Not today perhaps but in 30 years the need for public space will be a lot different than it is today.
To find out more CLICK HERE
 Blair Smith and Lynn Crosby
October 7th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
“If you judge from appearances here,’ replied Madame de Chartres, ‘you will be often mistaken; what appears is seldom the truth.”
― Madame de La Fayette, The Princesse de Clèves
Or to paraphrase in modern idiom, “what you see may not be what you get.” Appearances are deceptive, particularly when there is an intent to mask what is planned.
For months now WeLoveBurlington has been warning the citizens of Burlington and Halton of the potential dangers of regional government amalgamation. We have talked about the possible MegaCity of Halton, the flawed process of the regional government review, the history of the reviewers, the comforting ‘party line’ assurances of our elected representatives and the broken consultation record of our current provincial government.
 We have attempted to be fair, accurate and non-partisan. We have posted links to numerous articles, several by noted conservative analysts, that all have a common message – municipal amalgamation is seldom successful. Most frequently, it results in higher taxes, greater municipal debt, reduced services, increased cost of government and loss of local voice.
One of our Burlington MPPs has claimed categorically that there will be no amalgamation of any of the municipalities in Halton; another Oakville MPP has cited MegaCity warnings as “false and misleading”. So, where does the truth fall? Let’s examine one possibility – that external appearances may remain much the same but the truth will be a dramatically restructured region under the covers.
Once “the report” is made public in late Fall/early Winter – and we see no reason why it shouldn’t be – what might it contain? Here is one of many possible scenarios. Perhaps the review will leave the existing Halton Council structures much the same – both in name and in number. Burlington, Oakville, Milton and Halton Hills will remain with their existing contingent of councilors and mayors. They will continue to hold meetings, set budgets (within certain parameters) and develop plans responding to constituent needs and operational priorities.
 Is this a case of – what you see is what you get – or are appearances really deceiving? In other words, the local identity will still be the local identity – at least in appearance. But will the program, policy and operational frameworks be the same? Suppose that instead of ‘amalgamation’ we have ‘consolidation’ using a model that is quite common and in extensive use within the provincial government; that of the “cluster” or centre-satellite.
Within this scenario policy, program development and administrative control are exercised at the “centre”; local service operations by the ‘municipality’. So, it is likely that all remaining emergency services (health, fire and police in total) will be consolidated at the regional level. So too will transit have a regional scope rather than local presence with much tighter integration with integrated ticketing (Presto farecard) and centralized scheduling/operations. Purchasing would be done regionally, using developed vendors-of-record or accessing provincial agreements and local fleet management would be a thing of the past.
Could there be economies of scale and efficiencies realized? Possibly, if done well but the increase in the regional bureaucracy will be extensive and the local municipalities will likely maintain much the same staffing. There will also be local Information technology, legal, finance, human resource and Clerk functions but they will report to senior portfolio executives on the Regional level and it will be the latter, sitting as an Executive Committee, who will set policy frameworks, strategic directions and operational program components. In fairness, there could still be benefits achieved that might mitigate the remove of local service provision to a more distant governance structure.
However, it becomes increasingly more problematic as more and more functions, thus power and control, are vested in the regional centre with probable loss of sensitivity to local service issues and environment.
The death knell of local voice, local expression and local direction would be the regional consolidation of municipal land planning, development and management functions. This is the prize that, arguably, is the animus behind the whole review exercise; the jewel teasingly revealed by tentative provincial forays into the protected green-belt and then openly burnished by Bill 108.
WeLoveBurlington has, from the onset, stressed the interconnection between the regional governance review, Bill 108 and the proposed restructuring of land development mediation/arbitration functions – from OMB to LPAT to RPAT?? Indeed, for at least eight years, Burlington has been caught in the vise-grip of provincial intensification targets, bureaucratic indifference, private sector self-interest and an arrogant, entitled Council. Much of the damage has unfortunately been done and is beyond recall but the people’s voice – clearly heard last October 22nd – needs to resonate again and loudly.
Is this outcome conjecture? Yes, but it’s also a reasoned and very possible direction. It would leave only the shell of local authority to mask a consolidated, centralized and distanced governance at the region, a MegaCity in everything but name. Whether ultimately fantasy or foresight, WeLoveBurlington will provide an unbiased and balanced assessment of the change. Even if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we’ll still let citizens know if they’ve actually been given a turkey.
Question for Burlington Federal Candidates
We have submitted the following question to the candidates representing Burlington in the upcoming federal election. We will post any replies that we receive.
Recognizing that municipalities are the creatures of the provincial government and almost totally under provincial control, what could you do, as Burlington’s federal government representative, to ensure that the City retains a strong identity with a resonant local voice?
 Michael Fenn and Robert Seiling did the Provincial Review; Fenn was once the city manager of Burlington. Regional Review Report Received by Minister
The CBC reported last week that the regional review report has been in Minister Steve Clark’s hands since September 20.
The article states: “Clark said he would take his time with the report before he presents the findings to his cabinet colleagues as “confidential advice” and before deciding whether to make the details public.
Related news stories.
Provincial Review: The issue
What the Lovelies had to say.
 By Ashley Worobec
October 7th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Overall it’s been another good week, however my right Achilles tendon started to give me some grief a few days ago. With long runs getting well up into the high-30+-kms, a few aches and pains here and there can sometimes be inevitable. Thankfully, I work in a sports clinic, so I got treatment right away (laser therapy is shown here) and it’s feeling much better.
 This is what laser therapy looks like. I had a drop-back weekend this weekend, so my run this morning was only 16km and I ran it completely pain-free.
Our peak run comes up this weekend- 38km on Thanksgiving Sunday morning, and you can be sure that I’ll take full advantage of that Thanksgiving dinner afterwards!
I am really happy with how September went, I was able to stay very consistent and run all 17 of my 17 scheduled runs. September was my peak month for mileage, and while I do have one more big week of training ahead of me, the majority of October is focused on tapering down the mileage and recovering to be ready for November 3rd.
 There was also a mix-in of gym workouts, weekly Pilates, and a couple of hot yoga classes. On the one hand, cross-training is still very important to keep me strong and not injured, however at this stage of marathon training, the cumulative effect of all the mileage becomes very real, and there’s a fine balance between doing too much and doing too little cross-training.
I have been doing private Pilates classes once per week for the past few months, and I really think it’s helped me to stay strong and be able to handle this marathon build.
 Easing the tension on an ankle The Fall has brought darker mornings with it, and as I start most of my runs around 5:30am, my light-up vest has become a staple in my wardrobe. On my solo runs, I’m often listening to podcasts, and lately the topic has been, you guessed it, the New York City marathon. I’ve been listening to race reports and course previews, and I’m starting to get really excited about the magnitude of this experience.
More than 52,000 runners will be there (we’re sent to the start line in waves to minimize congestion) and more than 1 million spectators are said to line the route!
By Pepper Parr
October 4, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
If you spend any of your time on the kind of development that is taking place in Burlington, you will have heard about this matter before.
Every development application includes material on how the application complies with PPS 2014 – Provincial Policy Statement.
The document is part of the Planning act which governs everything that gets done when it comes to developments.
The PPS gets updated from time to time. That time is upon us now.
In a recent media release the province announced that it is open for feedback and comment from the public.
Here is what the provincial government wants to change in the PPS.
 Increasing housing supply, supporting jobs and streamlining development approvals are top priorities for the government. The Action Plan includes a series of distinct but coordinated initiatives to address housing supply, including a review of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) – the foundation for land use planning in the province.
The government is consulting on proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement to support the government’s Housing Supply Action Plan and other land use planning related priorities.
About the Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement is a consolidated statement of the government’s policies on land use planning and is issued under section 3 of the Planning Act. It applies province-wide and sets out the provincial policy direction for:
The efficient use and management of land and infrastructure
Ensuring the provision of sufficient housing to meet changing needs, including affordable housing
Protecting the environment and resources including farmland, natural resources (e.g., wetlands and woodlands) and water
Ensuring opportunities for economic development and job creation
Ensuring the appropriate transportation, water, sewer and other infrastructure is available to accommodate current and future needs
Protecting people, property and community resources by directing development away from natural or human-made hazards – such as flood prone areas
The PPS is the primary provincial land use policy document guiding municipal decision-making. The Planning Act requires that decisions on land use planning matters be “consistent with” the PPS
Municipalities are the primary implementers of the PPS through policies in their local official plans, zoning by-laws and other planning related decisions.
Proposed Policy Changes
The government is proposing policy changes to:
Encourage the development of an increased mix and supply of housing
Protect the environment and public safety
Reduce barriers and costs for development and provide greater predictability
Support rural, northern and Indigenous communities
Support the economy and job creation
1. Increasing Housing Supply and Mix
The proposed draft policies for consultation would:
Increase land supply requirements municipalities must meet:
Increase planning horizon from 20 to 25 years
Increase housing land supply from 10 to 12 years
Allow higher minimum requirement for serviced residential land (5 years) for upper- and single-tier municipalities
Update provincial guidance to support land budgeting (i.e. Projection Methodology)
Increase flexibility for municipalities related to the phasing of development and compact form
Add flexibility to the process for settlement area boundary expansions (e.g. allow minor adjustments subject to specific tests, highlight that study requirements should be proportionate to the size/scale of development)
Require transit-supportive development and prioritize intensification, including potential air rights development, in proximity to transit, including corridors and stations
Support the development of housing to meet current and future housing needs, and add reference to housing options
Support municipalities in achieving affordable housing targets by requiring alignment with Housing and Homelessness Plans
Broaden PPS policies to enhance support for development of long-term care homes
2. Protecting the Environment and Public Safety
The proposed draft policies for consultation would:
Enhance direction to prepare for impacts of a changing climate
Enhance storm water management policies to protect water and support climate resiliency
Promote the on-site local reuse of excess soil
Maintain current policies related to natural and human made hazards which directs development away from hazardous areas including flood-prone areas in order to protect public health and safety, while work by the Special Advisor on Flooding is underway
Maintain current policies that require municipalities in southern Ontario to identify natural heritage systems, and provide flexibility as to how to achieve this outcome
Maintain protections for the Greenbelt
3. Reducing Barriers and Costs
The proposed draft policies for consultation would:
Require municipalities to take action to fast-track development applications for certain proposals (e.g. housing)
Allow mineral aggregate operations to use rehabilitation plans to demonstrate that extraction will have no negative impacts
Align policies and definition of cultural heritage with recent changes to the Ontario Heritage Act
Refocus PPS energy policies to support a broad range of energy types and opportunities for increased energy supply
Direct large ground-mounted solar facilities away from prime agricultural and specialty crop areas
Make minor changes to streamline development approvals and support burden reduction
4. Supporting Rural, Northern and Indigenous Communities
The proposed draft policies for consultation would:
Allow flexibility for communities by clarifying perceived barriers to sewage and water servicing policies for lot creation and development in rural settlement areas
Enhance municipal engagement with Indigenous communities on land use planning to help inform decision-making, build relationships and address issues upfront in the approvals process
Enhance agricultural protections to support critical food production and the agricultural sector as a significant economic driver
5. Supporting Certainty and Economic Growth
The proposed draft policies for consultation would:
Encourage municipalities to facilitate conditions for economic investment, and at the time of official plan review or update, assess locally-identified employment areas to ensure designations are appropriate
Provide municipalities with greater control over employment area conversions to support the forms of development and job creation that suit the local context (current and future)
Provide stronger protection for major facilities such as manufacturing and industrial uses where non-employment uses are planned nearby (i.e. buffering uses from new sensitive uses).
Do the proposed policies effectively support goals related to increasing housing supply, creating and maintaining jobs, and red tape reduction while continuing to protect the environment, farmland, and public health and safety?
Do the proposed policies strike the right balance? Why or why not?
How do these policies take into consideration the views of Ontario communities?
Are there any other policy changes that are needed to support key priorities for housing, job creation, and streamlining of development approvals?
Are there other tools that are needed to help implement the proposed policies?
 Excerpted from CATCH (Citizens at City Hall), a citizen’s report on what takes place at Hamilton’s city hall
Hamilton has submitted its concerns with the changes to the PPS – no word on what will come out of Burlington’s city hall.
Hamilton city staff are challenging yet another massive rewrite of planning rules by the provincial government. Planning staff oppose the province’s proposed elimination of policies to fight climate change and protect sensitive natural areas. They are also questioning “market based” changes that will make it easier for developers to pave over farmland and effectively shift planning approvals “from a municipal-led approach to a developer-led one.”
Municipalities are facing a major revision of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the document which sets out the overriding rules that all land use planning in Ontario “must be consistent with”. The PPS directs policies on housing, infrastructure, transportation, economic development, aggregate extraction, land servicing arrangements and other municipal activities.
The province’s new rules on climate change are limited to preparing for its “potential” impacts. The Hamilton staff response going to councillors this week argues this “suggests uncertainty and does not acknowledge that impacts from climate change are already occurring”. Noting the city declaration of an emergency, they are even blunter about the provincial removal of all directions to prevent climate change.
“There are no policies within the document which speak to the importance of taking measures now to prevent or avoid climate change,” declares the staff report. “Seeing as the fight against climate change is a race against time, and actions need to be taken immediately to prevent irreversible impacts from climate change, it is an omission in the policies to not include direction to fight and prevent climate change at both the provincial and local levels through a variety of actions.”
The report also demands the province remove a new policy that “would allow mineral aggregate extraction to take place in certain natural heritage features where not previously permitted.” It further challenges wording changes that would base quarrying approvals on promises to rehabilitate in the future rather than the current requirement to review them “based on the ecological value and significance” of the affected landscape.
Other changes to the PPS centre development decisions on “market-based need” and “market demand”, terms which staff believe could “result in maintaining a market ‘status quo’ that is primarily based on a perceived desire for low density housing and will do nothing to encourage a shift to an urban form that is based on increased density.” The staff review notes that “market need and market demand are subjective terms” and asks who will define them and how that definition will be determined.
In numerous instances the word “shall” is being replaced by “should” in the PPS. Staff characterize this as policy being changed from “required” to “suggested” which gives developers more opportunity to overturn council decisions during appeals to the provincial planning tribunal.
Municipal comments on the PPS changes can be submitted until October 21.
 By Pepper Parr
October 4th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It wasn’t really a debate – it was an occasion when three of the five people running for the House of Commons seat for Burlington sat beside each other and responded to questions put to them by the moderators.
Two of the five did not attend: Jane Michaels said she had a meeting conflict and the People’s Party Candidate said he had a dental appointment. Something to remember when you get to the polling stations.
 The three candidates who showed up – from the left Lenaee Dupuis, Gareth Williams and Karina Gould. Lenaee Dupuis spoke for the New Democrats, Gareth Williams for the Green Party and Karina Gould for the Liberals; Gould is seeking re-election.
There was really just the one issue – climate change. Everything else was somehow related to the climate.
Throughout the event each candidate threw out numbers: $15 million here; another $150 million there; 300,000 jobs or 50,000 housing units.
It was all in their party platforms which you could find on line.
Fast forward to the end of the debate – Karina Gould spoke of the empty seat that was set up for the Conservative party candidate Jane Michaels, and said a vote for the Conservatives was a vote for an empty seat in the House of Commons.
 Lenaee Dupuis, candidate for the New Democrats. Lenaee Dupuis was pleasant enough and had a decent grip on the issues – electable – probably not.
Gareth Williams has the wind in his sails but he is going to have to loosen up and come across as approachable.
He was a little bit better at this election than he was during the municipal election.
Williams knows his stuff – he has been active in the community for well over a decade and was one of the first people in Burlington to put solar panels on the roof of his house.
Up until this election Williams has been a Liberal. He lost faith in the party and doesn’t believe they are the answer to the climate change tsunami that is coming our way. He said he could not accept the way the Liberals failed to deliver on their promises.
There were mentions of the affordable housing issue, very little about the growing number of seniors in the community and how that was going to be dealt with.
There was mention of the need to deliver more in the way of gas taxes to the municipal sector.
Gould had the facts and figures down pat – she delivered very well.
 Burlington Green creating space and opportunity for the public to hear what candidates had to say. The event was sponsored by Voice 19 – the name BurlingtonGreen gave their election coverage.
The event was held at NuvoOne, the former location of the 100 Huntley Street television series. The building is undergoing a major refit. It currently has 80 different organizations with 300 people using some of the space. It is one of those buildings you can easily get lost in.
The NuvoOne concept has huge potential – the refit, based on the plans will be very attractive.
 Sean Saulnier, owner of NuvoOne – location of the Burlington Green election debate. Sean Saulnier, owner of NuvoOne, donated the space for the event and then put on a small buffet and a cash bar. It has been some time since this city has seen a commercial organization put on free food.
The environment was the issue – with climate change as the focal point.
Williams was close to strident on the need to make changes now – not in a couple of months – but now.
“This is not a choice” he said –“ this is an imperative.”
Gould cautioned the audience to be realistic – she pointed out that “the kids get it” and added that they don’t see much in the way of solutions. She mentioned a student she talked to at a high school event. He told her that all he was hearing was how bad it was going to be and that was scaring him – he didn’t know what he could do – and he didn’t see a very bright future.
Gould said “We need plans people can participate in. This is the biggest challenge we have ever had to face and many of the young people don’t know what they can do.” The kid in the high school reflected the views of a lot of people. While they “get it” they aren’t being given much in the way of tools to make the difference.
 Karina Gould, the incumbent in the 2019 federal election talking with a voter at the BurlingtonGreen debate last night. They can go on marches, take part in protest and hold up smartly written signs. Gould was suggesting we had to give them more. “If people think they are losing they won’t be with us. We need to prepare people for the transition to a different economy. A “just transition” was the way Gould put it.
Williams wanted to see the billions in subsidies to the fossil fuel directed to writing off the billions in student debt.
Gould pointed to the funding being done now to re-train workers in the automotive sector and the oil and gas sector to work in the environmental sector where answers have to be found for some very complex issues.
Gould pointed out that people are not opposed to doing something about climate change but they are not all that keen on paying for those changes.
In the automotive sector there are far more pick-up trucks being sold than electric vehicles – the message has not gotten through.
All three candidates took shots at the Harper government and the changes he made that are seen now as retrograde. Andrew Sheer, the Conservative party leader was seen as a smaller version of Harper. Neither Sheer nor the Prime Minster was the issue. The issue was who can get a handle on the problem we are facing. That dilemma is reflected in the polls – the two traditional parties are in one of those neck and neck ties.
The questions put to the candidates came from different sources. The first was the only question the candidates saw in advance. The rest came from youth groups, the 300 people who worked at NuvoOne, were asked for their input – the uptake was pretty poor. This is the cohort that is supposed to be coming up with all the new technology to solve our problems. They didn’t put anything on the table at the debate last night.
There were some prepared questions from the audience but there were no direct questions from the floor.
Two statements pointed up some of the difference between Gareth Williams and Lenaee Dupuis. Gareth said “you cannot negotiate with physics and science. Dupuis said she wanted to “make life better for everyone”
Gould closed with: “We can do this, we can make people feel they are part of the solution.” Williams saw this as an “all hands on deck” situation.
The audience was polite, courteous and appreciative – this is Burlington,
What was missing was any of the candidate resonating with the audience. There wasn’t a really stunning comment or a well worded retort.
Gould was good, Williams knew his stuff and Dupuis was wearing orange.
 Centre Gareth Williams made one of the strongest statements – but he never managed to grab and hold the audience. What the audience didn’t get to see was any one-on-one between the candidates. At some point one of the organizations sponsoring these events will grow up and treat the audience like adults and make the candidate truly on-the-spot accountable.
Dupuis could have asked Gold and Williams a direct question. The other two, Williams and Gould would be given the same opportunity.
There were no sparks – but Williams did make an irrefutable point – there is no negotiating with physics or science.
By Staff
October 4th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It took a lot of time and effort and some dogged follow up work – but it paid off in several ways.
 The distinctive marking on the knapsack were a major clue. The police were able to arrest and charge two men with Willfully Promoting Hate and at the same time make it very clear to the public that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated.
Investigators from the 3 District Criminal Investigations Bureau conducted an extensive and complex investigation between June and August of 2019. This case was solved through a tremendous amount of teamwork and collaboration with both internal investigative resources and external / community participation.
The HRPS would also like to thank local and national media outlets, the City of Burlington and local faith groups for bringing attention to this disturbing crime. As a result, community partners and citizens of Burlington provided access to security footage that assisted the HRPS in identifying the accused.
The remaining hate crime incidents are still under investigation and additional charges are pending. Anyone with information about any of these incidents is asked to contact investigator Detective Jared McLeod at 905-825-4777 ext. 2385 or ext. 2316.
 Suspects who left signs at city hall – walking away from cameras with poor quality lenses. The Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) has made two arrests after investigating into several hate-motivated incidents that occurred in the City of Burlington in May and June 2019. The results of the investigation have provided grounds to lay charges in two of these incidents which took place between June 1 and 2, 2019 at Burlington City Hall and the Burlington Art Gallery and involved both Anti-Semitic and racist content.
Upon identification of both suspects, the HRPS sought approval by the Attorney General’s Office to lay a charge of “Willfully Promoting Hate”, as required by the Criminal Code of Canada. Approval to proceed with charges was granted on September 20, 2019.
On October 4, 2019, two males were arrested, charged and released for the below offences. Both accused are scheduled to appear on October 30, 2019, in the Milton Provincial Court at 9:00 AM.
Charged:
Matthew Wasikiewicz (21) of Burlington
• Willfully Promoting Hate x 2
Kyle Kroeplin (22) of Burlington
• Willfully Promoting Hate x 2
The Halton Regional Police Service is unwavering in its commitment to solve crime and bring those responsible to justice, particularly crimes that are hate-motivated. “There is no place in any community for hate. Perpetrators of crimes in Halton Region that target others because of their skin colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or any other factor will be rigorously pursued and brought to justice. Everyone in our community has the right to live, work and play in an environment free from fear,” says Chief Stephen Tanner.
 Halton Regional Police Service is unwavering in its commitment to solve crime and bring those responsible to justice, particularly crimes that are hate-motivated. Anyone with information about any of these incidents is asked to contact investigator Detective Jared McLeod at 905-825-4777 ext. 2385 or ext. 2316.
Tips can also be submitted to Crime Stoppers “See Something? Hear Something? Know Something? Contact Crime Stoppers” at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS) or through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.ca.
Related news stories:
Police looking for suspects.
Days later the police had picture of a person they wanted to interview.
Police press on looking for more information – detective work at its best.
By Ray Rivers
October 3rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The Bloc leader, Yves-François Blanchet, was in good form, making his points as the leader of the resurgent Quebec federal, but separatist, party. It has to be an appealing option for Quebecers – a political party dedicated solely to protecting their interests in Parliament. And their end goal is ‘Quebexit’ (Quebec exit). After all, as Mr. Scheer pointed out, thanks to Mr. Harper Quebec already can claim ‘nation’ status.
 Five candidates took part in a French language debate: Yves-François Blanchet, for the BLOC Quebec, Andrew Sheer for the Conservatives, journalist Pierre Bruneau, Justin Trudeau for the Liberals and Jagmeet Singh for the New Democrats. Justin Trudeau was reserved, calm and collected even when when he was bombarded by personal attacks and cut off in mid-sentence by both Singh and Scheer. He chose to patiently bide his time even if it did reduce his speaking time. And he chose to ignore cheap shots by Sheer over costumes, his passion for canoeing or about about having two planes, which he also used during the 2015 election. Indeed, unlike Scheer, he did buy emission credits for his travel.
 Jagmeet Singh with some of his supporters. Jagmeet Singh spoke well, at least until he started into his well-worn rant about the rich and poor. In the process he took personal shots at Trudeau, calling him rich. In fact Justin inherited a little over a million dollars when his father died – about the value of a nice bungalow in Toronto. And it’s not as if Singh, a lawyer, was ever poor. His father, a successful psychiatrist, put him through a private American high school which charges US $31,260 annual tuition. He is known to wear tailor-made expensive suits, owns a couple of Rolex watches and chooses to ride a high end bicycle.
 Andrew Scheer, leader of the Conservative Party. Almost every time Trudeau was given the podium, Andrew Scheer would butt in to interrupt him in broken French. And it was painful watching Scheer stumble with a language he never will be able to speak fluently. While Scheer’s French comprehension seemed pretty good, his ability to express himself was abysmal. For someone who grew up in mostly bilingual Ottawa, attended French immersion classes, and would have had free language training as an MP, that is inexcusable.
Scheer has been a federal MP for 15 years, since 2004, and House speaker from 2011 till 2015. Watching him stumble on the podium was embarrassing for everyone. Finally Mr. Blanchet helped him out by translating his so-called win-win strategy as just an ‘oil pipeline’. And even Singh got frustrated as Scheer fumbled trying to translate the Anglicism win-win into French.
But language aside it was what he was saying that differentiated him from the other candidates/party leaders. When Trudeau asked him directly, he refused to endorse a woman’s right to choose. Though the next day he said he is pro-life, what ever that means. We are all pro-life, but he is anti-choice.
His climate change dream plan amounts to a bunch of hypothetical schemes and a recycled home energy retro-fit program. And his plan to cancel the carbon tax seemed so out of context, especially given his refusal to acknowledge the carbon tax-rebate. Scheer re-iterated the false-hood that a carbon tax doesn’t work.
But where he really ran into trouble was his big win-win job creation project – an oil pipeline across Quebec. That is never going to fly in today’s Quebec. They understand that the gasoline car is on the way out, to be replaced by the EV In fact, if Scheer had checked he would have found out that Quebecers buy more EV’s per capita than folks anywhere else in the country.
 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seeking a second term of office. Inevitably Trudeau was also challenged for his government’s apparent hypocrisy in purchasing the TMX pipeline and his plans to more than double capacity. Perhaps explaining that he was using federal money to protect Alberta’s oil industry would have been unwise, given where he was speaking? Instead he defended the purchase on the basis that profits from the pipeline will be dedicated to fund national renewable energy projects.
TVA, the French language network hosting the debate, has broad coverage through out Quebec, particularly in the area outside of Montreal. This is territory traditionally friendly to the Conservatives. So it was important for the Tories to hang onto their ridings here. But this was also an opportunity for the Bloc, NDP and Liberals to try to take some of these ridings away.
And the truth is that Mr.Scheer had a really bad night. It was the toxic combination of what he said as well as how he said it. Scheer’s main platform is about a national energy corridor which includes an oil pipeline. There is no social acceptability for that kind of initiative in this province. Quebecers care deeply about climate change and the environment so the last thing they want is another oil pipeline.
 Yves-François Blanchet, leader of the BLOC. was clearly the winner There is another French language debate, so one shouldn’t count Mr. Scheer out of the race just yet. Berlitz can work miracles they say. But, language aside, he has his work cut out on policy development if he wants to inch his way into the hearts of Quebecers.
Blanchet was clearly a winner and Trudeau held his own. Singh performed well, but it remains to be seen whether Quebecers will opt for retaining the remaining NDP seats in the face of a mostly like-minded Bloc that is committed solely to their provincial interests. And for a land which recently enacted a law outlawing public servants wearing religious symbols, Mr. Singh has a huge uphill climb to convince them that he should be the top public servant of the country.
 Ray Rivers writes regularly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links
Sheer Face to Face
BC Carbon Tax – Liberal Planes – Singh and Wealth – Scheer Anti-Choice –
|
|
