An investigation conducted by the Halton Regional Police Service – Child Abuse and Sexual Assault Unit (C.A.S.A.), resulted in the arrest Frances Maureen McNeil (55 years), of St. Catharines on February 13th, 2018 and charged with: Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching
McNeil was a babysitter in her home in the City of Burlington between 1996 – 1998, and was known to babysit children within her neighbourhood.
At the time of the offences, the female was known by the name Maureen Crawley
The accused was held for a bail hearing.
Anyone who may have any additional information pertaining to this investigation is asked to contact D/Cst. Matt Cunnington of the Halton Regional Police Service Child Abuse and Sexual Assault Unit at 905-465-8978.
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
Forgive my cynicism but the disappointment expressed by Burlington’s Mayor and City Staff over the OMB decision to allow a 26 storey building on Martha St. seems like just so many crocodile tears. This from a city who already amended their own zoning bylaws to approve 24 storeys a few hundred metres away at 421 Brant St.
The ADI appeal, while complex, was not based on a good building /bad building argument but was based on a “No Decision Appeal” to the OMB which is allowed when City Councils fail to come to a decision on a developer’s building or zoning application.
Essentially The City of Burlington failed to consider the ADI application within a reasonable time so ADI took their case to the OMB and won. The questions our city, which seems hell bent on intensifying its downtown core at all costs, must now answer are:
Why was there “no decision” by council on the original ADI application, thereby forcing the appeal?
Was this an oversight, in which case shame on them?
Was this a deliberate tactic so that council gets a 26 storey building in line with the other 23 & 24 storey buildings on Brant St. and the 20-25 Waterfront Hotel Development on Lakeshore while hiding behind the developers and the OMB? In which case who are they to be trusted with the New Official Plan which they now tout as a saviour from developers.
The New Official Plan is just as open to amendments and appeals by developers and planners as the old plan and in fact by removing Brant St. from the Official Downtown Core in the New OP, and designating it a “Special Development Precinct” they may in fact leave it open to ever more amendment and modification resulting in more hi-rises.
When the city had the opportunities to control development in the downtown they either failed to decide, leaving the decision to the OMB or voted to amend their own plans allowing ever taller buildings. Their hand wringing and expressions of disappointment sound very hollow to the people of Burlington this morning.
Jim Young, is a founding member of ECoB, the Engaged Citizens of Burlington
For those concerned about what is happening to their city and what the downtown core is going to look like the following numbers are pretty brutal.
22 – 23 – 24 – 26
The Bridgewater condominium will top out at 22 storeys.
The 421 Brant project has been approved for 23 storeys
The 409 Brant project (where Elizabeth Interiors used to operate) is asking for 24 storeys
The ADI Development Nautique has just has its 26 story project approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.
Joe Gaetan, a downtown resident who delegated against more height said: “the city is a goner”
In a prepared statement Meed Ward said:
“The OMB decision to approve the 26-storey ADI proposal at Martha/Lakeshore is devastating for the downtown. This will be the new precedent height.
“The decision referred to the Bridgewater at 22 storeys (and other tall buildings in the area); it also referred to the fact that the city had “received” other 23 storey applications (how is that relevant is anyone’s guess; these were only “applications” with no approval at the time of the OMB hearing).
“I am not confident that by rushing adoption of the proposed new Official Plan we will gain more control over planning; the proposed plan calls for 17 storeys for this site. The OMB approval is nine storeys higher. The Brant and James corners (north and south) are both 17 storeys in the proposed new Official Plan, but council approved 23 storeys on the north side and we just got an application for 24 storeys on the south side.
“Developers can, and will, continue to ask for more than what is permitted in the existing or proposed plan.
“The decision also referred to the downtown as an Urban Growth Centre and transit hub, thus the development needed to meet certain densities appropriate for those designations.
“Until we remove those two designations from the downtown (Urban Growth Centre, Mobility Hub), we will not wrestle control of planning back into the hands of staff, council and the community. (Credit goes to Gary Scobie for suggesting these designations be removed, which is what led to my motion.)
“My motion Jan 24 to move the Urban Growth Centre from the downtown to the existing Burlington GO Station Mobility Hub (as Oakville has done to protect their downtown), and to eliminate the downtown as a Mobility Hub, failed 6-1.
“In light of this OMB decision, we have to reconsider this vote. I will bring a reconsideration motion to the next Official Plan statutory public meeting (starts Feb. 27, 1pm and 6:30, extending to Feb. 28 if another day is needed)
“What can residents do? Use your democratic tools:
“There is a provincial election coming up June 7. Ask all candidates who are running if they will work with the city to remove the Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations from the downtown.
“There is a municipal election Oct. 22. Ask all candidates who are running if they will work with the region to remove the Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations from the downtown. There is still time: our new plan isn’t in effect until the Region approves it, which won’t happen until the Region begins its review of its own plan in 2019.”
In its media release the city in part said:
In its decision, … the OMB states that the city’s current land-use policy for the site does not reflect Provincial Policy.
As the OMB noted in its ruling, “the evidence suggests to the Board that the current designation is no longer appropriate for the site and a proposal that is taller and more transit-supportive is both preferable and better implements the transit-oriented and intensification policies of the province.
The OMB further notes that “While the provincial policy regime emphasizes the importance of a municipality’s official plan, there is no suggestion in the provincial policy regime that a municipality’s official plan may undercut provincial policy.”
Mary Lou Tanner, the Deputy City Manager, comments: “In light of the OMB’s ruling, it is even more important that the city move forward with the adoption of the new Official Plan. As this ruling shows, our current OP is a liability; it is out of date and is open to challenge. The area-specific plan for downtown Burlington will strengthen the city’s position on development in the downtown by replacing outdated polices with a plan that better reflects provincial policy, while also protecting the character of the city.
The black diamond shapes show where the four developments are going to be located.
409 Brant – south of James Street. Application is for 24 storeys.
Nautique – Lakeshore at Martha – OMB approved for 26 storeys.
421 Brant, north side if James – city council approved for 23 storeys.
Bridgewater development – under construction at Lakeshore and Elizabeth – 22 storey condominium
January seems to have been the month of reckoning in Burlington.
When comparing January 2017 to 2018, sale prices are down over 11%, sales are down 14% and it is taking an average of 41 days to sell a property.
This may seem like bad news but we see it more as a shakeout. Just over 60 of the properties sold in January had been on the market for 50-150 days.
1343 Tansley Drive listed at $979,000
During the month of January, 133 listings either expired or were cancelled. We still had just under 75 properties that have been on the market for over 50 days and of those, 25 over 100 days. As these listings sell, the days on market number tends to be skewed upwards. We expect these older listings that are for the most part over-priced, to either reduce or sell, cancel or expire.
More significant and the reason for our optimism is the fact that of the 156 freehold properties that were listed in January, 40% of those listings sold in the same month and for an average of 99.48% of the asking price.
This suggests to us two things – if a property is priced sharply, it will sell in very short order. If a property is priced on the high side of an evaluation, it will take a while to sell and the price may need tweaking. Properties that sold in under 50 days sold for an average of 97.93% while the properties that had been on the market for over 50 days sold for an average of 96.22% of asking price.
One thing is for sure, pricing properties today is a very tricky business.
The data and the analysis is provided by the Rocca Sisters, a Burlington based real estate brokerage.
The Gazette got a note from Michael Jones, a ward 2 resident who delegated at city hall several weeks ago voicing his opposition to much of the draft Official Plan and pushing for a deferral of the vote until after the October municipal election.
Little did we know that as he stood there at the podium a few weeks ago, he was mulling over whether or not he should run for office.
His note to us this morning:
Another fresh young face decides to run for council – hoping for an office in city hall.
“If Marianne doesn’t run , I’m running for Council. If she does, I am considering Ward 6 where I grew up. Ironically I may get more votes up there.
“I’m not sure if she (Meed Ward) is running, not sure why she is laying in the weeds.”
Another fresh young face.
Leah Reynolds the Wards 1 and 2 school board trustee has been seen as the Marianne Meed Ward favourite and was being groomed to grow into the council seat when Meed Ward announced she was going to run for Mayor. The two of them attended the Mayor’s State of the City address together.
Lisa Kearns, one of the ECoB team is seen as a possible candidate for the seat.
The development community might look for a candidate that would represent their interests.
It will be difficult to find someone from the development community who would be comfortable on a council with Meed Ward as Mayor. Mike Wallace would be a different matter.
They are holding a Workshop for anyone who wants to know more about how to get involved in a municipal election or how to run become a candidate.
ECoB, the Engaged Citizens of Burlington, is small in size but are punching well above their weight. They will be appearing on Cogeco TV’s The Issue this week and on the 22nd holding the workshop at the Tansley community Centre.
We are about to see how many people are prepared to put themselves forward as candidates in their ward.
This is when the rubber hits the road. We hear of people who plan to run but have yet to make an announcement; we know of people who have made up business cards that describe them as community advocates, we learn of others that say they have a team in place and will announce at a future date,
We also report on people who have said they will not be running this time – but perhaps in the future.
If there is an event that is going to attract anyone interested in being involved in a campaign – the Workshop is probably that event.
It was the call for a Task Force on Bullying and Harassment that got us started on this. Then the note from James Schofield that led to our asking: “Are we part of the problem – we thought we were part of the solution.”
The Gazette opened up a comments section on the newspaper and the response was robust. But we began to notice that people were disrespecting one another and we began to tighten up the rules on what was acceptable.
We then began to look at the comments section of the Gazette and decided that we needed to tighten up on what we were permitting.
Removing content that is disrespectful is not censorship.
We learned that this isn’t going to be a simple process.
We edited a comment from a reader taking out disrespectful language – here is what came back
“I’m out” said Michael Drake. He added: “I appreciate the Gazette trying to cover these issues but can’t abide censorship of any kind. Time to go yell at some clouds.
“Good luck everyone (that includes you too James).”
The comment that we edited removed the name calling. We wanted the comments section to be a place where civil, civic conversations could take place. So Michael will no longer be with us because he feels respect for those we share this planet with is akin to censorship.
James Schofield put it very well when he said in the article that “I think the recognition that commenting on your site is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not a “free speech” right, is also important.”
Civil, civic conversations. If you can’t do that – don’t waste your time writing.
There are brands that we place huge amounts of trust in.
When we see their corporate logo we assume it is a safe place and that the service they provide is rock solid.
Thus it came as a bit of a shock to note that the scam artists were using one of those trusted brands to mislead people and begin the process of stealing their identity and then their money.
The gullible and the greedy might think some luck has come their way. The telephone company is not going to send you money – there is someone behind this kind of email notice who wants to take advantage of you.
The telephone company is not going to be sending you a refund that you had never heard of before.
The internet has made it possible for all kinds of knowledge and ideas to be shared. We can communicate in a way we were never able to communicate before.
The wonderful technology also allows thieves to take advantage of people.
Beware, be cautious, be vigilant.
When we published the story on the Taylor farm and the house on the property at Appleby Line at Mainway we didn’t have access to much in the way of pictures.
A Gazette reader with a keen interest in heritage had taken some snapshots and made them available to us.
Backhoe sitting on the plot of land where what became known as the Taylor house existed. Not only was the structure the last farmhouse in what was once called Appleby Village it was demolished without a permit.
Burlington once had many houses like this – they were the homes of farmers who worked the land that is now covered by six lane expressways and factories. Prize Short Horn cattle and proud Clydesdale horses were in the field and milk sold for 10 cents a gallon and one cow earned the farmer $5.34
“We all understand that we need to progress and modernize” said our reader, “ As long as it is done with collaborative stewardship.” Nothing collaborative about the sound of a backhoe tearing away at the walls of a house that is the last piece of what was once a small village.
This is one of the last remnants of the Village of Appleby, which was almost entirely demolished in the 1950s to make way for service roads for the expanded QEW. The house is set back from the road, with a well kept lawn and rows of trees on either side of the house. The landscaping is traditional.
It was built in 1896 for Charles Fothergill; there is a date stone and name found engraved in the chimney.
In 1877 the property was owned by John Fothergill.
Somewhere in that rubble there is a stone with the date the house was built and who it was built for – the people who arranged for the demolition chose not to collaborate with the city to salvage some of our history – no wonder we know so little about ourselves.
According to Memories of Pioneer Days, pp. 171-172, John Fothergill was the only son (of ten children) of Christopher and Frances Fothergill, who immigrated from Applbey, Westmoreland, England to settle on this new world Appleby Line in the early 1830s.
John married Charlotte Tuck and in 1878 purchased the Balsam Lodge farm from Arnanda Baxter.
In 1889 Charles, their eldest son, married Amelia Cole and took over this part of the Fothergill farm property on the east side of Appleby Line. His younger brother Christopher went to the Yukon and is mentioned in Laura Berton’s book, I Married the Klondike…
The third son, Thomas, married Lucy Matthewman of Appleby and farmed the Fothergill property on the west side of Appleby Line.
The city crest pays homage to a proud past.
According to an article by Alana Perkins in the 24 May 1997 issue of the Spectator, their house was the Lucas Farmhouse which was dismantled, moved, and rebuilt at the (former) Ontario Agricultural Museum at Milton.
According to Murray Fisher’s ‘Farewell to the Garden of Canada’ (1984), this farm was owned by H. Featherstone, Mixed farming, sold to J. Taylor, Mixed Farming.
Ruth and Jack Taylor were the last people to live in the house.
The property is identified as “employment land” and given its location that is likely what it will remain as.
One wonders if that stone with the date and name were recovered during the demolition.
There are rules against tearing down a building without a permit. The fine is reported to be $2000 an d it is the city that will have to take any action that is going to be taken.
Automation. The gig economy. Skyrocketing debt. Limitless social connectivity. These are just some of the challenging realities Canadian youth, parents, employers, educators and government face as we help youth and young adults transition into a changing workplace.
Thursday, March 8, 2018, 7:00 – 8:30 pm at the Burlington Performing Arts Centre
Join Burlington Foundation, in partnership with RBC, for a night of timely conversation featuring renowned McMaster educator, author and Top 30 global management guru, Dr. Nick Bontis.
Nick Bontis teaches at McMaster where his mile a minute delivery dazzles his students.
Following his high-energy presentation, Nick will moderate a lively panel discussion with business, government, education and young adults. This vital talk will shine the light on opportunities, obstacles, collaborations and actions we have before us now, and in the future as we help young Canadians achieve personal and professional success. For when young Canadians prosper, business and community do.
Panel members include:
Eleanor McMahon; MPP Burlington, President of the Treasury Board, Minister Responsible for Digital Government
John Romano; Co-founder, Nickel Brook Brewery Co.
David Santi; Dean, Engineering Technology, Mohawk College
Roman Turchyn; Vice President, Human Resources, L3 WESCAM
Erinn Weatherbie; Co-creator of Kelly’s Bake Shoppe & Best-selling Cookbook “Made With Love”
Charlotte Zhen; Analyst, Deloitte Canada, Young Professional
This is a FREE event open to all, with voluntary non-perishable food donations being collected in support of Burlington Food Bank.
Ward 6 isn’t going to have an admirable candidate to contest the council seat in the October municipal election.
Kathleen White,Chair of the Heritage Advisory committee has decided this is not the time for her to run for public office.
Kathleen White said she has “a lot on my plate personally and as such will not be in a position to run for Council this fall.
“It has always been an interest of mine to run for City Councillor but more importantly to serve my community.
“I would hope in the years ahead, I will be in a position to do so.
In the meantime, I will carry on, through Heritage Burlington and perhaps other volunteer opportunities, to continue to have an influence on decisions and opportunities that would affect and strengthen our community.
The issue that has some of the people in Burlington quite upset is the subject of two Open Meetings this week; one at city hall and another in the Alton community at the Haber Recreational Centre.
These meetings are an opportunity for the public to ask questions; in its announcement the city has said there will not be formal presentation at the Open meetings but planning staff will be on hand to answer questions.
The proposed new Official Plan articulates Burlington’s vision to the planning horizon of 2031 and beyond, and has been developed in recognition of the opportunities and challenges ahead as the city continues to evolve.
The 421 Brant development has been approved by city council. The project went through some significant changes and was originally going to be a 12 storey structure that was a rather squat and unattractive looking building. There were also extensive negotiations between the developer and the planners.
The issue for some is the high rise towers that are going to be built in the downtown core. A 23 storey structure has already been approved by city council on a 5-2 vote. A second application has been submitted for a 24 storey structure across the street from the 23 storey tower.
An application for this 24 storey tower was submitted last week – it is across the street from city hall.
Two Open House opportunities: Monday, Feb. 12, 2018 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. Haber Community Centre, Community Room 2-West 3040 Tim Dobbie Drive
Thursday Feb. 15, 2018 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. City Hall, Room 247, level 2 426 Brant Street
These two meetings will be followed by a Statutory Public Meeting at which people can delegate and provide comments to City Council on the proposed new Official Plan (February 2018), and for Council to consider the feedback prior to adopting the new Official Plan.
The provincially mandated Statutory Public Meeting will be held on:
The red outline is the location of the approved 23 storey tower – the black outline is the location for a 24 storey tower application that was filed with the city last week.
This part of the downtown core is under immense development pressure. Most of the property on Brant Street as far north as Fairview has been assembled. The city is dealing with at least ten more that are in the que waiting for a the planners to get to and through all the supporting data.
Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2018 1 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers, level 2 426 Brant Street
Delegations are invited to register but are not required to register in advance to speak. All delegations are expected to be accommodated in the afternoon or evening session. Additional time may be scheduled if required.
The Official Plan is a statutory document that sets out land use policy to guide growth, land use planning and development approvals in Burlington. The Planning Act requires that municipalities revise their Official Plans no less frequently than 10 years for a new official plan and every five years for an update to an official plan.
The City initiated an Official Plan Review project in 2011 which included policy, research, analysis, studies, staff reports and community feedback on a number of topics. The review of the City’s current Official Plan demonstrated significant changes were required to the document to reflect the city’s new priorities established through the city’s Strategic Plan. As a result, a new Official Plan was prepared.
The proposed new Official Plan project was undertaken to clarify Burlington’s local vision for the future, as well as to conform to Halton Region’s Official Plan. It also implements Council’s direction to accommodate growth within the urban area and protect Burlington’s rural boundary. The Plan directs growth in Burlington based on the principles of protecting the natural environment and agricultural lands, building healthy communities, increasing travel options, making efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure, and maintaining a strong economy.
The proposed new Official Plan (February 2018) contains revisions based on feedback received at the November 30, 2017 Statutory Public Meeting and January 23, 2018 Public Meeting, and through written submissions. The proposed new Official Plan also contains the proposed new Downtown Precinct Plan and associated polices, resulting from the Downtown Mobility Hub Area Specific Planning process.
The proposed new Official Plan (February 2018) as well as a tracked change version can be accessed:
• online at www.burlington.ca/newop
• for viewing at the Clerks Department (City Hall, 426 Brant Street, Main Floor) from Monday to Friday 8:30am to 4:30pm.
• for viewing at the City’s public libraries.
A staff report concerning the proposed new Official Plan (February 2018) will be available for public review on February 16, 2018. This report will provide an overview of the changes made to the Official Plan based on the feedback received on the proposed new Official Plan (November 2017). The report will be available on the City’s website at www.burlington.ca/calendar by searching for the meeting date for the Planning and Development Committee, which is a standing Committee of Council. Copies of the reports can also be picked up at the City’s Clerks Department on the main level of City Hall.
Since this is a Statutory Public Meeting, you do not have to register in advance in order to speak. Speakers are limited to a maximum of 10 minutes each and are webcast online. If you have presentation materials, they must be submitted to Ms. Rudy by noon the day before the meeting to allow for their distribution and review by all members of the Committee. Please note, the content of all submissions is considered to be public and will be posted to the city’s website.
A staff report recommending adoption of the proposed new Official Plan is scheduled for consideration at the April 4, 2018 Planning and Development Committee meeting.
If you wish to be notified of the decision of Burlington City Council on the proposed new Official Plan, you must make a written request to Jo-Anne Rudy, Committee Clerk, City of Burlington, City Hall, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario, L7R 3Z6.
Citizens listening to or waiting to delegate at city council.
If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Burlington before the proposed new Official Plan is adopted, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of The Regional Municipality of Halton (the approval authority) to the Ontario Municipal Board.
If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Burlington before the proposed new Official Plan is adopted, the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.
City Councillor Marianne Meed Ward has pressed her colleagues to defer the adoption of an Official Plan until after the October municipal election.
Two critical meetings have already taken place at city hall on the re-write of the Official Plan – November 20th, 2017 and January 23rd, 2018.
Both were contentious; the January meeting heard 35 delegations of which 34 were opposed to the plan as it was written and the time line. The one in favour of the plan and the time line attached to it turns out to have been the planner who has been hired by the developer, Revenue Properties who submitted an application for a second high rise to go up on Brant Street across from city hall.
Many feel the time line is just too much too fast and have asked that any adoption of an Official Plan be delayed until after the October municipal election. Councillor Marianne Meed Ward was the mover of the motion to defer and the only person who voted for it.
Heritage took a hit in Burlington – the house on the Taylor farm on Appleby Line north of Harvester had an encounter with a bulldozer in the dark of night.
No permit to demolish, no notice. The house that sat on the 18 acre property was there one day and gone the next.
Kathleen White, Chair of the Burlington Heritage Advisory committee said they had “been working proactively with several of the Taylor siblings as best we could.
“Heritage Burlington has never advocated for this course of action by property owners and we have always tried to support and work with Burlington residents to conserve and promote any heritage properties.
Bulldozer came on the dark of night and flattened the house.
“There are several options available to Burlington residents and we will always advocate for an environment of collaborative stewardship in the hopes of maintaining Burlington properties that have cultural heritage value.
“We hope that the City will take the necessary steps to ensure this type of behaviour is not considered by others.
“In the end, next steps are in the hands of the City’s Building Department.”
Further up Appleby Line, the Trinity Baptist Church that was heavily damaged by fire last August been too severely damaged in the fire for the building to be saved.
Fire destroyed the 127 year old church.
1975 -• Early in the year an offer was made, and accepted, to purchase an old United Church Building on Appleby Line. The building fund had $23000 at that point and, when an additional $8000 came in from the small congregation during a special offering drive in July, the asking price of $30000 was met. Extensive renovations took place within the building and a complete new section was added to provide washrooms and nursery facilities at a cost of $58000.
1976 -• February 28th: After the renovations were completed, a service of praise and dedication was called for. Friends from other Sovereign Grace churches were in attendance and all were blessed as brother Leigh Powell preached a message of thanksgiving.
1986 -• A further addition was made to the building as “the wing” was built, giving us an excellent and much needed facility for mid-week activities, Sunday School classes and fellowship hours.
1995 -• The church purchased two acres of land on Appleby Line across from 2 Side Road West. This acquisition provided much needed extra parking space and secured for the congregation some expansion room for the future, to which we looked with faith and anticipation.
2012 -• Trinity celebrated its 40th anniversary.
Trinity Baptist Church currently meets at the Crossroads Centre on the North Service Road.
Revision were made to this story after its initial publication. Some of the quotes were attributed to the wrong person.
We got a note from James Schofield, who tells us that he reads the Gazette and added that there was “a line in your piece on the code of contact that caught my eye.
“Lancaster said that the incidences of harassment and intimidation have occurred both internally and externally and appear to be linked with the insurgence of social media, media, increased communication and participation with the public.
“It may be worth some reflection on the role the Gazette plays in relation to this.
“I’ve largely stopped commenting on your site. I won’t go as far as to say I’ve been harassed or intimidated, but I’ve certainly had my character and motives called into question and been the target of juvenile name-calling. Far from being a place for respectful dialog and an intellectual debate on issues and ideas, I find the Gazette’s comments are often replete with ad hominem arguments and those with entrenched ideas spewing vitriol at anyone who dares express an alternative point of view.
“So I just don’t bother trying anymore. And I suspect I’m not alone. I think that’s a problem, because as the moderate voices keep their heads down we lose out on a diversity of opinion, and the comment section increasingly becomes an echo chamber for those with a particular way of thinking.
“For example – how many commentators have written anything critical of ECoB? Or in support of council’s efforts to pass the Official Plan before the election? Even on something as banal as trying to make it easier to ride a bike around this city, few are willing to stick their necks out. Why poke the bear? Yet when I listen and talk to people in the community — many of them Gazette readers — I find a broad diversity of opinion on these matters. You’d never know it from reading the comments.
“I’m thankful you’re at least moderating comments — I can’t imagine how much junk you must filter out as it is. A real name (and ideally, validation of that name against a social media account) would be a good step. But I think the recognition that commenting on your site is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not a “free speech” right, is also important.”
We consistently have to tell people that we will not approve their comment.
In the back and forth email with Schofield we asked: Are we part of the problem? We wanted to be part of the solution.
An angry old man or an unhappy transit customer?
Schofield said “I don’t know if you’re part of the problem or not. You’re at least serving a helpful role in providing some form of media coverage in a city otherwise devoid of it. But I feel there is a strong echo chamber effect, both in the comments, and in the editorial content you feature. “Aldershot resident thinks…” and the like tend to pull from the same streams of consciousness as your most frequent commentators. Can you do more to foster some diversity — both in ideology and in demographics? Can you find some female voices and some young people to complement your “angry old man has something to say” content?
Schofield makes an exceptionally good point – one that has bothered us for some time. There are some very very good comments – and boy is there ever a lot of crap that doesn’t see the light of day. Our objective was to give people a place where their comments and ideas can be published and shared.
In the the past few days the comments on the cycling survey the city is running are a case in point. There are people on both sides who go at it day in and day out and make the same argument.
The New Street Road diet idea was a disaster in the way it was executed and I think that the views of those opposed it were part of what brought the city the point where they realized it had to be cancelled.
The idea never got a chance to have a true trial run – mostly because the city found that the road was continually under some form of construction.
The New Street Road Diet never got a chance to be fully tested. Poor execution on the part of the city and the Region and vociferous opposition from the car set doomed the idea.
Schofield said he did not want to “dwell on New Street but I largely agree with you. As one of the instigators of the whole saga I’ve learned a lot from the entire experience. I still think it was a sound idea, but poor execution, and a 2 km stretch that didn’t connect to anything useful on either end didn’t set it up for success. Lessons learned and we’re moving on.”
Part of the purpose of the comments section in the Gazette is for new information to come to the surface, a place where sound, rational ideas can be voiced and a place where a citizen can hold the politicians they elected to account and ensure that the bureaucrats actually serve the interests of public.
Deborah Ruse was one of the 34 people who delegated to city council when the committee decision was made to approve the development (a 5-2 vote for the project) of the 421 Brant Street 23 storey condominium opposite city hall.
During the discussion after her delegation Ms Ruse said she was not aware of any Councillors’ reasons for support of the project. Councillor Sharman corrected Ms Ruse saying he had made his reasons public in his newsletter, and offered to send it to her. After doing some research on the points Sharman made in his Newsletter Ruse responded.
“I have some comments on your newsletter regarding the approval of the 421 Brant Street project. I hope these thoughts can project the strong feelings from many people in the community regarding Council’s confusing approval of this project. Especially given the current Official Plan guidelines, and other new motions which have recently been passed, particularly:
Direct the Director of City Building to modify the building height permissions of the Downtown Core Precinct so that development shall:
i) have a maximum height of 12 storeys; or ii) have a maximum height which shall not exceed 17 storeys, subject to a site-specific Zoning By-Law
Amendment, with additional storeys above that permitted in the Downtown Core Precinct being provided in accordance with the following:
1. one additional storey for every 150 sq m of dedicated office and/or employment floor space; or
2. one additional storey for every 8 publicly accessible parking spaces provided in an underground parking structure.
As far as I am aware, the 421 Brant St project offers neither of these gains, with only 8 visitor parking spots and actually less office or retail space than what is there now. Could you please provide me your thoughts on this?
Here are the Ruse comments on the point made by Sharman in his Newsletter. Sharman is in bold; Ruse is in regular typeface.
A number of residents said they simply want to keep Brant street the way it is. – No, actually most delegates and people posting comments online said they want Brant St to be developed in accordance with the current OP (4-12 stories), or even the new OP (up to 17 stories)
Yet a discussion that focuses on one location and on one measure (i.e. height) without giving sufficient consideration to other important and complex matters will cause much long term, serious problems in the City that Council is focused on trying to address. – Delegates were addressing the issue at hand, the over-development of 421 Brant. We’ll get to the other ones now that we will be more aware. But we thought that developments would move forward according to the Official Plan in place, so we didn’t know we would have such drastic deviations. And citizens can comprehend complex issues, given a full explanation and time. It will just take time for citizens to catch up to Staff and Council once they have full explanations, to understand all the details.
Clearly, the owners had a right to build something new on the site that would be larger in scale. – Yes they do, and the right to build something larger than what is there is 12 stories, as in the current Official Plan.
City hall is across the street from the site. Another development application has been filed for the property to the south on Brant (left of the red hash marked site) The properties to the right will feel development pressure – mist have already been assembled.
Clearly, the City had created a plan to encourage redevelopment of the site with something new and large. – The plan the City had created says 4-12 stories on this site – this could be considered large vs the existing 2 story building (up to 8x as high).
Staff had to negotiate with developers over what design characteristics would be acceptable. Clearly, height is one such concern, but there are others. These include “massing”, set-backs, shadowing, parking, design and others. – One wonders what sort of negotiation was held – how did ‘negotiations’ go from 12 stories in the Official Plan to 23? And what about affordable units, green space, public parking, retail or office space gains? From the final plan none of these areas will be delivered to the level they could or should have been.
This was a requirement from the Province, not a suggestion. – But this location was not a required location. Location was up to our city councilors to plan – like in Oakville. How can Oakville be in compliance with their only intensification around a single GO station, when Burlington has 3 GO stations to intensify near? And actually, the Mayor has stated that we are meeting our provincial density targets currently.
3d rendering showing the intersection of Brant and James
They calculated the number of square feet of residential space that would have been allowed in the 12-storey block building and redistributed the floor space in a design that has a smaller street level foot print, with a four storey “podium”, on top of which they then proposed a 19-storey “slender” tower. This design would satisfy all legal requirements. It also meant the developer was required to reduce the total amount of floor space in the building by 25%, part of which meant including less commercial and less retail space in the first four floors – First, how was the total square footage calculated? Only one property has allowance for 12 stories; the other 4-5 properties assembled were allowed 4 stories or 8 stories with community benefits so if the 12-story limit was applied to the whole property, it would have been over-calculated. Second, what “legal requirements” are you referring to? And third, how was the 25% reduction of total floor space calculated? I do not see a calculation for this in the planning report. What are the actual numbers leading to this percentage? And less commercial and retail space works for the developer because they don’t have to own and lease that space, constantly overseeing the tenants/leases, etc. It is much easier to sell a condo once and be done. Could you please provide feedback to these questions?
Finally, the residents’ discussion became a debate about personal preferences and opinions about how something might look without taking into account all the other considerations. – The residents were not allowed a discussion, so it did not become a debate about personal preferences – a Councilor, and later the Mayor, ASKED each delegator what their personal preference was – delegator’s mostly focused on asking why the planning department deviated so completely from the OP.
a reasonable compromise. – Given the citizen backlash, many would beg to differ that this is a reasonable compromise.
Burlington home prices increased 73% in the last 4 years.- Royal LePage data: The average house price in Burlington in 2014 was $502,000 and today it is $750,000 so about a 66% increase. This only includes detached homes. It may vary a little depending on what and where we include.
Our goal is to increase the availability of housing for the young and old that they can afford – let’s ask 25-39 year olds in Burlington if they can afford the condo prices set for these buildings. And even if these young people can afford these condos, they won’t be able to stay long if they want to raise a family as there are not enough two- and three-bedroom units since a larger unit is “not as profitable, per square foot as a small unit. Developers will cater to the more profitable market segment, even if there is a strong market interest for two- and three-bedroom units. But it’s not the job of [the] Planning [Department] to maximize the profit of developers. Developers will argue that two- and three-bedroom units are not viable, but it’s false. Economic analysis shows that two- and three-bedroom units can be less profitable than one-bedroom or studios, but that’s not the same as saying that they aren’t viable”. This quote is from Brent Toderian (article by David Roberts, VOX, June 21, 2017)
3d rendering of the 421 development from James Street with city hall in the background. The condominium entrance is to be on the James Street side.
The plan is to allow only 5% of Burlington land to increase in density, most of which will be less than 11 floors and that will be along Fairview St., Plains Rd. and some areas around plazas – So then why was 23 stories downtown presented and approval?
Most of the Brant Street height will occur close to Burlington GO. Even that will not be anything like Toronto or Mississauga where 50 floors is common. We expect the maximum to be in line with the buildings at Burlington GO station which are more like 25. – So there will be buildings taller than 23 stories near the GO? And the towers in Toronto and Mississauga that are 50 floors are on major arterial roads of 4-6 lanes, or the Gardiner Expressway, not a 2-lane street. And if most of the Brant St height will occur close to the GO station, then how did this lower Brant St development get approval in this height bracket? Again, such a drastic deviation from the OP begs the question.
Councillor Paul Sharman
Some people think the precise number of floors in a building is more important than everything. I disagree. – So do most of the delegators who spoke. The issue the public has is with Staff and Council providing an approval that deviates so glaringly from the OP.
As proof that this concern is city-wide and goes deep, look at the online comments about the approval of the 421 Brant St project from just one article published on the inhalton website. “23-Storey Condo Approved for Downtown Burlington” (by Alan Kan, November 17, 2017).
Each entry is from a different reader, tough to ignore.
very sad; what’s the use of having a city bylaw then approving this?; terrible decision; no affordable [units]; agree there is a place for high-rise development in our city, but it is not in our very compact downtown core; sad to see this happen; destroying the core of Burlington; we are not Toronto or Vancouver; thanks Burlington city council; it is a freaking disaster; very disappointed that council have gone against the wishes of most Burlington citizens; this building is far too tall for our downtown; sad; barely any traffic control to begin with let alone room for more traffic to come in; it’s a mess; supposed to have geared to income rentals in there; sold out to the developers; council hands out exemptions to the building codes/bylaws like its Halloween candy; this is terrible; downtown is already ridiculously congested; total disgrace!; awful idea; such a nightmare; would like to know what council is thinking; bad decision; try to find a parking spot like the rest of us who struggle to find a spot; councilors and builders just don’t listen to us; yet another monstrosity; the roads are already a nightmare; gridlock down there now; traffic is going to be insane; I don’t think council cares; we don’t need it and we don’t want it; these councilors they are not speaking for the residents of Burlington; this is a travesty; please no; it’s just becoming a corridor of condos; very sad; why are we trying to be like Toronto?; awful decision; horrible decision; we aren’t Toronto; hate it!!; very disappointed; not impressed; major fail; terrible decision; they will never listen to the people; very sad; high rise cement jungle on Brant St; disgusting; more traffic is gonna be awful; traffic is terrible already; shorten it and then I will accept it; traffic is a mess down there now; horrible idea; terrible decision; terrible news; thumbs down symbol; I lived in Van .. hated the downtown core; we aren’t Toronto!; sad; so very sad; turning into Toronto; hate it; very sad; what do I think? Not much!; very sad; just shaking my head; we don’t need this; traffic chaos; shake up council; terrible decision; short sighted; shame; absurd; not great decision; what a mistake!; no; 3 thumbs down; BOO!; 5 thumbs down; this is an abomination.
Is Paul Sharman a member of city council who has lost the ability to hear what residents are saying and has decided to dig in his heals and maintain his position despite the considerable protest against too much height in the downtown core?
The public does have the opportunity to turf a politician that is not listening to them – at this point there is no one prepared to run against Paul Sharman in ward 5.
That is a fact the citizens are going to have to contend with.
Shortly before 10 AM this morning , the Halton Police responded to a townhouse complex on Driftwood Drive in the City of Burlington for a report of a house fire with at least two people still inside.
A 93 year old female was rescued from the building and taken to hospital with life threatening injuries. Two other occupants of the home had minor injuries and were treated at the scene.
Two Officers have also gone to hospital as a precaution to be assessed for smoke inhalation.
Several linked homes were evacuated as a precaution. The fire is believed to have started in a second story bedroom, however, the cause is unknown at this time.
It’s going to be a fine party because the Molinaro’s always put on a fine party.
Vince Molinaro was asked to be the Honourary Chair of the Carpenter House Gala that set out to raise the funds needed to complete the expansion of the hospice.
Vince took it on with his usual gusto and recruited his wife Tina to make it a tag team effort.
The event takes place this evening at the Convention Centre where the Freedom Train will provide live entertainment.
Vince and Tina in a short video said they were “looking forward to a night of fun and celebration” as they present the 17th annual gala in support of Carpenter Hospice.
The Molinaro’s gave the Carpenter 2018 Close to Our Hearts Gala theme an Italian twist – it will be Casa Calabria – a vibrant, Italian theme.
It didn’t take the Engaged Citizens of Burlington (ECoB) to put out a response to the news of another high rise project for lower Brant Street.
ECoB said they were “expecting more new applications and we suspect 409 Brant is the first of many. Anybody who has been paying any attention to downtown development would have seen this coming”.
The Reserve Properties application was announced on Friday – 24 storeys with the retention of two historical properties on the south end – one on Brant and the other on James.
The ECoB team had a meeting with Deputy City Manager Mary Lou Tanner and several planning staff members on Thursday during which the 409 Brant application was not mentioned. News of the application came out early Friday.
ECoB has been warning council and staff that accepting the 421 Brant zoning amendment would open the door for other very hi-rise developments. “Despite assurances from council and staff, this is exactly what has happened. It is worth noting that the developers representative is the same Glenn Wellings who was so critical of citizen delegations on the Official Plan and suggested all were NIMBYs.”
City council approved the construction of the 23 storey 421 Brant project by a vote of 5-2.
The height allowance for 421 Brant street far exceeds the current Official Plan and the proposed new Official Plan.
This latest application 409m Brant – asks for even more height, “a contradiction of both Official Plans”.
ECoB said the mantra from City Hall has been that: “if we did not allow for height the developers would build ugly squat buildings”.
“Is this proposed development an attractive tall building?” asks ECoB
“Is the brick at the bottom supposed to maintain the character of Brant Street? Even if a few existing retailers survive, the character of Brant Street will be forever changed with the construction of this tower and however many more council and staff accede to. Engaged Citizens of Burlington has never believed that these heights satisfy good planning”.
ECoB is asking residents throughout the city to call and email all the Councillors and the Mayor to not ratify the application for 421 Brant Street. ECoB is pressing city council to truly listens to the residents and act on their behalf.
ECoB points out that numerous delegations were told that the 421 project would not be precedent. “The developers obviously think it is.”
The approved 23 storey condominium is shown is red – the application for a 24 storey tower on the south side of John Street is shown in black. Both are across the street from city hall.
The question that Council should be asking is this said ECoB – Does the City want to go to the OMB to defend their current official plan on behalf of the residents, or do they want to go to the OMB to fight against the residents?
ECoB is hosting a Municipal Election Workshop on February 22nd from 7-9pm at Tansley Woods Community Centre. Mark Carr will be moderating. The workshop is open to all residents who are thinking about running for city council.
The event is for volunteers who would like to help the candidate of their choice be successful or for those who want to know more about municipal politics as well.
Registration information along with members of the panel will be announced shortly.
Some of the Progressive Conservatives in Burlington are excited. The provincial PC’s have “uncovered new information on some nominations” and will be reviewing several questionable candidate nomination elections with an eye toward overturning contentious results according to a news story in the Toronto Star.
Jane McKenna, candidate for the PC nomination at the 2016 nomination meeting. She won by 41 votes.
There are those in Burlington that felt the nomination of Jane McKenna as the PC candidate was a put up job that was appealed to the party organization but a new nomination meeting was denied.
McKenna was very close to both Patrick Brown and the party president Rick Dykstra. With both of them gone for questionable behavior local PC members think that just maybe the new party administration will take another look at who the candidate for the provincial PC’s in Burlington should be.
If the McKenna nomination is found to have been flawed will Jane Michael run for the nomination again? Is the Pope Catholic?
“Since ex-leader Patrick Brown’s resignation two weeks ago, the provincial Tories have been cleaning house ahead of a new leader being elected March 10.”
As previously reported in the Star, about a dozen PC candidate nominations across Ontario have been ended in controversy, including in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, which is now the subject of a Hamilton Police investigation into allegations of criminal fraud and forgery.
In Ottawa West-Nepean, candidate Karma Macgregor won by 15 votes over runner-up Jeremy Roberts last May. There were 28 more ballots in boxes than the number of people registered to vote.
Democracy in action – messy but have you looked at the alternative?
By Staff
An investigation conducted by the Halton Regional Police Service – Child Abuse and Sexual Assault Unit (C.A.S.A.), resulted in the arrest Frances Maureen McNeil (55 years), of St. Catharines on February 13th, 2018 and charged with: Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference and Invitation to Sexual Touching
g
Forgive my cynicism but the disappointment expressed by Burlington’s Mayor and City Staff over the OMB decision to allow a 26 storey building on Martha St. seems like just so many crocodile tears. This from a city who already amended their own zoning bylaws to approve 24 storeys a few hundred metres away at 421 Brant St.
Essentially The City of Burlington failed to consider the ADI application within a reasonable time so ADI took their case to the OMB and won. The questions our city, which seems hell bent on intensifying its downtown core at all costs, must now answer are:
Jim Young, is a founding member of ECoB, the Engaged Citizens of Burlington
ECoB, the Engaged Citizens of Burlington, is small in size but are punching well above their weight. They will be appearing on Cogeco TV’s The Issue this week and on the 22nd holding the workshop at the Tansley community Centre.
We also report on people who have said they will not be running this time – but perhaps in the future.
When we see their corporate logo we assume it is a safe place and that the service they provide is rock solid.
Thursday, March 8, 2018, 7:00 – 8:30 pm at the Burlington Performing Arts Centre
This is a FREE event open to all, with voluntary non-perishable food donations being collected in support of Burlington Food Bank.
“Lancaster said that the incidences of harassment and intimidation have occurred both internally and externally and appear to be linked with the insurgence of social media, media, increased communication and participation with the public.
A number of residents said they simply want to keep Brant street the way it is. – No, actually most delegates and people posting comments online said they want Brant St to be developed in accordance with the current OP (4-12 stories), or even the new OP (up to 17 stories)
A 93 year old female was rescued from the building and taken to hospital with life threatening injuries. Two other occupants of the home had minor injuries and were treated at the scene.
The Molinaro’s gave the Carpenter 2018 Close to Our Hearts Gala theme an Italian twist – it will be Casa Calabria – a vibrant, Italian theme.
