They aren’t going to be building many more of these; detached single family homes.
Close to the last development project for detached homes is underway at the intersection of Dundas and
Single family detached homes under construction at the intersection of Walkers Line and Dundas is close to the last the city will see.
Walkers Line is underway.
Former Director of Planning, now Deputy city manager, Mary Lou Tanner said a number of months ago that the land available for single family homes will permit not more than 800 new homes.
What the city can expect to see next are townhouses, stacked townhouses and back to back townhouses with much less space and a lot less in amenities.
A graphic from a development proposed for 2100 Brant shows the change that Burlington is experiencing. The existing community, shown in blue has 736 homes: the planned community, which is much much smaller is projected to have 233 units. That is what intensification s all about – and the locals don’t like it.
A development planned for 2100 Brant has raised the ire of residents in that community – National Homes has an application for 233 units that will be some form of townhouses with no park proposed for those 233 families.
It is going to be a different Burlington when they are all done.
Her goal is to make Oakville North-Burlington the most livable community in Canada. Member of Parliament for Oakville North Burlington Pam Damoff is pointing her constituents to a federal government program that is committed to reducing barriers for Canadians with disabilities and ensuring that everyone has equal access and opportunity to succeed.
The Enabling Accessibility Fund (EAF) supports organizations across Canada that improve accessibility and enables Canadians with disabilities to participate more fully in society.
Pam Damoff MP for Oakville Burlington North
The goal, said Damoff, starts with ensuring our community is both inclusive and accessible for everyone who lives here. I would like to encourage not-for-profits, Indigenous organizations, and municipal governments to apply for funding for the retrofit, renovation or new construction of accessible facilities or venues through the 2018 EAF call for concepts (CFC) for mid-sized projects.
Eligible applicants have until May 24, 2018, to submit their project concept application. The federal contribution for such projects can be between $350,000 and $1 million, and are asked to be focused on retrofit, renovation, or new construction of projects that increase accessibility. Example projects can be found at the following link.
Eligible organizations must offer or plan to offer services and programs that support the social and labour market integration needs of people with disabilities.
Since the creation of the EAF in 2007, the Government of Canada has funded over 3,000 projects, helping Canadians gain access to their communities’ programs, services and workplaces. Starting in 2018–19, the EAF grants and contributions budget will grow to $20.65 million, as Budget 2017 provided $77 million over 10 years to expand the activities of the EAF and support more small and mid-sized projects, including youth driven proposals, aimed at improving accessibility in Canadian communities and workplaces.
Applicants are invited to submit their project concepts before May 24 and if the project concepts are successful, applicants will then be asked to submit a detailed proposal at a later date. You may submit a project concept application online, by mail or email.
Any questions about the application process? contact 905-847-4043 or pam.damoff@parl.gc.ca.
There were few people lining up to tell city council how much they liked the building that is to go up across the street from city hall and rise to 23 stories. City council approved the Staff recommendation on a 5-2 vote; ECoB (Engaged Citizens of Burlington) almost immediately said they ddn’t like the idea and the Mayor nodded in agreement – his was one of the two votes against the project.
No word from ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward but expect her to have some choice words for the Section 37 agreement the city arrived at with Carriage Gate the developer of the building that has yet to be given a name.
ECoB at one point was standing at the counter in the Clerk’s office panting to file an OMB appeal but were told they couldn’t do so until the file was complete – meaning that the city had to agree on a Section 37 – which is a process whereby the citizens get some benefit for the extra height and density a development gets that is above and beyond whatever the site had in terms of zoning.
The site for Carriage Gate is comprised of a number of properties that were assembled, each having slightly different zoning.
No word yet on what, if anything, ECoB plans to do with that plan to appeal the decision the city made.
Tom Muir, let the city knows where he stands: ” unacceptable sweetening of an already sweet deal for the developer.” Muir has delegated to city council and has provided the Gazette with a copy of the delegation that will get put into the record of the April 10th meeting.
To: Burlington Planning and Development Committee From: Tom Muir, Resident Subject: Written delegation to April 10/18 P&D meeting item of Section 37 staff report for 421 Brant St
Dear Councilors;
I am unable to delegate personally to this item, so I am sending this written delegation of my comments for the record of the proceedings.
To simplify my comments I will target them item by item by following a copy of the staff report text that is pertinent.
1. Regarding; “Specifically, the City “may encourage the use of community benefits provisions with regard to the following matters:””
The words of describing a total voluntary nature of the action by the City, and developer, i.e, “The City may encourage the use of …”,makes me wonder if the staff and Council thinks that city residents are completely stupid, and fools to be bilked.
Building without a name – just a street address.
“May encourage” is a double form of contingency that means the City doesn’t have to do anything at all to secure anything at all, but maybe just think about trying to get the developer to deliver something, and this can be enough.
Given the track record of this very same developer in refusing to deliver on a previous Section 37 agreement on the Carriage Gate development, why on earth would the City agree to such terms and a course of action?
Who benefits from this except the developer, and there is no representation of city residents that I can see.
It’s a ridiculous on its face insult to the residents of this City. This is not a Section 37 Community Benefits agreement, but a very bad for residents agreement, presented as such. It is completely unacceptable.
2. Regarding, (i) “Provision of a wide range of housing types including special needs, assisted, or
other low-income housing.”
• To assist in the pursuit of long-term affordable housing, the Developer agree to a discount of $300,000 to be used against the purchase price of up to 10 dwelling units within the subject development, or in the event that a purchase(s) is/are not to occur within the subject development, the Developer agrees to provide the City with a cash contribution of $300,000 prior to condominium registration, to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building.
This idea is acceptable as long as there are tight provisions to ensure that the units are sold to those demonstrating as needing of affordable housing, and this should be overseen by public agencies involved in such activities.
Provisions must be made to ensure the units are not sold and then appear back in the free market for resale at market prices.
3.Regarding, (iv) “improved access to public transit or implementation of a Travel Demand
Management Plan.”
• The Developer agrees to provide one (1) publicly accessible car share parking space (indirect community benefit assessed at $50,000) and contribute to the City’s emerging car-share network by accommodating a carshare vehicle for a minimum of two years starting from the first occupancy (indirect community benefit assessed at $50,000), or equivalent, to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation; and (v) “provision of public areas, crosswalks, and walkways, and connections to external walkways/trail systems.”
• The Developer agrees to provide a direct community benefit of a $50,000 contribution towards the future expansion of Civic Square, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Capital Works; and
• The Developer agrees to provide public access by way of an easement to be registered on title for lands located at the northeast corner of Brant Street and James Streets, the minimum dimensions of which are in the form of a triangle measured at 16m by 16m (128m2)(an indirect community benefit assessed at
$75,000), to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Capital Works; and (vi) “provision of public parking.”
All of this is acceptable to me, although I fail to see how this is not part of the negotiated agreement for the added height and density permitted.
As well, I am not sure about the adequacy of the amounts provided, and I see no transparent explanation of how any of these terms were rationalized and arrived at. I would like to see this rationalization.
The structure will dwarf city hall.
4. Regarding, • The Developer agrees to provide eight (8) visitor parking spaces (indirect community benefit accessed at $400,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation;
This is an unacceptable sweetening of an already sweet deal for the developer. I can’t imagine how a negotiation for 23 stories in an 8 to 12 story existing permission (which is also in doubt of validity) can justify no or inadequate provision for visitor parking. And even more so, when parking was a top public concern expressed in the review process.
In my view, this is unjustified to provide this as a benefit to the public when it is really the developer that is benefiting.
5. Regarding, (ix) “protection or enhancement of significant views” • The Developer agrees, and it is enshrined within the amending zoning by-law, that increased building setbacks, including widened sidewalks on Brant Street, James Street, and John Street, and view corridors on Brant Street and Page 5 of Report PB-33-18 – James Street to City Hall and the Cenotaph (indirect community benefit accessed at $250,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building; and (x) “provision of affordable housing, beyond the basic Provincial requirements;” • See (i) above. (xi) “provision of public art”
• The Developer agrees to provide a direct community benefit of $150,000 towards the public art reserve fund to be used within the publicly accessibly privately owned easement area referred to in subsection (v) and/or in the future Civic Square expansion area, to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building; and (xii) “provision of green technology and sustainable architecture”
The Developer agrees to implement green technology and sustainable architecture elements into the subject property in accordance with either LEED certification standards and/or compliance with the City’s Sustainable Building and Development guidelines (indirect community benefit accessed at $300,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building; and (xiii) “provision of streetscape improvements in accordance with Council approved design guidelines”
• The Developer agrees to implement City of Burlington Streetscape Guidelines Standards within the Brant Street, James Street, and John Street public realm areas, including the expanded building setback areas at-grade and the publicly accessible open space easement area outlined in (v) above (an indirect community benefit accessed at $150,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building.
Before enacting the amending zoning by-law, the applicant will be required to execute an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building and the City Solicitor, and that such agreement be registered on title to the lands in a manner satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to secure said benefits.
The provisions for community benefits are also included in the zoning by-law.
These features are all acceptable to me, but I have no basis to see on how these were negotiated and agreed to. I also have no rationalization on the values of these, and/or the adequacy of them.
I also have no rationalization of why these features are considered for Section 37, and not a proper included part of the negotiated and Council approved development for the project.
6. Overall, my view is this, and I ask the planners and group that determined these Section 37 “Benefits” for the additional information describing how the “Benefits” are calculated, with transparency.
The fact is it’s cashing in on the City ability to create money with the OP and Zoning permissions.The Benefits should not all go to the developers. – there needs to be a fair share.
Don’t ever think only central banks can create money out of nothing but air (height and density rights written on paper).
This is a powerful wealth creation tool that most people don’t think about really until times like now when the overall “air parcel” bits and pieces, sprinkled all over the place, that is driving the money value, gets too big not to notice.
Just imagine – creating 26 floors of nominal residential space, by converting zero floors of empty space (one can imagine converting 2 or 4 floors) of commercial/retail space with half the unit value, is a mighty injection of wealth created out of practically or comparatively nothing.
The per unit land values, and associated rents, of course inflate in some multiple of proportion of the expected gross return of the build.
I think that the the city planners and someone who works for the City who is in in charge of keeping track of these values for City purposes, can do this, and should be directed to do by Council or the managers. it’s additional information that is needed for financially prudent financial decision-making by Council.
And of course, you have to add in all the negative costs and crap and inflation and lost existing business income that goes along with this set of tear-downs, that gets dumped on residents and businessmen, for them to bear.
So, the city ought to cash in on what it creates, since they control it and it is the city ownership of, and responsibility for, the Plan. It needs a very close look.
If Section 37 benefits are to be calculated, then these are the land value gains, and residents costs, that should determine what these are. I would suggest that the gains as described above be shared 50/50. Those referred to above can provide estimates of these values.
And this is another reason why the city must not give away all the heights to developers “by right”, where there are no Section 37 benefits allowed.
We now know where one citizen stands.
Tom Muir is a retired federal civil servant who lives in Aldershot and delegates before city council frequently.
This story was revised to correct the impression that a news story on the Mayor impacted the results of the survey. We don’t know yet if that ride had an impact on those who chose the Rick Goldring – what we do know is that story resulted in a surge in responses
The Gazette readership survey and the choices made by those who completed the 17 questions is now closed.
Now the task of analyzing the data and putting it in context.
We will tell you something about our readers and what they think of significant issues.
The questions related to the height of buildings in various parts of the city produced some interesting responses. Was it just the people in ward 2 who have responded or were there responses from wards 3 and 6 as well; and if there was a response – how significant was it.
The gender of our readers skews to the male side. When we have completed the analysis we will tell you where our readers live – by ward.
Did gender play a role in the responses?
Which of the three mayoralty race candidates led the responses and where did those people come from? And what was it that made people respond?
The Gazette published a short video done by James Burchill who interviewed the Mayor while driving around in his Smart Car.
The day after we ran that feature the responses shot up – way up? We now need to determine who those responders chose and where those responders lived.
We will be publishing the data in sections – one each day as we work our way into next week.
We are also looking for someone who can serve as an independent auditor who will look at the data and verify that the analysis was fair. This will all take time.
The Mayors Confidential Coffee drive with James Burchill may prove to be a critical point in his election campaign.
What we can say at this point is that the numbers, for the most part held, throughout the 17 days the survey was open – with the exception of the huge surge in responses we got the day after the Mayor went for that Coffee Confidential drive with James Burchill.
We know nothing about the people who responded other than where they live, their age approximations and the view the expressed with the answers they gave.
Those responders are completely anonymous to us. So far we have not detected any gaming of the survey – a more detailed analysis is needed to determine if this has been a fair reflection of what people in Burlington think.
Halton District school board Director of Education Stuart Miller told board trustees Wednesday evening that he was pulling his report on a new administration building from the agenda.
He has moved to a plan B – and he isn’t at all certain what that plan will be.
Director of Education Stuart Miller telling the Halton District trustees that he is pulling his administration building report from the agenda.
Miller has explained to the trustees he is accountable to the trustees and has a duty to advise them on what is needed to deliver the program to students. A new administration building is one of the things he needs and for the most part the 11 trustees agree with him. What they don’t seem to be able to agree on is where that building should be located.
Trustees Danielli, Amos, Harvey Hope and Collard were prepared to ask that debate on a new building be deferred until there was more information available.
Harvey Hope talked of the traffic challenges in getting to the Board offices in Burlington. Others pointed out that the bulk of the student population is no longer in Burlington; it is north east of the city. They seemed to feel that the administration offices should be closer to the bulk of the student population.
Miller doesn’t disagree with that position but points to the hard realities he has to deal with. The Board owns the land the current site is located on along with a large piece of land immediately south of the current structure and east of M.M. Robinson high school.
Intersection of Upper Middle Road and Guelph Line – a suggested location for a new administration building. Land is owned by the school board.
Buying land for a new building would be prohibitively expensive and the board doesn’t’ have anywhere near enough in its reserve funds to buy new land and construct a new building.
In his initial report to the trustees Miller pointed out to them that a report from a real estate company made it clear that there really wasn’t anything available in the way of the kind of land needed anywhere in the Region.
The trustees have told Miller to look harder.
It is hard to imagine a real estate company passing up a chance to find an appropriate piece of property and then negotiate the purchase of the land. If it was out there – would they not have found it?
Miller is up against a second reality. The building the Board administration is in now has to be made AODA compliant by 2025 – and that will be very expensive. Added to that – the cost of making the space on New Street AODA compliant adds to his woes.
Miller points out that this issue has been before the trustees since 2005. More than 13 years. He told the trustees on Wednesday that a “non-decision is not an option” and added that at some point the board has to make a decision.
Miller said that he would bring the report back sometime in 2019 – in January or February. Milton trustee Danielli noted that Miller might be dealing with a significantly different board after the October municipal election.
Perhaps those trustees who have been sitting on their hands since 2005 and done nothing about this problem will choose to end their careers as trustees or have the public bring those careers to an end.
One of the critical jobs these trustees have is to be financially prudent; there is enough money in the reserve fund to pay for the construction of a new administration building on and the board owns in Burlington.
Miller also added that it will take three to five years to get all the permissions and permits in place before construction could begin and that AODA date of 2025 is not that far off.
A new board administration building could be located at the north west intersection of Upper Middle and Guelph Line.
Miller has said that he will “explore some other geographical areas, and be back at the Board probably early in the New Year and they will have to decide if they want a new building or renovating this one.”
Miller also pointed out that the public needs to know what the board of education is up against.
Time for the trustees to get on with the job they were elected to do.
On April 4th 2018, members of the Burlington Street Crime Unit concluded an investigation after arresting a male believed to be in possession of illegal drugs. A search of the male resulted in the seizure of 1 gram of cocaine, 28 grams of marihuana and a digital scale.
A search warrant was subsequently executed at a Burlington home on Spring Gardens Road where investigators seized cash, 4.4 grams of marihuana, 52 MDMA (Ecstasy) pills and a .380 calibre handgun.
The seized drugs and firearm have an estimated street value of $ 2,600.00
Arrested and charged are:
Dylan Christopher Dean (20-yrs) of Burlington was released on a Promise to Appear in Milton Court on May 1st 2018 charged with the following:
• Possession of a controlled substance (marihuana) for the purpose of trafficking 0 S.5(2) CDSA
Kamaldip SINGHERA (34-yrs) of Burlington was released on a Promise to Appear in Milton Court on May 1st 2018 charged with the following:
• Possession of a controlled substance (marihuana) for the purpose of trafficking – S.5(2) CDSA
• Possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) – S.4(a) CDSA
• Trafficking in a controlled substance (marihuana) – S.5(1) CDSA
Brandon Michael STODDARD (30-yrs) of Burlington was held for bail charged with the following:
• Possession of a controlled substance (MDMA) for the purpose of trafficking – S.5(2) CDSA
• Possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose – S.88(1) C.C
• Unauthorized possession of a firearm – S.91(1) C.C.
• Possession of a firearm knowing it’s unauthorized – S.92(1) C.C.
• Breach of firearms prohibition – S.117.01(1) C.C
• Careless use (storage) of firearm –S.86(1) C.C
Anyone who may have any additional information pertaining to this investigation is asked to contact D/Cst. Dave Griffiths of the Burlington Street Crime Unit at 905-825-4747 ext. 2345.
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.
Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon, President of the Treasury Board and Minister Responsible for Digital Government, joined Burlington Mayor Rick Goldring yesterday to recognize an investment in the City of Burlington’s cycling infrastructure from the Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program.
The provincial program has approved $640,298 in annual funding to support up to 80 per cent of costs associated with the implementation of eligible commuter cycling projects in the city. The money will be used to assist with capital costs to build new commuter cycling infrastructure and enhance existing cycling infrastructure.
From left to right – Danijel Ozimkovic, City of Burlington; Mayor Rick Goldring; Don Thorpe, Burlington Cycling Committee; The Honourable Eleanor McMahon; and Kendra Willard, Burlington Cycling Committee, at the announcement for the Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program
A project to upgrade and extend Francis Road Bikeway from Warwick Drive to Plains Road East has been identified under the new funding. The extension is expected to be completed by the end of 2020.
Mayor Rick Goldring pointed out that “ Burlington’s population continues to grow over the next 25 years, providing residents with more choices for getting around our city will be critical to ensure the success of our city’s transportation network. This funding will enhance existing cycling infrastructure like the Francis Road Bikeway and will provide cyclists in Burlington with safe and convenient options for commuting to their destination.”
MPP Eleanor McMahon, President of the Treasury Board and Minister Responsible for Digital Government said: “Cities across Canada and around the world are investing in cycling so that their citizens have access to safe routes to work, to school, for recreation…” The key word there is “safe”.
In 2016, the City of Burlington became a Bicycle-Friendly Community in 2016, receiving a silver rating by the Share the Road Cycling Coalition.
The survey ends at midnight. Takes two minutes to complete.
• Currently, the city offers the following cycling infrastructure: • 48 km of bike lanes • 47.3 km of bike route streets • 6.4 km of bike lane/sharrow streets • 11.7 km of paved shoulders • 52.5 km of multi-use paths adjacent to the road • 31.6 km of paved off-road, multi-use paths
The Halton District School Board has appointed Maia Puccetti as Superintendent of Facility Services. She replaces Gerry Cullen who retired recently.
Maia Puccetti appointed Superintendent of Facility Services for the Halton District School Board
Puccetti is expected to start her new role this spring. As Superintendent of Facility Services, Puccetti will lead capital projects, facilities, maintenance, rentals, environmental and sustainability projects and plant operations.
Puccetti is currently the Superintendent of Facilities Services for the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB), a role she has held since March 2011, where she is responsible for capital, school renewal, maintenance, operations and security, sustainability, energy management and accessibility. She is also the Acting Associate Director of the TCDSB. Previously, Puccetti held the role of Senior Coordinator of Renewal and Energy and Senior Manager of Renewal with the TCDSB.
Puccetti holds a bachelor’s degree in History and Environmental Design and a master’s degree in Architecture. She has served as the Capital Planner for Toronto Community Housing Corporation and as an Architect with MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects.
Puccetti has some interesting challenges ahead of her: re-purposing what the Board does with Lester B. Pearson and Bateman high schools; making a new Bateman fit into Nelson high school and building a new Board administration office once the trustees decide where it should be located.
Purse snatching has been increasing in the Region. The Regional Police have been putting out warnings and arrests are being made. There is a suspect the police would like to talk to.
A purse belonging to a senior was stolen from the back of a chair outside of the Starbucks Store at Mapleview Mall in Burlington.
Soon after the theft, the thieves began fraudulently using the seniors’ credit cards at several Burlington area stores.
After some investigation, police have identified one of the persons responsible.
On April 4th 2018 the Natasha HOADLEY (29 years old) from Hamilton was arrested and held for bail charged with the following offences:
• Theft under $5000 • Fraud Under $5000 (two counts) • Unauthorized use of a credit card (two counts) • Possession of property obtained by crime.
Police are seeking the public’s assistance in identifying the accomplice in this theft.
He is described as Male, black, 6’2, 170 lbs, thin build, long black hair in dreadlocks.
Anyone with information regarding these incidents or other purse thefts is asked to contact Detective Constable Derek Gray of the Burlington Criminal Investigations Bureau – Vulnerable Persons and Seniors Liaison Team at 905-825-4747 ext. 2344.
Tips can also be submitted to Crime Stoppers “See Something? Hear Something? Know Something? Contact Crime Stoppers” at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS)
Halton Regional Police are reminding residents to keep a close eye on their purses and wallets.
Residents should be aware of their surroundings and be alert for distraction type thefts when shopping in the grocery stores, malls and other retail business.
Prevention Tip: Residents are reminded to only carry the necessary identification such as Driver’s Licence or Health Card, and should try to minimize this potential loss by leaving their SIN card, birth certificate and passports securely at home.
If you become a victim of a purse or wallet theft please contact your financial services providers, cancel you cards and then call the Halton Regional Police to file a report.
People charged with a criminal offence are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The readership survey will close Friday – at midnight. Takes two minutes to complete.
By Pepper Parr
April 6th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
What happens when a couple of “toffs” who both have British accents talk to each other?
You have to watch these two and wonder what music can do to grown men.
Once they get past the music – Paul Copcutt, a personal brand consultant, has a really interesting conversation with James Burchill during one of those Coffee Confidential interviews that Burchill does while tootling about the city in his Smart Car.
Interesting to hear them talk about how they use their accent to leverage their presentations.
Copcutt talks about what a brand is and what it isn’t and Burchill is merciless when he describes how he evaluates the marketing efforts of some corporations. Withering – but very true.
Copcutt throws in a nice little discount for his service near the end of the interview.
Burchill has been doing these interviews for a number of months; worth tuning into.
On Tuesday April 3rd 2018, two males were in Food Basics stores in the towns of Georgetown, Milton and the city of Burlington.
At each location the two males, acting as a team, used distraction techniques to steal a purse from unsuspecting elderly females. One male engaged the elderly females in conversation asking for assistance. During this distraction, the other male stole the purses. Cash and credit cards were taken from the stolen purses and the purses were discarded.
The two males used the stolen credit cards at multiple stores close to the location of each theft. The cards were used immediately after the theft of each purse.
At 1:35pm on Wednesday April 4th 2018, the same males again attended the Food Basics in Georgetown. Alert employees recognized the suspects and quickly contacted police. The suspects left the scene in a motor vehicle. Witnesses obtained the licence plate information and police connected the vehicle to a Brampton address.
Detectives from the one district criminal investigations bureau were able to stop the motor vehicle and at 4:10pm arrested the occupants as they attempted to return to their residence.
One adult and one young offender, who cannot be named under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, are facing three counts of theft under.
Bogdan DYMITER, 20 years of Brampton and a 17 year old young offender were held pending a bail hearing.
The investigation is continuing into these offences and further charges are expected.
What you can do to protect your self: Click here
Halton Police wish to thank the alert Food Basics employees who quickly contacted police and obtained vital information necessary to bring this investigation to a successful conclusion.
Police would also like to remind members of the public to be cognizant of the techniques used in these types of thefts and be on guard keeping personal possessions safe, secure and away from view in public places.
Anyone who may have additional information concerning this investigation can contact Detective Derek Moyes of the One District Criminal Investigations Bureau at 905-825-4747 ext: 2114.
Tips can also be submitted to Crime Stoppers “See something? Hear something? Know something? Contact Crime Stoppers” at 1-800-222- 477 (TIPS) or through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.ca.
Persons charged are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Police are still laying far too many charges for Impaired driving.
How man of these charges result in convictions?
What does a conviction mean to insurance rates?
What does the Court do in terms of punishment? Fines? How much?
A summary of the offences:
On March 30, 2018 shortly before 1:30 am, Halton Police officers responded to a collision in the area of Maple Avenue and Brush Road in Milton. As a result of an investigation, Obaid Mujtaba (24), of Milton was charged with driving while ability impaired and driving over 80mgs.
On March 30, 2018 shortly before 8:30 am, Halton Police officers responded to a collision in the area of Main Street South and Park Avenue in Halton Hills. As a result of an investigation, Richard Fox (34), of Stoney Creek was charged with driving while ability impaired and driving over 80mgs.
On March 30, 2018 shortly before 10:30 am, Halton Police officers responded to the area of Robarts Drive and Dills Crescent in Milton, in response to a citizen-initiated traffic complaint. As a result of an investigation, Jeremy Dixon (22), of Milton was charged with driving while ability impaired and driving over 80 mgs.
On March 31, 2018 shortly after 11:30 am, Halton Police officers initiated a traffic stop near the intersection of Princeton Crescent and Sunnydale Drive in Burlington. As a result of an investigation, Lance Atchison (50), of Burlington was charged with driving while ability impaired and driving over 80 mgs.
On March 31, 2018 shortly before 8:00 pm, Halton Police officers responded to a collision in the area of Fairview Street and Maple Avenue in Burlington. As a result of an investigation, Ali Mohammed (33), of Burlington was charged with driving while ability impaired and driving over 80mgs.
On March 31, 2018 shortly after 9:00 pm, Halton Police officers responded to the area of Maple Avenue and Norrington Place in Milton, in response to a citizen-initiated traffic complaint. As a result of an investigation, Clark Stewart (45), of Milton was charged with driving while ability impaired and driving over 80 mgs.
On April 1, 2018 shortly before 11:00 am, Halton Police officers responded to a collision in the area of Speers Road and Bronte Road in Oakville. As a result of an investigation, Ryan Whey (22), of Mississauga was charged with driving while ability impaired and driving over 80mgs.
On April 1, 2018 shortly before 9:00 pm, Halton Police officers initiated a traffic stop near the intersection of Main Street and James Street in Milton. As a result of an investigation, Rui Pinto Verdugo (45), of Milton was charged with driving over 80 mgs.
On April 1, 2018 shortly after 10:30 pm, Halton Police officers were conducting a mobile R.I.D.E. initiative in the area of Cornwall Road and Chartwell Road in Oakville. A traffic stop was conducted and as a result of an investigation, Jennifer Lawrence (44), of Oakville was charged with driving over 80mgs.
On April 3, 2018 shortly before 10:00 pm, Halton Police officers responded to the area of Derry Road and Sixth Line in Milton, in response to a citizen-initiated traffic complaint. As a result of an investigation, Janusz Uramowski (66), of Mississauga was charged with care or control while impaired and care or control over 80 mgs.
Survey closes on Friday – April 6th – Takes two minutes to complete.
The Halton Regional Police Service remains committed to road safety through prevention, education and enforcement initiatives. Members of the public are reminded that driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is a crime in progress and to call 9-1-1 immediately to report a suspected impaired driver.
The Service’s Twitter and Facebook accounts should not be used for this purpose as they are not monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Work has begun to resurface New Street from Guelph to Walkers after pilot
Following the end of the New Street pilot project, work to resurface New Street from Guelph Line to Walkers Line is now underway and will be finished in mid-May.
It was an idea that should never have gone forward – public by-in and acceptance was just never there. The cycling community hasn’t convinced the average driver that the roads need to be shared.
In 2016, the City of Burlington began a one-year pilot on a section of New Street between Walkers Line and Guelph Line, reducing the number of lanes from four to three with buffered bike lanes.
In December 2017, City Council approved a staff report to convert the existing bike lane pilot project on New Street between Guelph Line and Walkers Line back to the original four-lane configuration.
As part of the staff report about the pilot, City Council approved a recommendation to add cycle tracks on New Street between Guelph Line and Burloak Drive for consideration in the 2019 capital budget, subject to receiving provincial and/or federal government funding. Cycle tracks are physically separated from vehicle lanes, most commonly by the curb.
Quick Facts
• Prior to the resurfacing, work to repair a significant storm sewer failure east of Guelph Line will be completed. • The total time estimated for the repair work and resurfacing is about eight weeks. • There is no cost to revert New Street to four lanes. The stretch of New Street between Guelph Line and Walkers Line was scheduled to be resurfaced in 2017 as part of the city’s capital budget.
The survey will close on April 6th – takes two minutes to complete. Totally anonymous.
The no brainer position:
Let this one go. It was a mistake from the get go – because there was not the buy-in from the general public that was needed and council ended up with egg on its face.
It is a series of work references the graphic elements of traditional board games. She uses the design of the games to explore the relationship of shapes and patterns while keeping her palette to one of primary colours.
Images of old photographs are collaged into the works transporting the viewer to more nostalgic times when games were the entertainment for kids and families with cousins and grandparents.
Survey closes April 6th – takes two minutes to complete
Reception April 8, 2018 2-4pm Exhibition continues until May 27th
Teresa Seaton Studio & Gallery 652 Spring Gardens Road, Burlington ON L7T 1J2 Gallery Open Thurs – Sun 11am – 5pm
The announcement of an 18 storey structure at the intersection of James and Martha is one more addition to the very significant changes that are taking place in the city.
At a recent community meeting – a number of questions were asked – the answers were insightful – even if they are not what people want to hear.
Burlington’s former Director of Planning Bruce Krushelnicki
Burlington’s former Director of Planning Bruce Krushelnicki was on Cogeco’s TV with moderator Mark Carr who asked Krushelnicki just how and why all this intensification is taking place. Krushelnicki, who was always very good at explaining just what planning issues are all about, gave interesting answers. His comments are short – 4 minutes; well worth listening to.
The following comes to you via information originally published by ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward
1. How is the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), different from the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT)?
A key difference is that the OMB bases decisions on what is good planning whereas the LPAT is more restrictive—they will ask if the development is conforming to provincial and regional plans.
Proposal is for an 18 storey building with 153 units.
2. What is happening to the creek?
Realignment of the channel is proposed. Some vegetation will be cut out to create better flow condition. A flood analysis has been done, and flood elevation will be reduced.
3. Will pumping be required for the underground parking?
There will be pumping required.
4. Are you putting cement in creek?
A retaining wall will be right at the creek.
5. What is the design factor for the flood plain?
The City’s Capital Works department will be looking at both regional and 100-year policies. Site engineering staff will be looking at technical studies to ensure there are no adverse impacts to the creek.
An unhappy transit customer talking to the Mayor and Director of Transportation at a Bfast Forum.
6. Many residents expressed concern that traffic will be worse in the local neighbourhood.
City staff stated that they will ensure that traffic is within acceptable levels by conducting traffic forecasts and redistributing traffic. Staff will look at existing traffic patterns.
The forthcoming Transportation Plan has an emphasis on moving people, not cars… Staff are not expecting that every trip is going to be made by car and believe that people travel at different times during the day.
7. What magnitude of change are we going to see in traffic volumes? Will neighbouring developments be considered in forecast?
Anticipating 40 trips in a peak hour. Staff will be layering every development within proximity.
8. Why are we amending official plan, without transportation plan?
9. Multiple residents are concerned that this development is the beginning of many more like it, and we do not have the infrastructure and roads to support the volume.
Staff will not be widening roads, instead they are looking into transit, and moving people in a sustainable way. Staff are in early stages of reviewing transportation and traffic.
10. Who is going to pay for the sewage and transportation upgrades that will be required due to the increased usage that the development will bring?
Halton Region will determine if there is capacity for our sewage system. The developer pays upfront, and in long-term residents pay through taxes.
11. Would Mattamy have been interested in the site if they could have only gone to 11-storeys?
No, due to the cost to develop site.
12. By the time we get to the site plan phase, the applicant will have already been granted high density.
13. What allowances have you made for visitor parking?
31 parking spaces will be provided on first level.
14. We all chose to live here because it’s not downtown Toronto (congestion). How will you ensure pedestrian safety?
Applicant hasn’t gotten to that stage yet.
15. What is the estimated build time? What street will you be using for staging?
2 years for construction…. doesn’t have answers for staging area yet.
16. Is there going to be a drop off area at the entrance of the building? Resident recommends roundabout at corner of Martha and James.
There will potentially be 2 or 3 spaces at the front of the building for drop-offs.
17. Can City ask applicant to also put together an 11-storey application to compare to the current application in real time?
Would be expensive for developer.
18. Can the developer explain how the development fits with the character of the neighbourhood of 1 to 3-storey buildings?
Downtown is a mobility hub and what you see today is not what you’re going to see in the future. The character is shifting and downtown is going to change.
19. What is price point of units? Will there be affordable housing?
Mattamy doesn’t have answers at this point…application is in early stages.
There were a lot of ‘pig in a poke’ answers given at that meeting. Exactly what does: “Staff are looking into transit, and moving people in a sustainable way.”, mean? You may not want to know.
Survey will close April 6th. Takes two minutes to complete.
When you hear what Krushelnicki had to say on Cogeco TY (link to that conversation is above) you will begin to understand why Burlington is going through the changes ahead of the city.
”So, just think: a family of five will be paying $1,000 more in new taxes,” he told the news conference. “We know that they’ve increased the taxes $200,”…”Times five is $1,000”. (Doug Ford at his post budget news conference)
Yeah – maybe if Ford’s hypothetical five family members, including the children, each earned at least $130,000. Then the household income would be at least $650,000. Not your traditional 5 person family. He was clearly grasping to make a point on which he obviously hadn’t given (enough/any) thought.
Doug Ford – Progressive Conservative candidate for Premier of Ontario
We all mistakes and we could give Mr. Ford a mulligan, being the newbie running for that top provincial job. But it is worrisome for a potential premier to stumble on something so simple. We expect the CEO of Ontario Inc. to be good at thinking on his/her feet. And just as importantly to be able to sort through the weeds and grasp complex solutions to complex matters. But we haven’t seen that option yet on our latest model Ford.
So it’s not surprising that he has little patience for the sophistication and intricacies of Ontario’s cap and trade climate change program, now in its second year of operation. Of course supporting any climate change initiative requires a belief in global warming and a determination to do something about it. Ford has mused positively on the former but has shown little interest in the latter.
For a man not big of documents and reports – this would have been a challenge.
In December 2016, the Government of Canada and provinces making up over 80% of the Canadian population signed onto the ‘Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change’. Under the plan, each province has to implement carbon taxes of $10 per tonne in 2018, rising by $10 each year thereafter until 2022. If a province doesn’t implement a carbon tax the federal government will do it for them, collect the revenue and return it to the province in some, as yet undefined, form.
Saskatchewan is the only province which has refused to join so far. A province can opt for an explicit carbon tax/levy as B.C. and Alberta have done, or a cap and trade program as Ontario and Quebec have undertaken. The argument for cap and trade is that it ensures the targets are met, it is more efficient and less costly for the final consumers and it is much more business friendly. But it is more complex to administer and needs a large enough allowance market to function effectively.
Large greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters have to buy annual GHG allowances – a license to release a tonne of CO2. The number of allowances provincially available depends on the national targets, established by the Harper government, back when they were in power, and adopted by the Liberals since. The number of allowances declines over the years consistent with the GHG emissions targets.
The revenue from the sale of allowances goes into a green fund which homeowners and businesses can then use to partially pay for beefing up their attic insulation, installing more efficient windows, and so on. Of course that revenue from allowance sales could be re-directed anywhere. B.C. channels revenue from its carbon tax back in reduced income tax points and Alberta does a little of both – income tax cuts and funds for more greening.
When the PC’s were led by Patrick Brown he wanted to scrap cap and trade and implement the federally prescribed and more lavish carbon tax worth about $4 billion in its first year. That was primarily because Brown planned to recycle the cash he would collect into his promised 22% income tax cuts for the middle class.
But Ford wants nothing to do with any darn carbon tax and promises to also scrap cap and trade. Further, he has threatened to sue the federal government if they even think about carbon taxing in Ontario.
Doug Ford: don’t let anyone tell you he is stupid.
Of course Ford may just be playing coy. After all there isn’t a snowball’s chance in a tar pond that the three amigos on the right: Ford, Sask. premier Scott Moe, and federal Conservative leader Scheer would win such a law suit. And that means the federal government will have to implement its own carbon tax in Ontario and likely turn the money over to the province.
So Ford may not be good with numbers or stun us with quick thinking on his feet, but don’t let anyone tell you he is stupid. Quite the contrary, even after his lawsuit flunks the legal smell test, he can still claim to have resisted and fought the feds on the carbon tax. And if he plays his cards right, he’ll also have the $4 billion in cash he needs to make his promised tax cuts while almost balancing the budget.
Ray Rivers writes weekly 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. Tweet @rayzrivers
Survey will close April 6th – takes two minutes to complate.
This year, the Burlington’s Best Committee received 30 nominations in eight categories, besting the total number of nominees from last year.
Nominations were accepted Jan. 2, 2018 through Mar. 7, 2018.
Burlington’s Best Awards is an awards program that honours Burlington’s most outstanding citizens. The winners in all categories will be revealed at a gala celebration on Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at the Burlington Performing Arts Centre.
Tickets to this event are $35 per person. A dessert reception will follow the awards ceremony. Tickets can be purchased at the Service Burlington counter at City Hall, 426 Brant St., or by contacting Wanda Tolone at 905-335-7600, ext. 7458 or wanda.tolone@burlington.ca.
One winner will be selected in each of the eight award categories. This year’s nominees are:
Citizen of the Year
• Osob Adus
• Jason Stajan
Junior Person of the Year
• Kathleen Burgess
• Carter Creechan
• Chloe DeMers
• Aleksandra Srbovska
• Addison Wood
Senior Person of the Year
• Jennifer Earle
• Frank Miele
• Mae Redford
• Paul Tomlinson
Environmental Award
• Gloria Reid
Arts Person of the Year Award
• Teresa Seaton
• Jonathan Smith
Community Service Award
• Carol Baldwin
• Elizabeth Barrowcliffe
• Laura Clark
• Julie Cordasco
• Yanet DeLeon
• Louise Donnelly
• Knights of Columbus
• Kim Moss
• Rory Nisan
• Tracey Oborne King
• Belinda Roberts
• Jill Stickney
Heritage Award
• Louise Cooke
• Friends of Freeman Station
Accessibility Award
• John Krasevec
• Bill Murray
For more information, visit www.burlington.ca/best.
Mayor Rick Goldring continues to provide a series of updates relevant to the vision of the Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee set out by Co-Chairs Mark McGuire and Karl Wulf in November 2017. This allowed committee members with an opportunity to ask questions to better understand how they can contribute to shaping their city.
Mayor Goldring identified the recent delegation by the Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee requesting Holiday Transit service as an example of a ‘win’.
Burlington was one of the few municipalities in Ontario that did not offer transit service on the holidays. The Millennial Advisory Committee delegated through a written policy brief to formally identify the gap in transit service.
Effective transit service is a key area that the Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee strives to influence, as greater intensification and limited space will mean more cars on Burlington’s streets and roads.
The Millennial Perspective
Mayor Goldring explained the process of influencing council. For the Burlington Millennial perspective to carry weight, it needs to be given early in the process by engaging with relevant stakeholders before community events and workshops that precede the relevant committee and council meetings.
A session of the Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee meeting with Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon
A Vision Greater than Themselves
Mayor Goldring also discussed the importance of civic engagement, especially at early stages of projects within the City of Burlington. This led to a presentation by Co-Chairs Mark and Karl reiterating the three pathways for engagement the Millennial Advisory Committee is taking:
(1) Passive Engagement – Community presence and participation in Workshops;
(2) Reactionary Engagement – Delegating on contemporary topics at City Hall; and
(3) Proactive Engagement – Working with city staff to offer insightful policy critiques.
To increase the effect of the perspective of our generation in Burlington, it is increasingly more important to continue engaging at committee meetings and city workshops, but also to draft thoughtful policy proposals and send them to the proper stakeholders at City Hall.
The strategy is to lead a sustainable and influential committee of millennials in Burlington to build community engagement and provide advice and insights into policy impacting our city. This ties in with the mandate established by Mayor Goldring for the committee, “to lead projects focused on how to keep and attract residents 18-35 in Burlington.”
The Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee aims to be pivotal and to be perceived as the “Go To” committee for the City of Burlington to gain valuable insights into what our generation needs to continue to make Burlington the best place to live and work.
Civic Engagement
After discussing what is critical to millennials in Burlington through a collaborative approach with surveys from the Co-Chairs and workshops facilitated by Stephanie Venimore, Business Performance Advisor for the City of Burlington, the Millennial Advisory Committee has identified three key areas of engagement:
Commercial and Residential Development Transportation Burlington Culture
The Millennial Advisory Committee has delegated on mixed-use developments and transportation initiatives within the City of Burlington.
On multiple occasions, the Millennial Advisory Committee has provided key insights for important cultural projects, the Museums of Burlington Joseph Brant Museum project being especially important as it represents the cultural heritage of Burlington’s founder, Joseph Brant of the Mohawk.
Want to get involved?
If you are a millennial trying to get involved, then this is a chance for you to speak out on the things you think would attract more millennials to Burlington.
Mayor Rick Goldring making a presentation to his Millennial Advisory Committee.
To apply to be a member of the committee, please email mayor@burlington.ca with the following information.
Name Age Primary email address City of current residence Social media accounts (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) Profession/Student status A 500-word (max.) response to the following question: What ideas do you have for Mayor Rick Goldring’s Millennial Advisory Committee that would help meet its mandate of helping Burlington foster and retain millennial-age residents.
The Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee was created to develop initiatives and provide input on how to keep and attract residents aged 19 to 36 in Burlington. The Millennial Advisory Committee identifies millennials as people born from 1981 to 1998.
Why get involved?
The City of Burlington has the best reasons to get involved with any Committee or Board:
meet new people share your talents develop skills address a common interest make a difference in your community
Want more information?
Read the October Update from Term 2 Co-chairs Mark McGuire and Karl Wulf. You can keep up to date on the news from the Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee by visiting Burlington.ca/millennials.
For more information about the committee, contact the Office of the Mayor at mayor@burlington.ca
The readership survey will close April 6th
Mark McGuire and Karl Wulf, are the Co-Chairs of the Mayor’s Millennial Advisory Committee. This column first appeared in the Mayor’s Blog
At this meeting the Committee of the Whole will receive a staff report on Citizen Engagement.
As a group who work to improve engagement with citizens, Engaged Citizens of Burlington welcome that effort and would like nothing more than to be involved on behalf of citizens in the development of that engagement effort.
Jim Young: “city does not engage them in ways they would like to be engaged”
We are very aware that our city works hard to communicate. It devotes resources, people, time and money on that effort. Yet, our interactions with citizens suggest a widespread feeling that our city does not engage them in ways they would like to be engaged. Like ships that pass in the night we never seem to see each other and when we do, too often it is when we collide.
When that happens Council and Staff always seem disappointed, and bewildered, that this communication/engagement, despite your best intentions, fails and the city/citizen engagement gap is brought to your attention.
But the very fact that ECoB exists suggests that there is a gap between yours and our perception of communication and engagement, and that there is a wide range and significant number of citizens who feel their voices are not heard, that their fears and concerns for their city go unheeded, and this in a city which believes it is communicating so well.
Even by the standards of your own policy on “Public Participation and Engagement”, which strives to meet International Association for Public Participation standards of engagement. Those standards range from Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. On most issues you inform very well; consult or involve all too rarely and usually too late in the process to have any meaningful impact, and, at the risk of offending, we never feel that level of collaboration which might make empowerment of citizens an achievable reality.
So how can it be that a city that boasts 8 Citizen Advisory Committees, with more to come, so often gives its citizens the impression that no-one is paying attention to them?
There is a widespread feeling that much of the city’s engagement effort is geared towards ticking the “Engagement Boxes” where needed to speed regulatory processes through Staff to Council rather than real engagement and dialog with citizens. ECoB think this is reflected above in the suggestion that your efforts to inform are much more successful than any serious attempt to consult, involve, collaborate or empower.
Jim Young: telling city council of a “a well-meaning attempt to improve Citizen Engagement”
As an example, here we are four years into the creation of an Engagement Charter process that was started in 2013 and adopted by council in April 2014 and ECoB is lobbying for Citizen Engagement in this process. Do Council and Staff begin to see why ECoB has issues with the engagement process when a well-meaning attempt to improve Citizen Engagement is already four years in the making with little or no Citizen Engagement in that process?
The report suggests that future engagement in the process will come from Citizen Advisory Committees which in ECoB’s opinion may be part of a tired engagement model that has never really worked as well as the city might have hoped.
While well intended and filled by well-meaning citizens, the way Citizen Advisory Committees are constituted and their operating guidelines leave them too readily influenced by Council Members and Committee Staff assigned to them. With a few exceptions they have not been the engagement vehicle we would like them to be.
Among various advocacy groups in the city and even within your own Citizens Advisory Committees there is a widespread feeling that Advisory Committees have become a simple extension of the city departments rather than independent advisors to council. That when a staff recommendation is supported by its appropriate Citizens advisory committee, Council are really just receiving a well manipulated repetition of the staff recommendation echoed by The Citizen Advisory.
If Councillors are not aware of this, just ask yourselves: When was the last time you heard a Citizens Advisory Committee delegate in opposition to a Staff recommendation?
It is no coincidence that most of the Citizens Advisory Committees have parallel, non-city sponsored advocacy groups. ITAC has BfAST, BSAC has BSCInc. And the work of the various Downtown Heritage, Parking and Sustainable Development Committees is paralleled by independent citizen groups from Alton Village to Brant Hills to Tyandaga. From Appleby Village to Roselandto Downtown to Aldershot,
These advocacy groups are often made up of former members of Citizen Advisory Committees who found those citizens advisories ineffective and who now advocate for their various city wide interests where they feel they are more likely to be heard and with greater impact.
ECoB currently works with at least 11 area and ward specific groups and at least another 5 City wide advocacy groups. These 16 groups are Engaged Citizens whose voices will not be heard in the New Engagement Charter.
If Council and staff are happy with the present communication and engagement model, if you really feel you are reaching citizens and that their voices are being heard, then probably nothing can be done. Local and city wide groups will continue to be frustrated and angered and will tie up your time and effort in the kind of oppositional engagement that model creates.
Jim Young, addressing city council. Manager of Communications Donna Kell sits in the audience.
If however, you feel, as we do, that communication and engagement can be improved for the benefit of Council, Staff and Citizens, and the fact that you are receiving reports from staff on Improving engagement suggests you may actually feel that way, Engaged Citizens of Burlington has already reached out to Communication Managers with the City Manager’s Office to explore how we might close that Engagement /Communication Gap which exists more often than either of us might like.
I am here tonight on behalf of Engaged citizens of Burlington to seek Council and Staff support for the inclusion of ECoB in that engagement process. The E in ECoB is for Engagement, it is not for Enraged and certainly not for Enemy.
The readership survey closes April 6th.
Thank you council and staff for your time and your work on behalf of our city. Thank you citizens for your support and for allowing us to be you voice, Engaged Citizens of Burlington look forward to continuing, meaningful engagement with all of you.
Jim Young is one of the Engaged Citizens of Burlington.
Overnight on April 2 – 3, 2018, police received seven reports of unlocked vehicles being entered and rummaged through by unknown culprit(s) in the core area of Burlington.
In one instance, culprit(s) located spare keys in a vehicle and subsequently stole it. The vehicle stolen is a 2008 Ford Escape Grey in colour with licence plate BMWW586. It is possible that the vehicle plates have been switched to BFWR535 which were also stolen overnight from a Finch Avenue driveway in the Aldershot area of Burlington. If anyone observes this vehicle, they are asked to call 911 and not approach it.
These types of crimes continue to occur and are preventable!
Police are pleading with the public to ensure their vehicles are always locked when unattended, that all valuables are removed and to NEVER leave spare keys in a vehicle (even if they are to another vehicle at/near the same location).
Anyone with information that would assist police in identifying the person(s) responsible to these or any other crimes are asked to call the Burlington Criminal Investigations Bureau at 905-825-4747 Ext. 2316. Tips can also be submitted to Crime Stoppers “See something? Hear something? Know something? Contact Crime Stoppers” at 1-800-222-477 (TIPS) or through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.ca.
By Staff
Since the creation of the EAF in 2007, the Government of Canada has funded over 3,000 projects, helping Canadians gain access to their communities’ programs, services and workplaces. Starting in 2018–19, the EAF grants and contributions budget will grow to $20.65 million, as Budget 2017 provided $77 million over 10 years to expand the activities of the EAF and support more small and mid-sized projects, including youth driven proposals, aimed at improving accessibility in Canadian communities and workplaces.
Tom Muir is a retired federal civil servant who lives in Aldershot and delegates before city council frequently.
He is described as Male, black, 6’2, 170 lbs, thin build, long black hair in dreadlocks.
It is a series of work references the graphic elements of traditional board games. She uses the design of the games to explore the relationship of shapes and patterns while keeping her palette to one of primary colours.
Ray Rivers writes weekly 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. Tweet @rayzrivers
Nominations were accepted Jan. 2, 2018 through Mar. 7, 2018.
Heritage Award
