By Staff

January 25th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

The Official Plan, the document that sets out what can be built where, was an election issue in October.

The city currently has two Official Plans: one that is in force and what has to be complied with. The other is a Plan that was approved by city council during its dying days but has yet to be approved by the Region.

Many didn’t think the 2014 -2018 city council had the right to “approve” the Official Plan that they sent along to the Region where the Plan has to be approved and sent back to Burlington where it can be voted on by council and become the law of the land.

Recently the Region returned the “approved” Official Plan and pointed out four deficiencies.

It is a very big development – which Official Plan will it be developed under?

Earlier this month there was a presentation being made by a developer for a large long term care home they wanted to build on North Shore Blvd.

A number of people who attended that meeting were very confused and upset with the way staff from the Planning department were explaining which Official Plan was being applied.

Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident wrote extensively on that meeting saying:

Tom Muir

I attended this meeting that was joined by at least 80 people and I came away disturbed and concerned by what I saw and heard coming from the planning staff in attendance, the developer’s planning consultant and the residents.

The first thing that was apparent is that there was not a happy and supportive face in the room. The initial questions asked by the audience reflected the general unrest among the attendees concerning the confusing and contradictory statements from staff and the developer consultant about what the Official Plan being brought to bear on this application actually was about.

That is, why did the applicant ask for such significant increases in the existing OP and zoning allowances, and why did they appear to have such confidence in the approval of their application?

It soon became apparent that there were actually two OPs being brought into play here by all the planners present. One was the existing OP that is in force and effect. However, with equal but apparent favored mention, was the previous Council adopted OP that was brought forward as a “Council approved”. I repeat, the word “adopted”, which is the proper word in the context of city Council, was not used, in favor of “approved” which is the Region responsibility. The status of this OP as refused and non-compliant was not mentioned.

It was further noted by staff that this OP was being used for information, guidance and direction for the City planning. It was apparent that this confusing contradiction with two OPs in play was disturbing the attendees (and me) and was a key issue arising.

It was not until I asked a question about this that the OP referred to repeatedly as “approved” had been, in truth, refused by the Region as non-compliant with the Regional Official Plan, and at present is on hold and has no status or legal standing. I repeat, this fact was never revealed to the meeting attendees until my question pointed it out.

Instead, to my dismay waiting for the truth to emerge, this refused and non-compliant OP was actually referred to as “Council approved”, several times in repeated references to it.

In the ensuing exchanges on this point that you can’t have two OPs at the same time, it was apparent to me that Planning is playing a game. All three planners in attendance played the same words and danced around what was going to be done about that.

It was actually stated by staff that the OMB has ruled that the existing OP did not meet the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and provincial growth plans, but there was no evidence to support this to show how the maximum medium density and heights (11 storeys was mentioned) permitted under the existing OP were not sufficient.

Staff further danced around the truth by making somewhat light that the non-compliance of the adopted OP was “limited” in some abstract way, so it still had some standing and is okay to have regard for – which is not true. It was stated that City and Region are talking about certain isolated issues of non-compliance, and will get rolling again, but it was never admitted that this OP has no standing because it has been refused as non-compliant based on key things that affect the overall OP.

Tom Muir, one of a group of people in Aldershot who keep well informed on what comes out of the Planning department.

My recurrent take on this is the staff cannot let the refused OP go to pasture for second public thoughts. I can see that right from the pre-application consultation and discussion stage of the planning process, it seems that all the planners are pushing the basis and ideas from the non-compliant OP for extra height and density and other things .I think that staff do not to give up the power they have to make decisions based on their mostly subjective opinions about what various policies mean in their denotations. Subjectivity cannot be analysed, so it cannot be shown to be objective.

They all want to speak from this OP platform for more height, density and lower facilitating standards to enable the large builds. And they try to generally discredit the existing OP to try and get around it. This has been going on for years and continues in every new application in the pipeline. This is largely why we have such an almost complete loss of control of development downtown and elsewhere.

The Planning staff are the ones who recommended to Council that this OP be adopted, even with major missing parts, including Transportation and Mobility Hubs. And these parts are among the things that the Region refused the OP as non-compliant – transportation named, but Mobility Hubs involve employment lands and that is another key issue in the non-compliance opinion. Again, these two pieces are still missing and this OP is not legal, but staff march on using it, non-compliance or not.

The truth is that if it has been refused by the Region as non-compliant it is dead for all practical purposes, and cannot in good professional planning practice be used as a basis for decisions. Only much later in the meeting, near the end, did staff clumsily mumble that the refused OP is out of the picture somehow, on hold or whatever words pertain, and so we have to enforce the existing OP and bylaws on height and density and so on.

Importantly, staff actually stated that they needed new directions from Council to change the direction of planning in the city, and of the adopted but not compliant OP. It is obvious that the staff are asking for this change to be made explicit from someone in charge, and ultimately from Council.

In planning talk, the Planning Act requires that an application must be processed under the OP that is force and effect. The adopted OP has no status and should not be used as the basis for supporting any new application, not even with the mention of non-compliance with the ROP. The new OP has not been approved at the Region. We must stop this type of action by staff.

In the view of many, including all the Mayoral candidates, the last election campaign and outcome was supposed to be a wake-up call to the Planning department about the development that was being promoted and done in Burlington. Tongue in cheek, it may be that since most of the city planning staff don’t live in Burlington they didn’t hear the clarion call. That said, someone in charge needs to drive that point home with some new marching orders to Planning. This kind of action by staff must be stopped.

Heather MacDonald, Director of Planning for Burlington responded to Muir with:

This is in response to your email dated Friday, January 11th.

Heather MacDonald, Director of Planning for Burlington

 It is recognized that public engagement early on in and throughout the processing of development applications is important and of great value. Neighbourhood meetings held at an early stage provide for information sharing and identification of issues and concerns to be addressed by the development approval process.

At the neighbourhood meeting on January 9th, staff answered questions regarding the status of the new Official Plan. The following confirms the information that was provided to clarify where things are at with the new Official Plan.

The new Official Plan was adopted by City Council on April 26, 2018, and was sent to the Region of Halton on May 11, 2018 for approval. The Region is designated as the authority to make a decision on the Official Plan and is legislatively required to ensure that Burlington’s Official Plan conforms with the Regional Official Plan.

Specific timelines are established by the Planning Act for the Region to make its decision. City staff has been working closely with the Region. To allow more time for the process, on December 4, 2018, the Region issued a statement of opinion that the new Official Plan does not conform to the Regional Official Plan in regard to the following:

– proposed employment conversions and permitted uses within the employment areas and lands;

– identification of and permitted uses in agricultural lands;

– identification of and permitted uses with the Natural Heritage System;

– transportation matters including road classifications.

In accordance with the Planning Act, this notification allows for a pause in the Region’s approval process. The Official Plan is still with the Region for approval; however, the decision on approval is paused to allow more time to resolve nonconformity matters. City staff is continuing to work with Regional staff to come to resolution on these matters.

The pause also provides the opportunity for the City to request the Region to consider modifications to the Official Plan currently before them. Any Council approved modifications sent to the Region would also be considered with respect to conformity with the Regional Official Plan.

Until the Region approves the new Official Plan, any applications received or in process are subject to the existing in force and in effect Official Plan; however, consideration is given to the Council adopted new Official Plan.

Greg Woodruff, another Aldershot resident and a candidate for Mayor in the October election added that:

I think the widening gulf in impression is being created by the terms of the “public input” process are not apparent to those participating. People think they are giving input into the decision and direction of the city. However staff are in reality implementing over arching plans proposed by Provincial entities. The merits of these plans not withstanding; when the desires of these faceless plans come into conflict with the desires of local residents – how is this to be resolved?

Greg Woodruff on a TVO Mayoralty debate

Right now it’s “resolved” by a poor planner from the planners office hauled up in front of a crowed room of hundreds of pissed off people trying to explaining elements of an incredibly sophisticated and complicated planning system. No one can possibly explain the complexity of this process to people in a meeting like this and every one is going away angry.

Most people believe that city employees represent them in a conflict with the Province, not that they implement Provincial policy onto residents. As I put it the “public consultation process” from the staff perspective seems like we get to decide the shade of brown the walls get to be, but not how high or where they should go.

My suggestion going forward would be to open these meetings with what types of resident input the staff considers valid for consideration, and what types of input conflict with an overarching plan plan and are not considered input on the table. If you opened these meetings with, “The staff feel that a high-rise building is in fact what the Provincial Planning Statement imagines at this location and the staff roll is to bring that into realty. Legislation prevents staff from really considering anything else – if you don’t like it talk to x. Where x is an elected leader that could change this direction.” Then at least the public could lobby in an effective direction – as is they keep lobbying Burlington staff for a direction I think the staff themselves feel is “off the table”.

Enter all this business on the “official plan”. I don’t feel staff are “considering the new Official plan.” They are acting like it’s a done deal. Certainly they are not restraining heights as if the old official plan is the basis of anything. It’s all being considered as if some almost identical version of the “New Official Plan” is the reality.

So the question would be what direction do the staff require to consider current development applications primarily through the working of the current OP? I think the general sense is that compliance with the old OP is appropriate until the new council and Halton gets a crack at the changes they want. Other wise staff working with the New OP are encouraging development that may heavily conflict with a new version, something not good for developers, staff or the public.

Lisa Kearns, Councillor for Ward 2 did her best to clarify things saying:
All,

Yes, we are in a complex position.

Ward 2 City Councillor Lisa Kearns.

Here’s what I can offer:
-I have invited Curt Benson to my Ward 2 Updates, scheduling conflict for the next one on January 24. I will open an invitation to him as well for the neighbourhood meeting relating to the application upcoming at Pearl/Lakeshore. (Curt Benson, MCIP RPP Director, Planning Services and Chief Planning Official, Halton Region).

-I continue to be at every planning application neighbourhood meeting, statutory meeting, etc. with the purpose of ensuring a sense of the community input in relation to development applications. I further encourage feedback in the form most preferable to residents, all is weighted.

-I have directed the interim City Manager to work with Council and Staff to prepare a press release/education campaign on the status of the Official Plan*. This is a direction I brought forward following the 1157-1171 North Shore neighbourhood meeting. At this meeting I observed the used of multiple versions of “Official Plan” and the personal/professional interpretations that projected onto the audience due to the individual experiences through this planning process. I impressed a sense of urgency given the ensuing interpretations that result from the absence of this clarity.

I acknowledge there is so much more to this conversation, and I am grateful for an engaged community. Please know that I continue to work hard on your behalf and am very much aware of the opportunities for improvement.

Interim City Manager Tim Commisso closed out the online conversation saying:

“Thanks Councillor Kearns. No question that addressing issues surrounding the OP is at the forefront of building trust and confidence in the City related to protecting the public interest.

Definitely a priority for myself and we are working hard on your direction and other related actions.”

Those who follow this stuff can arrive at their own conclusions as to just what is taking place.

By Pepper Parr

January 24th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

It was an issue that sort of crept up on the public.

Someone caught Premier Doug Ford telling a group of developers that he was prepared to open up some of the Greenbelt so that developers could build much needed affordable housing.

It was music to the ears of the developers who would take advantage of the opportunity to build high end homes in a rural setting – there wasn’t a hope of there ever being any affordable housing in these prime building sites.

The Premier’s comments about affordable housing were a laughable ruse to a public that is a little less gullible than it was the day they elected him seven months ago..

The municipalities pushed back hard and have been able to convince the provincial government to take out a section of proposed legislation off the table.

The province announced earlier this week that it would pull the controversial Section 10 of the Proposed Bull 66 that is now before the Legislature.

The Greenbelt created in 2005 – eye candy for the developers, lifeline for the taxpayers.

It was not a simple task, Burlington, along with a number of other municipalities that touched on or were part of the Greenbelt created in 2005.

Burlington submitted comments as part of a response to the legislation tabled on December 6, 2018, by the Provincial Government, referred to as Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018.

If passed, the legislation would have allowed municipalities to, with the Minister’s consent, pass “Open for Business’” zoning bylaws. These bylaws would not be bound by existing legislation, such as the Clean Water Act, 2006 or the Greenbelt Act, 2005.

For a city such as Burlington, where half our land is rural and located within the Greenbelt, the tools proposed in this legislation were of great concern and do not address the barriers the City is facing regarding economic development.

All smiles when Mayor Meed Ward met with the Premier while he was on a hospital tour – no word on whether or not she advised the Premier to keep his hands of the Escarpment.

Burlington is already “open for business” with over 400 acres of employment land sitting vacant and available.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said: “Residents have overwhelmingly expressed support to protect our Greenbelt and public safety in the Clean Water Act. We will do that. We have sent a clear message to the province; I have written to Steve Clark, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Halton Regional Council already unanimously approved a resolution confirming that we won’t compromise public safety or our Greenbelt to be open for business. We have a large supply of suitable land available and are ready to work with businesses.”

Burlington made its comments for submission to the Province regarding Bill 66 available to the public on January 18th.

The resolution approved at Halton Regional Council on the legislation was included in the Regional Council meeting minutes from January 16, 2019.

In promoting the legislation to the municipal sector Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said: “Our government is committed to making it faster and easier for municipalities in the region to plan for growth, increase housing supply, attract investment, and create and protect jobs. That is why we are proposing changes to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 and its transition regulation.

“Given the rising number of people who will live and work in the Greater Golden Horseshoe in the next 20 years, the Growth Plan provides a long-term framework for growth. It aims to:

• Increase and promote economic growth, reduce congestion and provide residents easy access to businesses and services

• Build communities that maximize infrastructure investments, while balancing local needs for the agricultural industry and natural areas

Does this look like a site for affordable housing?

The Minister added: “We have heard that planning for growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Region is needed. However, we have also heard that there are some issues with how best to implement the Growth Plan. The proposed changes build on feedback that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing heard from the business, research and development sectors, municipalities, and others during engagement sessions last fall.

The proposed changes respect the ability of local governments to make decisions about how they grow. The province will maintain protections for the Greenbelt, agricultural lands, the agri-food sector, and natural heritage systems.

Helen Walihura, Government Relations Specialist and part of what city hall staff call the Burlington Leadership Team, wrote much of the document Burlington submitted. It is quite detailed and is a recognition of the fact that the province is always looking for ways to make changes to MORE HERE

Burlington managed to beat back the attempt to have a highway run through Kilbride and Lowville.

It was the highway that the Ministry of Transportation wanted to push through Kilbride and Lowville and have it join up with highway 407.
City of Burlington Comments on Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018

On Dec. 6, 2018, the Provincial government introduced Bill 66, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018. This omnibus bill is meant to “eliminate red tape and burdensome regulations so businesses, can grow, create and protect good jobs.” The proposed legislation includes 32 actions across 12 ministries. Of particular interest, is the proposed new Open-for-Business planning tool and the new regulations under the Planning Act related to the tool.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing invited comments on the proposed legislation via the Environmental Registry under three separate consultations.

• ERO 013-4125 – Proposed open-for-business planning tool

• ERO 013-4239- New regulation under the Planning Act for open-for-business planning tool

• ERO 013-4293 – Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018.

Comments for all three consultations were required by January 20th, 2019.

City of Burlington staff reviewed the proposed legislation and submitted the following comments to the Province.

Proposed open-for-business planning tool (EBR Posting 013-4125)
City of Burlington staff does not support the creation of an open-for-business planning tool as proposed, for the following reasons:

a. The tool undermines the city’s goals to achieve coordinated and sustainable planning, as delivered through the application of the Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan, and Greenbelt Plan. Allowing major employment uses in areas not intended for such uses will fragment Agricultural Systems and Natural Heritage Systems and could lead to a creep of land use pressures to introduce residential, ancillary and other supportive uses to support the major employment use;

The Burlington GO station is steps away from a major five tower development on Fairview that is part of the new mobility hub that covers all of the property on the north side of Fairview east to Guelph – which is where the city wants to see new development take place – affordable housing fits into spaces like this.

b. The tool undermines provincial investments in infrastructure, such as the transit projects identified in the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan. The tool could also undermine Regional investments in infrastructure. Major employment uses should be directed to locate within existing urban areas that are supported by transit and other infrastructure investments, such as near Major Transit Station Areas. Locating major employment uses within the Greenbelt Plan area, and other areas not intended for or compatible with such uses will result in the inefficient use of existing infrastructure and contribute further to traffic congestion;

c. Businesses want certainty and clarity regarding land use permissions. The tool introduces uncertainty in the planning framework that could increase land speculation and contribute to affordability challenges;

d. The tool contradicts the climate change goals articulated in the Province’s draft Environmental Plan, by potentially increasing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with sprawl, and the potential for long term increased costs in environmental remediation and the impacts to water resources and drinking water; and

Did Grow Bold mean that we were open to everything? Not with the new council elected last October.

e. The open for business planning tool will create a competition amongst municipalities that rewards those that will accept the weakest planning, environmental and health and safety regulations. The province should ensure that all municipalities are raising the bar to achieve quality and sustainable developments, to ensure health and safety and to reduce long term cost impacts that would result to address environmental issues and to maintain unsustainable investments in infrastructure.

f. Eliminating the requirement for notification and consultation with the community, other agencies or municipalities may speed up the approval process, but will not necessarily result in good decisions or faster completion of a development. Residents want and ought to be involved in planning decisions that will impact the communities they live in. Local planning decisions that will impact the service delivery of others cannot be made in isolation. Not including Halton Region in Burlington planning decisions where new regional services are required will not result in jobs coming to Burlington faster, in fact, bypassing the Region could result in delays and additional costs.

g. Allowing major trip generators (such as employment developments), to by-pass council approved transportation policies and directions will mean that municipalities will be responsible for meeting conditions that developers would usually be responsible for. For example, if a developer asks for relief in the amount of parking which they are required to provide, and this relief is granted through this proposed policy, only to realize once the project is constructed and operating that there are insufficient parking spaces. The overflow parking becomes an issue the municipality must address.

Instead of an Open for Business Bylaw, please consider the following tools:

a. Tools to incent the creation of innovation districts located near Major Transit Station Areas and other areas that are serviced by transit. Innovation Districts are a type of business and or industrial district to attract and promote clusters of private and public-sector firms and organizations engaged in the development of new products, materials, services and knowledge . An Innovation District at its core must be driven by existing assets and an economic development strategy. A Provincial program to support and build upon existing businesses and organizations within a municipality would be a more prudent approach to using existing specialization and resources. Such a program could include support for creation of economic development strategies for local Innovation Districts;

The first of the five tower development is about to be occupied. All the property to the east is part of a new mobility hub that will encourage higher density growth.

b. The tools proposed in the open-for-business planning tool do not address our barriers to economic development. An example of a barrier to the development and redevelopment of employment lands is the timely and coordinated issuance of MTO permits. Approximately 80% of the City’s employment lands are within the MTO development permit area. Addressing this barrier would assist in the timely development of serviced and transit oriented employment lands; and

c. The province should consider the use of the MZO tool as an alternative. This tool already exists at a provincial scale. The Planning Act could be amended to expressly identify the attraction of a major employment and economic growth opportunity as a matter of provincial interest. Consideration of these types of uses should be done at a provincial scale to ensure coordinated planning and use of infrastructure.

The following items require more clarity to understand how the tool will be implemented:

a. What is the evidence/data that demonstrates that these sections of the Planning Act are the barriers to locating major employment uses?

b. Please define major employment and economic growth opportunities.

c. What are the prescribed criteria referenced in Section 34.1(2) of the Planning Act?

d. How does the use of this tool apply to Upper Tier vs. Lower Tier municipalities? Are there criteria for determining what is of Regional interest or local interest?

New Regulation under the Planning Act for open-for-business planning tool (EBR Posting 013-4239)

1. Please see EBR Posting 013-4125 above for additional feedback from the City Burlington.

2. In order to provide all feedback a copy of the regulation should be provided.

Burlington has a lot of land that is “open for business” The location on Mainway next to Burloak is zoned commercial, spitting distance to the QEW, minutes from downtown – owner wants to rezone and make it residential.

3. The regulation notes that evidence is required to demonstrate the minimum job creation threshold . This presents implementation challenges. What evidence is acceptable? How do you ensure the proposed jobs are delivered and remain in place for a significant amount of time? Are there penalties if the proposed jobs do not materialize? Will there be any recognition of the differences or importance of either basic or non-basic industries?

4. The regulation indicates that residential, commercial or retail cannot be the primary use. This language could actually introduce mixed uses, particularly residential which appears to be in conflict with the main objective of the open-for-business tool.

5. Any proposed regulation should be specific to not permit recreation or institution uses.

Burlington, along with the other three municipalities in the Region are going to have to be constantly vigilant and ensure that what makes Burlington unique is left alone.

By Staff

January 22nd, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

Does a delegation a citizen make have any impact on both member’s of city council and staff?

There are people who sometimes wonder.

A number of months ago a resident delegated. The city does not release the name of the citizen but in a report to Council, Jamie Tellier, Manager of Urban Design reported on a meeting with a citizen.

The concern was with the Tall Building Guidelines (TBG) the city put in place some time ago.

The issue came out of a Staff Direction from the adoption of the new Official Plan which was approved by city council, sent to the Region who sent it back due to what the Region thought were some deficiencies.

“A motion from Council arising from the adoption of the new Official Plan “Directed the Director of City Building to review the suggested changes from the delegation presentation on the tall building guidelines and report back to Council with any updates.

“This memo will serve to provide members of Council with an update on this staff direction.

Tall building design – set backs and spacing

“In September 2018, staff met with the delegate to discuss their presentation to council. This meeting allowed the delegate to share observations and to ensure staff understood the submission. The delegation to council suggested that the City of Burlington Tall Building Guidelines (TBG) did not reflect best practices with regard to sun/shadow impacts and that they did not address the issue properly. The delegation made reference to the City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines as an example of best practice.

“There were three main areas of concern related to the guidelines:

Application of sun/shadow impacts
“The delegate reviewed the rationale component of the City of Toronto Tall Building Guidelines without the benefit of reviewing the associated detailed guidelines. Through further discussion the delegate and staff agreed that the City of Toronto and the City of Burlington TBG are virtually identical in how they deal with sun/shadow impacts.

Suggested materials that would work well on tall buildings.

Excluding December 21 in measuring sun/shadow impacts
“The delegate also made reference to the TBG only measuring sun/shadow impacts for five consecutive hours of sunlight on the opposite side of street during the equinoxes (March 21 and September 21) and suggested including December 21 (shortest day of year) to these measurements. Staff and the delegate discussed why the shoulder seasons are most important for evaluating sun/shadow impacts as daytime and nighttime are of approximately equal duration during the equinoxes. Not including the shortest day of the year is intentional and a reflection of municipal best practices (City of Toronto and others).

Silent on the Cumulative Effect of Shadow Impacts and Wind Effect
“Lastly, the delegation also indicated that the TBG was silent on the cumulative effect of shadowing and wind effects. Staff, in discussion with the delegate confirmed that Section 3.1.b) of the TBG requires a 25 metre separation distance between towers to minimize cumulative shadow impacts.

“Separation distances between towers along with other design guidelines such as maximum tower floor plates are commonly used techniques to manage the cumulative effect of shadows. Similarly, Section 3.2.c) of the TBG requires the building design to not have an adverse wind effect at the street level.

Next Steps:

“As a result of the above, our conversation moved away from any perceived shortcomings of the TBG and focused more on how sun/shadow and wind studies are prepared by applicants and evaluated by staff.
This was a topic on which staff and the delegate were in alignment. Staff confirmed that in 2019 the departmental work plan includes exploring the related policy structure and development review procedures as they relate to sun/shadow and wind studies. The intent is to ensure clarity and consistency in how sun/shadow and wind studies are prepared and evaluated and to improve our overall decision making processes .

“The delegate appreciated that this was on our workplan and reinforced the importance of standardized criteria to evaluate wind and shadow impacts. Staff will provide further updates later in 2019 as this initiative progresses.”

Jamie Tellier, Manager of Urban Design explains what is going to be built where on the hospital campus.

Is the above a meaningful dialogue between staff and a citizen? Will anything come of it? Was the resident satisfied?

Jamie Tellier is one the best people in the Planning department when it comes to inteligently and cheerfully explaining an issue to anyone who will give him the time.
Who was the resident and what did he or she think of the process?

Can’t say – but we do know that staff listened and that the resident was given ample opportunity to make a case.

Relevant news stories published previously.