|
||||||||
|
January 17th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
Prospect Street will be closed between Dynes Road and Cumberland Avenue from Monday, Jan. 20 to Friday, Jan 24 for excavation works. All traffic will be detoured using Dynes Road, Woodward Avenue and Cumberland Avenue.
January 17th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
Things sort of fell off the wagon during the Budget deliberations last December. There is a Budget Requests report (BAR) that each Councillor prepares setting out things they would like to see changed. In the rush to get the budget process completed a number of requests were not dealt with. There was a little bit of time available at the end of the Corporate Services, Strategy, Risk and Accountability Committee meeting to deal with some of the requests.  Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna There were two on the list that were submitted by Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna that gave us a closer look at how the Councillor approaches his job and his views on what people should get for the taxes they pay and how the city goes about collecting fees that have not been paid. One BAR read: Direct the Director of Roads, Parks and Forestry to review options for residential property owners to clear sidewalks in front of their property and identify any impacts. Staff reported that there are 850 km of sidewalks; those belonging to schools get taken care of by the school boards. Bentivegna argued that the money saved could be put into infrastructure, particularly roads. The Mayor asked “Is this to remove side walk clearing from the budget – then I’m not supporting it.” Councillor Sharman added that 30% of the population below the QEW is over 65 – he wasn’t supporting the idea either. Councillor Galbraith said he wouldn’t support the idea. Councillor Nisan said the move would “literally” hurt people. Councillor Kearns said the bylaw expense of enforcing such a bylaw would eat up any savings. The motion to move the Staff Direction failed 6-1 with Bentivegna the only supporter. Bentivegna had a second BAR. He wanted to: Bentivegna had apparently gone looking for business locations that did not have the proper licenses. He saw this as a revenue opportunity to re-coup those losses in revenue. The biggest concern for council members was the cost of determining who did and didn’t have a license. City manager Tim Commisso thought the idea should be deferred until the city learned if there was going to be any additional funding from the province to look into the creation of more efficient processes at the municipal level.  City bylaw enforcement officer Councillor Galbraith said it was a little vague to him and asked “is there a problem to solve?” The Bylaw enforcement officer said there wasn’t a problem. Councillor Kearns said she had never heard of there being a problem. Councillor Stolte said she would support a motion and added that this looked like one of those situations where “we don’t know what we don’t know” The Mayor saw this as a service review question and added that if the Councillor (Bentivegna) knows of establishments that don’t have the required licenses “tell us”. The BAR was withdrawn. A Licence is required for the following: Automotive Establishments The fee for a license is set by the city each year.
January 17th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
A reader, who is more comfortable remaining anonymous, but who we know to be reliable, wrote to comment that “the City went all big on Public Engagement and held Citizen Action Labs – public sessions to consider Citizens Advisory Committees” (my understanding is that this ‘issue’ has been in discussion since 1997). “A list of many of the suggestions/recommendations was sent around to participants (and is available on the getinvolved site – click on Latest News). Then a staff report was to be presented at the Nov. 4 COW meeting – but pulled, literally at the last moment. “Explanation, of sorts, can be found  The Heritage Advisory Committee is exceptionally successful. Former city councils gave then a lot of responsibility and they didn’t fail to deliver. There are other Advisory committees that are close to failures. “Since then, some kind of ‘review team’ was struck to ??? Jim Young and Roland Tanner are two names that I can identify as being invited. “I caught wind of a Q & A (not my words) to be held at City Hall on the evening of Jan. 23, with some members of existing Advisory Committee members before the staff report gets sent to Council. “I don’t think there’s anything nefarious going on but it is frustrating when a citizen takes time out to participate and then is kept in the dark until the ‘results’ are presented as a fait d’acompli almost a year later.” Anything to it? The report was pulled very suddenly last November.
January 17th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
They were close to bringing it home. Standing Committee chair Shawna Stole, who proved she could manage a committee very well, told her colleagues that “we are close to bringing it home” as they worked through the final steps of recommending that the Preferred Concept presented by the consultants be endorsed.  Mayor Marianne Meed Ward It had been a long day and the group of seven were getting a little giddy. Mayor Meed Ward blurted out “Good Grief” when she spotted something that surprised her. That’s not a phrase heard often from this Mayor. “Awesome” is usually her preferred word.  Ward 4 Councillor Paul Sharman, aka The Grinch A little later Ward 4 Councillor Paul Sharman said that he would vote for the several amendments the Mayor had put on the table. Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns, who had worked long and hard with the Mayor during the previous weekend on the amendments turned to Councillor Sharman and with a wide smile said: Are we seeing the heart of the Grinch get a little bigger. This city council is certainly a very different group than what the city had from 2010 to 2018. There are certainly philosophical differences and personalities at times get little awkward but they are getting important things done. Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
January 17th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON It was a long but very fruitful session of the Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Standing Committee. (CPRM) In a phrase, Council recommended the endorsement of the Preferred Concept for the Downtown core section of the approved but not adopted Official Plan. Alison Enns, who steered the creation of the Taking a Closer Look at Downtown reports, explained that “endorsing” does not mean a final decision has been made. All the endorsement amounts to is being told that they are going in the right direction.  From the right: Thomas Douglas, Alison Enns, Catherine Jay and Paul Lowes of SGIL Consulting. Enns and Thomas Douglas did more than a yeoman’s job on this file. They were everywhere, trying every community engagement tool they could find. They held Action Labs, Food for Feedback Sessions, Walking Tours; they even managed to convince several Councillors to hang around the library to try and engage people to talk about what they wanted for their city. For Burlingtonians it was all about the Lake; they wanted a clear view and easy access to the lake and they wanted Brant Street to serve as the frame for that view.  Suzanne Mammel, of the Halton, Hamilton Home Builders Association (HHHBA) There were seven delegations; the development community, represented by Suzanne Mammel, of the Halton, Hamilton Home Builders Association (HHHBA) resented the short time frame her organization had to respond to the Preferred Concept. She took the view that the 20 metre set back that was being proposed for Brant Street would result in very little actually being built. The planners settled on a total of seven precincts for the city and took the meeting through what each of the precincts would likely look like once development began to take place. There was a lot of discussion over the “numbers” how many residences were going to be built, how many jobs would be created, how high might a building be and when would all this actually happen. The Gazette will report in detail on what the plans are for the precincts. When it came time to put forward a motion that would approve a recommendation that would go to Council. Mayor Meed Ward, as is her practice, came forward with a number of amendments that were eventually approved. Those too, will see the light of day once all the documents become publicly available later today. The Mayor did put up a graphic that she has marked up to give people a sense of what she had in mind.  A portion of a graphic used during the meeting with scribbles and notations from the Mayor. There was a lot of discussion on the shopping plaza on east side Brant, north of Caroline where the No Frills supermarket is located. The thought was that a park could be put in place, a trail could be added to the edge of Rambo Creek which runs along the eastern edge of the property and John Street would be extended north through the site. Paul Lowes, the SGIL consultant, told the meeting that what was put in place did not have to be a road but did think there had to be something in the way of a transportation route to take some of the traffic pressure off Brant Street. The information that came out of the meeting was lengthy, detailed and highly relevant; the Gazette will set out to report in as much detail as possible.
January 17th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
Thursday was a very full day. Two of the Standing Committees met and approved a number of recommendations that will go some distance in the way the city develops its international profile. The Corporate Services, Strategy, Risk and Accountability Committee heard a report from the Mundialization Committee that included the announcement that committee chair Ed Dorr was resigning. Dorr, has served for nine years, during which time he worked with four Mayors and five city managers. There was other business conducted but what Ed Doer, and anyone else in the Council Chamber will remember, is the Certificate of Appreciation read out by the Mayor and presented to Ed. It went:  Ed Dorr On behalf of the City of Burlington, it is our pleasure to once again extend sincere gratitude to Ed Dorr for your exemplary service to the Burlington community. You have strengthened our city through leadership, mentorship and your focus on positive outcomes while being flexible in their achievement. Your many years of service as member and chair of the Mundialization Committee is but one bright example of your giving of time and energy to making Burlington a better place. In that role you are duly credited with strengthening twinning relationships with Itabashi and Apeldoorn to their currently mature state, ensuring that for many years to come Burlington’s residents will enjoy the diversity of culture, international exchange and goodwill provided through those relationships. Please accept our utmost gratitude for the time, effort and dedication you have given to your Burlington community. The Certificate was signed by the Mayor and Councillor Rory Nisan who represents the city on the Mundialization committee. Nisan set a new level of dress for a Chairman of a Standing Committee; he abandoned a jacket, dress shirt, no tie. One wonders if the appropriate dress will become a T shirt, shorts and flip flops. All the other males on Council wore jackets.  Every male member of Council wore jackets; committee chair chose not to.  Rory Nisan, serving as Chair of a Standing committee.
January 16, 2019 BURLINGTON, ON
With one long, exhausting day, during which city council accepted the recommendation from the Planning department that came out of a dense and complex report from Dillon Consulting, the public and council move to the next phase of the city getting what the Mayor refers to as a ‘better grip on the kind of development that takes place”. Many felt that getting the Land Use Study part right was essential – and that if council did get it right they could then move onto the Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown report; if they didn’t get it right there was no point in doing the second part. It is too early to determine if council did get it right on Tuesday. There were some surprises and still some confusion as to just what the process is for moving the boundary of the Urban Growth Centre and then – how does the city get rid of the MTSA designation that was slapped on the bus terminal ?  Burlington had to have an Urban Growth Centre. It has to be a certain size. The boundaries of the Burlington UGC were determined by the province – the city wants to change those boundaries. The above are the current boundaries. Heather MacDonald didn’t come across as being totally committed to the level of citizen participation that the people who packed council chambers on Tuesday expected. Some people were upset over the lack of time the public had to download a 135 page document and wade through it all. There was a lot of data – making sense of it was the hard part.  Heather MacDonald outlined the purpose of the Statutory meeting and, when needed, spoke to issues that needed clarification. Jamie Tellier, on the right aided while City Manager Tim Commisso observes. He said little. MacDonald said that there was no requirement to promote the Land Use Study meeting. One wonders why one of the two critical meetings, Taking a Close Look at the Downtown, was promoted mercilessly while the other got very little promotion. Councillor Bentivegna was brought up a little short by Chair Stolte when it wasn’t clear if we actually asking a question. It was nicely done. The Tuesday meeting was legally a Statutory meeting – something the city was required to hold and follow strict rules as to how the meeting is conducted. It started at 9:30 and ended just before 8:00 pm – with breaks for meals. Committee Chair Shawna Stolte did an excellent job of keeping things moving – she was able to curb Councillor Angelo Bentivegna’s penchant for asking questions that were less than clear. There were conflicting statements from the Planning people on what the city can do about the Urban Growth Boundary (UGC) boundary and the status of the bus terminal. Heather MacDonald did explain why nothing has been done yet. She argued she felt it was vital that she have motions from the city making it clear why they wanted a change. She also wanted evidence and data to support the request. The Land Use Study certainly has loads of data. The understanding is that the province doesn’t care where the Urban Growth Centre boundaries are – but that the city does have a growth centre. The consultants the city hired said the province has never said yes or no to such a request – because no one has ever asked. Council was not prepared to direct the Planner to do just that. Such a request would be political and it would be appropriate for it to come from the Mayor to the Minister. There is considerable concern over how the Planners decided to keep the Waterfront Hotel within the Urban Growth Centre. Don Fletcher, heavily involved in the Plan B initiative said he believed the “Waterfront Hotel + Old Lakeshore Road Precinct + Brant Main Street Precinct should be moved out of the UGC, and define a similarly sized area (roughly 11 ha or 10% of the total 106.4 ha) within a suitable precinct north of Prospect Street on Brant/ Fairview.” The view of many is that the UGC should be moved north and not include the Brant – Lakesh0re area; that will be a different debate – and not an easy one.  The John Street bus terminal has the same status MTSA – Major Transit Station Area as Union Station which everyone agrees is dumb, The city wants to have that status lifted from the terminal. As for the status of the bus terminal – it appears that this is something the Region can do on its own – and that any request for a change has to comply with ROPA – which is the Regional Official Plan Amendment. Waiting until city council has dealt with the Land Use Study, which determines whether or not the Interim Control Bylaw is lifted. It is due to expire on March 5th. The ICBL has been an expensive experience for the development community and for one developer, the Molinaro’s quite unfair.  Meed Ward in her first city hall office – the desk is as cluttered in her new space . Her eighth floor office is a lot more spacious and tastefully decorated. Mayor Marianne Meed Ward made her views crystal clear and pleaded for the community to trust council when she said: “It was identified in this study that there are significant gaps in our own policy and provincial policy. To be able to define the downtown bus depot that it doesn’t function the same as Pearson/Union (even though designated the same), it also doesn’t function as a bus depot. Now we have the evidence that this designation downtown is odd. I greatly appreciate that work from the consultant and staff. We now have a policy framework in front of us and can better manage the pressures of over development in the downtown. That’s what the community asked us to do & that is what this Council has done. I can appreciate members of the public don’t feel that way. I would plead to the community to hear us when we say we have heard you, understood & taken steps to control over development pressures. That was the start of this journey. We have independent research and policy tools to help us now. The one thing I think we all agree on is the downtown isn’t the same as the GO and will never be.” Burlington MPP Jane McKenna jumped into the fray in January when she sent Council a letter that only served to further muddy the waters.
The day long Standing Committee sessions produce recommendations that go to a Special Meeting of Council for approval on January 30th. Related news story: Planning preferred concepts for downtown core.
January 16th, 2020 BURLINGTON, OM
On Monday the Government of Canada launched an online consultation regarding changes to our current law on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID). The online consultation will be open until Monday, January 27th. If you are interested in participating please click here.  MPP Pam Damoff speaking in the House of Commons Oakville North Burlington MP Pam Damoff said today that: “Our government understands that medical assistance in dying is a difficult, complex, and deeply personal issue. We know that Canadians have diverse and evolving views, all of which need to be heard and respected. Over the coming weeks the Government of Canada will be holding extensive consultations with patients, practitioners, stakeholders, disability advocates and Canadians of all stripes.  There are strongly held views on the issue. “This current consultation stems from a September 2019 judgement by the Supreme Court of Quebec. This decision struck down existing provisions in Canada’s law on MAID related to the requirements that a patient’s death be reasonably foreseeable. Our government has chosen not to appeal this ruling, and instead we are committed to reviewing and updating the current law. “Any future legislation will ensure that the most vulnerable are protected, and that the personal autonomy of those seeking medical assistance in dying is respected.” A news report published in June of 2018 said: Almost 4,000 people have chosen medical assistance to end their lives since the practice became legal in Canada two years ago. That includes 1,525 in the last six months of 2017 — a 29 per cent increase over the first half of the year. The statistics are contained in a third interim report from Health Canada, which is planning to implement a permanent, national reporting and monitoring system for assisted deaths in the fall. Editor’s note: The Gazette is interested in publishing comments and opinions of personal views of MAID – Medical Assistance in Dying.
January 15th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
How hard do they work ? How big is the work load is another way of asking basically the same question. A look at the pile of reports they have to wade through is one indication as to just what is involved when you are a member of city council.  The Mayor says she reads all these reports on-line. Others work with the thick agendas that get delivered to their offices. That is a three inch pile on the right. The pile on the left is for January – and we are only half way through the month. The pile to the left is just for the month of January and we are just half way through. The salary is basically a little over $100,000 annually. The vacation schedule is very good – but it has to be stacked up against the many evening meetings – which can now run to as late as 11 pm. Some of reports are pretty simple – easy to get the sense of what was written. Other are long, complex and will, for most of this council, result in a phone call to a Staff member asking for some clarification. Then the Council members have to think about what they’ve read and if they are good politicians, reach out to ward residents for comment and feedback. Add to this the numerous vested interests who want to bend their ear. The job is not easy and there are a few that struggle and are perhaps wondering why they went after the job. Of the five – newbies – how many will run again in 2022? There are at least two, maybe three, that will decide it just isn’t for them.
January 15th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
The scammers work at this kind of thing full time. And why wouldn’t they? It is always THE golden rule: If in doubt – don’t and double check. We received the following earlier today. November/December statement and outstanding payment have been generated, Find Google Drive uploaded Document for details. https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1Mt_wC4sBlK3XgLZoKGVTcE3_ObrKmYCu Note: No login required Regards, Edward Simpson The email address this came from was: We had never heard of the organization and it is clearly a phony address – but a clerk somewhere in some company might mistakenly click on the link. Somewhere out there a bunch of crooks are spending your tax dollars – the money they stole from the city.
January 15th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
We goofed. The annual delivery of the State of the City address by the Mayor to the Burlington Chamber of Commerce has always taken place at the Burlington Convention Centre – usually to a packed audience.  Mayor Marianne Meed Ward talking to a business person at her first State of the City address to the Chamber of Commerce. It was an occasion when those that matter in the world of business and those that matter in the world of local politics gather in one huge room and tell each other tall tales. We assumed the venue would be the same this year. We were wrong – the State of the City address will take place at the Performing arts Centre, around the corner from city hall. The sit down breakfast will have to be a buffet in the Family Room with the address being given in the large theatre. At this point we should perhaps say less until we have done a follow up. Last year Mayor Meed Ward told Chamber members that her five priorities for the year ahead were: Reasonable Growth, Not Overdevelopment Get Traffic Moving, While Keeping it Safe Reduce Flood Risk, Enhance Greenspace Reduce Tax Increases, Keep to Your Priorities Rebuild Trust, Create an Open Government
The political and commercial elites will gather in the Performing Arts Centre on the 30th to hear the Mayor talk about the State of the City.
January 14th, 2019 BURLINGTON, ON
Glenn Nicholson delivered this delegation on behalf of Roland Tanner who was out of the country. EcoB’s position with regard to the ICBL study is as follows. While there are elements within the report which we support, there is a key area where we believe the staff recommendation is in error.  Roland Tanner, co-chair of ECoB taking part in one of the Action Labs that were part of the public participation events that were part of the Taking a Closer Look at the Down Report. Firstly, we would like to recognise the good work in the staff recommendations in their acknowledgement that the Burlington Go Station area needs improved zoning and height regulation. While we believe the Go Station is a far more appropriate location for a dense Urban Growth Centre neighbourhood connected to mass rapid transit, we do not believe this is an argument for bad development. For the Go Station area to become a vibrant new neighbourhood it is essential to have excellent zoning that insists on commercial space and retail and places reasonable limits on height. It is an opportunity for a truly complete community properly connected to transit. We support the staff recommendations in this specific regard. Secondly, however, we do not support the recommendations regarding the downtown MTSA. We acknowledge that current debate around the downtown MTSA revolves around which change is possible in which order. What these recommendations state is that we pass a new Official Plan and put in place zoning that builds the MTSA into all our city planning documents, at exactly the same moment as city planning staff have acknowledged that the John St bus terminal simply does not, never has, and never will function as a MTSA. The staff solution to the assessment that the John St Bus terminal is not an MTSA perhaps makes sense from the perspective of municipal procedure, but it makes no sense from the perspective of logic or reality. The city must come into compliance with the Region, says the ICBL report, even if though, to put it bluntly, the Region is not in compliance with the laws of physics. The staff recommendation is therefore to continue to build the MTSA language into our planning documents, but to redefine MTSA, in this one instance, to mean what we want it to mean. EcoB does not think this recommendation makes sense. To be flippant, if something does not look like a duck, or walk like a duck, or quack like a duck, and a consultant agrees that it is not a duck, and never will be a duck, is it really so unreasonable to insist that we stop calling it a duck immediately? If it’s instead large and grey and has a trunk and is a completely inappropriate resident of the local duckpond, does it make any sense to redefine the word ‘duck’ to describe something that everybody can see quite clearly is an elephant? We don’t think so.  Debate centered to a large degree on the John Street bus terminal that most people didn’t think should have the status of a MTSA Major Transit Station area. Others want significant funds spent on upgrading the site. All the city has seen in the last six months is upgrade to the transit shelters. A better way to square the circle of legal requirements and practical reality would be to make a clear statement that Burlington does not believe downtown is or can be an MTSA, and that zoning and density targets should reflect the impossibility of major mass rapid transit ever coming to downtown Burlington, regardless of higher level designations. Because the fact downtown is not an MTSA gets to the core of the entire debate we have been having in recent years. Places to Grow and the subsequent growth plans were all predicated on the sensible objective of placing people near mass transit. Oakville asked its Urban Growth Centre to be placed in midtown because its downtown could not support mass transit. Our council did not, no doubt still thinking in a car-centric manner of the proximity of the QEW exit, and not of what the province was actually trying to achieve. Places to Grow and successive provincial governments asked cities to place intensification near transit. That is the alpha and omega of planning logic over the last 15 years or more. Rightly. Burlington has gone down a road of saying transit existed where it does not and cannot exist. Yes, even if shuttle buses can be provided, as they should, from downtown to key areas and transit hubs across the city, that will still not make downtown a major transit hub. Because of this fatal misdesignation, we are in fact concentrating development in a place the Province was at pains to avoid – somewhere separated significantly from a major transit node. Surely the time to stop pretending downtown is an MTSA is now. Right at the moment when staff have acknowledged it is not – in any practical way – an MTSA. Not in two or five or more years when we can persuade the Region to change. And not after playing games with language which developers and LPAT are unlikely to respect or acknowledge and might well appeal. In short, building more inaccurate language into our documents must be an error, and we urge council not to accept the staff recommendation on this matter. Since every element of the logical basis for downtown designation for major intensification was based on the concept of mass transit, and since we have now established that logic was at fault, we therefore ask council to consider a formal motion to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing making a public request for: A) His clear guidance on how the downtown Urban Growth Centre can be urgently moved or modified, because of the faulty logic by which the UGC was first established. B) How the province can work with the Region to speedily correct the error that was made when it designated John Street as a Major Transit Station Area.  Burlington MPP Jane McKenna is said to have a simple answer on how to resolve the MTSA concerns. We have already received multiple indications from MPP McKenna that the Mobility Hub designations are within council’s remit to designate or undesignate, and we believe Council should do so as soon as practically possible. Time is of the essence, and we cannot rely on the tortuously slow process of multi-year municipal planning revisions to deliver these essential corrections to the mistakes of earlier councils.
January 14th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
Fifteen delegations; one lawyer threatening to sue, a private sector planner suggesting that the city planners might want to get some legal advice before they go much further was all part of the mix. The Council Chamber was packed – not even standing room. One group of developers complaining that they have suffered a 40% drop in the value of their investment because of what they see coming in the way of changes being made to an Official Plan that has been approved but not adopted.  Scott Snider – lawyer for a group of developers who he claimed were about to take a financial bath.  Councillor Paul Sharman Council Sharman gave a rather lame excuse for the serious failures of the 2014-2018 to do their homework and understand just what the province meant when the created MTSA’s Major Transit Station Areas. The city had to spend more than half a million dollars on consultants who dove into the weeds and asked the necessary questions – they learned a lot and taught this council a lot. The city’s solid core of delegations held Council’s feet to the coals and consistently reminded them why they were elected in 2018 The Interim Control bylaw will in all probability be lifted, and if not, several of the developments that were frozen will get an exemption from that bylaw. The Molinaro’s took a significant financial hit when the bylaw was passed.  Patrick (Paddy) Kennedy and Justine Giancola from Dillon Consulting confer before answering a question at the Standing Committee that was debating the Land Use Study. The Land Use Study done by Dillon Consulting. while both dense and complex, has served the interests of the city very well. It will take a little time for the flaws in the report to come to the surface – there are always flaws.  Developers who invested heavily in land, especially at the Drury Lane end of this area – were shocked when they saw the height limitations that were going to be imposed. A group of developers were “shocked” (those were the words used by their lawyer) when they saw what the height limitations were going to be for land they had acquired. Those developers are not going to walk quietly into the night. Council voted unanimously to receive and file the consultant’s report – but before Mayor Marianne Meed Ward put an amendment on the table – which got unanimous approval. There is much more to say – a lot of detail – but it is late and I have to go home to let the dogs out for their evening constitutional. At a Special Council meeting January 30th council will vote on what they spent the day talking about – expect the city to have made some good decisions. Then the hard work really begins – they now have to deal with all those development applications that were stopped. The developers, their planners and their legal counsel will begin figuring out how they deal with this new regime.
January 14th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
She is scheduled to deliver the Annual State of the City address to the Burlington Chamber of Commerce. That events starts at 7:15 am and is scheduled to end at 9:00 am. The event will take place at the Performing Arts Centre. City Council is scheduled to hold a Special meeting of Council to decide how much of the recommendations that will come out of the meeting held being held today, Tuesday and the meeting on the “preferred concept” for the downtown on Thursday they want to make final. That meeting is scheduled to be called to order at 9:30 am The final approval of the two issues: The Land Use Study that was brought about by the creation of an Interim Control Bylaw that stopped development in the Urban Growth Centre and the Take a Closer Look at the Downtown; a report that will put forward where development should be permitted and what the height levels will be. It has been going to be one heck of a week for the Mayor – and a turning point for the city. There is a group in the city running a betting pool – will the Mayor wear red?
January 14th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON “This is the “as written” rather than the “as delivered” version of WeLoveBurlington’s delegation. There are some inaccuracies in the “as written” version, a result of late changes in the staff/consultant presentations that were presented just before the delegations, to which the delegates had no opportunity to respond and which caused last minute ‘on the fly’ changes for us and others. As such, it is a resounding QED (Quid est demonstratum = which is proven) for WLB’s principal complaint of a flawed and disrespectful public engagement process”. Good morning Chair, Councillors, Your Worship. I am Lynn Crosby and with me is my colleague, Blair Smith. As you know, we represent the advocacy group, WeLoveBurlington. We stand before you, as we did on December 5th, to ensure that citizens are heard. We are honouring a commitment – both to ourselves and to the other advocates for citizen empowerment and strong local voice. We question the timing and basic process of the course that brings the 243-page Integrated Control By-Law Land Use report before you for approval today – just 14 working days after it was first released on the Friday before the Christmas holidays. Also the 319-page Preliminary Preferred Concept Report to be presented to Council two days from now, and released only 3 business days ago. The reports are highly interdependent and the almost concurrent timing of both is very unfortunate. Is this truly enough time for even an engaged and well-informed citizenry to properly review, assess and comment? We believe not.  Lynn Crosby watching council while her delegation partner reads. The ICBL Report is exceedingly long and dense. A great deal of the necessary detail and the associated import is carried by and buried within the appendices; the degree of cross-reference and referral needed does not produce ease of understanding nor transparency. Nor does the staff report provide a clear and readily understandable summary of what it all means. There has been no engagement exercise or review of the ICBL Land Use policies – no opportunity for the public to examine and respond. Why hasn’t the public been engaged on this as they were on the concepts? Why hasn’t this crucial meeting been actively promoted? Isn’t the Statutory Public Meeting the opportunity in the planning process to address the issues, allow the public to debate and obtain public input? Why is this meeting focused on approval rather than information collection and exchange? · The urban growth centre designation for downtown Although important qualifications are made, no consideration has been given to our earlier recommendation – to shift the focus and effort to first eliminating these constraints, or attempting to, before establishing the amendments to the Official Plan. Where is the “strategy” for approaching the Region or Province to relocate the Urban Growth Centre? Why is that not before us today? We believe that that is the first order of business and last month we were told by Ms. MacDonald that it would be coming. We are in a good position to ask for the Province’s assistance in this regard. As noted in the staff report (p.4), “Local Official Plans address much more specific planning issues within a city and provide greater detail and clarity on how a broad provincial direction is addressed at a local level.” In other words, the province is predisposed to leave issues of detail, such as the location of the UGC, to local decisioning.  MPP Jane McKenna One year ago, our MPP Jane McKenna stated publicly in the Burlington Post, and again in her newsletter, that she often hears this request from residents and that she approached the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. She reported at length and concluded that … “The City of Burlington council is free to remove these mobility hub designations from the local official plan. If city council voted to change the boundaries of the downtown Burlington urban growth centre this could be accomplished by Halton Region as part of the next official plan review. This must take place prior to July 1, 2022. Burlington could then, in turn, amend its official plan to reflect the new boundaries.” We would like to openly acknowledge Ms. McKenna’s effort. WLB has not always been a cheerleader for our local MPP but here she did what she was elected to do and she did it when it could have made a difference. The citizens of Burlington expected and still expect that these conversations would have been undertaken by the City and that we would be well on our way to having the designations removed and the UGC moved. That this much time has elapsed without any such attempts is disappointing. We don’t accept that it’s now too late since you don’t want to extend the ICBL because you fear developer appeals if you do. Respectfully, this is a situation created by you; we ask you to now fix it. If developers appeal, let them. In the meantime, you have the time needed to get the vital missing components done and in the proper order. As we have stated and continue to state, you only have one chance to protect the downtown and the waterfront and that chance is now. The revised Land Use policies being recommended for adoption this morning, as Official Plan Amendment 119, are conveyed as appendices D and E. If accepted, we believe that OPA 119 will lock us into a downtown over-intensification scenario. There are technical planning considerations and policy issues that speak against the direction proposed for the downtown. They include the absence of all the planning components for which the Adopted OP was originally considered to be “non-compliant” by the Region, including the lack of a Transportation Plan or Mobility Hub Plan. Why do these gaps still exist? Why does the ICBL Land Use Study not address them?  There was a time when Transit staff suggested the bus terminal be torn down – now the building is being described as vital if transit is to grow or the defining of the building as Major Transit Station Area as a major mistake. How can the downtown be designated as an MTSA when it is recognized that the anchor DT bus terminal currently does not function as a major bus depot and is unlikely to do so barring substantial and unplanned future improvements? How can the downtown be designated as an MTSA when it is acknowledged that it “is not located on a priority transit corridor nor is it supported by higher order transit nor by frequent transit within a dedicated ROW”? Shouldn’t the land use implications of designating the downtown as an MTSA be identified and isn’t this designation, since MTSAs are focal points for higher intensity and mixed-use transit supportive development … likely to result in over-development? Significant details and implications are carried by the maps and are not immediately transparent. Map 3 should be amended to remove the Major Transit Station “dot” reference since it is easily missed and accepts the mis-designation of the John Street bus terminal as an MTSA. Maps 1 and 2 amend the existing OP with what the Dillon report refers to as the “revised” DT Urban Growth Centre boundaries. Set aside the question of whether it should still be located in the DT at all, were the UGC boundaries revised and what were the revisions? On what basis and why was this not presented to the public and Council first?  Weeks after being sworn in the new Council posed for a Christmas photo – there was nothing festive about the questions asked by delegations. We would like to echo something raised this morning but that has been frequently voiced at Statutory Meetings, the Action Labs and Ward Meetings. All of you ran, implicitly or explicitly, on a platform that became a populist groundswell that defeated the incumbent Mayor, two sitting members of Council and caused two more to seek alternative career or life opportunities. When not a fully expressed component of your own platforms, you nevertheless benefited from the anti-intensification message that resonated with exceptional force. The citizens of Burlington now expect you to honour this mandate. At the very least, please defer approval of the recommendations before you today until a much more complete engagement process with Burlington citizens has been conducted. Why are we rushing as staff led Council to rush in 2018? As we noted previously, and as confirmed by the Region, there is no clock ticking. We urge you to take the time to address all the building blocks of a new Official Plan. Indeed, if the recommendations of the ICBL Report are approved today, then Thursday’s Preferred Concept meeting becomes ‘pro forma’ and meaningless. Which process is being respected today – a sense of false urgency to the Region – or that which provides for meaningful citizen engagement?  Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte chaired the Standing Committee today. She had to tell two very strong delegations that there were no questions for them. It appeared she did so reluctantly. We do not believe that what is before you today hears either the voice of the people or the direction of the Council they thought they elected. We recognized in our previous delegation that many of the errors made concerning the future of Burlington’s downtown go far back and are not yours. But that excuse stops today. The direction going forward is clearly yours and yours alone. It will be your lasting and irrevocable legacy. We ask you to consider your legacy carefully, step up and defer the decisions being asked of you this morning. We acknowledge and appreciate the work of staff in creating the Preliminary Concept Report to be presented on Thursday. However, what that concept allows or does not allow for the downtown doesn’t matter if it won’t be enforceable because you approved this report today with the mis-designations and UGC location unchanged. Thursday’s report would then be irrelevant and we would see little point in debating its merits. We delegated today because this is the crucial moment. This is the final chance any of us have to protect our downtown and waterfront. We ask that you don’t let us down.
January 14th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
 Gary Scobie I am here today to speak in opposition to the sections of the Land Use Report that deal with downtown planning and the downtown Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). I support the recent letter to Council drafted by ECoB, Citizens’ Plan B and We Love Burlington citizens groups. I also support Jim Young’s recent article on his concern for a downtown maybe already lost. Last time I was here in December, I disappointed some on Council. I’ll warn you now that I’ll probably do that again today. The MTSA is an outgrowth of both Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations from the first decade of this century. It seeks to densify urban areas in Southern Ontario that satisfy or seek to satisfy the intermodal transit needs of citizens. It has been known for quite a few years that the downtown Bus Terminal does not qualify even as an Anchor Mobility Hub, and the Dillon report finally acknowledges this clearly. I want to thank them for their honesty on this issue. I only wish that Planning staff had not chosen to disregard this acknowledgement and continue to plan as if the downtown is truly a Major Transit Station Area. Repeatedly saying something that is untrue does not make it true and it certainly doesn’t help our case at the Local Planning Area Tribunal (LPAT) hearings. The downtown MTSA, the Anchor Mobility Hub, and the Urban Growth Centre are the three cornerstones that legitimize the over-intensification of our downtown, notwithstanding that Burlington will reach its intensification targets before 2031 without their further help. They’ve already done enough damage. I want to offer some contextual comments before I return to the subject at hand, and request that you’ll let me do so. On November 13, 2017, I came before Council and referred to a recent Ryerson University report that worried about the average Toronto condo height increasing from 15 storeys to 21 storeys at that time. The authors were concerned about parking for residents and visitors, the increasing scarcity of parks nearby and the livability factors of these condo groupings. Were they indeed communities at all? I asked Council that night if they had the ethical and moral courage to stop their quest to legitimize the Anchor Mobility Hub in the Official Plan and instead make it an election issue in 2018. I also asked that they not grant the developer the right to build a 23 storey high rise at 421 Brant Street, across the road from City Hall.  Scobie on the decision to allow this 24 story structure: If you allow an OP with these designations, you will fail to save the downtown and that will be your legacy, If they failed to accede to my request and the requests of others, I said the future of high rise buildings along Brant Street would be set that night. November 13, 2017 would go down in our history as the day our Council gave its blessing to a future building spree along Brant Street and its environs to the lake never seen before. Of course that last Council did not listen to me nor other engaged citizens and the die was cast. Their legacy was set as the Council that abdicated responsibility for future downtown redevelopment. We’ve continued to follow that path through OMB and LPAT decisions on approving high rises since then. But downtown over-intensification did indeed become an election issue and the majority of this new Council did actively campaign to stop it and can thank that issue in large measure as the reason why you were elected. And it was clear what citizens then wanted you to do. Today or Thursday or at the January 30th Council meeting, the fate of the downtown is going to be decided by this Council and I am apprehensive to say the least. I view this report and the one on the recommended downtown development concept coming on Thursday as key drivers of the stake through the heart of the downtown. If the recommendations are allowed to stand and they lead to amendments to the OP within the designation mandates of the Urban Growth Centre, Anchor Mobility Hub and Major Transit Station Area, then I believe that the downtown’s fate is sealed as no longer a pedestrian-oriented place of retail, commerce and government but as a sterile, shadowed, windswept, unfriendly place of imposing podiums and high rises of steel, glass and concrete. I see only a few buildings left harkening to our past, like City Hall, Smith’s Funeral Home and the Queen’s Head Pub. I know there is to be a follow-up study on the merits of the three land-use designations I’ve mentioned. But it will be too late if the OP is already amended as above. If you then intend to re-amend it without the three imbedded designations, the time it will take to remove them with permission from the Region and Province and come up with replacement intensity limits of our own making is simply not available in the five weeks before the March 5th ICBL end. Even if you can do this, it will result in a re-amended OP that I believe will be treated with disdain at every LPAT hearing to come and will be appealed over and over again by developers as unprofessional, poorly executed and manipulative. Tough words, and I feel bad using them. I campaigned hard in 2018 and supported a number of you in the election, believing that we could save the downtown. But there is only one way – removal of all of the designations, not conformity to them. By investing all of the time, expense and effort in conforming, and none on the removal, we have squandered precious time and resources. It’s not just that we’ve fiddled while the downtown burned; we’ve created a complete orchestral composition that no citizen wants to listen to. And remember, this composition is being directed for Planning staff by our new Council. You are on the hook for the results. I’m asking you to put this composition on the back shelf where it belongs. I’m asking you to instead create a new composition without the three designations for the downtown that gives us back control of the downtown’s re-development future, with our own vision of reasonable height and retention of and respect for much of what we value. Keep the recommendations for the GO Station Mobility Hub intensification that make sense and update the Official Plan once and done with those and with new wordings for the downtown of your own making. Answer only to citizens who elected you to save the downtown from a complete transformation, not to provincial bureaucrats in Toronto who make sweeping generalizations and rules for every city as if they are all the same. Nor to the Local Planning Area Tribunal, nor to the developers. Stand up to keep Burlington’s downtown as one of the main reasons we continue to be judged an excellent city to live in and visit. Adding high rises and further congestion will not add to our score in these ratings. If you allow an OP with these designations, you will fail to save the downtown and that will be your legacy, so early in your term. I don’t want that and neither should you. Scobie spoke with both eloquence and passion. No one on council asked him a follow up question
January 14th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
On December 25, 2019, while many members of the community were gathering with family and friends for the Christmas celebrations, Halton Regional Police Service officers were dispatched to a residence after receiving a call from a concerned party. Through an investigation, the officers developed reasonable grounds to believe that a male had physically assaulted his female partner earlier in the day. During this assault, it is believed that the male party pushed the female, choked her, and threatened to kill her.
Children were present in the home at the time of the assault. The male accused was arrested and subsequently transported to Central Lock Up. Thereafter, the Halton Regional Police Service Domestic Violence Investigative Unit took carriage of the investigation. The accused was charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Utter Threat to Cause Death or Bodily Harm and Mischief Under $5,000 and held for bail. Upon arrest of the accused, the victim was referred to the Halton Regional Police Service Domestic Violence Victim Coordinator within the Victim Services Unit. The Victim Services Unit connects victims to appropriate support services in the community, assists with safety planning and victim care, and, through the Victim Quick Response Program (VQRP), can provide immediate short-term financial support toward essential expenses for victims of violent crime. In 2019, Halton Regional Police Service officers responded to 3,613 intimate partner domestic incidents. These calls for service resulted in 842 arrests and the laying of 1,548 criminal charges. Every person has the right to feel safe in our community. Halton Regional Police Service Victim Services Unit 905-825-4777
January 13th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
The Burlington Urban Design Advisory Panel is seeking architects, landscape architects, urban designers, and planners as members for its second term, 2020-2022.  With decent weather it is hard to find a seat – design at its best. The mandate of the Urban Design Advisory Panel is to provide independent, objective and professional urban design advice to the Community Planning Department on tall and mid-rise buildings, five storeys or greater, and public development projects, studies and policy initiatives to help achieve design excellence in the city. Burlington is at a unique time in its history. With very little green-field left for development of suburban-type neighbourhoods, the city can no longer grow out. Instead, it must grow from within its existing urban area. Candidates for the positions on the Advisory Panel will be highly qualified design professionals and currently possess full membership for a minimum of ten years in at least one of the following professional associations: Ontario Association of Architects (OAA); Candidates will also have a broad range of professional design experience such as: a. Domestic and international work portfolio; The panel will meet once a month, during regular business hours. Each meeting will be approximately four hours long with a maximum of three projects reviewed per meeting. All members will receive a per diem for participation on the panel to cover expenses for a meal and travel, including mileage or transportation costs associated with travel to each meeting, site visits and parking. There is additional information on the Burlington Urban Design Advisory Panel; please visit www.burlington.ca/UDP Candidates should submit: a. A cover letter and CV summarizing their qualifications, experience and interest in participating on Burlington’s Urban Design Advisory Panel; b. Confirmation to have suitable flexibility to attend all meetings during their term; and c. The ability to provide independent, objective, professional urban design advice to the City of Burlington Community Planning Department. Submissions should be received by Friday, Jan. 31, 2020 via email to: Todd Evershed, MCIP, RPP Selected candidates will be contacted in early February to arrange an interview with City staff, if necessary. Some questions: Have they ever submitted a report that suggest the development before them needs a lot of revisions or do they submit polite reports and wash their hands of it all?  During the Sound of Music Festival Brant Street gets turned into a space where people can walk around and enjoy the space. There were once members of a previous council that wanted the street closed to traffic. The architecture of a community is what gives the streets life; a sense of place; a street that you want to walk along and spend some time on a park bench.  Good design, stunning in many ways – just in the wrong place. The Gazette points to the wide space between the sidewalk edge and the edge of the buildings on the north side of Lakeshore Road between Locust and Brant and suggest this is superb design. And yet when the building was going through site approval the Director of Planning told the Gazette that convincing the developers that the wide patio was a good idea wasn’t an easy sell. Space at the tables is hard to find when the weather is fine – the buzz of the people enjoying themselves and looking out over the lake can’t be bought. Traffic is far enough away to not be objectionable. This is what the Gazette hopes the panel will subscribe to – so far we’ve not seen very much in the way of positive critical comment from the panel. There is some exceptionally good work being done. Say what you will about the Adi Group but they have done some fine work. Their Nautique, which is in the wrong place, is nevertheless good design. Their Moder’n on Guelph Line is another very good example.
January 13th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
They didn’t get a raise in pay but they now have to work even longer hours – at least that is a recommendation that will go to a Council committee later this week. The Procedural bylaw is getting an upgrade with the following change: Adjournment Hours All meetings will adjourn when Council, or Committee have completed all business listed on the agenda, or at 10:30p.m., whichever is earlier. Where the business before Councilor Committee has not been completed by the adjournment hour, a motion may be passed by two-thirds vote of the members present to proceed beyond the hour of 10:30p.m. to continue any unfinished business. Notwithstanding section 28.2above, no meeting will proceed beyond the hour of 11p.m. Members of Council get a little longer to speak.  Procedural bylaw changes mean those seats can be filled for an additional half hour if necessary. The witching hour used to be 10:00 pm – which could be extended for 30 minutes. Now the hour at which they are scheduled to adjourn is 10:30 – that can be extended for an additional 30 minutes. There were occasions when members of council went on and on – telling those listening every blessed thing they were planning. Much of this change has come out of a desire on the part of the Mayor for better Agenda management. In previous municipal Council they were known to go on ’til well past midnight.
January 13th, 2020 BURLINGTON, ON
This one almost got past me.  The email was covered in red flags but because I was expecting something from my bank I assumed – could have been a fatal mistake. This is just the sort of thing that caught someone at city hall and – zap – more than half a million left a bank account. I had been communicating with my branch on a non-banking matter and was expecting responses from them. I almost clicked on the attachments – which I suspect would have taken me down a rabbit hole – from which it would be very hard to get out of with all my money in my pocket. If in doubt – don’t.
|
||||||||
|
Copyright © 2024 Burlington Gazette – Local News, Politics, Community - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||||||
