By Pepper Parr

March 31st, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

There is a consulting group that operates under the name of The Planning Partnership.

Thy were hired by the city to take part in the study of the Waterfront Hotel site that everyone knew was going to be developed at some point.

The city began this work in 2015 when staffer Jodi Wellings was tasked with putting together some of the early thinking.

At that time the plan was to have whatever was built om the site face west and give a view of the Naval Promenade.

Among the decisions that came out of the early part of the study was the agreement that there would be a detailed study that the develop would par for but that the city would control.

The Waterfront Study got put on hold in 2018 because the Interim Control Bylaw that had been imposed and the issues related to the re-writing of the new Official Plan – call it the Meed Ward version for clarity – were taking up most of the capacity at city hall.  The deep thinking planners appear to have concluded that they had all kinds of time and that the developer would wait until the study was completed..

That decision has resulted in the developer deciding to proceed on his own with a development application that stunned a lot of people when it was first released.

The city should have seen that coming. Darko Vranich is a very strategic thinker – he saw an opportunity and went for it.

The Planning Partnership released their final report (240 pages plus) and offered their Preferred Concept that will get xxx

While holding the many public engagement events all kinds of ideas came to the surface and were set out in different reports.

Set out below are some of the drawings that reflected what kind of thinking was being done.

Then there was a couple of truly brutal designs.

 

Another that looked something like the stretch of building built on the south side of the Gardner Expressway in Toronto almost  obliterating any view of the lake

 

Are their options for the city to get out of a situation they created by not staying on top of a critical file ?  There was a point where the city did not have a planner assigned to the file.

We have an interesting month ahead of us.

Related news stories:

The man behind the development plans

Plan B has made a difference – have they gone far enough>

By Pepper Parr

March 30th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The pandemic certainly cut into meeting with people.

It wasn’t until I was part way through an interview with Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith that he mentioned he is never in city hall unless he is chair of the Standing Committee. Other than that he works from home.  The suggestion was that he might be able to sublet the space he has at city hall.

While Galbraith isn’t in the office all that much he is certainly busy enough with the development activity in his ward – which he now refers to as Ward 1 and not Aldershot – the Tyandaga people don’t like that name and the Maple people would rather be part of ward 2 – so for Galbraith – using the description ward 1 makes life a little less contentious.

I started out by asking Galbraith why he ran for office and how much of what he said he would do has actually been done. I followed that up by asking if he is running got another term.  He is.

He ran for office because he wasn’t happy with the kind of development that was taking place in the community.  He wanted to see more variation in the commercial space that was going to be in the ground floor of the developments popping up on Plains Road.

He wanted space that had the duct work needed for restaurants in place and he wanted to see a larger variety of commercial operations.  The ward doesn’t have the supermarket choices he thinks the community needs.

The changes coming to Plains Road in the summer are significant and mark a distinct change that Galbraith thinks will get people out with their bikes.

The disappointing part of getting people on bikes is that Galbraith drives a gas guzzling pickup back and forth to city hall.  Optics on that one aren’t good.

There was a point during this first term where Galbraith appeared to be almost joined at the hip to Mayor Meed Ward; some felt that he should be a little more independent.  Galbraith points out that he has voted differently than the Mayor on a lot of the motions.  When Mayor Meed Ward drafted Galbraith the the Red Tape Red Carpet Task  Task Force she said she needed someone who understood what the commercial and development people were having problems with.

Kelvin is often uncomfortable with the pace at which business gets done at Council meetings.  He is a much more get on with it kind of guy – talking just so he can hear himself isn’t his style.

Galbraith made the point that many people think all the development is taking place in ward 2 – in the downtown core.  He passed along a list of the development applications taking place in his ward and suggests he might have at least as many.

Pending Applications

• Adi Development Group – 1120 Cooke Blvd
• Camarro Developments Inc. – 1062-1074 Cooke Blvd.
• Coletara Development – 1010 Downsview Dr. and 355 Plains Rd. E.
• King Paving & Construction Ltd. – 291 North Service Rd.
• Molinaro Group – 1134-1167 Plains Rd. E.

Amendment Applications

• 1511 Old Plains Road West Inc. – 1497, 1499, 1505 and 1511 Old Plains Road West
• 1600 Kerns Rd
• 284 Plains Road Development Inc – 284-292 Plains Rd E.
• Chelten Developments Inc. – 92 Plains Rd E.
• Eagle Heights – Flatt Road and Waterdown Rd.
• Georgian Court Redevelopment – 610 Surrey Lane
• Infinity Development Group – 40-70 Plains Rd. E.
• Infinity Development Group – 1029-1033 Waterdown Rd.
• National Homes (Plains) Inc. – 484-490 Plains Road E.
• Penta Properties -1200 King Rd.
• Vrancor Group – 53-71 Plains Rd. E and 1025 Cooke Boulevard

Applications in Other Stages of Development

1085 Clearview Ave.

1157-1171 North Shore Blvd

1371975 Ontario Inc. (Markay Homes) – 1167 Bellview Cres.

Adi Development Group – 101 Masonry Crt

Aldershot Properties Inc. – 35 Plains Rd

Fellowship Canadian Reformed Church – 1350 Waterdown Rd

Markay Homes – 1159 Bellview Crescent

National Homes (Brant) Inc. – 2100 Brant St

Urban Solutions – 539 King Forest Court

Where Galbraith differs from ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns is the way he interacts with his constituents.  He hasn’t held a meeting for the past two years – saying that Covid19 didn’t make meetings possible.  Kearns found a way to hold both live meetings that were also virtual.  It worked quite well.

In terms of his retail politicking – Galbraith has some distance to go.  He is approachable – but you have to approach him.  He is not a glad handler.

His focus is business and he is very much in tune with the development community pointing to several developments where he believes he solved a lot pf problems that were created by community involvement.

The 2100 Brant National Homes development that is now underway was a mess.  Getting it through the various community development and  Statutory meeting stages was a challenge.

Galbraith now finds that the problems are with the city engineering department and other departments.

What surprised Galbraith was that National Homes, the 2100 Brant developers, tore down the sales office that was set up on the site.  All the homes were sold in a two week period – which points to just how significant the demand for housing is in the city.  Galbraith can’t get them approved and at the shovels in the ground fast enough.

Part two: What Galbraith wants to achieve in a second term if he is returned to office.  Coming soon

By Staff

March 28th, 2022

BURLINGTON, ON

A number of Council members have been unhappy and somewhat disturbed over the way information was kept from the public by having the debate take place in a CLOSED session of Council.

When a CLOSED session of Council was about to take place – a notice would be read out saying what they (Council) needed to go into CLOSED for and then the web cast went dark displaying just GET THE VISUAL. When Council came out of a CLOSED session they would report that Council has agreed to do what was agreed upon in the CLOSED meeting.

Once council member complained publicly that “we can’t even tell the public the address of the property that was being discussed.  The struggle to determine what could and should be released was between Council and Nancy Shea Nicol, the City Solicitor.

Last week for the first time we saw a situation where Council talked about going into CLOSED but decided not to.  The City Solicitor said she would provide a report on what the issue was with all the details.

 

Some context:

The site was zoned MXT and as such the development application being made complied with the zoning by law and would go directly to site plan approval, Development Application proceeds straight to site plan.

In contrast when a zoning bylaw amendment is requested the proponent will go through community meetings, a Statutory Public meeting and receive a planning recommendation  report for council to  vote on.

None of these steps are required for applications that are in compliance with the regulations of the bylaw, as is the case with these lands.

What Councillor Kearns was able to do was undelegate the application which meant site plan approval would be determined by Council and not staff.

The developer chose to take their application to the Ontario Land Tribunal.  While waiting for a hearing date the city and the developer were able to come to terms on the differences and entered into a Settlement Agreement which will now be heard by the Ontario Land Tribunal on GET THE DATE.

There is a bigger question: When the city learned that intensification was going to be focused on what were originally called mobility hubs – later changed to MTSA Major Transit Service Areas  – why didn’t the Planning department look at the zoning status of all the lands around the MTSA and do what needed to be done to change the zoning.

The following is what the City Solicitor released.

On April 4, 2020 the Community Planning Department acknowledged that a site plan application had been received by Brookfield Properties, Inter Rent REIT and CLV Group Inc. (the “Applicant”) for Site Plan Approval for 2269, 2243 Fairview Street & 864 Drury Lane (the “Site”) to support the development of the Site with seven (7) residential towers on top of four (4) mixed-use podiums, with overall tower heights ranging between 29 and 37 storeys. However, the Site was located within an area that was the subject of an Interim Control By-law and related study, resulting in a development ‘freeze’ on lands within the study area.

The Official Plan Amendment (“OPA 119”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA 2020.418”) that resulted from the recommendations of the ICBL study were appealed, including by the Applicant, in February 2020. These appeals to ZBA 2020.418 had the effect of continuing the development ‘freeze’ on the Site, and resulted in no decision being made on the site plan.

On August 11, 2021, the Applicant appealed the site plan application to the Ontario Lands Tribunal based upon non-decision of the City within the required time period set out by the Planning Act.

On December 17, 2021 the Applicant submitted a Settlement Offer to the City for consideration. The Applicant is seeking a settlement of its appeals of OPA 119, ZBA 2020.418 and its site plan application. The Settlement Offer proposes a resolution of the appeals in which the Applicant would withdraw its appeal of OPA 119 and the City and the Applicant would seek approval from the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) for site-specific amendments to ZBA 2020.418 to permit the development contemplated in phase 1 of a phased site plan. These site-specific amendments would add to the regulations contained within ZBA 2020.418 to regulate the development proposed in phase 1 of the site plan, as described below. The City and Applicant would also seek an Order from the OLT removing the Site from the ongoing development ‘freeze’ that applies to this area. The Settlement Offer proposes to resolve the site plan appeal by the City and the Applicant seeking approval from the OLT for site plan contemplating development of phase 1 of a multi-tower residential development on the Site. Future phases of the development of the Site would require Site Plan Approval from the City. Additionally, the Settlement Offer contemplates the City and the Applicant agreeing to certain parameters that would not only apply to Phase 1 of the development set out in detail in the Settlement Offer, but also to the future development of phase 2 that would be subject to a future site plan approval process by the City. Key parameters of the proposed site plan appeal settlement include:

Phases 1 and 2 will each contain two towers of 33 and 37 stories (Phase 1) and 33 and 35 stories (Phase 2) in height;

The four towers proposed in Phases 1 and 2 will all be purpose-built rental buildings, with 100% of units in the buildings being in rental tenure;

Phase 1 will provide a total of 38 three (3) bedroom residential rental units, including 25 three (3) bedroom rental units contained within the two towers;

When the Applicant seeks site plan approval for Phase 2, the towers will include at least 25 three (3) bedroom residential rental units;

Provide a minimum 30m separation between proposed towers;

The tower floor plates of the four towers in Phases 1 and 2 will have tower floor plates of up to 890 square metres;

The Applicant will dedicate 1.71ha of parkland, in addition to providing cash-in-lieu of parkland in the amount of approximately $13 million. Additionally, the Applicant will provide a privately-owned publicly accessible space (‘POPS’), maintained in perpetuity at its expense, of 0.25ha located immediately adjacent to the dedicated parkland located along Fairview Street to function as one cohesive park that may be further expanded should lands to the west of the Site re-develop in the future.

Phases 1 and 2 of the Site Plan (containing two levels of underground parking will address groundwater through a private permanent pumping stormwater management system discharged into the City’s storm sewer system at regulated volumes and quality, with ongoing stormwater management system maintenance requirements registered on the title of the rental buildings. Future phase(s) of development on the Site will have separate underground facilities and stormwater management for those phases will be reviewed by the City in future applications for site plan approval.

The Applicant will make a Municipal Consent application to bring permanent buried hydro to the entire site (Phases 1, 2 and 3). Should the applicant wish to install additional temporary overhead hydro, those drawings and details will be included with the Municipal Consent application, along with required fees and securities.

GET THE GRAPHIC OF THE SITE
Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses

 The subject site has an area of 3.4 ha, and approximately 224 m of frontage along Fairview, and 143 m of frontage along Drury Lane. Access to the site is currently provided via both Drury Lane and Fairview Street. A vacant garden centre, brewery, auto repair shop, dance studio and furniture store are currently located on the Subject Lands. It is the intent that the existing buildings and structures be demolished prior to the site being redeveloped.

Surrounding the subject site are the following uses:

North: The Lakeshore West GO rail line is located adjacent to the Subject Lands directly to the north. A low-rise residential neighbourhood occupies the lands north of the rail line. An overpass pedestrian bridge at the north terminus of Drury Lane provides access over the rail line to the residential community to the north.

South: Fairview Street, low rise institutional and medical building consisting of the Halton Catholic District School Board and a medical clinic.

East: Drury Lane, and a number of low-rise service commercial and retail uses are located east of the Subject Lands, including an automotive repair and home store.

West: A car dealership is located adjacent to the Subject Lands directly west, followed by a creek and the Burlington GO Station. The Paradigm Condominium development, (5 tower and 24 storey residential condominium development) is located immediately west of the Burlington GO Station.

 

The Site Plan Application:

The Site Plan application that is the subject of the appeal includes 4 buildings with a total of 7 towers ranging in height from 29 to 37 storeys. The comprehensive development plan will provide 2,515 residential units of mixed type and tenure; 3,703 square metres of retail/ commercial space; there will be shared amenity space between all buildings in a variety of forms, including indoor, rooftop and outdoor elevated amenity area; all proposed parking to be located within a combination of a 4-storey above-ground parking structure abutting the northern lot line or within 5 levels of underground parking abutting the southern property line. Each building is proposed as follows:

Building A will consist of a six storey podium and a 33 storey tower with 338 residential units.

Building B will consist of a five storey podium and two towers with 651 residential units. Tower B1 will be 29 storeys and tower B2 will be 34 storeys. Ten (10) Townhouse style units are incorporated into the podium fronting onto Fairview Street.

Building C will consist of a four storey podium and two towers with 774 residential rental units. Tower C1 will be 33 storeys and tower C2 will be 37 storeys.

Building D will consist of a four storey podium and two towers with 752 residential rental units. Tower D1 will be 33 storeys and tower C2 will be 35 storeys.

Vehicular access to the proposed development will be provided primarily through an internal driveway through the site from Fairview Street to Drury Lane, similar to the driveway that presently exists on the Subject Lands. The parking structure will be accessed via Drury Lane and the internal east-west driveway, which will function as a private street. Access to the underground parking will also be provided through the internal driveway. A minimal amount of layby parking is proposed at grade. Parking is proposed as 1-5 levels of underground parking and 4 levels of parking in a structure at the rear of the site. In terms of parking rates, there are 2761 spaces for 2515 units (including visitor), 154 spaces for commercial and 34 spaces for maintenance. The total parking rate is 1.16 spaces per unit.

The Site Plan in the Proposed Settlement

The Proposed Settlement contemplates a phased approach to the development of the Site, with site plan approval for phase 1 by the OLT, and subsequent phases of the development of the site to occur through future applications for site plan approval by the City. Phase 1 will consist of a four-storey podium and two towers with 774 residential rental units. Tower C1 will be 33 storeys and tower C2 will be 37 storeys. Phase 1 also includes the internal (private) east-west road and a public park. The OLT’s approval of the Site Plan for phase 1 of the development would include conditions of Site Plan Approval that would apply to Phase 1, which consists of buildings C1 and C2 on the Site Plan. As noted above, the parameters of the settlement (such as height and floor plate size) would apply to Phase 2 (Buildings D1 and D2 on the proposed plan); however, a new Site Plan Application to the City would be required to be approved by the City, subject to conditions. Phase 3 on the Site Plan, which includes Buildings A and B to the south fronting onto Fairview Street remains independent from the settlement and will require separate review and subject to that review, may or may not be approved by the City in its current form.