 By Pepper Parr
March 3rd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The silence is deafening.
Council went along with the Planning department recommendation that flew in the face of the dozens of delegations that were opposed to what was being recommended and the pace at which change was being forced upon the citizens.
Of the seven members of Council Jack Dennison was the only one who had a public comment.
The Gazette reached out to Marianne Meed Ward who said she would have a comment – nothing yet.
The Mayor said nothing on his blog. Councillor Sharman is assumed to still be away.
 If there was ever a city block waiting for a change it is this one – west side of Brant, north of Caroline. It would give the city an opportunity to do something with the west side of John which is now a laneway and not a street. It is also where the only shopping location is in the downtown. Big challenges – big opportunity. The place where the planners can make their Grow Bold, Grow Beautiful vision real. In a follow up conversation with Dennison he clarified a comment he made about every property owner in a block expecting to see the lot qualify for a 17 story structure.
Dennison had said: “ I still have difficulty with the proposed Official Plan where entire city blocks have an Official Plan height of 17 storeys or less. Every property owner thinks their property can be developed to that height without consideration for variety of heights.
 Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison is quite prepared to take on the Planning department – “That’s our job” “To solve this problem, we have to either be site specific for tall buildings and shorter variety heights or specify 25% of the city block allow 12-17 storeys, 50% be 5-6 storeys, and 25% be 2-3 storeys. This would allow movement within the blocks to create variety.”
To clarify just how the percentages would apply Dennison said a block would have to have been assembled.
When asked how he felt about the lack of comment from other members of Council Dennison said “they are afraid of talking back to the Planning department” and added that “that is our job”.
The complete article is HERE
 By Staff
March 2, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
On March 2nd 2018 shortly before 2:00 AM, police received reports of a male breaking into cars on Caplan Crescent in Burlington.
 Police descended upon the area and located a white SUV with a female sitting in the driver’s seat and two males standing beside it.
Upon seeing police, one male ran away on foot while the other male entered the passenger side of the SUV which accelerated away at a high rate of speed narrowly striking a police vehicle.
Police pursued the white SUV which was a stolen vehicle from Hamilton while other responding officers searched the area for the male that ran away, ultimately locating him in the backyard of a home on Montego Crescent.
The pursuit of the SUV was quickly discontinued due to public safety concerns after the vehicle ran a red light at Fairview Street and Walkers Line.
 A member of the Police Canine Unit training a new recruit. Moments after the pursuit was discontinued, police located the stolen vehicle unoccupied after it struck a tree on Fairview Street and Inverary Road. Police Canine Unit (PSD Arrow) and members of the Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU) attended and tracked to the rear of a business on Fairview Street where two youths were located and arrested.
A 13-year-old female from Hamilton who cannot be identified due to her age was held for bail charged with the following offence:
• Possession of property obtained by crime over $5000
• Theft under $5000
• Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle
• Flight while pursued by police
• Fail to comply with undertaking
A 13-year-old male from Brantford who cannot be identified due to his age was held for bail charged with the following offence:
• Possession of property obtained by crime over $5000
• Theft under $5000
• Fail to comply with disposition (three counts)
A 16-year-old male from Hamilton who cannot be identified due to his age was held for bail charged with the following offence:
• Possession of property obtained by crime over $5000
• Theft under $5000
• Fail to comply with recognizance (three counts)
How did two thirteen year old’s and a sixteen year old ever get to the point in their short lives where they are out trying to steal cars in the early hours of the morning? How does a society deal with this? Where were the parents?
Anyone with information regarding this incident asked to contact the Burlington Criminal Investigations Bureau at 905-825-4747 ext. 2316. Tips can also be submitted to Crime Stoppers “See something? Hear something? Know something? Contact Crime Stoppers” at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS) or through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.ca
 By Staff
March 2, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Mr. Taroo Enomoto, lives in Burlington’s twin city, Itabashi, Japan.
In the past 29 years he has personally donated close to $40,000 to the city including a donation of rhododendrons to the Paletta Lakefront Mansion.
 Taroo Enomoto waving to people watching the 2012 Sound of Music parade. This man from Japan has donated close to $40,00 to the city of Burlington. Next week the city will accept the most recent donation; $1,022 to the Reach Out Centre for Kids (ROCK).
Mr. Enomoto was in Burlington for a visit a number of years ago.
He is a small man who doesn’t speak English and found himself in the Council Chamber accepting a recognition and appreciation scroll from the Mayor. Burlington apparently doesn’t have a “key” to the city that it presents.
A day later Mr. Enomoto was in a car that was in a parade waving to people on the street.
There is something both quaint and honourable about this man – he took to Burlington and made it a part of the way he lives his life.
The cheque presentation will take place next week.
By Staff
March 2, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
This article has been edited – changes shown in red.
It will be seen as a defining week for the city.
After more than 25 hours of debate and discussion city Council approved a motion directing the Planning department to proceed with preparing the draft for a city council vote on March 19th.
The document then gets sent to the Region where it has to be approved. It is expected that the Plan will clear the Region sometime in 2019.
The debate was intense and passionate. More than 20 citizens appeared before council saying they didn’t like or want what the Planning department was saying the city had to have – an Official Plan that could be defended.
Many wanted council to defer the approving of an Official Plan until after the October municipal election, when, they hoped, a new council would be elected and a different Official Plan written.
The Planning department argued that the city had to go with what they had and council agreed with them.
 Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison reluctantly votes for the draft Official Plan. Jack Dennison, council member for ward 4 and a member of city council for more than 20 years prepared a statement that he read out before the vote was taken. He was the only politician to prepare a statement.
Councillor Paul Sharman did not take part in the debate – he was away attending an event that had been scheduled before the debate dates were put in place.
Dennison said:
“I recognize the desperate need to get our new Official Plan approved so that we are more in line with the Provincial Policy statements on growth and intensification. Our current Official Plan and Zoning By-laws are out of line with those Provincial plans.
“We the city should be able to successfully defend our new official plan heights and densities.
“That said, I still have difficulty with the proposed Official Plan where entire city blocks have an Official Plan height of 17 storeys or less. Every property owner thinks their property can be developed to that height without consideration for variety of heights.
“To solve this problem, we have to either be site specific for tall buildings and shorter variety heights or specify 25% of the city block allow 12-17 storeys, 50% be 5-6 storeys, and 25% be 2-3 storeys. This would allow movement within the blocks to create variety.
In a conversation with Councillor Dennison to clarify just how the percentages he was talking about above would apply he said that he was assuming that the block would have been assembled and that a developer had gone to the Planning department. Dennison said that under those circumstances 25% of the city block could be 2-17 storeys, 50% could be 5-6 storeys, and 25% could be 2-3 storeys
“I totally disagree with the east side of Brant Street north of Blairholm Avenue having heights of 7 – 25 storeys, immediately adjacent to single-family residential.
“The west side of north Brant is proposed at 10-25 storeys but at least has a 3-storey podium next to Brant.
“The 39 proposed by Official Plan team is more than 4 times present and approved; 26 proposed by Jack is less than 3 times present and approved.
(The numbers refer to development projects.)
“Further I want the OP and zoning bylaws to be in lock step and we aggressively defend the new OP and Zoning.
“The specific blocks I take issue with include:
1. Gore Variety: instead of 17, 6 and 3 ; have 6, 8 and 3.
2. 421 Brant Street North to Birch Avenue: instead of 3,6,8 and 11 ; have a variety of 3, 6, 8 and 11 with only every second block having an 11-storey building.
 This block of buildings will be replaced by the approved 23 story structure that will rise across the street from city hall. The citizens are looking at a much different downtown Burlington.  That this building will be constructed is a certainty. There are those who will attempt to appeal the decision to build it – recent Ontario Municipal Board decision has made it clear that any appeal will fail. 3. 409 Brant Street (Elizabeth Interiors): instead of 3 to 17, have a maximum of 3 to 14 storeys and certainly not 24 storeys.
4. Esso Station at Locust and Lakeshore Road: specify 17 storeys at the back by the Parking Garage and 3 storeys at Lakeshore Road.
5. Modify the block at the northwest corner of James and Elizabeth have a maximum height of 8 storeys like City Hall, not 17 storeys.
6. Modify the block on the south side of Caroline Street between Brant and Locust to have a podium of 3 storeys and not exceed 6 storeys instead of 11 storeys.
7. Modify No Frills plaza to have a maximum height of 14 storeys, not 17, and the Brant Street building to not exceed 4 storeys instead of 6.
8. Modify the Leggat property to have a maximum height of 14 storeys, not 17, and a maximum at Brant Street of 4 storeys, not 6.
“We do not want walls of building on our primary roads, Lakeshore, Brant and throughout our downtown. But as I already said, I have no choice but to support the approval of the proposed Official Plan.”
Dennison statement raises a lot of issues that the Planning department is going to have to deal with going forward. Dennison doesn’t want a solid block along Brant Street to consist of one 17 storey building after another – the problem is who gets to decide which piece of property can rise to 17 storeys and which has to settle for significantly less?
There was a lot of debate between staff and members of council on just what the long term implications will be with this Official Plan.
 When the Planning department set out to write the new Official Plan they came up with the phrase: Grow Bold, Grow Smart. Grow Beautiful. Only time will tell if they got it right.
And only time will tell of the citizens who don’t like what they think they see at this point will succeed in creating enough opposition to bring about a change when the election takes place in October.
The problem the city has is that the existing Official Plan cannot be successfully defended – the Ontario Municipal Board taught us that.
The planners see their role as “city building” – the people they are responsible to – the public, are the city builders.
 By Staff
March 2, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
 The declared a “snow event” at 9:00 pm last night which put plows out on the streets. The level of service within Burlington has improved markedly – the communications is close to superb.
When you woke up this morning you should see roads that are clear; hopefully the city didn’t have to tow your car – when there is a snow event the city asks that you get your car off the street so that the plows can do their work.
It’s all part of being a citizen in the best mid-sized city in Canada.
That’s the city’s gift – Mother Nature has a gift of her own. Were you able to walk out the front door to a view like this?
By Steve Marks
March 2, 2018
BURLINGTON.ON
Life can be tough at times. It can be hard working every day and not having as much of a break as you would like, or not having the opportunity to do the things that you love all the time. That is why, it is really important, that when you do have the time off to do something, you make the most of it and really enjoy yourself.
One of the most fun ways to spend your time off is go to a casino. Whether they are online, like at casinos.ca, or real casinos, they are incredibly fun to play at. Online casinos used to be pretty bad experiences, they used to be slow, they used to have poor graphics, the difficulty levels always fluctuates too much and they the user interface was always garbled. However they are now excellent and there are so many great options and great places to play online that it is a bit of a golden age for online casinos.
 If you want to get out of the house and experience the glamour of real casinos, then there are lots of choices in Ontario. The problem is, they aren’t always of the highest quality. There are some that are wonderful places with good owners, a good vibe and a fun atmosphere. However others are poorly run and are just a waste of your time. So to help you out, here are four of the best casinos to visit in Ontario.
Casino Niagara
A classic right by the falls, it has all the glitz and glamour you would expect of a casino, coupled with a stunning setting by one of the world’s natural wonders. It has over 95,000 square feet of floor space making it by far one of the largest casinos in the area, and in Canada in general. If you are looking for something with a Las Vegas style and experience then this is perfect for you.
Casino Rama
Up in Orillia, Casino Rama doesn’t have the size of the casino in Niagara, however, in some ways, this is an advantage as it feels a little more personal. It seems like the kind of place that has regulars who come in and are known and looked after. It still has super amenities and it has over 1,000 reviews on google.com with a 4.2 rating, which is seriously impressive.
Caesars Windsor
If you want a taste of American casinos with their super-size, their amazing array of food, games, and services, then you should make your way to Windsor as it is one of the best casinos in all of Canada, never mind just in Ontario. It is even bigger than Niagara’s monster casino with a floor space of over 100,000 square feet, if you want a night or weekend you won’t forget, it is a wonderful choice.
Fallsview Casino
The name suggest why you should visit, like Casino Niagara, you will get a stunning view of the falls while you rake in winnings. It cost over one billion dollars to be built so expect opulence.
 By Staff
March 1st, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
This seems to happen every year – the date for submitting nominations for Burlington’s BEST gets extended.
We never know if there haven’t been enough in the way of nominations or if people need more time to get the paper work done.
If more time is needed – be in touch with the Clerk – she is very good at helping people get all the documentation in place.
If you haven’t thought about who you would want to nominate – look no further that the people who delegated at city council for a slow down on the rate at which the city is proceeding with adoption of th draft Official Plan.
The delegations done by Jim Young, Deedee Davies and Gary Scobie are amongst some of the best we have heard. These people don’t have an axe to grind – they are informed and speak intelligently and with passion about the city they live in and care about.
The are the E in the word engagement.
They understand that what happens to the downtown core impacts everyone.
 The 2017 Burlington BEST The city announced that those wishing to nominate a fellow resident for a Burlington’s Best Award can now do so until Wednesday, March 7, 2018. The original deadline has been extended by seven days.
There are eight award categories:
• Citizen of the year
A person whose volunteer activity has made a significant and sustained contribution to the vibrancy and wellbeing of the Burlington community in 2017.
• Junior Citizen of the year
A high school student, 18 years or younger who has made a significant contribution to the Burlington community in 2017.
• Senior Person of the year
A person, 55 years or older, who has made a significant contribution to the Burlington community and advocated on behalf of seniors in 2017.
• Environmental Award
An individual or group that improved and/or protects Burlington’s environment in 2017.
• Arts Person of the Year
An individual who has contributed to the arts in Burlington as an artist, patron or advocate including but not limited to, visual arts, media arts, musical arts, performing arts and literary arts in 2017.
• Community Service Award
An individual or group whose volunteer activity has contributed to the betterment of the Burlington community in 2017.
• Heritage Award
An individual or group who has demonstrated a commitment to the preservation of Burlington’s heritage, and has volunteered their time in an effort to support the preservation of Burlington’s heritage in 2017.
• Accessibility Award
An individual, organization or business that has made significant contributions to increase access and participation of people with disabilities in the Burlington Community in 2017.
Jim Young for Senior; Deedee Davies for Citizen and Gary Scobie for Community service. Just an opinion.
Salt with Pepper is an opinion column written by the Publisher of the Burlington Gazette.
 By Staff
March 1st, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The city is doing a much better job of managing the way snow is removed from the streets and keeping the public informed.
They are being much more proactive and less reactive. And, when there is a screw up, they respond in a positive way and don’t look for someone to blame.
 This is not what the city has in mind when the declare a “snow event”. They have created a name for the way they inform the public: a “snow event” isn’t what some parents do when they want to get the kids out of the house and outside where the can safely play in the snow.
A snow event on Burlington is the city telling you that they have begun the process of gearing up for whatever weather we are going to get.
Thus, this evening Burlington is declaring that a snow event will begin ay 9:00 pm. Don’t expect to see the Town Crier outside city hall ringing his bell.
City of Burlington to declare a ‘Snow Event’ beginning 9 p.m. March 1, 2018
 One of the more than 25 pieces of equipment that will be out clearing the primary roads. Staff are closely monitoring the approaching storm, which will start later this afternoon with rain expected to change to snow around rush hour. The city will not apply anti-icing agent to the roads ahead of the storm because the rain will wash it away.
All snow plows and salt trucks will be dispatched throughout the city. The event is expected to last until Friday morning.
Environment Canada is forecasting more than 20 cm of snow to fall overnight.
 The fire department just loves the person who did this. As of 9 p.m., all vehicles parked on the primary and secondary streets must be removed and parking exemptions are void. An update will be provided later tonight regarding parking on local roads if accumulations reach 7.5 cm or more.
Failure to remove vehicles from residential roads could result in being ticketed or possibly towed to allow snow plows and other heavy machinery to safely navigate the narrow streets.
Cars will be towed at the owner’s expense.
If residents notice a vehicle on their street, they are encouraged to kindly ask the owner to remove the vehicle or call Parking Control during business hours at 905-335-7816 (Monday to Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.) or after-hours, Halton Regional Police Service at 905-878-5511. (Ask for “dispatch” and police will send a parking officer).
Residents are also asked for their patience as clearing all 1,900 km of roads can take up to 24 hours and 850 km of sidewalks can take up to 72 hours to clear.
During a snowfall, the city will provide updates at 9 a.m., 4 p.m. and 11 p.m.
The Gazette is seeing fewer complaints from readers about snow removal problems.
Photos
Tandem snow plows
 By Ray Rivers
March 1st, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Rivers suggests there is a pot calling the kettle black on the matter of corruption at the Tory debate for a new leader.
The candidates for the Ontario PC party called the Wynne government corrupt at their first debate and again at the last one this week. When they accused the Liberals of corruption they offered only innuendo to substantiate to those accusations for a Liberal party which has been in power now for a decade and a half.
 Tanya Granic Allen – best debater but needs more than one issue. And then Tanya Granic Allen, gave the term real substance as she turned on her own political party, citing why both the PC party and its former leader Patrick Brown were corrupt. Doug Ford raised his concern that there might have been ballot stuffing at one of the nomination meetings he’d attended. And if faking memberships and financial wrong doing is what Patrick Brown had been doing for personal gain or to win the PC leadership, that too would certainly qualify as corruption.
Allen went further, accusing each of the other candidates of doing nothing to stop Brown – alluding complicity, turning the other way, and letting him get away with it. And then she wondered where they had been when Brown had developed a platform, at least some of which they have all rejected a mere three months following its formal acceptance by her party. And where was she?
There was something surreal about this exhibition as the candidates responded to the debate questions emanating from the party membership. For example, everyone complained about the size of the provincial debt, even though they are all planning to run sizeable deficits for at least their first couple of years. And none of them seemed to understand that the province had already balanced its budget, at least as far as official accounts go.
 All four candidates would dump the mandated national carbon tax and take the federal government to court. They argued to a person that they’d defy the mandated national carbon tax and would take the federal government to court, as only Saskatchewan has suggested among all other jurisdictions. They all agreed that our climate was changing but nobody had a serious plan to do anything about it. And Ford was vehement that he’d scrap Ontario’s existing cap and trade system which the Trudeau government has accepted as an alternative to a carbon tax.
Allen complained about the high cost of electricity, laying the blame entirely on renewable energy and promising to “rip wind turbines out of the ground” and tear up the green energy contracts. She said she’d read a Fraser Institute report which had convinced her she could do this without encountering any legal or financial recourse. That naive notion was challenged by Christine Elliott, a lawyer by training and former MPP, pointing out that such an action would end up costing even more.
 Christine Elliott, a lawyer by training and former MPP. A question about the possibility of combining Ontario’s public and separate school systems was met with a big a big negatory (neg-a-Tory) response by everyone by everyone. And Elliott then embarrassed herself by making an unfortunate reference to former leader John Tory’s election loss – which has been attributed to an election promise to fund more, not fewer, separate schools.
 Caroline Mulroney – faltering? Caroline Mulroney was the lone voice opposed to scrapping the three year old sex-ed curriculum. Mulroney is running third and that is probably where she deserves to be. She may be polished, poised, well spoken, and have a political name, but she suffers from an obvious lack of familiarity with the province and Ontario’s bread and butter issues. She mostly rattled off theory and platitudes, or quoted from the PC platform which the other candidates have largely discarded.
Doug Ford was pointed and cogent for the most part. He made an oblique appeal to the male crowd by claiming that ‘# me too’ was as important for men as for women. But he looked flustered and grumbled when the moderator had to cut him off for taking too long to make his closing remarks.
 Ford made big points taking on Elliott Ford made big points taking on Elliott about what he saw as her flip-flopping on sex ed and carbon taxes, though she refuted both. And he stuck it to her about working for the Liberal government as its $220,000 per year patient ombudsman. She swung back that she’d been hired by an independent panel, but nobody was buying that smoke. Elliott was a much more confident candidate this debate than before and she should be since she is now roughly tied with Doug Ford for first place.
Watching Tanya Granic Allen was an uplifting experience. She communicates better than all of the other candidates put together – but it is what comes out of her mouth. But then she is really just a fringe one-issue candidate, and fittingly trailing the others in recent polls.
Voting for members starts this Friday and the results of the preferential ballot will be known March 10. Preferential (ranked) ballots can be unpredictable since in a tight race so much depends on second and third choices And nobody knows who’ll receive the votes which might have otherwise gone to Patrick Brown, should his folks vote at all. If the numbers can be believed, there are over a hundred thousand new members which he brought into the party.
 With supposedly more vote than anyone else in the leadership race but no longer a candidate – the big question is – where are those votes going to go? But if those Brown supporters do vote, you can be sure it won’t be for Tanya Granic Allen. Her aspersions of party corruption have smeared them as well as their former leader. Brown was not at the debate to defend himself, having dropped out of the race only a couple days earlier.
But, as was obvious to the viewers, the ghost of Patrick Brown was alive and well and he was certainly there, if only in spirit. Even in absentia he was forced to absorb the slings and arrows of this 11th hour coup by his ambitious competitors for the job of party leader. And the repeated references to his presumed wrong doings helped to remind voters about that old adage of pots and kettles. For a party, once known for the professionalism of its Big Blue Machine, this debate was a shameful exhibition of political naivety and cannibalism.
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
PC Leader’s Debate – PC Leaders Polling – Reality or Fiction –
Mulroney Walks Away – Brown is Better Off –
By Staff
March 1st, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Thanks to the generosity of their sponsors and donors, Friends of Freeman Station has raised to date over
$600,000 toward the restoration of Burlington’s historic Freeman Station. They need $200,000 to finish the job, and would like to get that in place this year.
 The Freeman station as it stands today is the result of a lot of sweat and generously donated dollars. The project is three quarters complete, and we are anxious to finish so visitors, including school children, can benefit from viewing the many aspects of the completed station.
There will be an amazing interactive educational diorama, artifacts and the beautifully restored 1906 railway station itself with its historic displays, and the charming main floor small group meeting space fulfilling a growing need in the City.
The first $50,000 of this last phase push for donations will be matched by the City of Burlington. This means your donation will be doubled. This matching funds offer, is for a limited time, it is important for you to donate now.
 Those stones were originally ballast in ships that came to Canada from Scotland. They are now part of the station. A popular form of donation is to sponsor a whinstone for $100. Whinstones were ballast in sailing ships, and originated in Scotland in the 1800’s. They formed the dado wall around the station when it was built in 1906 – they have now been put them back in place. They can be dedicated to anyone or anything you like, such as family members, or a business.
Also naming rights are still available for many parts of the station. As an example, for a $250 donation, your name or dedication could be placed on a piece of freight on a baggage cart, or for a $500 donation your dedication could be placed on a crossbuck. Sponsorship of large items, such as the very visible signal tower, is also available.
Please contact us for a complete list of available naming rights.
It is easy to donate. Just go to the Website www.freemanstation.ca, go to the Donors page, and follow the prompts. Or put a cheque in the mail to the address below. Charitable tax deductible receipts are issued for all donations over $25.
The conductor has called out “All Aboard”. Please climb on board the train and help us steam ahead to reach our goal. You can send that cheque to: Friends of Freeman Station, PO Box 91536, Roseland Plaza, Burlington, ON L7R 4L6
 It was Community Benefit money from the Strata development that helped the Friends of Freeman begin the process of saving the station. With all the doings at city hall about the kind of development that is going to be permitted and where those towers are going to be located and what will there be in the way of community benefits – it is useful to remember that part of the Molinaro community benefit that was part of the height and density given for the construction of the Strata went to the Freeman Station.
Staff at the time said Freeman could only have the money if the station was located downtown. They wrote a memo to council to that effect saying the station couldn’t have the money because of the Fairview location.
Ward 2 city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward did some research and found the original document council passed did not restrict the donation to a downtown location. She presented that to council and the station got the funding – $25,000
 By Staff
March 1st, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
 It may turn out to be a sloppy run on Sunday when the March 4, 2018 the Chilly Half Marathon and Frosty 5k Run take place in support of cancer care at Joseph Brant Hospital.
If the weather forecast holds the roads could be recovering from a lot of snowé
Minor traffic delays can be expected.
Road Closures
6 a.m. to 3 p.m.
• Brant Street from Ontario Street to Elgin Street
• James Street from John Street to Brant Street
9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.
• Brant Street, Lakeshore Road to Elgin Street (access to Bunton’s Wharf via Locust Street)
9:45 to 10:30 a.m.
• Lakeshore Road, Brant Street to Eastport Drive
9:45 a.m. to 2 p.m.
• Lakeshore Road, Brant Street to just west of Burloak Drive (access to Old Lakeshore Road from the west maintained with delays)
Lane Use
The three traffic lanes on Lakeshore Road will be separated by two lines of cones from Burloak Drive to Maple Avenue: north lane emergency vehicles, centre lane westbound runners and south lane eastbound runners.
 By Joseph A. Gaetan
March 1st, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The opinion set out below is one of a series of opinions given to city council during the debate on the status of the draft Official plan. Links to the other opinions are set out at the bottom of this opinion.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, Councilors, staff, fellow citizens, I would like to base my comment today on some of the reasons that were given by council prior to their votes on the Official Plan changes, that took place during the council meeting of January 29 ,2018. As a matter of context, I appeared before you on the matter of the Official Plan on January 23.2018.
I then attended the council meeting of January 29, 2018. What I heard on January 29th was a mixture of rationalizations, opinions, historical anecdotes, and some data. For the record, I do not live in downtown Burlington.
The first comment has to do with Immigration and the statement that, “The federal government is letting in 300,000 new immigrants and half of them are coming to southern Ontario”.
 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau welcoming Syrians to Canada Population Growth is something our country desperately needs, and immigration is one component of Population Growth. The Stats Canada formula for Population Growth = (natural increase where NI =births-deaths) + (migratory increase where MI =immigration-emigration).
Immigration is not news, according to Statistic Canada our normal immigration since the 90’s has been in the order of 235,000 per year. The Canadian immigration plan going forward sees that going as high as 340,000 by 2020. Compare that to the fact that in 1913, 400,000 immigrants came to Canada at a time when our population was a mere 7 million.
So, while immigration is important to us as a country, Stats Canada states the “observed” growth from 2001 to 2011 was 1.11%, with the “projected” growth for 2011 to 2021 to be in the area of 1.07 %, dropping thereafter to .72% by 2061. That is a serious problem.
 Why? If we compare those projections to the period between 1951 to 1961, population growth during that decade was far greater at 2.67 %, where natural growth was 1.87% and migratory growth was .79%. So, while we seem to be experiencing population growth in this area, the reasons for that have little to do with immigration alone.
The real problem this country and this province will face as we approach 2061 is that the natural increase (births minus deaths) component of population growth will drop to .42 % with the migratory component dropping to .64%. So, Canada is struggling to replace itself and I think we are pinning a lot of hope on a balloon that may burst and that would have dire consequences for Canada, Ontario and Burlington. With that in mind I would like to suggest we take a more conservative approach to our OP and our downtown which includes taking a step back for a few months.
The second comment was “we need assessment now”. The member did not elaborate on what that entailed. Did that mean Burlington will struggle going forward to contain tax increases? Or, did that mean that units that sell at $2 million each, is an easier way to meet our future assessment/spending needs? An answer to that question would be helpful.
 No-frills” is more than a grocery store, it is a meeting place, it is a place where locals meet and chat and laugh in the aisles. Here is what I do know, both the developers and city win under a scenario where 20 plus storeys developments are built and where penthouse floors sell for between $4 and $8 million per storey. But who and what we lose is the question that is not answered under the OP. For example, under this plan, do we stand to lose the “no frills” grocery store, or Centro for example? No-frills” is more than a grocery store, it is a meeting place, it is a place where locals meet and chat and laugh in the aisles, it has energy and vitality, something that you will not find in the two other grocery stores that people will be forced to shop at if it disappears and no words contained in the OP, such as there will be a grocery presence, will replace what is lost.
The third comment was, “downtown has to take its share too”. The downtown in recent years has shouldered its share of density and when asked the downtown residents and opponents of the OP seem willing to continue take its fair share of growth. Perhaps what is at issue then, is the definition of “its share”? It seems that what that means under the proposed OP, is we will have 23 and 24 storey buildings across from city hall and 17 storey buildings sprinkled elsewhere.
I don’t live in the downtown, but I do believe the pushback you are getting is genuine, grassroots and is not about to go away anytime soon, and not because people are angry, but because the stakes are too high to be ignored.
What I also heard was this plan means “100-170 people will be coming into the downtown on annual basis”. I don’t believe the increase in population growth is the issue, the change in height permissions and the number of tall building is the issue.
I would like to finish with a statement that we can all agree upon and that is “we have to make this decision based on 195,000”. I am here as one of the 195,000 and I would like to see the OP delayed in order to remove the Mobility Hub designation and what that means to the future of Burlington. Finally I heard “deferring challenging and contentious issue is not leadership” and that may be the case, but leadership is also having the willingness to taking a second look at an issue and then having the fortitude to change your mind.
Joseph Gaetan is a retired Burlington resident who lives in the highest condominoum in the city. He comments in the Gazette frequently.
Related comment and opinion:
Opinion: Jim Young
Opinion: Gary Scobie
Opinion: Lisa Kearns
Opinion Deedee Davies
Opinion: Jim Barnes
By Deedee Davies
February 27th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
This is one of a series on delegations that were made at a Statutory public meeting on the draft Official Plan now being prepared by staff and debated at council.
Thank you for this opportunity to stand before you and share my thoughts on the latest version of the Plan.
I was not going to come. After you approved the application for 421-431 Brant St at James I was disillusioned by the Planning staff and most of my elected officials. When the 24 storey application arrived a few weeks ago for the other corner I experienced an ‘I told you so moment”. And then when OMB approved the Adi development at Martha and Lakeshore, in part because the city was not averse to height, I threw up my hands in despair – as my perception is that you have lost control of our downtown on us.
 Deedee Davies at a Waterfront Hotel redevelopment meeting with Linda Davies, (no relative on the right) and Councillor John Taylor. So why am I here? This is YOUR last chance to get it right. If you screw up this opportunity, there is no going back. Downtown will be ruined FOREVER. I am here because I want to tell you what’s missing from the Plan to protect the downtown Burlington I use and love. I know we have to intensify.
However, I feel this Plan is not going to give us what we need. I will lay out my reasons for this concern. I’m hoping my speaking here can lead to improvements. My views are shared by so many other people who are not speaking here tonight. Please don’t let me and them down.
 The Ontario Municipal Board made the 26 storey Nautique the new standard for the developers. I am not going to go on about the heights in the various precincts. I believe they are all much too generous. It will destroy the feel of our downtown, and they are unnecessary for us to meet any of our targets. I’ve said it all before so I am not going to repeat it tonight.
First off, I want to tell you that I read the entire new draft OP. Yes from cover to cover.
 Someone somewhere said that a high rise would be dripped into the middle of Village Square – that got squashed during the council/staff meeting on Wednesday. However, there was a time when the ADI group tried to buy the Village Square from the XX interest. They weren’t able to put a deal together. I would like to thank you for removing the tower from the centre of Village Square and also for removing the Cannery designation from the NE corner of Brant and Lakeshore.
Chapter 1 talks about the desire to achieve a complete community. This is what I want to focus on tonight. These would include all the amenities needed for residents in the downtown to live, work, and play here. It includes parks, recreational facilities, offices, medical services, daycare, seniors gathering areas, youth gathering areas, and a mix of housing, etc. After reading the entire document, and in particular Chapter 3 on Complete Communities, and then comparing it to the buildings that are coming into our downtown, I don’t see how the two can be reconciled.
If the future means everyone living in towers, how can we replicate the living experiences of what people currently enjoy in neighbourhoods? We need developers in Burlington to include amenity spaces for basketball courts, tennis courts, road hockey rooms, just like they are doing in Toronto, in the latest towers being built there. They also need to build community garden spaces on the sunny side patios or roofs so residents can grow their own vegetables. We need some creativity about what we are expecting from the developers. We know we are going to get the “smooth jazz” pool, bar, and lounge that every developer includes for their hipster clientele. Challenge them to Grow Bold in their design. I spent 35 years in the Federal Government dealing with contractors. I know the games they play. They bargain hard for what they were going to give you anyway, just so you feel like you won something, when in fact you lost, because you gave away more than what you would have got if you hadn’t blinked first.
In Chapter 2 under Population and Employment Distribution, Table 1 shows a population in 2031 of 193,000 of which we are not far off. It also shows an employment target of 106,000 for which we are further off. Why are we focusing so much on residential instead of putting in place policies that will attract employment to our downtown? For a Complete Community, how can we get the Daycare centres, the hardware stores, grocery stores, entertainment venues, that we will need to satisfy the activities of the residents? How can we tailor our specifications so that developers will include these spaces in the towers they propose building? Currently, we are lucky to get one floor of office. The condos will come without trying as they are cheap to build.
As an example in the Chapter 3 Policies you only state you will examine opportunities for partnerships to increase the supply of affordable housing. Why not include a standard of one unit for each additional floor of height granted above what the current zoning is that must be provided to the Region as part of the Community Benefits – similar to what you included for public parking and office space.
Also in Chapter 3 Parks and Open Spaces are addressed. It even states an objective of ensuring an adequate and equitable supply are available throughout the city. And yet Lions Park is showing a designation of half St Luke’s/Emerald Neighbourhood Precinct and half Downtown Core Precinct. That would mean that the neighbourhood could lose the park and potentially gain 2.5 storey and 17 storey buildings. Why is it not protected under the Downtown Parks and Promenades Precinct?
With all the intensity planned for the Downtown Core Precinct, I am surprised there is still no mention of a new park south of James and north of Lakeshore on the east side of Brant. There will be thousands of people moving into this area. If we are looking for Complete Communities, where is the park for this community? Any family in this area would need to cross a major road to reach an existing park. Are the children to play on the new promenade?
In Chapter 6 on Infrastructure and Transportation, it talked about Active Transport for pedestrians and cyclists with such measures as wide sidewalks and barriers to protect cyclists. These are important in our crowded downtown streets. We can’t make the roads narrower to achieve this so we need greater setbacks for the buildings. I didn’t see this proposed anywhere.
 Couriers are going to need places to park when they are making deliveries, taxis will have to park somewhere while waiting for their passengers to arrive. Chapter 6 also covered Goods Movement. This is critical in our intensified downtown if we want it to function well as we already have problems with most buildings built to their property lines. There are no places for couriers to deliver packages, moving vans to move residents, delivery vans to deliver goods, pick up and drop off places for visitors coming for residents, trades people to make repairs to units, taxis to wait for their fares to arrive. Are they all to double park on the active roadway lanes?
These issues must be dealt with clearly and effectively in our Plan and not left to developers to provide these necessities, out of the goodness of their hearts.
In Chapter 7 under Design Excellence I read all the “Shalls” and was left with the impression we don’t need to award extra height for much if developers complied with all our design excellence standards. Unless these are only our wish list that we get with Section 37. It should be mandatory for buildings to be built to these standards. This is Burlington, folks. Don’t sell yourself short by thinking no one will develop here if you ask for too much. They will come and they will build. Just be clear and firm on everything you want. Don’t give it away. It is too precious.
In Chapter 8 on the Downtown Urban Centre, one of the objectives is to conserve cultural heritage resources and maintain character defining areas. The most significant aspect of our downtown, other than its waterfront and unique shops is the heritage look and eclectic feel of our downtown streets. Yet I don’t see this anywhere in the document. Our shop fronts are unique. There are many heritage buildings that are not yet designated.
 Just a “dumpy” little town that doesn’t make the best economic use of the land. Contrast this with developers who want to create their landmark glass towers. Mr. Carnicelli referred to Brant Street as dumpy when we were speaking out about losing the character of Brant Street with new development so you can see they are not going to protect or recreate this aspect. It is up to city planners and Council to embed this in our OP. We can have new heritage look and feel built with the new construction coming.
In the section on the Downtown Core Precinct is states that one additional storey will be granted for every 150 sq metres of dedicated office floor space and every 8 underground parking spaces dedicated for public use. So if they build 150 metres of office space they get an additional 750 metres of residential. These standards are much too generous for what we get in return. Please make it fairer to the city.
In Chapter 8 you also address downtown parking. It says the city will explore opportunities for public private partnerships to expand the supply of public parking. How about just putting it right in the requirements that X number of parking spaces must be provided for public use in relation to the amount of commercial space they have at ground level. End of discussion.
In the explanation of Community Benefits in Chapter 12 you talk about giving extra height, density, or intensity for providing what should be standard in any development proposed for our downtown. A sustainable building? Come on. It doesn’t cost extra to do this stuff any more. It saves money down the road in operations – but then developers don’t care about that stuff because they don’t operate these Goliath’s after they build them. A floor of office – our standards already state some buildings need three uses while others only need two. Make them all three purpose and get something useful for your Section 37 instead.
I’m about out of time, so I hope my thoughts will encourage you to take a bolder stance on what we need to have in our OP to have a better downtown. Please don’t rush this through approval. The Region won’t be considering it until 2019. Take the time to get it right. Thank you for listening.
Related comment and opinion:
Opinion: Jim Young
Opinion: Gary Scobie
Opinion: Lisa Kearns
Opinion: Jim Barnes
Deedee Davies chaired a Waterfront Watchdog committee for a number of years. She kept a close eye on who was doing what and held public meetings to keep people up to date. Should be seen as one of Burlington’s BEST
By Lisa Kearns
February 28th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Engaged Citizens of Burlington (ECoB) is a not for profit group working towards a better Burlington for generations to come. Working within the civic process, we are particularly concerned with issues of planning and development. The group is energized to bring voices and action to challenges that will affect the quality of life today and in the future, we are advocates for good planning across the entire City.
 ECoB organized the first public meeting and found that they were providing a form for the public to say what they wanted to day. In the three months from inception, ECoB has held an open meeting, a rally, a municipal elections workshop, hand delivered thousands of flyers, displayed hundreds of lawn signs, received press in no less than four publications, appeared on community television and radio, grown our social media base, delegated, met with provincial and municipal elected officials, city planning, business owners, developers and most importantly residents. The message is clear each time – we can build a better Burlington.
The delegation for PB-14-18 will focus on four matters: ECoB Requests, Public Engagement, Planning & Smart Growth and the vision for Downtown.
As we have listened to and learned from our members, we are using the Engaged Citizens voice to ask Committee to direct Staff to include the following points in the final draft to Council. These can be read, but I wish to highlight a few:
 Lisa Kearns Official Plan is an Election Issue. ECoB questioned the rush for intensification and the tools available to keep it in control. The mayor responded with: “the need for an Official Plan to bring clear expectations to Burlington’s planning – this is what residents have been telling us”. The Mayor states that delaying the Official Plan approval would only create more instances where unexpected outcomes can occur, similar to the reaction which led to the decision at 421 Brant Street.
They mayor further states that the current council has the critical knowledge and understanding of the draft Official Plan and Strategic Plan and that it’s important that they complete this critical work. The question begs to be asked – is this in fact the best council to implement the draft Official Plan? Our trust in this council has been broken the moment 23 storeys was approved at Brant and James – this is why the official plan is an election issue.
A record number of delegations and written submissions indicate the need for a further analysis, peer review, a 3D model, character studies, and audits on the Draft Official Plan. There is little consensus by various stakeholder groups on the adoption of the plan as drafted. It is time to look to an independent third party to provide advice to council on the review and update of the Official Plan – deliverables would include the scope of work outlined in the 2009 Whitby OP peer review.
Public Engagement.
We are told the official plan project captures a significant amount of public engagement since 2012. If so, then how can we be in a place where there is a strong citizen backlash to the draft official plan? If we look to the Engagement Charter, would committee support a rating of “empower”? I refer to the last ECoB delegation: This is too little time for residents to review, analyze and understand this new material – and in response – this is too limited a time for staff and committee to review comments and respond appropriately. Would this be considered an indicator of good planning?
The main source of frustration is the Downtown Precinct Plan – already voted on and brought forward in September, was this the vision for downtown all along and residents were only let in at the last minute.
You have embarrassed and silenced residents presenting a 1400 signature petition, the continued decisions to force excessive height and drive a perfunctory timeline despite citizen opposition tells your constituents that they will simply be informed.
The surveys completed are clear on the allocations for height. Have new surveys been conducted on the draft plan and the locations where height has been identified? We would believe that is a logical follow up once conceptual videos have moved closer into reality.
Is the information presented transparent and accurate? We would have to disagree. It is highly challenging to understand the lines between mobility hubs and the official plan. Renderings are available under one and not the other. This example shows the height of the Brant & James intersection far lower than supported. Are we being misled? With less than a handful of visuals for the future of our downtown, shouldn’t these at least be accurate?
 This is not an isolated example, two months before the ADI OMB decision the Bay Observer, published “The Best of Burlington” with content from Burlington and showcased the 26 storey building as a fixture of the waterfront. This is not our waterfront.
And again, the lack of transparency at the Official Plan Open Houses this month. The precinct Plan highlights on the screen had to be asked for at each of the three sessions, these are an outcome from a meeting with ECOB and Planning Staff. Most importantly, why were these never available in the fall?
Land Use Designation:
The numbers before you have been held steadfast by committee – in November we asked for an assessment or audit of how much of the proposed employment and growth uses would be met by the three mobility hubs, not the anchor hub. We were told that there are 1-3 new tall buildings every 10 years. If this is what Planning truly believes, then we are in trouble. There has been a significant uptick in applications, if these cannot be processed within the required time, we will see many more developments than projected. Most of the lands for build out are already unencumbered and Burlington is being sold off before permits are in hand.
We need to look at this growth and be certain that the current designations are not closing the door to smart and optimal growth – and more importantly, that the parts of the city that are working aren’t destroyed. We have a vibrant downtown and growth can also be absorbed through re-designation, deferral or special planning areas in supporting parts of the City. To showcase this, and further to the Burlington Green deputation this afternoon, here is an opportunity to create a complete community near amenities, 1200 m from a mobility hub and close to highway infrastructure – the current lands are employment and as we also heard with Penta this morning these lands need collaboration with the province to ensure that maximum community benefit can be derived from underutilized lands.
 This is a view of Burlington that will not exist in five years. Vision for Downtown.
Downtown visitors and residents can feel the character of Brant Street, there is a true sense of community, an ethos, a culture and a high quality of life. The people who have worked to build a downtown, a strong downtown community and put Burlington on the map deserve a commitment from the City and Planning that the draft before us will replace this gem with concrete jungle. These corridors do not reflect the character of Brant Street.
ECoB has been asked, what would you like to see? While we have this answer we still strongly believe that the supporting plans should come forward with the official plan.
We have worked across the country with planning departments and compiled some of the best streets in Canada – especially those with a waterfront. The following slides showcase a balance in height and maintaining a more appropriate low density human scale.
Here is a report by Director of Planning Services for the city of Barrie dated June 2013 talking about the height review & tall building principles. They had decided to stick with the principles of the original 1989 height review study “based on the need to balance population growth pressures with the desire to appropriately manage built-form, while protecting the public interests of the city”. A tall building is anything over 3 storeys – any more than that is for maximized profit.
What can we do before it is too late? Recognize vibrancy and the human scale, support evolution through natural redevelopment that is compatible with the neighbourhood, and to champion the mix of older, smaller buildings to support greater levels of positive economic and social activity rather than areas dominated by newer, larger buildings.
 How can we do it? We need a character study for Brant Street and the established neighbour-hoods. We need a peer review on the downtown urban growth area to prevent the risk of excessive build out and intensification – we need to protect the view corridor to the lake and take a balanced and objective approach support a mix of population diversity and the mix of uses that continue to grow the culture of live, work and play in downtown Burlington.
We can do this together when the citizens are empowered within the civic process and Committee and Council listen and engage. We need a complete strategy and we need it before this is voted into law.
By Jim Barnett
February 28th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
In past delegations I have pointed out the many shortfalls of the current draft proposal, in particular to the lack of measurable specifics. I have shown that the proposal is an essay on urban planning and it is not a plan on which Burlington can move forward.
The good news is that at a recent council meeting they finally put a number on maximum building height. Seventeen stories. And this can only be achieved with the provision of commercial space, open parking and heritage preservation. Otherwise the maximum is 12 stories!! My question to the mayor” is 17 the max or can staff find “other community benefits” through negation with the developers to increase the height again?” Does 17 stories mean 17 stories max?
This is what happened with the old operating plan. Every development was massaged to give the developers what they wanted. These changes were then used to justify additional changes on other properties and building heights on Maple and Lakeshore rocked skyward, each time setting a new precedent. Soon these ad hoc changes allowed the OMB to rule in favour of the developers and we lost control. Now the planers want to rush us into the new plan saying the current operating plan is not serving us well. They are right, but they are right because they have strayed from the current plan so often that it as emasculated it. Question to the Mayor. What guarantees are you going to write into the plan to make sure that provisions in the new plan cannot be negotiated away by the planning department?
Nautique: The ADI Group development that the city didn’t want – the OMB saw it differently and approved 26 storeys. In a recent press release ADI has receive approval for 26 stories on Lakeshore. The mayor expressed his regrets and at the same time praised the planning department for all their hard work on the file. How can a department be praised when the results of their efforts are so detrimental to the future of the city?
The downtown is not a mobility hub. The planning there should be quite different from the Mobility Hubs on the Go Train Line. When will this happen?
Question to Councillor Lancaster. You have spoken extensively for the need of affordable housing in the downtown area. What is your definition of affordable housing and how will you deliver the units needed in the down town?
For the mobility hubs and the downtown to be walk able there needs to be grocery stores. Through you Mr. chair, what have the planners done to make sure people can walk to get their groceries in these areas?
Recently a number of council members have said that the proposed plan is not just for now but for 50 maybe 70 years out. This is a classic miss direction to keep us from the important decisions that will effect the next 10 years. We should not let them get away with it. Fifty years from now we may not have enough low cost energy to air condition or heat the 25 story buildings or run the elevators. Lets use our ingenuity to get the near term right.
In my opinion the people of Burlington do not want our downtown to look like Mississauga!!! From what I can read over 90 percent of the citizens do not what our down town to look like Mississaugas. To the Mayor, What steps are you prepared to take to make sure the new operating plan reflects the desires of the people you represent?
The time line is confusing. The city has to do its work then the Region has to incorporate it into their plans which could get changed by provincial edits and directional changes. This could take two or three years and be out of date before the ink is dry. Under these uncertain condition I suggest we just proceed with what is best for us allowing for modest growth.
 For a city to grow it needs a transportation plan, integral to this in a modern city is a transit plan. So far the current draft has little on how the peoples need to move around will be satisfied and to say this will be worked out after the buildings are built is classic putting the cart before the horse and for a city the ultimate in poor planning. We do not need more Appleby Lines.
 Jim Barnett, on the right, at the Mayor’s Reverse Town Hall meeting. We do not need more Lakeshore Roads between Martha and Maple.
This should not be an election issue. It should be a get it right issue. There is still time if you have the will.
Related comment and opinion:
Opinion: Jim Young
Opinion: Gary Scobie
Opinion: Lisa Kearns
Opinion Deedee Davies
 By Staff
February 28th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
 The entire hamlet of Lowville in north Burlington will be “wearing of the green” on St. Patrick’s Day this year.
The Lowville Festival will be joining forces with Lowville United Church to present WHEN IRISH EYES ARE SMILING, a rollicking and shamelessly sentimental tribute to St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, on the evening of Saturday March 17th. The concert, which is a fundraising event for both the Festival and the church, will be held in the sanctuary of Lowville United at 7:30 pm.
The event will feature songs and stories of the Emerald Isle as interpreted by a number of Burlington’s finest performers. These include Stuart Laughton, one of the founding members of the legendary Canadian Brass; Major 7th Band, a popular Celtic-inflected folk group; Festival Co-Artistic Directors Lorretta Bailey and Robert Missen; Michael Mulrooney, Music Director at Tansley United Church and one of the country’s finest keyboard artists; and Lowville storyteller George McNaught. All of the artists are donating their services for the night.
This is not the first time that the two organizations have collaborated. The Lowville Festival has appeared at Lowville United every year since its inauguration in 2015. Two years ago they presented a sold out fundraising tribute to Scotland called The Heather in the Hills. Last year’s Irish celebration was so successful that it was decided to present another one.
 Expect to see the church packed on the 17th – lots of clapping and foot stomping. You will hear all of your favourite Irish and Celtic tunes including Danny Boy, Come Back to Erin, Molly Malone and Irish Rover. As is always the custom, the audience will be encouraged to sing along on a number of songs.
Tickets for the concert are $20 in advance, $25 at the door, and are available through both the Church Office (905-335-0911) and at Different Drummer Books. Order your tickets soon as we anticipate another sold out event.
By Gary Scobie
February 28th,2018
BURLINGTON, ON
City council didn’t want the development but failed to respond to the application within the required time frame so the developer took his application to the Ontario Municipal Board where it was approved. I live in Ward 3 and I am here to speak against the approval of the proposed Official Plan. Two weeks ago, I received the OMB Vice-Chair’s report that approved the appeal by Adi Corporation to build a 26 storey condo at 374 Martha Street at the corner of Lakeshore Road. If ever there was a proper time to use the phrase “this changes everything”, it was that day.
It was a stunning reminder of the Province’s power to force us to shape up and face up to the massive intensification of our downtown that comes with the territory of being designated as an Anchor Mobility Hub and Urban Growth Centre.
Our current Official Plan, passed in October 2006 by our Council of seven, with three of our current Councillors there at the time, was supposed to be in compliance with the Growth Plan of the province. But alas, we learned that it has not been kept compliant over the years since. It is so far out of compliance that it was disregarded in the appeal. Our City team of Council and planning and legal experts did not even submit as evidence our proposed Official Plan wordings for the site that might have resulted in some compromise in height. Instead, OMB Vice-Chair Schiller pointed out that the City had no legal right to stop the 26 storey condo.
 Gary Scobie, a frequent delegator at city hall. I have to ask, what was Council expecting in 2006 when it embraced, on behalf of all citizens, the Urban Growth Centre designation for our downtown? Did they imagine the coming massive re-build of lower Brant Street and its adjacent streets?
Did they imagine 20 plus storey buildings at most intersections and the eventual almost complete destruction of the two storey nature of our historic downtown? I simply can’t believe that they did.
Yet three Councillors from that long ago Council sit here today and I’d invite them to explain to citizens if this indeed was their plan for our downtown.
It is now quite obvious to me that the Town of Oakville was very prescient in 2005 in their assessment of the loss of control that would come if they accepted a Downtown Urban Growth Centre designation. Their Council rejected it and convinced the Province that the intensification demanded would come elsewhere in their town. If only our Council had done the same.
We the citizens are now being asked to trust this Council and the Planning Department, the ones that couldn’t keep our Official Plan compliant, to endorse a new Official Plan that has heights above what we want and that has already been pierced by an approved 23 storey condo across from City Hall and now an approved 26 storey condo right at the lake and in the most southern and eastern point of our Downtown Core Precinct. It was presented by the developer as a Gateway to the Downtown.
Yes indeed, it certainly will be that and much more. It will be a lasting reminder of our hubris. It will be the precedent at the lake, the building to surpass in height by many future buildings. It will represent the low height that Council and the planners promised us by the lake, rising ever higher up Brant Street to the other Mobility Hub that is the Burlington GO Station.
Citizens can only imagine and envision heights of 30 plus storeys going up Brant Street, culminating in not 30 but likely 40 plus storey heights near the GO Station.
We are asked to trust Council and the Planning Department that in approving an Official Plan for all of Burlington, without the three other Mobility Hubs, without a transportation plan and without a transit plan, that they will just get it right on all of these important missing pieces when the time comes to add them. And that the OP rules will be enforceable.
I’m afraid we just can’t trust you to do that. Now that the one entity that is really in charge of intensification throughout Burlington, the Province, has spoken and told us that they have control of our Growth Centres, not just in the downtown, but also at our GO Stations, we have no alternative but to try to at least save our downtown from becoming a forest of 20 to 30 storey highrises.
The only way that this can happen is for one of you to introduce a motion to Council to request that the Province consider the 69,000 people and jobs that are planned to be added at the GO Station Mobility Hubs as our ample contribution to the intensification of Burlington as a whole and free our downtown from this crippling intensification that will come from the Urban Growth Centre and Anchor Mobility Hub designations.
You have, in good conscience, no other choice than to take this route. Council got us into this. Now I request Council to get us out.
You simply agree to contact the Province to try to save our downtown by recovering the control of downtown re-development that was surrendered in 2006.
Do not move forward with the Official Plan approval until you add plans for the critical missing parts and have exhausted every possible avenue of request with the Province to remove the downtown from this planned over-development. I think that you can succeed, but at a minimum, you surely must try.
 Gary Scobie was a member of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. He is seen here, second from the left. If you fail us in this, downtown citizens must prepare to endure ten to twenty years of construction noise, congestion, dust and dirt as tall buildings rise from foundations deep underground seemingly from every corner on Brant and adjacent streets. And the end result of this over-build will not make us the envy of other cities, will not make our downtown more livable and will not preserve our title as the best mid-size city in Canada.
Remember, from out in the lake a skyline of tall buildings jutting into the air may look good on a postcard, but for the people who actually have to live there, who have to live without rapid transit to the GO Station, with traffic congestion of intensification, without any feel of historic two storey Brant Street and its unique, independent shops, without enough parking for residents, let alone visitors to the downtown, with tall buildings everywhere they look, with wind and shadows everywhere they walk, there will be little pleasure other than looking at the lake from their window if they paid enough money for that view and wondering, was it really worth the view after all and perhaps pondering, what were they thinking when they approved this metropolis of Burlington.
Gary Scobie is a long time Burlington resident who frequently comments on how city hall works.
Related comment and opinion:
Jim Young tells Council it has failed to failed to inform, consult, involve, collaborate or empower the citizens.
By Jim Young
February 28th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Jim Young, one of the most effective speakers in the city delegated before city council last night. You had to hear him to fully appreciate what he had to say. Not one member of city council had a follow up question.
The people of Burlington are entitled to hope and expect that their city’s official plan will be about them.
That it will reflect their hopes and their aspirations. That it will provide the basic framework of a city that will be planned and built for them; their families; their futures.
And the people of Burlington trusted Council to do that.
 Jim Young chairing a meeting. From the public outcry over the seemingly endless ability of Developers to circumvent Official Plans it is obvious that our City’s Planning has failed and will continue to to meet those hopes and aspirations.
They will not be met because you failed to engage with the very people you were elected or appointed to represent. You failed to understand exactly what your citizens wanted in a plan and worse than that you failed right up until the last two months to even ask them what they wanted you failed to engage your own citizens.
This failure began at the very outset of The New Official Plan which, according to City Staff, was undertaken some time in 2012.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs Guidelines on Official Plans calls for “Pre-consultation, public meetings and community input”, yet while you worked on this for the better part of six years your citizens were only involved in the closing months of that six year process.
Had it not been for a massive public outcry late last year, this city would have met its own December 2017/January 2018 deadline and the public input would have been negligible.
Nothing that has happened since November has improved that engagement
Given the number of Citizens Advisory Committees Burlington boasts I find it informative that in all of the supposed engagement in The Official Plan, these Committees were never formally consulted or engaged.
 Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Even by your own standard, outlined in your policy on “Public Participation and Engagement” in which you claim “The city has identified the critical importance of public involvement”. The policy then lays out Five Levels of Engagement on an IAP2 spectrum of public engagement that range from Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower.
In any final summation of your Open Houses, Grow Bold, Downtown Mobility Hub and Official Plan public meetings they may have been informative but as a city you failed to Involve, failed to Collaborate and most certainly failed to Empower your citizens in this process. Even the limited information sessions were restricted to the format of: “Here are our ideas how do you like them?” rather than: “What are your ideas?
You failed not only in the execution of citizen engagement but your “Inform only model of engagement” came so late in the process that it forced any citizen engagement to become oppositional rather than collaborative or empowering. Citizens denied the opportunity to be proactive in the early stages of the process were forced into criticism off the Official Plan and bitterness that the majority of citizens feel by their exclusion from that process.
The evidence of that exclusion is presented in an analysis of your own document
The document lists 48 oppositional comments from named citizen and concerned group delegations and refers in three areas of opposition to unspecified numbers of “Other Members of The Public”. The absence of detail n these oppositional presentations is extremely disturbing and might be construed by the public as misleading to minimise the extent of public opposition to the Plan and complaint about the methods and level of Public Engagement.
The document further lists fifteen objections, clarifications or other issues from businesses and consultants involved in the Urban Planning and Development Fields. This suggests that public opposition is not just NIMBYISM but is indicative of a bad plan, badly executed and very poorly communicated to those, citizens, businesses and property Developers who had every right to expect better from our city and from our council.
Because this is not council’s Official Plan, it is our Official Plan. It belongs to the citizens of our city.
Given the opportunity and more than six years to do something wonderful for our city, the opportunity to engage your citizens in the re-planning that will affect their lives for decades to come, you chose instead to engage yourselves and in doing so failed the very citizens you are supposed to represent.
 Jim Young at the lectern. Even given the opportunity to defer a decision for further consultation, real involvement and participatory engagement; Our city chose not to allow the electorate to opine on this but once again rushed the decision process to further ignore their wishes and alienate them further. It was reported in the Hamilton Spectator that one Burlington Political Commentator has not seen such a clamour by the public in 45 years of reporting yet still only peripheral tinkering in response to this outcry.
Once again, along with the majority who have spoken, written and delegated I urge city council to postpone this decision on a plan that appears to serve no-one. I ask for not only more time but to utilize that time to Involve, Collaborate and Empower our citizens to create An Official Plan that will satisfy all stakeholders, then to put that plan before them in the upcoming election so all of their voices may be properly heard.
In our democracy the ultimate engagement comes with the election. I urge you to seize this opportunity to engage your citizens fully. Otherwise an engaged citizenship will engage the electorate where you, our council, failed to engage your citizens.
Jim Young is the Chair of ECoB – Engaged Citizens of Ontario and probably the most effective speaker to appear before city council. He has the capacity to get to the core of an issue and drives home the point in a way that not a single member of council can counter.
By Staff
February 27, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Early in the month branches of Scotia bank were being robbed; one in Burlington, another in Milton.
Police believed the robberies were linked and began doing what police do: investigate
Police have identified four suspects and laid multiple charges following several bank robberies across the Greater Toronto Region (GTA).
On February 1, 2018, at approximately 7:50 p.m., the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) was called to a Scotiabank located at 4519 Dundas Street, Burlington, following a report of an armed robbery. Three male suspects, one of whom was armed, obtained a quantity of cash and exited the bank, travelling southbound on foot. Two bank employees were assaulted and sustained minor injuries during the robbery.
On February 9, 2018, at approximately 8:00 p.m., HRPS was called to a Scotiabank located at 880 Main Street East, Milton, following a report of an armed robbery. Two masked male suspects, one of whom was armed, entered the bank shortly before closing and obtained a quantity of cash. A bank employee, who attempted to intervene, was assaulted by one of the suspects and sustained minor injuries.
On February 14, 2018 HRPS investigators began surveillance of persons of interest, who were suspected of being involved in the Milton and Burlington robberies. During this time, investigators observed a group of individuals in the area of a Scotiabank at the intersection of Rathburn Road and Renforth Drive, Toronto.
Police continued to monitor these individuals, who were observed to be engaging in activity consistent with a potential robbery of the financial institution. In the interest of public safety, police contacted the bank and ensured bank staff and clients were moved to a safe location and the doors of the bank were secured.
As two of the persons prepared to commit the bank robbery, plainclothes HRPS investigators were able to arrest them prior to entering the bank.
Based on the events that took place in the City of Toronto on February 14, 2018 the following individuals were charged by the Toronto Police Service:
Gareth BAUGH (19) of the City of Toronto
• Robbery
• Disguise with Intent to commit an indictable offence
Jazmyn ELIAS-WEIBL (18) of the City of Mississauga
• Robbery
• Disguise with Intent to commit an indictable offence
Young Offender (identity protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act)
Robbery
Disguise with Intent to commit and indictable offence
 Deputy Chief Nishan Duraiappah Deputy Chief Nishan Duraiappah: “Robberies such as these have a deep impact on the involved bank employees, innocent bystanders and even their families. The blatant disregard for victims that these arrested persons demonstrated represent some of the greatest risk to community safety. Our investigators have worked tirelessly with partnering police agencies to identify and arrest them. We’re pleased to have put an end to these violent robberies.”
On February 15, 2018 HRPS investigators and K-9 services continued their investigation by executing a Criminal Code Search Warrant at the residence of Gareth BAUGH. Investigators seized a quantity of cash, a replica firearm and several pieces of clothing linked to the armed robberies throughout the GTA.
On February 22, 2018 HRPS investigators and Tactical Rescue Unit prepared to execute a Criminal Code Search Warrant at the Milton residence of the accused from a previous bank robbery in Milton. When arriving, police observed the suspect departing his home with several associates. A traffic stop was conducted and the male suspect was taken into custody without incident. A search of the vehicle led to the seizure of several thousand dollars in Canadian currency.
On February 23, 2018, in the early morning, HRPS investigators and Tactical Rescue Unit executed a Criminal Code Search Warrant at the residence of the accused. During this search, a quantity of illegal drugs was seized along with various items of clothing believed to be linked to the robbery in Milton and other robberies throughout the GTA. A loaded .22 caliber handgun was also seized by police.
Based on the results of the search warrant from February 23, 2018 the following individual was charged by the Halton Regional Police Service:
Tyriq BROOKS (19) of the Town of Milton
• Robbery with a Firearm
• Point Firearm
• Wear Disguise with Intent
• Possession of a restricted firearm
• Possession of a weapon for the dangerous purpose
• Careless use of a firearm
• Possession of a controlled substance
• Fail to comply with recognizance (3 counts)
There are also outstanding arrest warrants for the accused from several police services in the province for Human Trafficking related charges.
The HRPS Criminal Investigations Bureau is in the process of linking the above individual(s) to the robberies in Milton and Burlington. It is anticipated that several criminal charges are pending.
Anonymous tips can be forwarded to Crime Stoppers; “See Something, Hear Something, Know Something — Contact Crime Stoppers” at 1-800-222-8477 (TIPS), through the web at www.crimestoppers.ca or by texting “Tip201” with your message to 274637 (crimes).
 By Staff
February 27th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
 Fernand Coderre and Heather Lareau half a football field away from where Meridian wants to mine shale. Heather Lareau is ticked – and Heather is not a woman one wants trifle with. She is a West Haven Drive resident whose home is one of those “too close for comfort” residences that is half a football field away from where Meridian Brick wants to begin mining for the shale that goes into the manufacturing of brick.
Meridian recently sent out a Newsletter that had her personal email as part of the content. Ouch!
We will let Ms Lareau vent on this one.
“It is unfortunate that my personal email has been shared with the community at large. However, since you have made this a public forum, as a “private” citizen and resident of Tyandaga, I would like to make some brief personal comments regarding your Newsletter where you make everything appear just peachy, for a lack of a better term. (Not to make matters worse, I have blind copied all the recipients from your email in order to protect their privacy)
“I would like to start with you statement regarding our health concerns.
 Imagine this thing digging away half a football field from your house – early in the morning? “The airborne emissions assessed from the facility were crystalline silica and particulate matter; specifically respirable, inhalable and total particulate matter and covered three time periods, a one year scenario, with the Centre Quarry only, a six–to-15-year scenario involving the Centre and East Quarries, and a 16–to-25 -year scenario affecting the East Quarry only. They are predicted to be less than accepted health-based benchmarks, even under worst-case conditions.
“A predication is a forecast of what should happen, not what could happen. Each Phase of the quarry brings the dust and noise closer to the residential area. Should there be an easterly wind, then WE predict there will be more dust and more noise and more health concerns.
 There are three quarries – the one on the left and the one in the center are close to being depleted. The quarry on the right is the one that concerns the West Haven residents. “Considering that you will eventually be excavating within a 1/2 of football field (50 m) from Westhaven Drive, combined with easterly winds which you don’t account for, your company is certainly underplaying the impact from the dust that we will continuously inhale and have to deal with on a daily basis. There are many families with young children in this area as well already compromised seniors who will be exposed to this dust on a daily basis. This said it affects ALL whether we work, live, go to school or play in the area
“You also say you will be monitoring the dust with a monitoring system which will produce reports for various government agencies and residents. Unless you place a monitor within 50 metres (1/2 a football field) of the operating quarry how will you know what level of dust we are dealing with? From what we have discovered, the closest fixed air monitoring system is 4 km away from the quarry. How accurate can this be?
“Will the public receive daily reports of the level of dust? Or will we have to fight for this information on a continuous basis?
“If the levels exceed the regulatory benchmark, does that mean you will immediately stop excavation. What would your next step be? Less excavation? Cover the quarry with a tarp? Increase your set-back?
“If the dust exceeds the acceptable level you say you will mitigate. What is your mitigation plan and what does that mean?
“Your comments regarding Salamanders. You state the area you are about to commence clear-cutting is not conducive to salamander habitat. Considering in the spring and fall, salamanders make their way across the neighbourhood into people’s swimming pools, (from an area not conducive to salamander habitat), this to us indicates the possibility of the endangered type salamanders
 The Jefferson salamander: He isn’t exactly pretty but nevertheless plays an important role in the local environment. Comes in different colours as well. existing in all areas of the future east quarry. One photograph taken by a resident in their pool, the salamander clearly appeared to be the dusky salamander; which is also on the endangered species list. Tail clippings from another drowned salamander was confirmed to be the asexual female type Jefferson Salamander
“Progressive Rehabilitation. You say you are taking earth from where you clear-cut and fill in where you have already excavated. How is this progressive? It will take decades, well beyond our life-time to rehabilitate this land to its current state. Bottom line, the Carolinian Forest is gone. If the West and central quarry is any indication of what your rehabilitation looks like, the chance of ever seeing a forest during our life-time is impossible and probably won’t exist for generations to come. Is this what we are bequeathing to our future generations? I promise to tell my great grandchildren how at one time Burlington was called Burlington Green and that the environment of this city was at one time lush and healthy.
“Noise is a great concern to this neighbourhood. Half of a football field, which again is only 50 feet (same as your original described setback). Having an operating quarry within 50 feet of home and schools will have a PREDICTABLE negative impact on the health of every resident on WHD and beyond. Please read the article from The Hamilton Spectator last week that stated constant noise can cause cardiac and mental health issues.
“Last point I would like to make is that all your studies and reports that you are referring to are produced by and paid for by YOU, Meridian. If you stand behind your results, please allow a peer review of all of your studies.
“I challenge the Mayor and Councillors to step up and do something to support and protect the tax paying citizens of Burlington. I have heard many times this is a Provincial Matter. Then represent us at the provincial level. You will have more influence than the many residents of Burlington who are spending their hard earned money and all their spare time trying to preserve the environment in YOUR city. Walk the talk.
 The Tyandaga Environmental Coalition (TEC) is not just a bunch of cranky seniors – it is a broadly based group of people who turn out for meetings and support the cost of the legal challenges. “I also challenge you, Meridian/Aldershot quarry to truly be a good neighbour and stay as far away as possible from the residential area. Half a football field away now or 30 years from now is inconceivable to this community. The destruction of 35 acres of forest and 9,000 trees certainly does not support an environmentally conscious sustainable program. I concur with all the environmentally concerned people of this city that the loss of the greenspace and the wildlife who habitat within, is heartbreaking. However, the protection of the health of the residents in this development MUST BE a priority as well.
“I encourage Meridian to consider other options for the complete Aldershot quarry while retaining the existing greenspace.”
|
|
