 By Staff
November 17th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The developers are seeing the opportunities and are picking up bits and pieces of property just outside the downtown core.
The three homes that also serve as business premises on the south west corner of James and Martha, the ROCK Centre is just across the road, have reportedly been sold the Mattamy interests.
 The three houses in the lower left hand corner are reported to have been sold. The council member for the ward, ward 2, lives further north on Martha.
The Mattamy people built a large part of the Palmer Drive part of Burlington. They promote themselves as Canada’s Top Home Builder · Over 90,000 Homes Built ·
No word on just what Mattamy intends to build – just that at least one of the business operations will be out of their space by the end of December.
 By James Young
November 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
In November of 2016 Jim Young said to city council during a debate on the amount of time a citizen would have to delegate that: “Sometimes it may seem as if we delegates are the enemy of the process. That we somehow stand in the way of the great works and plans you all have in mind for the city.
“The democratic processes of our city demand that qualified, talented professionals like the city staffs and managers, we are fortunate to have in Burlington, apply themselves to a certain vision of the city.
“That they nurse that vision through the often tortuous process to council for approval and implementation, only to have someone like me, a citizens delegate, put a flea in council’s ear, a spoke in staff’s well-oiled wheel and force a review all of their efforts and the inevitable delay that brings.”
Jim comments on the most recent meeting of city council.
On Monday night Burlington City Council, ignoring the more than 1400 signatures on a petition and the 13 delegations opposed to it, voted to break their own rules governing downtown development and allow the development of a 23 story building in contravention of their own 12 Story bylaw. (Only one delegate, the developer, spoke in favour of the project.)
This was a sad display of council voting against the vast majority of citizen opinion, a rejection of local voices made even sadder by the fact that compromise may have been possible. Instead entrenched positions and a degree of “Not in My Wardism” were allowed to carry the day.
 Jim Young delegating before city council. We all know and understand that council cannot be swayed by every nuance of public opinion, we elect them to lead and expect them to do so, but in this instance the opposition was so overwhelming and the possibility of compromise so obvious that the wisdom of the five Councillors who voted for the amendment, in a the year before an election, must be seriously questioned.
Why, for instance, could the developer not have settled on 15 or 17 floors, there would still be ample profit in this, it would still meet intensification targets and be much less intrusive on the character of the area?
Why was there no offsetting land allocation for park or green space? Why does council not hold the developer responsible for affordability units in the development? (Only vague and non-binding considerations on affordability are embodied in the proposal)
While sensible intensification and increased density are supported by all of council, city staff and the majority of citizen opinion, last night’s decision to allow a development so far removed from the official plan, existing bylaws and any sense of building proportion, may well prove to be a tipping point in the eventual destruction of Brant street as we know it. Other developers have already snapped up adjoining properties and now have the green light on non-complying developments.
Ironically, the idea of downtown walk-ability and community vibrancy that the downtown plan seeks are the very things that will be destroyed by developments like this as the floodgates open and they become the new downtown.
On Monday night, there was palpable feeling that there may have been a settling of old scores between some members of council and ward 2’s Councillor Meed Ward. It would be a sad day indeed if decisions of this importance are based on past enmities. Hopefully, electors will such behaviour accountable in next year’s civic election.
 Jim Young as he thinks through a point he is making at a transit meeting. On the subject of elections, if I may be so bold as to offer Councillor Dennison some advice: Questioning the integrity of a well-intended citizen petition is just not smart politics. Even if a few of the more than 1400 signatures were not fully vetted, disparaging the integrity of the signatories as well as insulting a lot of citizens, ward constituents and voters, is hardly the way to encourage civic engagement by well-meaning citizens. If a few signatures were disqualified would 1399 have swayed you?
Mayor Goldring had to remind the gallery of the rules of decorum at the groans which accompanied one Councillor’s suggestion that this would not set a precedent for future downtown development, (by Wednesday, one more developer had requested approval to add two more stories to a proposed building at Locust and Elgin Streets) or that council’s rejection of citizen input is a template for future engagement.
While he insisted, we will listen in future and staff will listen in future. The groans from the gallery suggested: “Then why are you not listening now?”
Burlington City Council loves to parade their national and international honours and laurels for civic engagement. They now have to learn that when you talk the self-congratulatory talk you must also walk that walk!
When you ask citizens to come together, ask for their input, then, when they do, you overwhelmingly reject them, you can no longer claim that high ground on civic engagement.
You either listen to your voters and compromise or they will assume their voices are only heard at election time with all the future electoral consequences that entails.
 By Staff
November 16th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
How many people have seen the man trudging along Guelph Line between Palmer Drive and Mainway carrying a sign and wearing a costume?
Who is he – why does he do this?
 Captain Crazy Pants – selling an oil change service. He is Captain Crazy Pants, a performer who walks for 40 hours a week and is paid by Pro Oil Change, a company in the business of changing the oil in your car.
He doesn’t identify himself but they eyes behind the mask are those of a younger man who speaks well and is committed to what he does.
40 hours a week – walking up and down a busy street is commitment.
They are tucked in behind the Husky gas station on Mt Forest and while they have a sign it is hard to see from Guelph Line – so Captain Crazy Pants trudges up and down Guelph Line wearing the sign that promotes the location.
 The oil changing bays are tucked in behind all the trees. A couple of blocks south there is a national oil change franchise beside a different gas station. Competition at its best. The little guy gets innovate and holds his share of the market. He says the work he does keeps his boss in business,
When not “walking the line” Captain Crazy Pants has done impersonations of Captain America, Spiderman and Batman.
 By Staff
November 15th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
If you were a TD Bank customer and your company used wire transfers to move funds – the message set out below might be one that you would look into by click on the pdf document that was attached.
You would pay dearly for that mistake.
At TD Commercial Banking, we are committed to helping you move your business forward.
To efficiently process incoming funds via wire transfer to your TD account(s), you must review the document attached so we can process it for you.
All incoming wire transfers will be debited $17.50. Other fees may be applied by the issuing financial institution and intermediary banks.
TD is committed to your business
Trust your business banking with TD
Don’t believe a word of it – if your bank want to communicate with you – they will not do it with an email message.
 By Pepper Parr
November 15, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The decision has been made.
 The condominium that is to be built on the corner of Brant and James Street is to rise up to 23 storeys.
How many parking spaces, the number of elevators, how many, if any, affordable units – all that will get worked out in the months and weeks ahead.
We now know that the land assembly of the block to the south is all but complete – just the jewellery store to be acquired.
What we heard however is that the block to the south – the one that was once the Elizabeth Interiors operation – is going to be limited to 17 stories – a limit that is set out in the Downtown Core Mobility Hub that isn’t cast in stone yet.
That could be both a mistake and a missed opportunity.
We have yet to hear much in the way of negative comment on city hall as a structure. It gets referred to as “iconic” and the city planner likes the building.
Given that we are going to have high rise buildings can we not make the best of it. If the city hall is really “iconic” (I’ve yet to be convinced) then feature it.
While Burlingtonians hate Toronto being made a reference point – bear with me.
When you drive up University Avenue from Front Street and approach Adelaide there are two towers (Toronto type towers) on either side of the street. Both are Sun Life Assurance buildings meant to frame University as you go north.
 Set aside that the two buildings on either side of University Avenue in Toronto loom over the street – it’s Toronto. Note the way they frame the street. The photograph we have dropped in isn’t all that good but it makes the point. It is possible to have buildings in place that serve as a frame to what lies beyond.
Now come back to Burlington and place yourself on James Street a block or two along the street and look towards city hall.
 James Street looking west to Brant Street. The current Carriage Gate building, on the right in the photograph, which is going to be turned into a 23 story tower. That is a done deal.
The property on the left, now the vacated Elizabeth Interiors store will fall within the rules that are going to govern the development limits for the Downtown Mobility Hub.
There is an opportunity here.
Someone with initiative and a desire to see something significant come out of the decision that has been made could pick up an idea like this and make a difference.
Why not work with Carriage Gate and Revenue Properties (the people who are assembling the block south of Brant and James) and build a better city.
Look for a design that is as close as possible to identical in design and have them rise to the same height. Same set back from the side walk; same trees, same patio set up, same sidewalk furniture.
The public art set outside each building would complement each other.
That is something that people could be proud of and perhaps change the way downtowners look upon their city. For those who need the quaint and historical the Queen’s Head and the old Russel Hotel will still be there.
Can the 421 project be more than just the first high rise tower in the downtown core?
Look at the Sun life building on University.
All this assumes that those opposed to the Carriage Gate building don’t take their beef to the OMB.
By Pepper Parr
November 15, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Well – we now know that there are going to be high rise – 23 floors plus – in the downtown core. That got decided at a defining city council meeting on Monday evening.
Ten years from now the city will look a lot different.
There is one development issue that could be even more critical to the development of the city, the look and feel of the downtown core.
 The Waterfront Hotel as we know it today is on the left – the red patch of excavation on the right is where the Bridgewater is being built. The city planners are currently working their way through a study of the re-development of the Waterfront Hotel property.
When the owner of the Waterfront hotel, Darko Vranich let the city know that he wanted to increase the density and add some height to the land there was an agreement struck that the city would hire people to come up with some design ideas. Three teams of designer/thinkers were to be assembled; two would work with the city – a third would work with the developer. And the developer would pay for all three studies.
A group of citizens have decided they are going to insert themselves into the process in a significant way. Several of the group live in the Lakeshore condos and they don’t want to see their part of the city go to the dogs.
No petitions from these people. They are hard core and they have done their homework and are putting ideas on the table.
The starting point.
 The site that is being re-developed is shown in dark blue – with a rendering of what the Bridgewater development will look like relative to the Waterfront Hotel. The city has taken the public through an intensive community engagement process – all the meetings took place in the downtown area – what the people in Headon, the Orchard, Palmer and Alton think about what happens to the Waterfront Hotel property isn’t being recorded.
After a number of sessions where ideas were set out as sketched and then produced as rough models and made public.
The process started with three possible designs put forward: Two came from the city planning department and a third from the developer.
The Plan B people were not impressed – they came out with an idea of their own while the city produced what they called an “emerging concept”.
Let’s see what these all look like.
The early design concepts:
 This is the first concept that came out of the Planning department. It shifts the focal point of the site from Brant Street to John Street.
 This is the second concept that came out of the Planning department. It keeps Brant Street as the main road into the property but moves the towers to the eastern side of the property. Twenty and 30 floors was a surprise.
 This is the design that was submitted by the property owner. It uses John Street as the entrance to the eastern end of Spencer Smith Park. The massing is to the east and west of the property. The suggestion that 40 storeys was acceptable has made many people gulp. What the Planning department made of the three concepts.
 The Planning department took the three concepts and what they liked from all the designs that came out of the community workshops and have given the public what is being called Planning Department’s Emerging Preferred Concept. The concept doesn’t suggest any building heights. The concept does make both Brant and John Street entrances. to the Park. Not so fast say the Plan B people – more public space please and lower your sights on the height while you are at it.
 The Plan B people saw it all quite a bit differently. They wanted far more space at the foot of Brant street and have the Pier show cased . All this goes to a city meeting on November 28th.
There is an opportunity to do something spectacular – but it is going to take a city council that decides not to make the mistake made in 1995 when what is now the Bridgewater development decision was made.
What is interesting is the way many of the Waterfront Hotel re-development designs snuggle up to what is going to be the Marriott Hotel and the seven story condo at the foot of Elizabeth Street.
There are a lot of people who want to keep the quiet quaint feel of the downtown core. There isn’t going to be anything quaint about the waterfront five to six years from now. It could end up being very smart looking, swift, hip and cool. But getting to that point will be a painful process.
Related new stories:
Part 1 of a multi part series.
By Pepper Parr
November 14th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
She did what she always does – hammers away at the point she wants to make.
If there is going to be any grass near the now approved 23 storey condominium the city is going to have to lay sod in the Civic Square. During the lengthy city council meeting Monday evening Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward asked each of the delegations what they thought was an appropriate height for the condominium tower that has been proposed for the north east corner of Brant and John Streets – across the street from city hall.
Meed Ward knew what the answers were going to be – there wasn’t a single delegation that was for the 23 storeys that were recommended by the Planning department. The developer had asked for 27 storeys.
 Councillor Sharman with his back to the camera debates with Councillor Meed Ward during Strategy Planning sessions. She doesn’t back away from a difference of opinion. Neither does he. Meed Ward has always been opposed to height in the downtown core. She has a following and represents the views and feelings for the city that many want to retain.
The Mayor sort of shares her view – he just isn’t as good as she is at making her point and sticking to it.
Meed Ward is the only member of Council who consistently asks questions of delegations and staff.
She’s not shy about saying she doesn’t understand something. She sees her role as that of getting the answers she needs and doing the same for her constituents.
Monday evening was a disappointing night for Marianne Meed Ward on several levels – she didn’t make as much as a dent in the position four of the members of council had taken.
She is never going to get a change of mind or a change of heart from Councillors Craven or Sharman.
 Councillors Meed Ward and Lancaster pose with five members of the Friends of Freeman Station. She will get a smidgen of acknowledgement from Dennison. She and Councillor Lancaster have never been close – except for the exceptional work the two of them did in saving the Freeman station.
Meed Ward sits beside Councillor Taylor – if anyone was going to side with her philosophically it would have been Taylor – he didn’t budge.
So – what does Meed Ward take away from the decision? She certainly keeps her followers happy – are there enough of them to elect her as Mayor in the October 2018 election?
If Burlington is going to elect Meed Ward as Mayor they want to ensure that they elect people who share some of her views – or this city will face four years of political grid lock.
 By Staff
November 14, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
They are bringing in the big guns.
 Sarah Harmer, will speak at the Tyandaga Environmental Coalition public meeting. Juno award winning singer, songwriter and conservation activist, Sarah Harmer, will speak at the Tyandaga Environmental Coalition public meeting on November 16, 2017 in Burlington, Ontario.
Harmer will join a group of environmental experts and advocates to raise public awareness of the scheduled deforestation of northwest Burlington by Meridian Brick.
An estimated 9,000 trees are scheduled to be clear cut for an urban quarry that mines shale for brick production. The threatened area contains about 35 acres prime forest, habitat to a number of at-risk and endangered species, including an endangered Jefferson dependant unisexual salamander that was discovered in the spring.
Meridian Brick is expanding its quarry under an aggregate license that was issued in 1972. The proposed quarry expansion would now come as close as 35m to homes in the Tyandaga neighborhood, threatening the health and well-being of the community.
 PERL took years and a lot of local fund raising to get to the point where a Joint Tribunal ruled that the application for a quarry expansion was to be denied because of the endangered species on the property. The upper orange outline is the existing quarry – the lower outline is where the expansion was to take place. Sarah Harmer co-founder of the conservation organization PERL (Protect Escarpment Rural Land) that helped stop an 82-hectare aggregate quarry on the Niagara Escarpment at Mt. Nemo north of Burlington. She continues to raise awareness of the environmental impact of aggregate mining.
Harmer will join a list of environmental experts that includes Gord Miller, former Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, David Donnelly, environmental lawyer and former Director of the Canadian Environmental Defense, Dr. Lynda Lukasik, environmental advocate for sustainable community development and the Executive Director at Environment Hamilton, and Roger Goulet, Executive Director for PERL.
The Tyandaga Environmental Coalition (TEC) is a group of concerned citizens fighting to save Burlington’s greenspace and protect the health and wellbeing of the city’s residents. Once a small group of like-minded-neighbors that came together when quarry expansion was announced, the environmental coalition now has nearly 3,000 supporters that are helping to petition the Honourable Kathryn McGarry (Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry) and the Honourable Chris Ballard (Ontario Minister of the Environment and Climate Change).
 The west and centre quarries are nearing the end of life and the company wants to now quarry in the eatern section that is metres away from private homes. TEC is requesting that the proposed urban quarry extension have an immediate independent evaluation of the impact on the community based on the current demography and updated environmental and health standards. Also needed are further studies of how clear cutting an estimated 35 acres of forested habitat will affect endangered species. These studies need to be viewed from the perspective of current environmental law.
The meeting will be held on November16, 2017, 7:00 pm at the Crossroads Centre located at 1295 North Service Road, Burlington
 By Pepper Parr
November 13th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
 Marcello Beltrami Marcello Beltrami is a 17 year old Italian student in Burlington as part of a Rotary International student exchange. He will be staying with four different families during his yearlong visit.
He is with Tom and Margaret Hayes for the first three months. Exchange students are nothing new to the Hayes household – they have had students from France, Thailand, Brazil and Peru.
Tom and Margaret are basically empty nesters – he is a mechanical engineer she is an accountant.
Marcello is a student at Assumption high school where he takes English as a second language classes and is also taking classes in biology. His student bent seems to be in the sciences.
When student exchange interviews take place – everyone is on their best behavior – the situation is always perfect – never any problems.
 Tom Hayes, Marcello, Margaret Hayes and the family dog In the Hayes household – that’s actually the way it was. The dog barked and sniffed where you didn’t want him to sniff. The cat had that insouciance that only cats and very attractive women manage to pull off.
And Marcello giggled while telling me about how he was teaching Tom to make pizza. In Burlington pizza is something we order in – Marcello is Italian and he assumed that everyone makes the pizza from scratch.
Marcello wasn’t a guest – he was a member of the family and you could feel it as the conversation bumped from Tom, to Marcello and then on to Margaret.
What did Marcello know about Canada before he got here: that we are known for Maple Syrup and that it gets cold – very cold.
Home in Italy is in Cremona – in the southern part of Italy. His Mom is an English teacher and with Skype on his computer he can be in touch with his parents whenever he wants.
The Hayes are doing a superb job of ensuring that Marcello gets out and learns about the country. He had the traditional pea meal bacon sandwich at the St. Lawrence Market, got to Montreal to watch the Canadiens play Detroit; the Hayes household is part of that tribe that still believes the Maple Leafs will win a Stanley Cup – soon. Marcello was oblivious to that tribal trait.
On a trip to Little Italy Marcello met a woman from Calabria, Italy and immediately fell into a conversation about where he was from and what he was doing in Canada.
During the summer the family took Marcello to the lake and gave him a chance to try water skiing – “He got up the first time” said Tom. Skating is next for the Italian.
What is Marcello allowed to do? His behaviour is guided by what Rotarians describe as the five D’s.
 Margaret Hayes explains the Rotary 5Ds No driving
No drinking
No drugs
No dating
No dis figuration – tattoos, nose rings.
The last week of the yearlong experience is spent by all the International students on a two week tour of eastern Canada.
Margaret Hayes is a strong advocate for the International Student idea. She believes that the better we understand each other the more peaceful the world we live in will be. This she was disappointed when just three people in Burlington applied for the International experience and she isn’t quite sure why the number of applicants was so low.
 Tom Hayes Through the interview there was a lot of joshing and kidding back and forth. Marcello will move on to the next family he will spend three months with – Tom is going to miss that young man.
Marcello speaks to the Lakeshore Rotary Club at lunch on Tuesday.
 By Staff
November 13th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Elgin Street between Locust Street and Blathwayte Lane will be closed on November 14 and 15, 2017 from 7:00 am to 7:00 p.m. for excavation work.
Signs and barricades will be up.
The Saxony development has had excavation problems related to water that wasn’t originally evident.
 Excavation work at the Saxony development site.
By Pepper Parr
November 13, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Petitions!
Do they make a difference?
 The 421 Brant development, approved by a city council Standing Committee, goes before city council for approval this evening. Are they an accurate barometer of what the public in general is thinking or are they an opportunity for people who are opposed to something to show their opposition?
Do the politicians pay attention to petitions?
In many cases a petition is the only voice people have when they want to oppose something their government.
The current petition asking the city to stick to the current zoning for the northeast corner of Brant and James streets was put forward by Joanne and Kevin Arnold who said they created the petition to change something they cared about. 1384 people have added their name so far.
The people who are opposed to the New Street Road Diet have collected 2641 signatures as of January – that is the most recent number – appear to have signatures from the ward the bike lanes are in.
UPDATE: As of Nov 13th there are 3262 signatures, plus 500 signatures on a hard copy of the petition.
A number of years ago Councillor Marianne Meed Ward created a petition to oppose the sale of lake front property the city owned between Market and St. Paul Street – she got more than 2000 names on that petition. The property was still sold.
Those opposed to the now recommended development at Brant and James have the right to delegate before city council.
The city is faced with a serious problem – they are required to add significantly to the population of the city and there isn’t very much land on which to build new homes. They can’t build out – so they are going to build up. And they chose to recommend to council that a project that would have 23 storeys be approved. The 5-2 vote was pretty emphatic.
Are those opposed to the development – they say they are not opposed to height they just don’t want it built on property so close to the waterfront – wanting a Burlington that cannot be sustained?
 Gary Scobie delegating before city council – he was one of the few that had anything to say about the development at a city Standing Committee early in November. There were not very many public delegations speaking against the development when it was at the Standing Committee stage. The city manager spoke more forcefully for the project than any city manager has spoken in this reporter’s memory.
City councils are elected – put in office to serve the people. If the public is really, really, really opposed to this project have several hundred of the 1380 who signed the petition get off their couches and head for city hall and use their five minutes to demand that city council respect their wishes.
Something like THAT would have an impact.
The Gazette has published the delegation Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident will make to city Council this evening. A review of the comments about his delegation is worth a read – it gives a sense as to how the public feels about this issue.
An Open Letter from former Mayor Mary Munro to the current Mayor is also a solid insight on how this development proposal has been managed.
Salt with Pepper is an opinion column written by the publisher and sole share holder of the Burlington Gazette.
By Staff
November 13th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
 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.
Please be reminded that all persons charged are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
On Thursday, November 9, 2017, after 2:30am, witnesses reported a suspected impaired driver in Milton and a traffic stop was initiated near Division Street and Spruce Boulevard in the Town of Halton Hills. Brennan Senos (52) of Halton Hills was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving over 80mgs.
On Saturday, November 11, 2017, just after 12:30am, Halton Police officers investigated a collision involving a suspected impaired driver in Burlington. Police charged Meredith Read (42) of Oakville with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and impaired driving over 80mgs.
On Saturday, November 11, 2017, after 9:00pm, a traffic stop was initiated at Upper Middle Road and Headon Road in Burlington. As a result of an investigation, Matthew Henry (18) of Burlington was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.
On Sunday, November 12, 2017, after 12:30am, witnesses reported a suspected impaired driver in Halton Hills and a traffic stop was initiated at Trafalgar Road and Princess Anne Boulevard. Anastasija Kondrasova (26) of Mississauga was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving over 80mgs.
.
By Staff
November 12th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Carriage Gate was given an award at the annual Halton Hamilton Housing Builders Association (HHHBA) Gala dinner.
The award was to recognize the developer for working with HHHBA staff and Management on ongoing planning, development and housing construction initiatives in Burlington and their attention to the interests of home purchasers.
Carriage Gate has a development before city council Monday evening.
By Tom Muir
November 12th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir has been delegating to city council as long as the current members have been keeping those council seat warm. John Taylor has served the longest – close to 25 years. Muir is relentless. When he gets his teeth into a bone he just doesn’t let go.
The city is facing a point where it has to decide how it wants to grow and where that growth should take place,
The focus is on Brant Street at this point where a developer has assembled property and taken a proposal for a 27 story condominium to the city’s Planning and Development department where is was recommended but reduced to 23 storey’s. City Council’s Planning and Development committee approved the Staff recommendation on a vote of 5-2. Monday night it goes to city council where it will be approved, revised or nor approved. Here is what Muir thinks of the process so far.
Dear Councilors,
I provided written correspondence on this item to the P&D meeting of Nov. 1, but I was unable to attend that meeting personally.
At this stage in the process, with Committee approval, the conversation here is largely political. With this in mind, a quote credited to Councilor Meed Ward, summarizes accurately and succinctly a question I have been wondering about in terms of how I see this Council operating.
 Whose city is it? “Whose City is it?”
To which I must add from my own experience; Councilors, Who do you represent?
From the evidence that I have been easily able to gather, on this matter, you are, most of you, not representing the citizens that elected you. You appear to have been immunized against the opinions of your constituents.
It is their city, but you do not appear to be hearing them. They are telling you loud and clear that they don’t want these building heights/density, with the associated problems, and they want to know why you are not enforcing the existing laws.
I looked at several recent staff report sections containing public comments. Many of these comments were lengthy and reasoned.
421 Brant St. Neighborhood Meeting: 22 comments – 20 opposed 2 supportive, of which 1 was in the development business.
421 Brant St Statutory Meeting: Of 10 comments, with no exception, the original proposed height of 27 stories was unacceptable – not just a little bit, like 23 is okay, but it was a rejection. For representative examples you can see my P&D correspondence.
421 Brant St. P&D Meeting Nov. 1. There was 1 personal delegation opposed.
There were 3 letters of correspondence, of which 2 were opposed, and 1 offered support for redevelopment but wanted to see compliance with existing OP and bylaws.
So out of 36 public comments received, 33, or 92% are opposed.
And the city says the public is broadly consulted, and uses that claim to defend decisions that are clearly opposed by the public in these consultations.
So who is represented here, and whose city is it really?
 Aldershot resident Tom Muir. Going further in my findings of public comments on current proposals, let’s consider the Molinaro proposal for 22 (or 24?) stories on Brock St.
Molinaro Brock St. Neighborhood meeting: 9 are opposed, and none spoke in support.
Molinaro Statutory Meeting of Nov. 6/17: There were 4 personal delegations and all were opposed.
There were 13 additional written comments, 12 of which are opposed, and 1 was neither clearly opposed nor supportive, but had several issues and concerns.
So on the Molinaro proposal, there are 26 public expressions of comments, of which 0 speak in support, 1 is equivocal, and 25 are opposed. So basically 100% do not support the proposal.
We can go to the Waterfront, and see the same dominant opposition to the city planners and developer proposals. Or elsewhere, and let’s not forget the ADI Martha St. proposal.
Comments are often lengthy, and basically express the same issues and problems. Consistent concerns are always height, density, no respect for bylaw limits and creeping up proposal by proposal, staff traffic, congestion, parking assertions that are completely at odds with public comment and concern and reality even, and many others you can read.
And adding insult to injury, city and Council can’t wait to hear the residents comment on what they think of the new OP, bylaws, and Mobility Hub ideas before voting to go far beyond anything in those documents for this location.
The draft plan ideas are still just that – not vetted, not discussed or debated, and have no approval and are therefore not policy relevant or legal. Given this, the Committee approval here makes a farce out of the formal consultation to come before it even happens.
To me this erases all doubt that the city, planners, and Council don’t respect or really care to hear what the public thinks of these plans, and wants for what is their city.
 Muir delegates and is an active participant at community meetings. Instead of waiting, as is legitimate and appropriate, decisions are made to go over and above even the 17 story limit proposed, but not approved, for this site in the new Mobility Hub Precinct ideas.
The existing limit is 12, the proposed is 17, but the City Manager and his planners, want 23. And Committee voted 5 to 2 in favor
Is that how Council wants to be seen as representing the people? In a way that drives cynicism?
Some of you say “tall buildings are the future” and “citizens need to get over their concerns”. Well, “tall” buildings in Burlington are anything above 11 stories. So the present permissible of 12 is tall. And certainly the 17 proposed in the Mobility Hub Brant St Precinct is tall. So we are there already.
Consider that the draft 17 is about half way between the existing 12 allowed, and the 23 proposed, perhaps that would be a satisfactory compromise, a hair-splitting solution, to meet there, half-way.
There are other buildings nearby that are tall, so perhaps, in that context, the citizens “could get over their concerns” with this height, if they saw something of their wants being heard.
The people have spoken pretty loud and clear – note the almost 1300 (as of Sunday Nov. 12 at 5:00PM) who signed the petition opposing the proposal.
My ask is this. I read that the Mayor and Councillor Meed Ward, in voting against approval at Committee, suggested that 17 stories was something they could live with, since we seem to be going in that direction in the draft, but not approved plans.
 Who do they represent? So I ask one of them to move, and the other to second, a motion to debate modifying the proposal to 17 stories, and for Council to approve that modification, and send it to staff for appropriate action.
By Staff
November 12th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The seven members of city council, sitting as members of the Planning and Development Standing Committee, voted to send the proposal to city council for approval. A petition has been created for those who want to oppose the Planning and Development committee approved development.
Five of the seven council members recommended that a revised development proposal go to city council where it has to be approved if it is to go forward.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward and the Mayor opposed the development. Those two are expected to run for the office of Mayor in 2018.
The people who started the petition are looking for 1500 signatures – at this point they have more than 1300. Petition
 Marianne Meed Ward with the Mayor. City council meets Monday evening at 6:30 where approval of the Standing Committee will be debated. A number of delegations are registered to speak for five minutes each.
To sign the position CLICK here.
 By Staff
November 11th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The art of war – that statement can be taken several ways.
It could be the methods used to kill people when we are at war. Goodness knows we have read more than enough about just how inhuman we can be.
Art has also been the form we use to show the horror of war.
 Dave Barry used art to talk about what war at a presentation he made at the Teresa Seaton Gallery on NAME Saturday afternoon.
Using a very impressive collection of pictures Barry took his audience through
Using the dictum that a picture is worth a thousand words we are going to let the art tell the story. There were 97 pictures used in the presentation.
This feature shows just a portion of the presentation.   
 By Staff
November 11th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The city’s IT Services will be disrupted on Monday, Nov. 13, 2017
The systems will be down for some scheduled maintenance to the network on Monday, Nov. 13, 2017 from 10 to 11 p.m.
As a result, online business licence renewal and property information requests will not be available.
By Staff
November 11, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
What does a former Mayor say to the current Mayor on issues they disagree on?
 Mary Munro – Burlington Mayor 1997 and 1998 Mary Munro, Burlington’s Mayor in 1977 and 1998 has said to Walter Mulkewich Mayor from 1992 to 1997 that she didn’t ever vote for a high rise on Lakeshore Road.
The Bridgewater project was approved during Mulkewich’s term as Mayor.
Now Munro wants our current Mayor to know that she isn’t particularly impressed with what he is doing either.
In a Letter Munro said:
Dear Mayor Goldring:
First of all, I was bemused the City Manager, James Ridge, led off @ what was a Planning Committee discussion of a proposed project. Also bemused by his statement of the desirable merits of the project, leaving no doubts about his support. I wonder about Ridge’s history and his planning experience, let alone the propriety of his intervening @ the outset of discussion — would it be he wanted to forestall the usual agenda, i.e. Planning Dept.’s introduction and explanations of the effects of the project? or to discourage interveners’ arguments or presentations ?
 Burlington city manager James Ridge I believe Ridge’s statements were prejudicial to the aim of the public meeting, i.e to hear from Burlington citizens their views, and to let City Councillors debate the issues without the bias, possibly formed by Ridge’s remarks.
On the merits of the project , as an active and involved Burlington resident since 1959, I somehow “blew it” by long before now, not being aware of the changes to the Official Plan and Zoning By-Laws that allow dense development on Burlington’s “Main Street “. I thought , obviously wrong, we all had a vision of Burlington following the wise moves of our sister communities on the shores of Lake Ontario to stand against density in their downtown and to promote historical and profitable enterprises in their town centres.
It seems to me, B has little likely hood of becoming more than a city of tall towers, not treasuring it’s history and wonderful attractions. More than that, it might be possible to affect change, so late in the game, by looking carefully at candidates in our next City election.
Ask yourself, do we really want reps who say “The future is in tall buildings.” Or one who called “the project fantastic”. Or one who said ” Councillors have to view everything from a high level'”.
This is your city evolved by truly dedicated people — so why not take ownership of your own interests in how we live?
Mary G. Munro
By Pepper Parr
November 10, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington is in the midst of perhaps the most significant changes it has had to deal with in 20 years. Brant Street is going to look a lot different in ten years; the waterfront will undergo some change. The way people get around the city will change. These are all complex matters. The Gazette will publish a series of articles on what is planned for the Waterfront Hotel site at the foot of Brant Street. This is the first of that series.
A number of years ago during a conversation with a resident about the planned development of a property that was once the Rivera Motel I mentioned the proposed height. The resident said: “I don’t think you have that right, the city would never allow a building that high on the south side of Lakeshore Road in the Downtown core.”
 Architectural rendering of the Bridgewater project – view is from the lake. The Waterfront Hotel re-development is to the left (west) of the Bridgewater project. Little did she know that the city had indeed approved – in 1995 – a structure that was originally going to be 30 storeys but got cut back to 22 storeys. They called it a “Legacy” development in those days.
Today it is known as the Bridgewater project: it rises higher and higher each day as the three structure development begins to change the skyline.
Progress!
Dee Dee Davies, the woman who does a lot of the legwork from the Burlington Waterfront Group sent us a note recently saying there is “Lots happening related to our waterfront.
“This relates to the hotel and private lands at the foot of Brant Street and Lakeshore Road. The city wants to get ahead of the game by determining the resident’s perspective and setting new zoning standards for the updated Official Plan.
 The Waterfront Hotel is on the left – the excavated site of the Bridgewater three structure development is on the right. Following several community workshops, where the city’s consultant appeared to be taking note of the community’s wishes, a preferred concept was presented at the final public workshops on September 14.
That preferred concept “calls for two buildings with various numbers of levels stepped down towards the lake. The west tower would be between 14 – 18 floors and the east tower between 20 – 25 floors, with a 25 metre separation between the towers as public space.
This retains the view corridor along John Street. The buildings would be commercial, residential, hotel, and public service (public washrooms) uses.
Dee Dee Davies went on to say that: “Residents have concerns over this preferred concept on so many fronts. We heard they want only buildings on the east side closest to the Bridgewater complex of less than 20 stories to maximize green space adjacent to Spencer Smith Park. We, along with some of our community partners, are working to develop a concept plan that meets residents needs and present this to city staff before they meet with Council in November.
Dee Dee Davies wants to ensure that the alternative concept put forward by the residents gets serious consideration before it is too late.
On Thursday, Sept. 14, two community workshops took place at the Burlington Performing Arts Centre. At the workshops, results from a survey that asked for input on three concepts for the site were shared and an emerging concept for the site was presented. Table group discussions also took place to obtain further input.
The city has said that “With input from the Sept. 14 meetings as well as information from additional technical studies, the emerging concept will be refined. Draft preferred concepts are expected to be presented to Burlington City Council in November 2017.”
Burlington is a different city today – what city council decided to do in 1995 for the Bridgewater project is not what they would get away with today.
Many are very upset with what they see coming out of the Mobility Hub studies. Some are apoplectic over a 23 storey tower going up across the street from city hall. That decision has been made; it was approved on a 5-2 at a Standing Committee meeting and goes to city Council on November 13th for final approval.
 The darker blue area is where the Waterfront re-development is going to built. What the Bridgewater development will look like when completed is on the right. The work being done by the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study is being led by Todd Evershed and Rosalind Minaji. Their mandate is a study that specifically addresses redevelopment options for the Waterfront Hotel site at 2020 Lakeshore Road. The team has ongoing discussion and dialogue with the planners doing the Mobility Hub planning.
The Waterfront Hotel Planning Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee includes Mayor Rick Goldring, Councillor Marianne Meed-Ward, Darko Vranich owner of the hotel, Kyle Plas, Denise Beard, Charles Priddle, Curt Benson, Lisa De Angelis, Mark Eade, Susan Morrissey and Hashem Mousavi
“The Waterfront Hotel planning study will guide the property owner in the redevelopment of the site. Located next to two of Burlington’s most significant landmarks, Spencer Smith Park and the Brant Street Pier, input from residents is needed to ensure the new development reflects a high quality of urban design that enhances the community’s access to the waterfront and the downtown.”
The Planning Study for the redevelopment of the waterfront site at Lakeshore Road and Brant Street, including the Waterfront Hotel, has been underway for some time. Some of the land south of the Waterfront Hotel is landfill which brought the Conservation Authority into the picture.
The city has known for some time that Darko Vranich owner of the hotel has wanted to increase the density on the property and construct a much larger hotel complex.
The thinking, going back at least ten years, was to re-orient the hotel and have its focus westward along what is now called the Naval Promenade. All kinds of reports and studies were commissioned.
When the owner of the Waterfront hotel let the city know that he wanted to add some height to the land there was an agreement struck that the city would hire people to come up with some design ideas. Three teams of designer/thinkers were to be assembled; two would work with the city – a third would work with the developer. And the developer would pay for all three studies.
That got us to where we are today.
But the natives are restless – they have seen where the developers want to take Brant Street and they fear that the Waterfront hotel property development will become yet another development they have no input on.
The city explains that: “The goal of the Planning Study is to establish the Strategic Framework to guide development on the site by generating and assessing Alternative Redevelopment Explorations, through a public consultation process. The result of the study will be an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.
The Brant & Lakeshore Planning Study will establish a Strategic Framework to guide development on the site.
They will develop and assess Optional Redevelopment Concepts along with any formal development applications submitted on behalf of the property owner
The redevelopment of this site must meet the City’s urban design and growth management goals, as well as enhance the adjacent public space and waterfront.
All this resulted in a series of Design Charrette sessions. Several frameworks were put in place to guide the design work – Land Use/ Built Form, Public Realm, and Mobility/Access were set out as the guiding principles.
During the design charrette sessions, led by a member of the Project Team, participants developed 8 Explorations for the study area. Four Explorations were developed in both the afternoon and evening sessions.
Each Exploration was developed within a unique framework with varying Land Use/ Built Form, Public Realm, and Mobility/Access characteristics and with the Vision Statement and Design Principles.
These concepts were posted for comment from the public, community groups, City staff, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and The Planning Partnership team, and distilled into 4 Explorations based on the input received.
Here is what came out of those design sessions:
The ideas that came out of each Exploration session (there were four of them with afternoon and evening sessions) were displayed as a drawing and then as a visualization of the drawing.
Session 1
 Exploration 1 Afternoon session  City visualization Exploration 1 afternoon session
 City visualization of the Exploration 2 afternoon session  Exploration 2 evening event  City visualization of Exploration 2 evening session.
Session 2
 Exploration 2 – afternoon session Session 3
 Exploration 3 – afternoon session  Exploration 3 – evening session. Session 4
 Exploration 4 evening session  City visualization of exploration 4 evening session
Out of all the work done by the design charettes two distinctly different views are now before the public.
The city planning department Preferred Concept and the design put forward by the community group – Plan B.
 This is the plan that a citizen’s group wants. They have moved all the buildings on the east side of the site leaving a much more open area at the foot of Brant Street.  The city planning department has put forward what they are calling the “Emerging Preferred Concept that will have the public access at the foot of John Street and a more limited access at the foot of Brant.
 Who owns the domes; who operates them, who pays for them. BYSC wants to sets the record straight.  By Staff
November 10, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Disputes over the use of the Domes at Sherwood Forest Park are not new.
A group of soccer player who organized themselves into a consortium complained recently about the way they felt they were treated by the Burlington Youth Soccer Club (BYSC).
A link to that complaint appears at the bottom of this news story.
The BYSC wants to set the record straight and have released the following statement.
Unfortunately some adult soccer leagues, including Burlington Soccer League (BSL) and Burlington Women’s Recreational Soccer League (BWRSL), jointly calling themselves the “Burlington Soccer
Consortium” have chosen to spread misinformation about Burlington Youth Soccer Club programs and it’s Joint Venture Agreement with the City of Burlington for the Domes at Sherwood Forest Park.
The BYSC would like to ensure proper information and facts are being reported and distributed.
The BYSC is sanctioned as both an Adult and Youth club within Ontario Soccer and has been operating Adult programs at the U21 and Senior levels for decades.
As part of its Strategic Plan for 2017-2021, BYSC has committed to expand outdoor and indoor programs to create lifelong opportunities for players. This began with the launch of Lil Burli for toddlers, Embracing Ability (a program in partnership with Special Olympics Ontario, for players with and/or without intellectual and/or physical disabilities) and Walking Soccer for players 50+ and/or those with mobility issues.
This fall we have expanded our House League + and technically managed teams for youth. In the 2017 Summer Outdoor Season, we added an Adult Coed Open Age league to our program choices. This fall we launched our Adult Indoor Leagues and have 44 teams registered and participating. Offering these programs as part of the BYSC Strategic Plan aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan and its Active Aging Plan to create environments to encourage people of all ages and abilities to pursue lifelong physical activity and remain socially active.
The Domes in Sherwood Forest Park are paid for and operated by the BYSC at the BYSC’s expense. All capital expenditures, maintenance and operations are paid for by the BYSC with no money from taxpayers. We are also required by our Joint Venture Agreement with the City to set aside funds annually for a capital replacement fund. To date, the BYSC has paid more than $5 million to operate and cover the capital costs of the Domes.
To give perspective, here is a breakdown of the expenses incurred by the BYSC to maintain and operate the Domes in 2017 alone:
• $130,000 (lighting changes in all 3 Domes to LED to be more energy efficient “green”)
• $165,000 (replace mechanical unit, HVAC, and airlock for Dome 1)
• $120,000 (annual costs for set-up, removal, storage)
• $40,000 (annual costs for hydro)
• $65,000 (annual costs for gas heating)
• $15,000 (general repairs and maintenance)
• Total $535,000
In 2018 the BYSC will be funding 7/12 of the turf replacement under Domes 2 and 3, as part of our Joint Venture agreement with the City, which is estimated to cost the BYSC $500,000.
As the BYSC pays for and operates all three Domes seven months of the year that they are up, the BYSC has exclusive use of the Domes through its Joint Venture agreement and prioritizes its own programs and activities in the Domes.
BYSC may choose to make the remaining hours available to third parties as we have done in the past. We have expanded our programs on both the youth and adult side, thus we have fewer hours available to be rented. In some cases, this has meant adjusting the time slots offered to renters.
|
|
