 By Pepper Parr
November 2, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The doggedly going after Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward and the Mayor for answers to questions on why the city did not manage to vote on the development application ADI Development made to put up a 28 storey structure at the corner of Martha Street and Lakeshore Road before the 180 days the city had to approve or turn down the project continues.
 The differences of opinion and the different interpretations as to just what is a city council vote for or against a project is centered on the ADI Development project planned for the intersection of Martha Street and LAkeshore Road. Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident found that he couldn’t follow the time line that was being put out by the city and the ward 2 Councillor and wrote Meed Ward asking her to explain why the city failed to vote on the development application before the 180 day time period the city had to decide on the ADI Development application.
Meed Ward had put some information on her web site but it was confusing.
Muir’s first note was a simple six line request – there was no response.
Muir wrote Meed Ward because he thought her to be a very proactive Councillor who stayed on top of the developments in her ward. He followed up with a second note and copied city manager James Ridge and the Mayor.
Muir had asked “be informed about how the decision was arrived at to allow the 180 day period, mandated by legislation, to elapse before the Council vote was made?”
“I would like an explanation of how the staff report on this project did not make it to Council within the 180 days”, he asked
Muir said that to the best of his knowledge no one has ever been told why city council did not get to vote as a Council on the staff report that had been prepared and approved at the Development and Infrastructure Standing Committee level.
Muir added saying “I would like to know the line of responsibility for this failure that allowed ADI a free pass to the OMB where they now do not have to argue an appeal on a reasoned planning argument. Because the city did not officially vote as a city council against the development ADI is able to argue that the city took no action within the 180 day time frame required under the Planning Act.
“I am asking you this question as the Ward Councillor, but also copying the Mayor and the City Manager as they are the Chief Executives of Council and Staff respectively.
Meed Ward responded:
Thanks for your inquiry and my apologies for the delay in responding. You raise a number of very important and thoughtful points, and these required time to provide an equally thoughtful reply. I trust you will not read anything into the delay other than it took some time to prepare. I acknowledge that it would have been helpful for me to simply acknowledge initial receipt of the email when I got it, and let you know I was working on a reply – I will do that in future so you know I am working on a reply and that it will take some time. My apology for not doing that in this case – I’m sure it would have helped.
 All smiles during her campaign for a second term on Council – Marianne Meed Ward asked her constituents to give her their trust. As this is now a legal matter before the Ontario Municipal Board, I will attempt to give as full a reply to the issues without jeopardizing our case at the OMB and while maintaining confidentiality of any legal matters. The questions you have asked raise important issues of principle and I will attempt to speak to them at that level.
You ask why the 180 day time elapsed, allowing the developer to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board for a “non-decision” within the legislated time frame. Based on the information I have received, and documented in the time line on my website, this file simply took longer than 180 days to process because of the complexity of the project and the number of agencies that needed to provide feedback. That often occurs with more complex files. We have dealt with several files at recent Development & Infrastructure Committee meetings that have gone beyond 180 days, and developers on these projects have been prepared to work with the city so long as they are assured the file is moving forward and being processed.
The timeline I provided in an earlier article helps to tell the story of the amount of work required on this particular application and that staff worked diligently throughout the process to complete the report in a timely fashion. The staff report had been prepared and the committee was four days away from a vote when the appeal was launched. Typically, an appeal is launched for non-decision when the city is dragging its feet on processing an application. That wasn’t the case here.
Nevertheless, I believe it is a worthwhile question of principle to ask in general: why isn’t every Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application processed within 180 days and what would it take to make that happen? We know that most applications we will see in Burlington are infill, versus greenfield (having run out of large greenfield areas for redevelopment). We also know that these applications by nature are more complex and take more time to review. So we must ask: what changes would we need to make at City Hall to ensure we can nevertheless even process these more complex applications – all of them – within the timeframe? It is a good question; you and other residents are raising it; and I have asked this of staff internally and we will continue to discuss this over coming weeks and months until we have some suggestions going forward. In my view, if the timeline is there we need to do what we can to meet it, and we need a better understanding of what it will take on these more complex files to achieve that outcome. I am committed to doing what it takes to achieve that outcome going forward.
You have also raised the question of whether the appeal for non-decision within 180 days impacts our position at the Ontario Municipal Board. A non-decision within 180 days is one route to the OMB; the other is disagreement with the decision by council on an application. It is worth noting that the staff report recommending refusal of this particular file was available before the 180 days elapsed.
The developer knew staff were not in support of the project. So the question is: does it make a difference whether a file is appealed for non-decision within 180 days or because the project has not been supported by staff and ultimately council? It’s a good question and one that is being asked on behalf of residents by myself and council. I will continue to investigate this.
However, at the end of the day, the OMB makes its decision based on the planning merits of the application more so than by which route the file ended up at the OMB, whether it was because the 180 days elapsed or because of disagreement with the decision. The planning merits or lack thereof are primary matters for consideration. The city will present our case, outlined very well in the staff report, that the project does not meet the criteria for good planning. Those are the matters that will be considered at the OMB in rendering a decision.
Some residents have asked: does the fact that committee and council voted on the project after it was appealed have an impact on our position at the Ontario Municipal Board? The unanimous vote at committee, upheld by council, to support staff and refuse the project will be part of the information forwarded to the OMB when it is deliberating. So the voice of the residents, via your elected representatives, will be heard and will be part of the information presented at the board.
Muir didn’t like the response he got and called Meed Ward to account with the following;
 Tom Muir, a persistent critic of developments that stretch the zoning and Official Plan wanted to know how the city managed to miss an deadline that resulted in a development going to the Ontario Municipal Board. His review of the time line suggested there was more than enough time for staff to produce a report – which they did. The bureaucrats couldn’t seem to get it onto agendas in time to be voted on. Muir wants to know why? “To cut to the quick, I must say that, sadly, you did not meaningfully answer my September 16 and October 8 requests to be informed about how the decision was arrived at to allow the 180 day period, mandated by legislation as default grounds for OMB appeal, to elapse before the Council vote was able to be made on the staff recommendation report on this project.
“As part of this request, I also asked a number of questions concerning the administrative management staff motivations and thinking that led to this decision. These questions were also not answered, and in fact, were never addressed.
“Instead, your message is a narrative of excuses, rationalizations, and blame-shifting that does not fit the facts contained in the record of city proceedings and timeline in this matter. You also wrote several extended digressions, that collectively muddle, and side-step, the direct point of my inquiry.
“I acknowledge that to some extent you are, as you say, basing your remarks on information you have received from others, and documented in the time line on your website, but there is no attribution on this, and of course, you are responsible for your choice of words. Whatever, I would be careful who you listen to in the future. They may be more interested in self than in you.
“The timeline you document in your March 31 website newsletter, commented Muir is not complete.
“Recall that the prescribed time frame or timeline of 180 days started on September 24, 2014, and elapsed on March 24, 2015.
“Over this entire timeline there were a number of public meetings, staff reports and correspondence available for people to examine. There is no evidence to suggest the planning staff were not in control of the processing timeline, or that they found the file too complex to process in time.
In fact, the ADI project was generally opposed by the public and Council – the Mayor had made it clear he was not on for the project. The staff report was a thorough, fair, and strong planning based recommendation to refuse the application. There are no apparent complicating factors to make the file too complex or unwieldy to process on time, as you imply it was.
“There is also no reason to expect that the refusal recommendation would lead ADI to be prepared to work with the city beyond the prescribed timeline, as you uncritically, and therefore misleadingly, state other developers might do if their application is moving forward.
“I can’t imagine this happening in the face of a known refusal, and the staff record shows that ADI had no intention of negotiating changes. So you certainly can’t shift blame for the failure to meet the timeline to ADI for doing what they did, as you appear to.
“I find your stated insinuation, that despite working diligently, staff were unable to overcome unspecified factors of complexity and time slippage, as you claim, and were only able to prepare the staff report four days before the Committee meeting date to be incorrect, misleading, and totally unfair to the staff working on the file. They cannot defend themselves or set the record straight.
“In fact, the timeline indicates that the staff recommendation report was presented to the then Director of Planning and Building, Bruce Krushelnicki, on March 2, which is 22 days before the 180 day timeline elapsed.
“The staff recommendation report was made public and sent to the Development and Infrastructure Committee on March 13. This means that the staff recommendation report was in Mr. Krushelnicki’s hands for 11 days.
“One has to ask why this 11 days was needed if the planning staff process for the 180 day timeline was considered, as you claim, to be behind time, and if the responsible planning management staff was actually respecting the timeline. Did Mr. Krushelnicki really need 11 days to decide to support his staff, and where is the record of that decision process?
 All the fuss and kafuffle is over a tall building on a small lot that stretches the zoning from an acceptable eight storeys to a requested 28 “There is no apparent explanation of this seemingly excessive use of time, given the situation, and its use as an excuse for the failure to meet the deadline of March 24.
“What is also inexplicable is that the staff recommendation report was scheduled to be presented to the D&I Committee on March 30, and to Council on April 20, which puts it outside the 180 day deadline of March 24th. Absolutely too late in the circumstances, and guaranteed to facilitate an ADI appeal to the OMB.
“Even more inexplicable is that there was already a scheduled Council meeting for March 23, one day before the 180 day timeline elapsed. The opportunity for a Council vote on the proposal was squandered with nary a mention.
“Despite all this, four supposedly responsible senior managers ( Bruce Krushelnicki, Director of Planning (now retired and the senior executive overseeing the work of the Ontario Municipal Board); Blake Hurley, Assistant City Solicitor; Scott Stewart, General Manager of Development and Infrastructure; and Nancy Shea Nicol, Interim City Manager at the time and Director of Legal Services), who would have known all these facts especially the expiry of the 180 days on March 24, and the already scheduled Council meeting on March 23.
“In effect, this decision left the back door open for ADI to appeal on the easiest of grounds – that Council had not made a decision within the 180 day mandated time period. The will of the public, and the staff recommendation report, were dead on arrival at Council – this seems to have been done on purpose.
“What were these managers thinking or not thinking? Is this a deliberate action, taken regardless of the consequences for the city and public trust, or just stupid non-thinking?
“My experience in this matter has not been given what I consider to be respect for me, or for the public’s right to be informed with honest and truthful information, and meaningful answers to questions posed.
“I asked serious questions about matters with substantial financial and development implications for the city and residents, and have not received honest and truthful direct answers deserving of respect. Most of what you have said in our correspondence serves to divert attention from the questions, and to prevent understanding of what happened, with a selective set of remarks and excuses that reshape the discussion away from the central issues I raised.
“And while you claim to invite dialogue and debate, you say your response is complete and you have nothing more to add here except by repeating yourself. It’s like you are finishing the job of sweeping things under the rug, and then shutting the lights out on the matter.
“What it looks like is that the city, and senior management (the responsible participants named, earning together about $1 million a year), can do what they want but don’t tell anybody, and they don’t have to account for, or explain, anything about their decisions and actions, or the consequences. They seem to be above having to be answerable, and you look to support this.
 The orange box is where the planned ADI project would bebuilt – the red marker is where a 22 storey condominium, a seven story condominium and an eight storey hotel are to be built – ground will be broken early in the New Year. “Or is it worse, a case of creative bungling that sabotages the city interest and control over the rational planning of development within the existing Official Plan and policy prescribed framework? This situation could do a lot of damage to the aspirations of city residents to develop according to a plan and process they have chosen.
“How can we trust the legal department to present the city case at the OMB when they participated in this unbelievable muddle – headedness?
“They took the city’s legal right to decide on this development proposal and refuse the application, and gave it away to ADI, and someone from the OMB to decide.
“Is this what the public is supposed to trust and have confidence in as proper, credible administrative implementation of the rules, regulations, and laws?
“Tell us please, how this decision to kill the staff refusal recommendation serves the public and city interest? I want these managers called to account for how the interests of the city and residents are better served by what they have done in this case?
“These points are what most of the other questions in my October 8 reminder message were asking. The responsible staff managers need to be called to account for what they did.
‘In all of this there is a role for the members of council, but particularly yourself, the Ward 2 Councillor, who would know, or be expected to know, all about what I have described here.
‘You knew about the March 24 expiry date of the 180 day prescribed timeframe, and that the scheduled Committee meeting, and particularly the required Council meeting, where the staff recommendation report was on the agenda.
“And yet you remained silent, and went along with what was happening, and what eventually did happen. Why did you remain silent? Did someone advise you to do this, or did you just drop the ball?
“‘You are even musing that maybe the killing of the city will on this development, and the forced OMB hearing, are not such bad things. This is bordering on delusion.
Muir closes with the comment that “We are on a very slippery slope, poised to lose control of development and our Official Plan to speculators.
The debate on the failure of city council to vote on the development application has gone on for some time with two citizens; John and Tom Muir, leading the discussion.
John, a retired engineer, who lives in ward 3 has lived in Burlington for 60 of his 62 years, is proud of the city that his family has called home for three generations, chooses to be anonymous. The Gazette has talked to John – he is real.
He got into the debate with these cogent points with which he refutes several points Meed Ward makes:
“If council had taken the initiative to vote within the 180 days, they would retained their decision making and have shown support for the community input.”
“By voting within the 180 day timeframe, council would have retained the decision making for the city and possibly had the appeal dismissed.”
“We have no guarantee that this appeal would have been filed or if ADI would have the grounds necessary to satisfy the OMB to grant one”
John added: “I believe this is where the city legal team should take over, helping to clarify some of the possibilities during your review.”
John closed his comments to Meed Ward with: “There are many disturbing issues and questions that have come forward as a result of this file, your review is a start.”
The simplest and obvious way to avoid such possible questions and inferences is for the city and participants to explain their decisions and actions, as I initially asked. However, in the present situation, nobody is talking, the stakes are high, and the ADI sales promotion, public relations, and propaganda mill is getting in full swing. So what are people to think? We are not stupid.
I hope you are not suggesting that we the public – in order to be “respectful” – avoid hard questions of trust, transparency and accountability because they are, to quote you, distractions from important issues worth discussing and debating?
October 28th Meed Ward responded with: “Happy to meet to discuss further and clear this up. It seems clear email correspondence is adding more confusion and concern because of how writings are interpreted.
Muir took initially took a pass on the offer to discuss the concern any further with Meed Ward. He was still waiting for a “meaningful answer” from the Mayor.
Meed Ward did say:
Even more important staff will provide further clarity on what, if any, impact it has on our standing at the Ontario Municipal Board that an application arrived at the OMB for exceeding the 180 days, or arrived at the OMB for disagreement with the decision. Our understanding has been that it has little, if any, impact on the outcome of a decision how an application gets there. Nevertheless, I’ve asked for more clarity on that.
I invite dialogue and debate within the community and welcome differences of perspective; that makes us stronger and deepens each of our understanding of important issues. I have always requested that this dialogue be respectful, not make personal attacks or assume negative or ulterior motives of any of the participants. Your communications were not respectful of the participants in this matter, which is unfortunate because it distracts from important issues worth discussing and debating.
John comments that: “We will have a glimpse in December and a complete story in March or April, it will make fascinating reading.
Meanwhile the ADI people continue to actively market the property and Tom Muir continues to wait for the WORDS promised by the Mayor on October 8th.
The time line that Muir put together:
The time line for the ADI project began on September 24, 2014, and elapsed on March 24, 2015.
Over timeline there are a number of public meetings, and staff reports and correspondence available to examine and there is no evidence that the working planning staff were not in control of the processing timeline, or found the file too complex to process in time.
The staff report was a thorough, fair, and strong planning based recommendation to refuse the application. There are no apparent complicating factors to make the file too complex or unwieldy to process on time, as you imply it was.
The timeline indicates that the staff recommendation report was presented to the then Director of Planning and Building, Bruce Krushelnicki, on March 2, which is 22 days before the 180 day timeline elapsed.
The staff recommendation report was made public and sent to the Development and Infrastructure Committee on March 13. This means that the staff recommendation report was in Mr. Krushelnicki’s hands for 11 days.
There is no apparent explanation of this seeming excessive use of time, given the situation, and its use as an excuse for the failure to meet the deadline of March 24.
What is also inexplicable is that the staff recommendation report was scheduled to be presented to the D&I Committee on March 30, and to Council on April 20.
On October 29th Councillor Meed Ward published a piece in her Ward Newsletter in which she attempts to convince her constituents that city council did indeed vote against the ADI project.
Council did no such thing – what Council did do was accept the amended report from the Development and Infrastructure (D&I) committee that met on March 30th.
Meed Ward in her Newsletter said: “The recommendation from D&I to endorse staff’s recommendation to refuse the proposed development went to the April 20 council meeting. Council voted to uphold that recommendation as part of the motion to affirm the recommendations from all standing committees.
To have standing as a decision, city Council had to actually vote on the question. They did not do so – to suggest that they did is a slight of hand usually seen by gamblers who want to pull a fast one.
Is there a fast one being pulled?
 Sales office for the Adi Development at the corner of Brant and Pine. The project is being heavily promoted with bonuses and benefits for the real estate agents who deliver clients. It is hard to tell – why this Council cannot just admit that they screwed up and while they are at it explain why the report was in the hands of the Planning Director and not on its way to the Development & Infrastructure Standing Committee where it would be debated and sent along to city council where a vote that has legal standing would be made.
As for that promise made by the Mayor to Tom Muir on October 8th when he wrote
In an email to ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward and copied to Tom Muir on October 31st, the Mayor said:
“Thanks Marianne for addressing all of Tom’s questions.”
 Mayor fails to deliver on his “meaningful response” to a citizen who questions why city council failed to vote on a major project within the legislated time frame – resulting in the project going to the OMB. The Mayor basically washed his hands of the matter – so much for his understanding of what a “meaningful response” is – the public still doesn’t know why city council didn’t vote on one of the most controversial development applications to come before it in some time before the expiry of the 180 day deadline that everyone knew about.
Something doesn’t smell right.
Opinion: Salt with Pepper
By Staff
November 2, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The best way to protect young children from getting infected with influenza (flu) is for all family members to receive the seasonal flu immunization. To make it easier for families with young children to receive the flu shot, the Halton Region Health Department is hosting two appointment-based family flu clinics for families with young children aged six months through five years of age who are most vulnerable to the virus.
This is the first year Halton Region has offered appointment-based flu clinics. Families can register for their 15-minute appointments at halton.ca/flu or by dialing 311.
 It doesn’t always happen this easily – does it? “We know that sometimes it can be challenging for families with young children to attend a drop-in clinic, so this year we’re offering two appointment-only flu clinics to meet the needs of Halton’s young families,” said Halton Region’s Medical Officer of Health Dr. Hamidah Meghani.
“These new clinics will give young families more opportunities to get the vaccine as pharmacists are unable to immunize children under five. By making it easier for families with young children to receive their influenza immunizations, we’re not only working towards achieving the best possible health and well-being for children, but also for the entire community.”
The two appointment only family flu clinics are located at the Halton Regional Centre at 1151 Bronte Road in Oakville, from 3:00 to 7:45 p.m. on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 and Tuesday, December 15, 2015 and are in addition to other flu clinics being offered by the Halton Region Health Department.
To register for an appointment at one of the family flu clinics or to learn about Halton’s 12 drop-in flu clinics, please visit halton.ca/flu or dial 311.
This is a really good idea but the clinics have to be closer to the people who pay the tax bills – at the very least in schools during the late afternoon or evenings.
It is easier to just go to a local pharmacy where they will give you your flu shot at no expense – I didn’t have to wait more than the time it took to roll up my sleeve.
 By Pepper Parr
November 2, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
If you are of a certain age – there is a piece of entertainment coming to town that you might want to take in.
Remember the Platters? And the Ink Spots? Of course you do – well they are going to be in town on the 6th of November for a single show at the Performing Arts Centre – 8:00 pm
 The Platters were one of the top vocal groups of the ‘50s scene, achieving success with a crooning, middle-of-the-road style that put a soulful coat of uptown polish on pop-oriented, harmony-rich material.
Their distinctive sound was a bridge between the Tin Pan Alley tradition and the burgeoning new genre of Rock n Roll. As one of the first ‘black’ groups to be targeted towards a predominantly ‘white’ youth audience in the US, they toured the world as international ambassadors of musical goodwill.
That vibe continues as their music lives on in such legendary titles as “Only You”, “The Great Pretender”, “The Magic Touch”, “My Prayer”, “Smoke Gets In Your Eyes”, “With This Ring”, “Earth Angel” and “Twilight Time”.
How long has it been since we’ve heard those songs? Heavy metal and whatever they call the other stuff just doesn’t cut it the way the Platters did.
Expect to hear these and many more that have become indelibly ingrained in the hearts of a planet.
 The Ink Spots gained international fame from the ‘30s through the ‘50s. Their unique musical style made them the godfathers of rhythm and blues, rock n roll and doo-wop. Their wide acceptance made them superstars of their time with more than 20 Top 10 Hits including “If I Didn’t Care”, “My Prayer”, “Java Jive”, “I Don’t Want to Set The World On Fire”, “Don’t Get Around Much Anymore”, “I’ll Get By (As Long As I Have You)”, “I’m Making Believe”, “Into Each Life Some Rain Must Fall”, “Prisoner Of Love” and “To Each His Own”. The Original Ink Spots (Bill Kenny, Deek Watson, Charlie Fuqua and Hoppy Jones) were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989 and the Vocal Group Hall of Fame in 1999.
If you are of that certain age – take the Missus out for the evening – you might even want to take one of the grandchildren if they are well into their teens so they can get a taste of what the great music was like.
The two groups who come out of Vancouver are part of the playbill former Performing Arts Centre Executive Director Brian McCurdy included in the program Susanne Haines now oversees while she works towards developing the program for the 2016 – 2017 season.
Not to be missed – we don’t hear groups like these two all that often. There are still some good seats left
 By Pepper Parr
October 28, 2105
BURLINGTON, ON
After a long summer break when meetings with more than 70 groups or individuals were held by KPMG, the consultants working with the city to create the Strategic Plan that will guide the city for the balance of this term of office the public finally got to see where the city is going with its Strategic Plan
The 2014 – 2018 Strategic Plan is being done in a significantly different way than the 2010 – 2013 plan. This time the consultants are doing much more of the early work; in the previous plan members of Council and staff met on more than eight occasions and debated a lot of the issues that were being put forward.
In the 2010 to 2013 Strategic Plan, the Mayors Chief of Staff was a major participant – so much so that more than one member of Council to Frank McKeown as the “seventh” council member, not always in a positive tone of voice.
At a meeting in July staff, Council and the consultants laid out what had to be collected in terms of data and how it was to be presented in the fall.
 Councillor Craven on the far left chaired the meeting – Councillor Dennison was out of the city. Mayor Goldring, his city manager is out of sight to his right. City General Manager Scott Stewart was surprisingly quiet during the first day of discussion and debate The meetings held last week didn’t see all that much data – what Council and far fewer staff than in the previous plan saw was an early draft of what will become what the public gets to see.
The document will go through more “wordsmithing” and the addition of some data along with the comments members of Council made as the consultants went through the four “pillars” that the Strategic Plan will rest on. Each of the “pillars” has a rationale WORD that everything else flows from.
Those four “pillars” that are creating Burlington as a city for the balance of this term of office are
A city that grows
A city that moves
A city that is healthier and greener,
and a city that leads.
Appreciate that these are draft concepts and might see some changes
 Council members and staff were arranged around a rectangle with the consultants facilitating most of the discussion. The Regional CAO, Jane MacCaskill and Regional Chair Gary Carr took part in the discussions – they were not participants in the 2010-2013 Strategic Plan. The 2014-2018 Strategic Plan is being led to a considerable degree by a consulting team from KPMG. They have done most of the research and put together draft versions of the Strategic Plan which council members and some staff comment on and debate. The debates get prickly at times.
By growing they mean that Burlington will continue to grow as an independent community by increasing its population in targeted intensification areas and by becoming a magnet for talent and economic opportunity.
By a city that moves they mean: People and goods will move throughout the city more efficiently and safely. Regional flows of traffic inbound and outbound will increase in efficiency. A variety of convenient, affordable and green forms of transportation that that align with transportation patterns will be developed.
A fair amount of gobbledegook in that statement – it is a draft so perhaps some clarity will works its way into future versions of the document.
The focus on a “healthier and greener” city was not something that we saw much of in the previous Strategic Plan. The vision this time is that the city be a responsible steward of municipal air, land and water while encouraging healthier lifestyles.
To become a city that leads Council wants to be seen as a leader in governance, citizen engagement, excellence and innovation in service delivery.
So far what we have heard is a lot of high flying rhetoric with statements that may not connect very well with the average Burlingtonian on the GO train or stuck on the QEW.
 Intense to the point of making delegations uncomfortable ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman does know how to drill down into the data and look for results. The winner for the most ludicrous remark was Councillor Paul Sharman when he said: “We have to get the best bang for our buck right from the get go.”
The meeting, which took place during two half day meetings at LaSalle Park, was billed as a “Strategic Facility Check In” during which the first draft, written entirely by the consultants was reviewed.
The review included the strategic directions and supporting initiatives and the proposed performance indicators.
Each of the pillars –
Growth
Moves
Greener
Leading
had a rational statement attached to it with a number of Strategic actions and preliminary initiatives.
For growth these were:
Accelerate economic growth:
“Establish employment land targets that drive economic growth and create an employment lands vision that drives investment and growth in the highway corridor.”
 Upper Middle Road looking east towards Burloak – designated as Employment lands. At least one member of Council would like to see this converted to residential. There are a number of developers who have property classified as Employment Lands which they would love to see converted to residential where the return is much higher.
The city is required to ensure it has the Employment land it needs for future growth. One of the more lucrative pieces of property is along Upper Middle Road and Burloak owned by one of the larger property owners.
Expect the arm wrestling between Council and the development community to get interesting.
“Build one brand for the city that reflects the city’s vision.”
“The city will continue to promote and explore post-secondary partnerships including further developing an educational cluster around the DeGroote site and attracting a major educational facility to the Urban Core.”
There are conversations taking place between two community colleges and McMaster University that Councillor Craven didn’t want anything said about. Serving as chair of the Committee of the Whole that was discussing the Strategic Plan he reminded his colleagues that there was media in the room.
“The city will develop a holistic strategy for Burlington’s rural area. This strategy will consider economic and social and environmental factors support of the rural community, agricultural industry, natural heritage and water resources.”
 Is the Air Park an opportunity the city is going to take a pass on because it is too toxic legally? What was both interesting and to some degree amazing was that not a single word was said about the Air Park property in the rural north. Properly developed with an owner that a conversation can be had with outside a court room, Burlington could be a city with a small air park that would make us a very desirable location for a large number of commercial operations.
Promote intensification:
“The city will focus intensification to key mixed use nodes and employment corridors by updating intensification targets and coordinating infrastructure to achieve growth objectives and will incorporate revised intensification targets through its Official Plan.”
“The city will demonstrate its commitment to growth management by preparing an intensification plan to manage projected growth and its related impacts.”
“This will be complete within two years.”
You can bet the barn that that statement will come back to bite someone’s rear end.
“The city will develop aging plazas and transform them into mixed use neighbourhood hubs.”
Smart population growth.
“Future development will be higher density, walkable, accessible and transit orientated. The city will become a leader in walkability measures in the province and will be fully aligned with provincial strategies and goals.”
“The city will prioritize one or two mobility hubs and use mechanisms to fast track the process using land use planning tools, public private partnerships and innovative funding, financing and delivery.”
“The prioritized hub will be incorporated into the Official Plan via a Master Plan for the hub within two years.
Another rash statement.”
“Within three years the city will develop a young family strategy, in cooperation with other levels of government that focuses on: (a) housing supply so that young families and newcomers can locate in Burlington and (b) provide social and economic infrastructure that supports youth, young family and newcomer economic, social and community goals.”
A process will be established to consult stakeholders to help gain consensus around a developable vision.
“The Strategic Plan discussions on a city that moves, is greener and leads will follow. This is complex stuff; it ties into intensification and the revision of the Official Plan that is also ongoing.”
There are at least two more meetings: a stakeholder’s review session and a review by city Council.
There was mention of a possible third meeting. And of course – the public will want to have a say. There wasn’t a lot of discussion about running all of this by the public. Not healthy.
 KPMG consultants J. C Bourque and Mark MacDonald led council and senior staff through a detailed facilitated discussion during which changes to the early draft were made. There is a lot more to be said about the Strategic Plan that is being put together – stay tuned!
 By Pepper Parr
October 27th, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Today Ontario passed an act that protects freedom of speech on matters of public interest.
 Vince Rossi, president of the Burlington Executive Air Park and believed to be the sole shareholder of the private company, met with north Burlington residents. He took all the comments made “under advisement”. He then sued three people who wrote things he didn’t like. The Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 will allow the public to participate more freely in public discussions without fear of retribution by giving them a better way to defend themselves against strategic lawsuits, commonly known as SLAPPs (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). The threat of a strategic lawsuit, which can be lengthy and expensive, is often used as a means to intimidate or punish opponents and discourage others from speaking out.
There are three people in Burlington who understand all too well the impact, both financially and emotionally, these lawsuits can have. Try telling your wife or husband that you are being sued for $33,000 for something you said or wrote. And then, once they have settled down at least a little – explain that the legal costs are going to cripple you for a period of time.
 Were it not for the strong delegations Vanessa Warren made to both city and Regional Council there would probably be trucks running along Appleby Line with loads of landfill from who knows where with who knows what in the fill. Vanessa Warren, Monte Denis and Pepper Parr are involved in defending themselves against a law suit filed by the Air Park. That claim, which all three parties are defending – at considerable cost – is winding its way to a court room at some point in the future.
 Monte Dennis was sued for a Letter to the Editor that was published in the Hamilton Spectator – but the newspaper wasn’t sued. The new act, which will become law in Ontario upon Royal Assent, contains a number of elements that will reduce the risk of citizens being threatened with legal action when speaking out on matters of public interest, including:
• A new fast-track review process that will allow the courts to quickly identify and deal with strategic lawsuits
• New protections for individuals from defamation lawsuits when their concerns are reported to the public through a third party, such as a blogger or a reporter
• Faster and less expensive procedures at boards and tribunals that will allow parties to make written submissions about legal costs instead of making submissions in person.
 Pepper Parr, publisher of the Gazette was also sued for articles that were published in the Gazette The rub for Denis and Warren is that while they are convinced their statements are defensible under SLAPP legislation, that legislation does not become law until it is proclaimed and even when it is proclaimed – it does not appear to be retroactive to the point in time when Vince Rossi claimed he was libeled.
In its media release the Attorney General said: “The majority of strategic lawsuits are filed in court as claims of defamation (libel or slander), have little or no merit, and are often dropped before proceeding to trial.
That might be true but the defendants still have to pay their lawyers until the case is dropped – if it is dropped.
Neither Vanessa Warren or Monte Dennis were available for comment at press time.
The Gazette does not expect Vince Rossi to drop the case
 By Staff
October 28, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Just before 9 pm last night an unknown male walked towards a gas station on Plains Road and robbed the attendant.
 The man entered the kiosk of the Husky Gas Station located at 559 Plains Rd East in the City of Burlington, brandished a knife and demanded cash.
The suspect left with a handful of bills and coins and fled on foot in an easterly direction towards Cedarwood Place.
The male suspect is described as wearing a black jacket with the hood up over his head and a red bandana covering his face. He was wearing black gloves and black pants.
The Super Store almost directly across the street from the Husky gas station was also robbed on October 21st. The Gazette reported on that event,
Anyone with any information on this crime is asked to contact the Burlington Criminal Investigations Bureau at 905 825-4747 ext 2316 or anyone with information on this or any other crime is asked to call Crime Stoppers at 1 800 222-8477 (TIPS) or through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.com or by texting “Tip201” with your message to 274637 (crimes).
 Ciné-Starz Upper Canada Place,
Burlington, ON L7R 4B6
Week of Friday, October 30, 2015 through Thursday, November 05, 2015
Pan (PG)
Fri – Sun: 11:00 AM, 1:10, 3:10, 5:15, 7:20
Mon – Thu: 1:00, 3:10, 5:15, 7:15
Everest (PG)
Fri – Sun: 11:00 AM, 3:20, 5:00, 7:30, 9:45
Mon – Thu: 1:00, 5:10, 7:25, 9:40
Black Mass (14A)
Fri – Sun: 5:00, 7:20, 9:35
Mon – Thu: 3:20, 7:20, 9:35
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (PG)
Fri – Sun: 11:00 AM, 1:00, 3:00, 7:15, 9:30
Mon – Thu: 1:00, 2:45, 5:00, 7:15, 9:20
War Room ()
Fri – Sun: 1:20, 5:20, 7:30
Mon – Thu: 1:00, 3:15, 5:25, 7:30
Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (PG)
Fri – Sun: 7:15, 9:40
Mon – Thu: 7:00, 9:30
Minions (G)
Fri – Sun: 11:15 AM, 1:15, 3:35, 5:35
Mon – Thu: 1:00, 3:15, 5:30
Inside Out (G)
Fri – Sun: 11:05 AM, 1:00, 3:00
A Walk in the Woods (14A)
Fri – Sun: 11:00 AM, 1:00, 3:00, 5:25, 9:40
Mon – Thu: 1:00, 3:00, 5:00, 9:40
Graveyard Story ()
Fri – Thu: 9:40 PM
 Great popcorn – good service.
 By Staff
October 27, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Neither the city or the regional governments wants to get caught over poor flood potential warnings.
This time everyone appears to be in town so we know where our leaders are – and they are telling us that the remnants of the hurricane that slammed into the west side of Mexico has worked its way north and that the city could see up to 50 cm of rainfall in a short period of time
The message to the citizens is that Environment Canada has issued a special weather statement for Halton Region, including Burlington, for significant rainfall beginning early tomorrow morning and continuing throughout the day.
 The city wants to be sure rainwater like this doesn’t collect anywhere is the city. “The city began preparing for this weather event yesterday, checking inlet and outlet structures and catch basins to ensure they are clear,” said Cathy Robertson, director of road and parks maintenance at the City of Burlington.
“We are also encouraging residents to take steps around their homes to help reduce the risk of flooding,” Robertson said. “We are asking residents to check catch basins on their streets to make sure leaves are not blocking the flow of storm water into the sewers.”
If you are scheduled to receive leaf pick next week from the city’s leaf collection program, please wait until after the storm before raking your leaves to the curb for collection as gusty winds tomorrow will result in blowing leaves.
 There are residents throughout the city who do not want this kind of experience again. Tips to protect your property from flooding during a heavy rainfall:
• Ensure your eavestroughs and downspouts are clear of debris, draining properly, away from the foundation walls of your home.
• Use an extension for your downspouts and ensure they are directed away from the foundation walls.
• Look around your property for any obstructions that could prevent water from draining away from your home.
• Ensure window wells are free from debris to ensure proper drainage.
• Clear debris away from catch basins (sewer grates) on the road to help the flow of storm water into the storm sewer.
Conservation Halton advises that the Environment Canada Weather Office is forecasting a low pressure system associated with the remnants of Hurricane Patricia will be moving into the Great Lakes region this evening. The system is expected to bring significant rainfall along with strong and gusty winds over the next couple of days. Rain will be heavy at times. Latest indications suggest 25 to 40 mm of rain in most areas with locally higher amounts of 40 to 50 mm possible, especially near Lakes Erie and Ontario. There is also the possibility of convective cells within the storm which could add an additional 10 to 20 mm in isolated locations.
The forecasted rainfall will result in higher than normal water levels and flows in all our streams and creeks, resulting in dangerous flow conditions. While no flooding is anticipated, watercourses will be flowing higher than normal causing local streams and creeks to become dangerous, especially in the vicinity of culverts and bridges.
All good news – hopefully we have learned some lessons.
By Staff
October 27th, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
They are out in force this week – the fraud artists are just flooding the internet with what at first glance looks like a message from your banker – always look at the email address the message came from – and even then – give the bank a call – they always want to hear from you about any effort to scam your money from you.
 The scam artists want to learn as much as they can about you – so they can become you and drain every dollar you have out of your account. Pay attention to the email you get. One of our people got two requests to check on their account – first one went like this:
It came from: CIBC Online <no-reply@cibonl.com>- that is not a CIBC email address
Because we have received multiple failed authentication attempts, your online access has been temporarily locked.
To restore your access, click: Sign On to CIBC Online and proceed with the verification process.
The second one came from:
Customer Contact Centre! <supervisor@hdt.es>
And used the first name of the person it was sent to: Good afternoon (name)
Your Bank of Montreal account has just been used to connect Internet Explorer on Windows 10/26/2015 12:27:39 Uganda
Could not this browser if you have used this device or with your account.
This can happen when you first connect to another computer, phone or browser when you use the browser incognito or private browsing or deleting cookies or when accessing your account else.
If this was you, please sign in from your regularly used device.
If you haven’t recently signed in from an unrecognized device and believe someone may have accessed your account, please visit this link to change your password and update your account recovery information.
Thanks for taking these additional steps to keep your account safe.
The grammatical errors were a dead giveaway with this one.
 The identity thieves are very good at what they do. They are out there – looking for someone who may not pay close attention. It is your money –make sure someone doesn’t steal it from you.
Stay vigilant.
By Pepper Parr
October 27th, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton Regional Firearms and Weapons Amnesty ends in two days October 29, 2015.
The police have encouraged people to surrender their unregistered or unwanted firearms and weapons to the Halton Regional Police.
This amnesty is an opportunity for members of the community to hand in firearms and/or weapons and ammunition that are unused, inherited or illegal, without the fear of being charged for having them.
 Weapons previously turned in by the public. During this amnesty, the police encourage people to turn in illegally held guns and ammunition and any other unwanted firearms, imitation firearms and air guns. In addition, any weapon that may pose a threat to public safety such as switchblades, butterfly knives, pepper spray, nunchuks, shurikens, push daggers, knife-combs, crossbows, spiked wristbands, batons and/or blowguns.
There is a dedicated telephone line available to arrange a firearm or weapon pick up. (905) 465-8733 will be monitored from Monday to Saturday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm during the ten days.
DO NOT BRING ANY WEAPONS OR FIREARMS TO A POLICE STATION.
DO NOT TRANSPORT FIREARMS OR WEAPONS IN YOUR VEHICLE.
DO NOT GREET OFFICERS AT THE DOOR WITH FIREARMS/WEAPONS.
Officers assigned to pick up the weapons will provide police identification and will require a signature for destruction.
This Amnesty is an opportunity for everyone to take part in removing these firearms and weapons from the community, reducing the risk of them falling into the hands of criminals.
Last year, approximately 180 firearms were turned in, about 40 knives and 200 pounds of ammunition.
 By Staff
October 26, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Shucks – they aren’t advertising the seed catalog offerings yet are they?
The city however is ready to accept applications to secure a garden plot in 2016 at one of the city’s three community gardens starting November 2 through to the 22nd, 2015.
 Rob Peachey says he is excited. Rob Peachey, the city’s manager of parks and open spaces, who doesn’t get excited very often said today that the city is entering the “fifth growing season with the community gardens program,” and he is “excited”.
Peachey overseas the Windows on the Lake program for the city. It isn’t a part of his job that brings smiles to his face.
The city is accepting the applications a bit earlier than in past years, to give gardeners more time over the winter months to plan and prepare their gardens for the spring.”
 This lady knows what a difference a community garden can make. Michelle Bennett was one of the people who taught city hall ho yo go after provincial money and get community gardens in place. she started with one – there are now three. Located at Amherst Park, Central Park and Francis Road Bikeway, the community gardens are open for planting from May 1 to Oct. 23, 2016. There are a total of 80 plots available, plus six raised, accessible plots suitable for persons with disabilities. Applicants may indicate a preferred garden location and plot style on the application.
The cost to rent a plot for the season is $50. Water, soil and compost are supplied and all plots have full sun. Plots will be allocated by lottery at the close of the application period, and all applicants will be notified of their lottery result by early December 2015.
Community garden application forms will be available online beginning November 2 at community centres, the Seniors’ Centre, or City Hall, 426 Brant St., at the Service Burlington counter. Completed applications must be received by the city no later than Nov. 22, 2015.
For more information about Burlington community gardens, visit www.burlington.ca/communitygardens.
By Staff
October 26, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
It begins.
Not quite the shovels in the ground with the photo op and the silver spade – this is just getting hydro wires in the ground. The rest will begin in the New Year
 It was a dream back in 1985 when the city approved a legacy building on the edge of the lake. The burying of hydro lines marks the beginning of real construction. Occupancy is scheduled for 2018. The Bridgewater development that will consist of a 22 storey condominium, an eight story hotel and a second seven story condominium commences.
The first phase of construction will include the burial of hydro lines. This work is expected to take approximately 10 weeks. During the construction, there will be some minor lane disruptions and a one-day closure of the intersection at Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road (The Gazette will keep you posted on details.) All businesses in the immediate area will remain open for business as usual.
As part of the construction, the section of Elizabeth Street, south of Lakeshore Road, will be closed until November 2018. Access to the Waterfront Hotel is available through the north driveway.
For more information, please contact Carol Gulak, Capital Works, City of Burlington at 905-335-7600, ext. 7772 or carol.gulak@burlington.ca.
By Pepper Parr
October 26, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
First of a multi part series on how the city thinks intensification could be managed.
What do you think your city is going to look like in 25 years?
The Bridgewater Hotel will have been open for at least 22 years so citizens will have gotten used to the idea of seeing tall buildings.
We don’t know yet if the ADI Development people are going to get to build the 28 storey structure they have in mind for the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha.
But we can tell you that your city council is taking a long hard look at different heights for buildings as they think their way through the intensification they believe they have to do to meet the Ontario government’s Places to Grow policy.
At a Committee of the Whole workshop, led by a team of consultants, Council and staff went through a series of visualizations last week that presented various scenarios based on planning, urban design and market trend considerations.
There were visualizations of five locations around the city that showed what a particular road or intersection would look like if the full potential of the existing zoning were used and if the zoning was given a bit of an upgrade.
 An aerial view of the city before the Pier was completed. The Region of \Halton is expected to grow from half a million people to more than 1 million by 2041 – how much of that growth will take place in Burlington is a key question to those who want the city to stay just the way it is. The consultants chose a planned mobility hub – (1) Aldershot GO station; (2) an urban centre – Uptown; (3) an urban corridor; Fairview and Cumberland; (4) a neighbourhood commercial plaza – New Street and Guelph Line and an employment area – (5) Harvester Road, east of Appleby Line in one of the Prosperity corridors.
The objective was to give council some idea as to what the city would look like if the properties had their zoning changed or if the owners of the property developed the property to its maximum benefit.
The exercise was necessary because of the Province’s Places to Grow Plan, which calls for higher population densities across the province, will require the Region to grow by as much as half a million people by 2041.
The province will soon announce how many people and jobs have to be added to the Region of Halton. The Regional Council then has to decide how that number of job and population growth is to be distributed between the municipalities.
The exercise council went through was to look at what the city would look like under different sets of circumstances.
Existing Official Plan and Zoning By – Law permit 200 people and jobs per hectare within the UGC by 2031. This amounts to 22,800 people and jobs within the UGC by 2031.
The objective of the intensification exercise was to support the City’s strategic plan process by generating discussion about:
What we want to achieve through intensification
What intensification could look like
How we’ve prepared for intensification to date
How we can prepare ourselves further to manage intensification
Council wanted to know what could be achieved through intensification. Higher density growth within our Built-up areas can:
Reduce pressure for Greenfield growth, protecting rural and agricultural areas
Shift dependency from private automobiles towards walking, bicycling and transit
Create a critical mass of riders to support transit service
Make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services
Provide the opportunity to refine the urban environment and public spaces through urban design
Create opportunities to attract new growth
The visualizations are intended to show what intensification might look like in Burlington, and considered two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Current OP and Zoning Policies
Scenario 2: Hypothetical Intensification
Visualizations were developed through a conceptual block planning exercise relying on: Existing conditions, land use policy and zoning and general opportunities for pedestrian-supportive heights, densities, and streetscapes
The exercise was not conducted as a detailed master planning process, or technical planning exercise and therefore does not consider factors such as: transportation, utilities, servicing, site- specific constraints or general zoning requirements such as parking.
The visualizations are intended to provide a high level understanding of:
What intensification could look like?
The level of development that can be generated through intensification
How well the City’s current planning framework supports intensification
There are a number of key factors which drive intensification:
Access to higher order transit;
Other infrastructure condition/capacity;
Housing affordability;
Proximity to employment and amenities;
Land availability/suitability/value;
Urban character; and
Demographics/labour force characteristics.
What do the pictures drawn tell us?
We start in Aldershot on Waterdown Road which was recently widened after the property at Waterdown and Plains Road was expropriated.
 Waterdown Road looking north. The recent widening of the road and a fresh layer of asphalt are almost a “red carpet” for development. The Adi Development group has already stakes out their claim for a combination of stacked townhouses and five high rise residential building on a site close to the Aldershot GO station.  One scenario, possible under existing zoning Scenario 1. Under the existing zoning 365 people + jobs can be put on 8.8 hectares of property. Note the difference in height between on the right hand side of the street in the two scenarios.
 A second scenario of the same part of the city with a hypothetical zoning that would allow for more density. Scenario 2 – hypothetical intensification would see 450 people + jobs in27.1 hectares.
For those familiar with this part of Burlington these two scenarios are a huge change in the use of the land on Waterdown Road south of the railway tracks. It is not clear if any land assembly has been done in that part of the city.
The longer term plan is to develop a commercial hub around the Aldershot GO station. The ADI Development acquisition of 14 acres that they they want to place both stacked townhouses and apartment buildings on would bring residents into the community that could walk the short distance to these office buildings which would fit into the Live, Work, Play many at city hall have for the city. There would be few complaints about rush hour traffic.
The drawings shown here are what the Planning department thinks could be built on these properties. Now a developer who is looking for an opportunity will have some sense as to what is possible in terms of development.
If this kind of development took place in Aldershot – and that is a very big if – would it take some of the pressure off Plains Road? Many Aldershot residents are noisily opposed to anything over six storeys high.
The next possibility – and realize that these drawings are just examples of what could and might happen in different parts of the Burlington as the city looks at how it is going to cope with the need to intensify. There is no longer any land to grow – so any growth has to be by adding height and density.
The Planning department looked at a variety of locations around the city for these intensification exercises. They chose that part of Fairview east of Cumberland as an example of an urban corridor.
 Fairview east of Cumberland – this is what it looks like today. Barren, busy and certainly not people friendly. Not a sidewalk to be seen. This is what the corridor looks like today. Single storey structures for the most party set well back from the street.
 The first of two scenarios – this one under existing zoning would allow for higher structures and much more in the way of open space for the public. with this kind of intensification Fairview takes on a community feel rather than just a road o drive along. Scenario 1 – using the existing zoning would have 250 people + jobs in what is now a 6.8hectare area. The buildings would range between five and six storeys an be combinations of office and retail or retail and residential. The drawings show dedicated bike lanes and all kinds of trees. There are also a lot of open public spaces with benches and a lot foliage. It is certainly a more civilized looking Fairview Street.
 Scenario 2 would require zoning changes and allow for much more height and density. Scenario 2: Using a hypothetical intensification the street would have eight and ten storey structures that were mixed use allowing for retail, office and rental residential.
During the discussion Councillor Dennison, who is very pro development – within reason for the most part, points out that if intensification is going to be done in locations like Fairview – it makes more sense to go for as much height as possible “because we aren’t going to be able to make those buildings higher ten years later.”
The next part of the city to get a hypothetical makeover was the plaza at the intersection of New Street and Guelph Line. It is a fairly large sprawling plaza with entrance and exists on to two main Streets – New and Guelph Line. Well served by transit but rather barren looking places.
Scenario 1a under existing zoning would have 155 people + jobs on the 2.2 hectare site that would look a lot different than what is there today. Low rise office space with retail at the lower levels and parking at the rear.
Scenario 1b which was detailed in a Commercial Lands staff report would put 210 people + jobs on the site and see buildings that were six storeys and include the public square.
Throughout this visualization exercise of potential intensification sites there was the consistent inclusion of open public spaces with all kinds of foliage. One wonders if Parks and Recreation would create small skating rinks for people to use – that would certainly animate the space.
Scenario 2 for this commercial plaza ramps the population on the 2.2 hectare space to 285 people + jobs and takes the buildings up to eight and ten storeys.
During the discussion on this site Councillor Dennison who apparently knew the owners of the property well enough to say that they probably didn’t have the funds to undertake the kind of investment needed to change the plaza.
Part of what this visualization exercise was about seemed to be to let developers know what the potential in the city was now and could be with zoning changes.
The discussion on these “growth possibilities” was pretty heady stuff – now to learn what the public thinks about the ideas.
There were additional visualizations done – those for an Uptown urban centre – Appleby and Upper Midddle; an employment area, Harvester Road, east of Appleby Line in one of the Prosperity corridors, and an urban employment area – Appleby Line and Harvster Road, will be detailed in a following feature
 By Staff
October 26, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
It is a well-established tradition in Burlington – 19 years and they are still slurping soup from hand crafted soup bowls.
 The AGB volunteers prepare for the 800 people they expect to slurp soup at their annual fund raiser. The Soup Bowl Event is a celebration of both culinary and ceramic art. From November 19 – 22, Burlington’s favourite fall fundraising event will feature all of the best loved Soup Bowl elements – beautiful handcrafted bowls donated by potters from across Ontario ready to be filled with delectable gourmet soups from some of the area’s finest restaurants and caterers, including Spencer’s at the Waterfront, Emma’s Back Porch, The Queen’s Head, Honey West, and many more.
Soup Bowl is an important fundraiser for the AGB and supports children’s programming, including vital education initiatives such as school outreach and financial assistance for youth.
This event traditionally sells out. Tickets are on sale now – $50 ($40 for AGB members) for all lunch (12pm – 1pm) and Thursday evening (6pm – 7pm) sittings. Tables of eight can also be reserved, the perfect opportunity for a staff lunch or family outing.
Order tickets online or by phone hone (905-632-7796, ext. 326) or in person at AGB 1333 Lakeshore Road, Burlington.
The AGB has prepared for 800 guests who will choose their handcrafted bowls, fill them with a gourmet soup to enjoy with the rest of their meal, and then take the bowls home after they are cleaned and packaged by our hardworking volunteers.
The people at the AGB don’t want you to forget the annual Christmas Sale of Fine Art and Craft presented by the seven Guilds of the AGB, and also to the seasonal beauty of the Art Etc. Gallery Shop’s Christmas Boutique, brimming with gift items carefully selected for quality and design.
 Wayne Cardinalli: one of the hundreds of potter who donated a bowl to the annual soup bowl event that takes place at the AGB November 19-22 Shopping at the Arts Burlington Christmas Sale is an added bonus during the Soup Bowl Event. There is free admission to browse and buy at the Arts Burlington Christmas Sale, which features a wide variety of handcrafted items produced by the Guilds of Arts Burlington with Christmas in mind. It is open to everyone on November 19 from 11 am to 9 pm; and November 20 – 22 from 11 am to 4 pm.
The Art Gallery of Burlington is located at 1333 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, and is an accessible facility with lots of free parking over the course of the event.
 By Staff
October 26, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Every couple of days one can see the re-developed Joseph Brant Hospital reach higher and higher. They are at the point now where the bridge that will lead people from their cars to the hospital is now having its pillars put in place – 2018 is not that far off.
 Pillars are not in place to hold the bridge that will lead from the garage to the hospital. The photo above shows a view of construction from the roof of our parking garage. If you take a look in front of Level 1 of the new patient tower there are 6 large columns leading to the garage. These columns will one day support the bridge connecting Level 1 of the parking garage to Level 1 of the new tower.
The construction of the Level 4 deck will continue over the next couple of weeks. You might be wondering why there is no Level 3. To facilitate the needs of the operating rooms, which will be located on Level 2, high ceilings are required for lights and an extensive amount of mechanical work. There is however, a small Level 3 section for an elevator bank that will connect the existing hospital to the new patient tower.
The columns from Level 2 to Level 4 are complete.
The pouring of concrete for the first half of Level 4 is complete. The second half will be completed by November 6.
Construction of columns and the pouring of concrete for Level 5 continues.
8 elevator shafts and 3 main stairways from Level 4 to 5 are currently being built.
The loading dock is nearing completion.
In our existing hospital, demolition, mechanical and electrical decommissioning has started to make way for the new engineering department. The department will be located in the basement of the hospital where the finance department was once located.
The Operational Readiness team has formed five Integrated Working Groups; these are subject matter experts from across the hospital working together to achieve specified goals around defined issues, and to ensure alignment with the hospital’s objectives for Opening Day View.
Opening Day View identifies the major changes that will be in place at Joseph Brant on the opening day of our new hospital. As the project progresses there will be 15 groups in total; the five formed so far are:
Alcove Management – new, starting in December 2015
Transition Budget – ongoing
Bed Mapping & Bed Management – ongoing
Move Planning – ongoing
Medication Management – new, starting in December 2015
The Gazette was not able to reach anyone at the hospital re-development office to learn just what Alcove management is all about.
 A portion of the fourth floor of the hospital be swung into position by a crane and lowered into place where construction crews secure it. This is better than side walk superintending. To see the pace of construction day by day – CLICK HERE and watch the crews build your hospital.
 By Staff
October 22, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
A pretty smart guy from Hamilton and a partner from elsewhere in the province have come up with what they believe is a better way to borrow and a smarter way to lend.
Their initiative is not quite crowd funding – they call it debt funding which is a process that allows local small business to borrow from people in their community at decent rates – and at the same time allows people to invest in small businesses in their community.
The invest made by a lender can be as small as $50.
A small business can borrow as much as $500,000
Cato Pastoll and Brandon Vlaar call their business the Lending Loop.
Here is part of how hey describe their operation:
Traditionally, Canadians have had little choice when it comes to investing their money. Purchasing stocks requires substantial capital, time and knowledge. Mutual funds make hard earned money less accessible. Bonds pay little in the way of interest and bank savings accounts yield even less.
Today is a brand new day for Canadians and small businesses across the country, explains Lending Loop CEO, Cato Pastoll. With as little as $50, Canadians can lend their money to the thriving local coffee shop that needs new equipment to grow or the farm around the corner requiring staff to develop a farm-to-home produce delivery program.
 Lending Loop co-founders Cato Pastoll and Brandon Vlaar. They created the first peer-to-peer lending operation. Lending Loop was founded by entrepreneurs Cato Pastoll and Brandon Vlaar who, after witnessing firsthand the difficulties their friends and loved ones experienced as small business owners dealing with big banks, realized the need for a new financial model for small business to have fast and easy access to the capital needed to grow in a global economy.
Lending Loop believes they offer small business a better chance of getting the funds they need. While small businesses are believed to be the backbone of the Canadian economy, the traditional lending model offered by big banks often makes it difficult to access the capital they need to compete against global conglomerates and big-box stores.
Small and medium sized businesses employ nearly 90 per cent of Canadians working in the private sector and produce 40 per cent of the country’s GDP. Yet many are rejected by traditional financial institutions when seeking financing because they don’t fit the lending requirements of big banks. Too often, this means their only recourse is to source alternative or private lenders who charge rates well in excess of 20 per cent.
Canadian-owned and developed Lending Loop is leveraging technology to make the financial sector work more effectively for all Canadians, and small businesses in particular. It is the first peer-to-peer platform in Canada, and offers small businesses a better way to borrow, with a quick and easy application, flexible repayment options and considerably lower interest rates than alternative lenders. By using Lending Loop to access the capital they need to grow their business and expand their market, small business will be able to compete and win.
Lending Loop’s borrowers also have built-in advocates for their business – the lenders who want to see the company succeed because it helps their community and investment grow.
Lending Loop brings Peer-to-Peer lending to the Canadian market place; it is the first peer-to-peer platform in Canada. Investors who don’t have or want to put a lot of money into a local organization can get into something with as little as $50 and earn attractive returns commensurate with risk.
To protect the hard earned money of lenders, Lending Loop uses an all or nothing funding model, where loans only come into effect if the borrower receives the full amount of their loan request in total pledges.
The Gazette talked to Brandon Vlaar to get more detail on what looked like an intriguing idea.
Let’s look at this from a lenders perspective. Ideally a lender could allocate $5,000 and spread it over a dozen small businesses in different communities across the country.
What if the local business goes “belly up”?
The Lending Loop then moves in and does everything it can to recover as much of the asset as possible. If a baker bought an oven and the business doesn’t succeed the Lending Loop goes in and repossess the equipment and re-sells it distributing the amount recovered to the investors.
For borrowers there appears to be a pretty rigid set of criteria to borrow. They use the same forms that bankers use to approve a loan; they do credit checks, they go over financial statements and make sure the company doesn’t have any outstanding legal claims.
The two partners also put some of their own money into every loan that gets approved – and these are real loans. The difference is that the money being loaned comes from small local investors. This gives an investor an opportunity to get into the butcher, the baker and the candle stick maker – and you have the Lending Loop vetting the investment and going after your investment if anything goes wrong.
You don’t get that kind of service from your financial planner.
The Gazette wants to do a little more research on this idea and get a sense as to what the rates are for the borrowers; what the returns have been like for the lenders and what there might be in the way of fees.
It does look interesting. The Lending Loop: click here.
 By Staff
October 23, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
November is Woman Abuse Awareness Month
Violence against woman is not a women’s issue – it is a men’s issue – they have to change their behaviour and find other ways to resolve their differences with the women in their life. It is really that simple.
Regional Chair Gary Carr and Halton Regional Police Chief Stephen Tanner and community leaders will join members of Halton Violence Prevention Council to mark the beginning of Woman Abuse Awareness Month.
Our language gas to change – “slapping someone around” is not acceptable language.
The Halton Violence Prevention Council will be hanging “Act Against Violence” banners throughout the Region for the month of November.
 The Council’s mission is to end violence against women and their children in our community. It is a coordinating committee working to improve services for women and children experiencing abuse, in order to achieve a healthy, safe and inclusive community.
HVPC members consist of more than 20 agencies in the Halton community, including representatives from legal and police services; counselling and sexual assault agencies; women’s shelters; child protection; addictions, housing and mental health sectors; health-based services and survivor-informed agencies.
The Council has been busy with many initiatives this year, including developing and facilitating training aimed at strengthening service provider responses to victims of violence who are also experiencing co-occurring issues, such as addiction and/or active mental health; supporting collaborative practices between the Violence Against Women sector and our Children’s Aid Society; and fostering survivor-informed initiatives, including our Speakers’ Bureau.
The launch this year will feature a member of our Speakers’ Bureau, who’s keynote address, “Life in the Shadows”, will focus on her experience of being stalked by her ex-partner.
In addition to these newer initiatives, the council continues to be engaged in the Neighbours. Friends and Families Campaign – a provincial strategy to raise awareness of the signs of woman abuse, so people who are close to an at-risk woman or a man who uses abusive behaviours can provide information, support and resources.
 The Council will use the launch to invite community members, businesses and organizations to engage in the “Purple Thursdays” campaign – a movement to draw attention to the issue of woman abuse and gendered violence throughout the month of November by wearing purple every Thursday as a way to start conversations, raise awareness and support.
Are you currently involved in an abusive relationship? You and your family can get help! Call the 24-hour crisis line of Halton Women’s Place (south 905-332-7892, north 905-878-8555) or the Assaulted Women’s Helpline (toll free: 1-866-863-0511).
By Staff
October 23, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
The province wants to help cities become more bike-friendly – that perked up the ears of council members as they worked through a draft of the Strategic Plan that is going to set a direction for the balance of the current term of office.
 MPP Eleanor McMahon is a strong and consistent cyclist. Burlington has an MPP, Eleanor McMahon who is a champion of sharing the road. The city has hundreds of kilometres of bike trails and a rural area that offers some of the most challenging terrain for the truly committed.
McMahon said: “Ontarians want to spend less time in their cars and more time travelling by active transportation. The number one reason Ontarians don’t ride their bike is because they don’t feel safe to do so. In addition to recent changes to the Highway Traffic act, the amendments support the development of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure by simplifying the process for municipalities to plan and build off-road multi-use pathways.”
Burlington could be the poster boy for community cycling. So when the province announces funding for more bike use – we are in.
Ontario is helping cities become more sustainable and environmentally friendly by making it easier to build off-road bike paths and large-scale recreational trails. The province will invest $25 million in #CycleON: Ontario’s Cycling Strategy to create a more cycling-friendly the province.
The province has created a new streamlined process for municipalities to submit proposals for environmental assessment on new paths and trails. The new process will be easier and quicker, saving municipalities considerable time, money and effort.
The amendments were proposed by the Municipal Engineers Association and received significant public feedback during the province’s public consultation. The new environmental assessment process also supports CycleON, the province’s long-term strategy to help make Ontario the number one province for cycling in Canada,
 Cycling enthusiast Rob Narejko keeps a couple of bikes in his garage and can often be seen on the rural roads. Supporting cycling and helping Ontarians reduce their carbon footprints is part of the government’s plan to build Ontario up. The four-part plan includes investing in people’s talents and skills, making the largest investment in public infrastructure in Ontario’s history, creating a dynamic, innovative environment where business thrives, and building a secure retirement savings plan.
Great wording – now where would Burlingtonians like to see “off road bike paths” built?
Leave your ideas in the comments section.
By Staff
October 21, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton Regional Police are currently investigating a robbery that occurred at The Super Convenience Store located at 574 Plains Road East in Burlington.
On October 18th, 2015 at approximately 7:00pm a suspect, who was armed with a knife approached the clerk inside the store and demanded the clerk to open the cash register. The suspect subsequently fled to an awaiting vehicle. As a result of the robbery the suspect may have sustained an injury to his right wrist or lower part of his right arm.
The clerk was not hurt during the incident.
The suspect is described as:
Male, white, slim build, approximately 5 feet 8 to 5 feet 10 inches tall, wearing a black winter jacket with fur around the hood, black adidas track pants, white gloves and white shoes. The suspect had his face concealed by wearing dark coloured sunglasses and a red and white bandana over the lower portion of his face.
Any person with information related to this robbery is encouraged to contact Detective Phil Vandenbeukel at 905-825-4747 ext. 2343 or D/Sgt. Ron Hansen at 905-825-4747 ext. 2315 of the Halton Regional Police Service 30 Division Criminal Investigations Bureau or Halton Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477).
By Pepper Parr
October 22, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Aldershot resident Tom Muir wrote Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward asking her why the city missed the 180 day deadline it had to approve a development application. His first request was not answered – he sent a second request and copied the Mayor and the city Manager.
 An architectural rendering of the 28nsorey tower the ADI Development group wants to build at the corner of Martha Street and Lakeshore Road The Mayor promised to get back to Muir with a “meaningful response” and asked him to be patient.
Meed Ward got back to Muir with the following:
Thanks for your inquiry and my apologies for the delay in responding. You raise a number of very important and thoughtful points, and these required time to provide an equally thoughtful reply. I trust you will not read anything into the delay other than it took some time to prepare. I acknowledge that it would have been helpful for me to simply acknowledge initial receipt of the email when I got it, and let you know I was working on a reply – I will do that in future so you know I am working on a reply and that it will take some time. My apology for not doing that in this case – I’m sure it would have helped.
As this is now a legal matter before the Ontario Municipal Board, I will attempt to give as full a reply to the issues without jeopardizing our case at the OMB and while maintaining confidentiality of any legal matters. The questions you have asked raise important issues of principle and I will attempt to speak to them at that level.
You ask why the 180 day time elapsed, allowing the developer to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board for a “non-decision” within the legislated time frame. Based on the information I have received, and documented in the time line on my website, this file simply took longer than 180 days to process because of the complexity of the project and the number of agencies that needed to provide feedback. That often occurs with more complex files. We have dealt with several files at recent Development & Infrastructure Committee meetings that have gone beyond 180 days, and developers on these projects have been prepared to work with the city so long as they are assured the file is moving forward and being processed.
The timeline I provided in an earlier article helps to tell the story of the amount of work required on this particular application and that staff worked diligently throughout the process to complete the report in a timely fashion. The staff report had been prepared and the committee was four days away from a vote when the appeal was launched. Typically, an appeal is launched for non-decision when the city is dragging its feet on processing an application. That wasn’t the case here.
Nevertheless, I believe it is a worthwhile question of principle to ask in general: why isn’t every Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application processed within 180 days and what would it take to make that happen? We know that most applications we will see in Burlington are infill, versus greenfield (having run out of large greenfield areas for redevelopment). We also know that these applications by nature are more complex and take more time to review. So we must ask: what changes would we need to make at City Hall to ensure we can nevertheless even process these more complex applications – all of them – within the timeframe?
It is a good question; you and other residents are raising it; and I have asked this of staff internally and we will continue to discuss this over coming weeks and months until we have some suggestions going forward. In my view, if the timeline is there we need to do what we can to meet it, and we need a better understanding of what it will take on these more complex files to achieve that outcome. I am committed to doing what it takes to achieve that outcome going forward.
You have also raised the question of whether the appeal for non-decision within 180 days impacts our position at the Ontario Municipal Board. A non-decision within 180 days is one route to the OMB; the other is disagreement with the decision by council on an application. It is worth noting that the staff report recommending refusal of this particular file was available before the 180 days elapsed. The developer knew staff were not in support of the project. So the question is: does it make a difference whether a file is appealed for non-decision within 180 days or because the project has not been supported by staff and ultimately council? It’s a good question and one that is being asked on behalf of residents by myself and council. I will continue to investigate this.
However, at the end of the day, the OMB makes its decision based on the planning merits of the application more so than by which route the file ended up at the OMB, whether it was because the 180 days elapsed or because of disagreement with the decision. The planning merits or lack thereof are primary matters for consideration. The city will present our case, outlined very well in the staff report, that the project does not meet the criteria for good planning. Those are the matters that will be considered at the OMB in rendering a decision.
Some residents have asked: does the fact that committee and council voted on the project after it was appealed have an impact on our position at the Ontario Municipal Board? The unanimous vote at committee, upheld by council, to support staff and refuse the project will be part of the information forwarded to the OMB when it is deliberating. So the voice of the residents, via your elected representatives, will be heard and will be part of the information presented at the board.
I hope this addresses your questions based on the information I have at this time, recognizing that this is an evolving issue and there are additional learning as we move forward.
Please be assured I am committed to exploring how we can meet the 180 day time frame for every application. City council relies on staff to give us professional advice and see us through the application process; we work together. So I am further committed to ensuring that council, city hall and our planning department take appropriate steps to learn from this situation. The dialogue has started and is continuing.
 Also be assured that my goal is the same as it has always been: to welcome and support development that respects our existing Official Plan and Zoning. As the staff report on this particular project states clearly – we do not need to overintensify this site or any other to achieve our goals and obligations under Places to Grow to intensify in the downtown area. I will continue to advocate on behalf of residents that we respect our Plan – and if it needs changing to do so within the overall context of an Official Plan Review which takes places every five years.
It has been gratifying that all of city council and city staff, and the vast majority of residents, have been united in our position that this particular application is not good planning, is overintensification, and needs to go back to the drawing board to come back with a more reasonable proposal in keeping with our existing planning goals for this site. As a community, we need to continue to stand together and make a strong case at the OMB to turn this down and seek more appropriate redevelopment on this site. I will continue to work with you, residents, city council and staff to see that through.
Whatever the outcome of this situation, city hall should always be reviewing and learning from major issues in our city as a standard practice and a matter of principle, to learn how we can be better. Please know that I am committed to undertake this review. That said, know that our first and immediate priority is to win this case.
Thank you for your contribution to this process.
Muir doesn’t buy the Meed Ward response and sets out the time line as he understands it.
Councillor,
Thank you for your message.
To cut to the quick, I must say that, sadly, you did not meaningfully answer my September 16 and October 8 requests to be informed about how the decision was arrived at to allow the 180 day period, mandated by legislation as default grounds for OMB appeal, to elapse before the Council vote was able to be made on the staff recommendation report on this project.
 Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident suggests the reasons ward 2 Councillor gave for the city’s failure to vote on an application development and asks: Did someone advise you to do this, or did you just drop the ball? As part of this request, I also asked a number of questions concerning the administrative management staff motivations and thinking that led to this decision. These questions were also not answered, and in fact, were never addressed.
Instead, your message is a narrative of excuses, rationalizations, and blame-shifting that does not fit the facts contained in the record of city proceedings and timeline in this matter. You also wrote several extended digressions, that collectively muddle, and side-step, the direct point of my inquiry.
I acknowledge that to some extent you are, as you say, basing your remarks on information you have received from others, and documented in the time line on your website, but there is no attribution on this, and of course, you are responsible for your choice of words. Whatever, I would be careful who you listen to in the future. They may be more interested in self than in you.
In evidence, we can consider the timeline you document in your March 31 website newsletter, and examine the city record of proceedings that are contained in this timeline.
Recall that the prescribed time frame or timeline of 180 days started on September 24, 2014, and elapsed on March 24, 2015.
Over this entire timeline there are a number of public meetings, and staff reports and correspondence available to examine in the proceedings, and there is no evidence that the working planning staff were not in control of the processing timeline, or found the file too complex to process in time.
In fact, the ADI project was generally opposed by the public, and the staff report was a thorough, fair, and strong planning based recommendation to refuse the application. There are no apparent complicating factors to make the file too complex or unwieldy to process on time, as you imply it was.
There is also no reason to expect that the refusal recommendation would lead ADI to be prepared to work with the city beyond the prescribed timeline, as you uncritically, and therefore misleadingly, state other developers might do if their application is moving forward.
I can’t imagine this happening in the face of a known refusal, and the staff record shows that ADI had no intention of negotiating changes. So you certainly can’t shift blame for the failure to meet the timeline to ADI for doing what they did, as you appear to.
I find your stated insinuation, that despite working diligently, staff were unable to overcome unspecified factors of complexity and time slippage, as you claim, and were only able to prepare the staff report 4 days before the Committee meeting date, incorrect, misleading, and totally unfair to the staff working on the file. They cannot defend themselves or set the record straight.
In fact, the timeline indicates that the staff recommendation report was presented to the then Director of Planning and Building, Bruce Krushelnicki, on March 2, which is 22 days before the 180 day timeline elapsed.
Then, the staff recommendation report was made public and sent to the Development and Infrastructure Committee on March 13. This means that the staff recommendation report was in Mr. Krushelnicki’s hands for 11 days.
One has to ask why this 11 days was needed if the planning staff process for the 180 day timeline was considered, as you claim, to be behind time, and if the responsible planning management staff was actually respecting the timeline. Did Mr. Krushelnicki really need 11 days to decide to support his staff, and where is the record of that decision process?
There is no apparent explanation of this seeming excessive use of time, given the situation, and its use as an excuse for the failure to meet the deadline of March 24.
What is also inexplicable is that the staff recommendation report was scheduled to be presented to the D&I Committee on March 30, and to Council on April 20, absolutely too late in the circumstances, and guaranteed to facilitate an ADI appeal to the OMB.
Even more inexplicable is that there was already a scheduled Council meeting for March 23, obviously 1 day before the 180 day timeline elapses, and this opportunity for a Council vote on the proposal was squandered with nary a mention.
Knowing all this on March 13, and before, the staff recommendation to refuse could have been scheduled for the March 23 Council agenda. The Mayor has authority to get this done. Why was this not done? Who is responsible?
Despite all this, four supposedly responsible senior managers ( Bruce Krushelnicki, Director of Planning and Building; Blake Hurley, Assistant City Solicitor; Scott Stewart, General Manager of Development and Infrastructure; and Nancy Shea Nicol, Interim City Manager and Director of Legal Services), who would have known all these facts – the expiry of the 180 days on March 24, and the already scheduled Council meeting on March 23 – still signed off on and approved the said, far too late, meeting dates for the staff recommendation report to get to Council.
In effect, this decision left the back door open for ADI to appeal on the easiest of grounds. The will of the public, and the staff recommendation report, were dead on arrival at Committee, and this seems to have been done on purpose.
What were these managers thinking or not thinking? Is this a deliberate action, taken regardless of the consequences for the city and public trust, or just stupid non-thinking?
Or is it worse, a case of creative bungling that sabotages the city interest and control over the rational planning of development within the existing OP and policy prescribed framework? This situation could do a lot of damage to the aspirations of city residents to develop according to a plan and process they have chosen.
How can we trust the legal department to present the city case at the OMB when they participated in this unbelievable muddle – headedness? They took the city’s legal right to decide on this development proposal and to refuse the application, and gave it away to ADI, and someone from the OMB to decide. Now what they want to do is confidential, and things are done in secret, and in camera.
 Nautique – the ADI Development Group project is being heavily marketed with a number of real estate agents offering the units for sale even though the development is the subject of an OMB hearing. Is this what the public is supposed to trust and have confidence in as proper, credible administrative implementation of the rules, regulations, and laws?
Tell us please, how this decision to kill the staff refusal recommendation, at delivery, serves the public and city interest? I want these managers called to account for how the interests of the city and residents are better served by what they have done in this case?
These points are what most of the other questions in my October 8 reminder message were asking. The responsible staff managers need to be called to account for what they did.
In all of this there is a role for the members of council, but particularly yourself, the Ward 2 Councillor, who would know, or be expected to know, all about what I have described here.
You knew about the March 24 expiry date of the 180 day prescribed time frame, and that the scheduled Committee meeting, and particularly the required Council meeting, where the staff recommendation report was on the agenda, were too late to ensure that the will of residents, and staff, met the planning rules and was therefore legally valid.
And yet you remained silent, and went along with what was happening, and what eventually did happen.
Why did you do this, remain silent?
Did someone advise you to do this, or did you just drop the ball? You are still going along with it, and actually making excuses and rationalizing in support.
You are even musing that maybe the killing of the city will on this development, and the forced OMB hearing, are not such bad things. This is beyond denial, bordering on delusion brought on by the forced acceptance, without protest, of the unchangeable nature of what has happened.
I could go on here and try to address the several digression aspects of your message, but that discussion does not really fit here, and are not what my initial inquiry and messages were asking about. One exception is about what I termed to be a gold rush and unethical mentality, using lies in advertising, and other selling activities, to promote projects that are not approved and at the OMB.
I will only say that if the city does not have bylaws restricting such promotions and advertising of unapproved project proposals, then the city should have one, and has the power to enact one. I suggest this as another policy development digression to add to your list for discussion.
It can get worse, and it is, as exemplified by a project on Plains Rd in Aldershot that advertises a 6 story, 75 unit condo, in preconstruction and coming soon, in an area where it is not permitted in the OP and zoning bylaws, and for which there is not even an application. Nothing is being done by the city about that developer behaviour either, and it is in fact being condoned.
We are on a very slippery slope, poised to lose control of development and our OP to speculators. The ADI situation is a test case that is being closely watched to see how easy it will be to bust Burlington’s Official Plan wide open.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Muir
Is there going to be another round to this argument?
And is Tom Muir ever going to see the “meaningful response” promised him by Mayor Goldring? Or does the Mayor feel he has a 180- day time line.
|
|
