By Pepper Parr

January 19th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

They gave him a lot to think about.

Their concern was that they weren’t at all certain he knows how to listen.

The Mayor held a Reverse Town Hall at the Art Gallery – an audience of about 150 came to voice their concerns. The Mayor stressed that he was not there to explain very much – even though he did –he said “this is your meeting, I am here to listen.

He got more than an ear full.

Of the 20 plus people who rose to speak – one was positive about a structure that has citizens close to up in arms – he owns a bar that will benefit from more traffic.

Three of the developers were in the room, the Molinaro Group, New Horizons and Carriage Gate sat quietly together.

Two of the seven members of Council were in the room: Marianne Meed Ward and Jack Dennison and the Mayor. Councillors John Taylor, Paul Sharman, Blair Lancaster and Rick Craven did not make an appearance – all four voted for the 421 Brant development that will see a 23 storey condominium rise opposite city hall.

The theme that was consistent was the building was just too much, it was not what the vast majority of those in attendance wanted for their city. Development was not their issue, it was the height that had gotten to people – and they didn’t think high rise buildings were appropriate for the Brant – Lakeshore Road part of the city.

Transit was a concern and parking was another and the rate at which the Official Plan was being “rammed down our throats” was mentioned by several.

The meeting started with the Mayor trying to put some rules in place – he wanted people to be respectful of each other and then suggested that clapping might not be appropriate. He lost that one – people clapped loudly when a good point was made. Larry Griffiths, a 70 year old ward 4 resident said the intensification being done was going to drastically change the city and we are in jeopardy of losing what we have”. Griffith referred to Port Credit that has the feel Burlington residents want to keep.

This is a city wide issue said Griffith’s who wants the Official Plan put to a referendum which the Mayor said was going to be discussed at a council meeting next week – January 23rd.

“What do you want” asked the Mayor. Griffiths had no problem answering that question – “the Official Plan permits 12 storeys, stick to that.”

Rick Burgess who once ran for Mayor and has served as an advisor for Goldring said he wanted the city to respect the heights set out in the existing Official Plan.

A woman who operates a hair salon on Brant said “we are feeling the pinch and the parking is hurting us”.
The operator of Martini House told the Mayor “we are in trouble” and told the audience that “some people are buying up the visitor spots in the condominiums at $30,000 a spot”.

Commercial rents were a concern. The audience were told that $45 a square foot is what business people should expect.

A New Street resident wanted to know how the Planning department got from putting out Tall Building Guide Lines in March of 2017 and then recommending a 23 storey building in November.

At a number of points during the two hour meeting the Mayor interjected and explained what the city has been doing. He said that 30 years ago the city began investing in the Downtown core with the Discovery Centre and Spencer Smith Park.

He explained that the Greenbelt plan prevents development north of the Hwy 407 – Dundas and that the provinces Places to Grow Plan made it clear that suburban sprawl had come to an end and the communities were going to have to accept some part of the growing population. Burlington is reacting to those two provincial plans.

For reasons that many just don’t understand or accept is the amount of intensification that is taking place on the lower part of Brant Street.

The developers are just reacting to the demand – the condominium units are selling. The Mayor has been known to talk about people he meets who bought a unit and can’t wait to move in.

What disturbs most people is that they feel this just crept up on them – that they weren’t aware and that the city hasn’t communicated with them.

It would be fair to say that residents haven’t been paying close attention. The Gazette has been reporting on the planning department and the Mobility Hubs for more than a year.

Residents have difficulty with a project, the Saxony, that was approved for four storeys, construction begins and the developer decides to go back to city hall and ask for two additional storeys. The irony with the Saxony development is that they could have gotten five floors but said at a public meeting that they were happy with four storeys.

Ron Parker, a ward 4 resident said he learned about the plans to redevelop the Waterfront Hotel with a friend while playing golf. He said he had no idea that there were plans to redevelop the site. He said “there is no strategy and we don’t know where we are going … we are in damage control stumbling from decision to decision to decision”.

The audience was a mix of people who discovered the city, fell in love with it and moved to Burlington and those who have been here for a long time. One speaker has lived in Burlington for 73 of his 76 years.

One speaker mentioned the five emails he sent the Mayor – didn’t get a response. He wanted to know how people were expected to read and absorb a 2500 page document which another resident said has “No numbers in it”.

People were in the room waiting for answers expecting someone to explain what had happened and why.

It was at that point that Lisa Kearns arrived. She had been at the Engaged Citizens of Burlington ECoB meeting and had a six questions she put to the Mayor:

What is the rush to push forward the Official Plan? Residents find the precinct plans difficult to find, analyze, and understand the impacts in all wards. This is still not clear.

Is the City doing enough to defend Zoning and Official Plan limits? Why are the rules changing and why is Development forcing special considerations – profitability?

What are we gaining in the rush for intensification and what tools are available to keep it in control? Is this the City we want to live in?

Why did the City begin engagement on the Official Plan when the supporting plans are not complete, this is not a complete strategy or Plan? We need to see the impact of the: Transit Plan, Transportation Plan, and Mobility Hubs. What is the rush?

Why is downtown an Area Specific Plan if a Character Study was not done on the neighbouring St. Luke’s Precinct and Emerald Neighbourhood? Have the concerns with specific residents who border on the growth areas been adequately addressed? What about uptown?

Do you want to live amongst tall buildings in your neighbourhood? The City of Burlington is changing the rules to turn into a big city intensified with big tall buildings? This is not a provincially mandated Mobility Hub.

Kearns was getting enthusiastic rounds of applause before she finished reading out the questions which the Mayor said he would respond to in his blog.

Many of the people in the room felt that at last there was someone who was speaking for them and was doing something to bring about a change which most of the people listening to the Mayor wanted.

One senior resident told the Mayor that he had lost the trust of the people.

A resident wondered if the city could create a model of what their city is going to look like going forward – people wanted to know what was coming their way. The person with this idea said the city might try having a good visual made showing what the streets would look like.

Lisa Kearns asked if what had taken place that evening was part of the record – was it something the city would include in its thinking. No said the Mayor, the evening was his occasion to listen to the people. He did add that members of Council would certainly now be aware of how people feel. How was that possible of four of the seven weren’t even in the room?

The Mayor closed with a remark former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once made when asked how a meeting had gone. “This has been a good meeting” Trudeau is said to have said “Everyone is pissed off, that’s a good place to start”.

We will let the Mayors closing comment stand on its own.

By Pepper Parr

January 19th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

There were two meetings in town last night.

One, a Reverse Town Hall, called by the Mayor took place at the Art Gallery, the other, organized by Engaged Citizens of Burlington, took place at Wellington Square United Church; they drew 70 to 80 people and talked about the “need to change council”.

A new group was formed “from ward 1” who were going to meet again and find a way to replace their ward Councillor Rick Craven.

The ECoB meeting ended at about 8:00 pm. Lisa Kierns, an ECoB founder, left that meeting and zipped along to the Mayor’s meeting and presented him with six questions.

• What is the rush to push forward the Official Plan? Residents find the precinct plans difficult to find, analyze, and understand the impacts in all wards. This is still not clear.

• Is the City doing enough to defend Zoning and Official Plan limits? Why are the rules changing and why is Development forcing special considerations – profitability?

• What are we gaining in the rush for intensification and what tools are available to keep it in control? Is this the City we want to live in?

• Why did the City begin engagement on the Official Plan when the supporting plans are not complete, this is not a complete strategy or Plan? We need to see the impact of the: Transit Plan, Transportation Plan, and Mobility Hubs. What is the rush?

• Why is downtown an Area Specific Plan if a Character Study was not done on the neighbouring St. Luke’s Precinct and Emerald Neighbourhood? Have the concerns with specific residents who border on the growth areas been adequately addressed? What about uptown?

• Do you want to live amongst tall buildings in your neighbourhood? The City of Burlington is changing the rules to turn into a big city intensified with big tall buildings? This is not a provincially mandated Mobility Hub.

One of the meeting organizers, who asked not to be named said: “It was a great meeting with a lot of questions and answers given.”

The ECoB lawn signs were on sale, expect to see them popping up on snow covered lawns.

By Pepper Parr

January 17th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The meeting took place on December the 18th.

It was requested by a group of Aldershot citizens who wanted more information on the developments taking place in their community.  Much of the agenda was put together by the then Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner.

Main Agenda Topics –

1. An overview of Mobility Hubs with a focus on employment-commercial areas (City staff)

2. Overview of employment lands in new Official Plan – Mobility Hub/Aldershot and residential/height mixed use focus (City staff, All)
3. Identification of issues-concerns with employment-commercial space (Tom, Greg, Dayna, Stephen, All)
4. De- commercialization and the loss of walkable necessities of life – inherent contradictions with the plan, and related issues.

5. Encroachment

The then Director of Planning, Mary Lou Tanner (she became the Deputy city manager on the 22nd of December) provided the first three agenda items which led at least one person in the group to think there would be “would have a discussion all around, but we did not”.

Six mobility hub planners attended but according to people who were in the room not one of them said a word, except on small items of clarity with few words.

When the “meeting ended they took another way out of the room, avoiding us. There was no mention of a response to our issues and questions.”

The group had questions about

Community feedback;
What is an acceptable retail mix and
Why doesn’t the City enforce a minimum?
Transit integration and “walkability”
New OP
How is growth being measured?
How does that dictate plan direction?

The group was concerned over reports that the city is well over track to meet the region’s goals. What are the population targets for the next 10 years and does this tie in with unit construction?, they asked.

“Is it valid/legal for current planning decisions to be swayed by potential OP changes that are not on the books yet?

“How are mobility hub changes being factored into new OP?”

It was what most of citizens taking part thought was going to be a civil meeting with an open and transparent exchange of ideas.

But there was a bump that changed the tone of the meeting.

At one point, one of the Aldershot residents, appeared to have looked at Tanner in a manner that was uncomfortable to her and she let loose saying:

“Don’t you ever look at me like that again.”

 

By Pepper Parr

January 17th, 2018

BURLINGTON, ON

 

It is getting nasty out there.

ECoB – Engaged Citizens of Burlington make no bones about their dissatisfaction with the way information from the Planning department gets to the taxpayers who cover all the costs.

There is a section on their web site offering pointers to people who want to write the politicians.

Here is part of what is on the web site now:

Do you need some help putting your thoughts into valid points for your letter to City Hall? Here are some ideas for you!

Questions you should be asking. Points you can be making.

Why is council not following its own current official plan?

How can a new Official Plan be passed when so many master plans have not been completed?
How can proper decisions be made when these other master plans aren’t completed? It is like building a house on a base of sand.

Council is not defending its own official plan at the OMB- why not?

Is council so quick to allow planning staff to determine what our City will look like because they don’t want to spend the money in the event that they could lose? Is that a good reason to allow for poor planning?

There seems to be money to spend on “legacy projects” – like the Joseph Brant Museum but not to defend the current official plan.

The residents elect council to represent their needs not the needs of Staff and the Developers.

This council seems to forget this. What is happening in the downtown core is happening in all of Burlington- this needs to be an election issue. Presently 9 new development applications have been received by the City since Christmas – 5 in Ward 2- If we don’t stop what is happening now it will be too late. We should be questioning the legality of how certain areas were designated.

As someone said “Can you imagine that former Mayor Hazel McCallion would allow staff and the developers to dictate what was happening in Mississauga? “

It is the Mayors job to lead his council to do the right thing for the residents. I think residents have been very clear about not wanting over intensification. We need to stress that residents are not against development- but the right kind of development.

Where is our mayor? Why is staff dictating to Council it’s like the tail wagging the dog?

ECoB got a letter from the City Manager in which he said:

To Whom it May Concern:
On your website, in the area of letter writing campaign, you set out questions to be asked of the letter recipients. Among them is:

How can staff in the planning department be pushing these amendments when they know that they are not following The Professional Code of Practice of the Ontario Planners Institute which requires members to serve the public “to provide full, clear and accurate information on planning matters to decision makers and members of the public”?

This directly alleges that City staff have committed professional misconduct, and is categorically untrue. Staff have met or exceeded all requirements of their professional codes of practice, and have far exceeded the requirements of the planning act and other legislation in terms of consultation and provision of information. The fact you don’t like their recommendations does not mean they have acted unprofessionally.

I would like an immediate removal of these comments from your site, and an apology, or I will take all necessary steps to hold you accountable for these defamatory comments.
James Ridge City Manager

It appears that ECoB wasn’t prepared to meet the threat and removed the wording that offended the City Manager and sent the following letter to the City Manager in which they, ECoB said:

January 16, 2018
Sent by email to: James.Ridge@burlington.ca
To Whom it May Concern:

It has been received that on the www.engagedcitizens.ca website, in the area of letter writing campaign, the questions to be asked of the letter recipients including:

“How can staff in the planning department be pushing these amendments when they know that they are not following The Professional Code of Practice of the Ontario Planners Institute which requires members to serve the public “to provide full, clear and accurate information on planning matters to decision makers and members of the public”?

at the request of the City of Burlington City Manager has been removed,

Members of Engaged Citizens of Burlington (ECoB) however rescind the request to issue apology.

It is further argued that the statement “The fact you don’t like their recommendations does not mean they have acted unprofessionally” infers a personal intent and is itself a defamatory comment which cannot be substantiated.

The defensive tactic to silence this group through legal threat of a defamation case would quickly find evidence in the November 30th Planning and Development ECoB deputation that there is no defamatory intent and that this is a matter of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

It was identified on public record that following the November 30th Planning and Development meeting that the position of ECoB is to Request to Planning and Development to defer submission of the planning and building department report PB-50-17 regarding proposed new official plan (November 2017) regarding proposed downtown mobility hub precinct plan and proposed official plan policies until no sooner than June of 2018.

This will allow invaluable community input to understand the impact of the various planning instruments and initiatives. This will align with the provincially recognized Downtown Mobility Hub Area Specific Plan expected for delivery in June 2018. There are 7 requests in total per the deputation.

ECoB’s review of the Professional Code of Practice requiring members to serve the public interest hinges on planning staff bringing the new OP forward for approval without several significant studies (Transportation Master Plan, Transit Plan, Mobility Hubs study, etc). These have not been completed.

The question is simply: Does this action by the Planning Department, knowing that important information is missing, meet the requirements of the above Code? Do they believe they have provided all the required information?

To ECoB the facts are very clear. Do Council and residents have “full, clear and accurate information?” The answer is No.

This issue must be raised in view of the significance of this matter for all residents and the council of Burlington. How can a decision be made without full information? If we cannot agree, perhaps the Discipline Committee at OPI (Ontario Planners Institute) should decide if the document should have been brought forward at this time. We think this is a fair compromise solution.

Sincerely,
Engaged Citizens of Burlington
cc. Mayor and Council Members

Somewhere along the way polite, civil, and transparent communication got lost.