 By Staff
March 16, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
A senior who was contacted by telephone by an individual claiming to be investigating illegal purchases on his credit card was coerced into sending over $8900 by wire transfer to China.
On March 5th the senior was contacted by an unknown individual on the telephone stating he was investigating fraudulent activity on his credit card in China and the RCMP was also assisting with the investigation.
 The man allowed the caller remote access to his computer and online banking and then the caller requested the male wire transfer money to China to assist the RCMP in tracking it.
The caller then instructed the senior to make separate withdrawals from three bank branches in order to avoid detection. Once the man had made the withdrawals he was advised to attend four different Money Marts in the area and wire transfer the funds to China. The victim transferred over $8900 as instructed by the suspect.
The fraudulent activity was halted when the victim’s bank alerted him to the fraud based on the unusual withdrawals from his account.
The Halton Regional Police Service is reminding citizens to be vigilant against any individuals seeking access to your personal computer or pushing a fictitious scam requesting you to send money via wire transfer.
The bank was the vigilant one in this matter – kudos to them.
 By Staff
March 16, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
One never knows what is going to appear in the mail box.
The following was passed along to us – interesting.
March 11, 2016
Fax: 416-314-8452
Application Assessment Officer
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Operations Division
Environmental Approvals Access &
Service Integration Branch Application Verification Unit
135 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 1 Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5
E-mail: tina.dufresne@ontario.ca Ms. Tina Dufresne, District Manager
Halton-Peel District Office, Central Region
4145 North Service Road, Suite 300 Burlington, Ontario L7L 6A3
Dear Sir/Madam:
Subject: EBR Registry Number: 012-6693
Ministry Reference Number: 1720-A59NX4 Proponent: 2120901 Ontario Limited
Instrument Type: Environmental Compliance Approval – EPA Part 11.1-sewage
Location: 5432 Bell School Line, Burlington, Ontario
I am writing on behalf of the of the Corporation of the City of Burlington, in response to an application for a new Environmental Compliance Approval for 2120901 Ontario Limited posted to the EBR on February 4, 2016. For the reasons that follow, the City of Burlington is requesting that the application be returned to the proponent as incomplete for the reasons as will be set out below. In the alternative, the City is requesting that the time for the submission of comments be extended for an additional 60 days beyond the current deadline of March 20, 2016 to permit adequate time for consideration of the issues by Burlington City Council, and affected residents.
Background
The City of Burlington and the Burlington Airpark Inc. have been engaged in litigation for several years arising from an illegal fill operation taking place at the Burlington Airpark. The sewage works that are the subject of the application before you drain water from the landfill at the airport that is the subject of the litigation between the City and Airpark. The Airpark is located between Appleby Line and Bell School line, north of Highway 407, all of which is located in the northern rural area of Burlington.
 It was the dumping of landfill that resulted in neighbours calling the Gazette – we published the first stories on the problem which woke up people at city hall who began to look into the problem. A fill operation on the Airpark property commenced in late 2007. The City of Burlington was never consulted about the fill operation or about any proposed expansion plans that the Airpark might have with respect to its operations. On or about March 2013, the City began receiving a significant number of complaints from new landowners in the vicinity of the Airpark. The nature of the complaints ranged from grading activities, drainage, noise, dust, traffic safety and about the possible effects of contaminants in the fill on drinking water. After having investigated these complaints, staff concluded that the Airpark was using its lands as a fill site in order to generate revenue and was not depositing fill to implement a planned and/or imminent expansion of its airport facilities.
As a result of its investigations, on May 3, 2013 the City issued an Order to Comply pursuant to its site alteration by-law by obtaining a permit for the ongoing fill operation. After the Airpark failed to comply, the City issued a Violation Notice under its by-law. Since that time, the City has been engaged in protracted litigation with the Airpark to bring the Airpark into compliance with the City’s by laws to address the off-site impacts caused by its fill operation.
Litigation Round 1
The Airpark brought a court application in July 2013 to prohibit the City from enforcing its Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law against the Airpark and the Airport. The City responded with a counter application seeking a declaration that the City’s Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law 6-2003 was valid and binding upon the Airpark and to its fill activities.
In November 2013, the court dismissed Airpark’s application against the City and declared that the City’s Topsoil and Site Alteration By-law was valid and binding upon it. The Airpark subsequently appealed the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on June 13, 2014.
Following the decision of the Court of Appeal, the City continued to press the Airpark to comply with the Order to Comply under the City’s Site Alteration By-law. The City adopted a new Site Alteration By-law #64-2014 which contained materially the same provisions found in the previous by-law. The City maintained that the Order remained outstanding and it continued to be entitled to enforce it. The Airpark subsequently did file an application, however maintained that it was in relation only to a small area at the north-west corner of the Airport. This position
ignores all of the fill unlawfully deposited at the Airpark between January 1, 2008 and August 2, 2013.
litigation Round 2
The City commenced an application to the court in April, 2015 seeking an order to remove all fill deposited on site between 2008 and 2013. In the alternative, the City seeks to have the court order the Airpark to submit a complete application for a site alteration permit pursuant to the new City’s site alteration by-law. The application was heard by the court on November 10, 2015 and at the time of preparing this letter, the court has not released its decision.
Nature of Burlington’s Interest
The City of Burlington has a clear and compelling interest in the application for Environmental Compliance Approval that has been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and posted on the EBR. As demonstrated above, the City has been engaged in a protracted dispute with the Airpark to regulate the fill that was brought onto the site illegally in order to address the environmental impacts resulting from those actions. In particular, the City is concerned with the grading of the property, and the impacts on the drainage of the lands, all of which are related to the proposed sewage works identified in the current application for compliance.
 Councillor Blair Lancaster walking through the property of a farm adjacent to the air port found the land spongy and soaked with water – now we know where that water is coming from. Prior to 2008, which was the start of the fill operations, the Airpark had a storm sewer drainage system that was located generally in the vicinity of the North South runway and the airpark buildings. These storm sewers discharged into the existing pond at the SE corner of the property and into the adjacent farm fields.
With the start of the fill operations, additional storm sewers were installed in the areas of fill. These storm sewers discharge into a regulated watercourse and also at several locations along the west property line. This has resulted in changes to the stormwater discharge regime onto adjacent properties. The change has been from the previous “sheet flow discharge” to “concentrated flow discharge”. As a result, adjacent properties have been adversely impacted, as identified above in the form of complaints received by the City.
The City agrees that the MOECC Environmental Compliance Approvals were required for these storm sewer systems. In addition, Conservation Authority permits should have been applied for. It is the City’s position that detailed storm sewer and stormwater design calculations should be provided for these systems. The application does not include adequate information in this regard.
Irregularities with the Present Application
City staff has had the opportunity to attend at the Halton-Peel District Office to view the materials filed by the proponent. The City submits that the application as filed contains a number of irregularities that merit the rejection of the present application on the basis of incompleteness.
Name of Proponent
 The ownership of the Air Park and the taxes they actually pay are now being questioned. The name of the proponent making application for environmental compliance approval is 212091 Ontario Limited. The Certificate of Incorporation and the Articles of Incorporation attached to the application for that numbered company date back to 2006. Our recent corporate search of this company discloses that the numbered company was in fact amalgamated with the Burlington Airpark Inc. on January 1, 2007, forming a new company, Burlington Airpark Inc. being Ontario Corp. Number 1721779. Burlington takes the position that the application has been made by a defunct corporation which cannot have legal responsibility for the proposed works to which the application relates. The documents submitted in support of the applicant’s name are neither current, nor do they provide proof of the name of a genuine applicant. Furthermore, the documents submitted do not include copies of the subsequent articles of amalgamation.
Burlington submits that the proponent’s name as posted on the EBR is misleading, and a reasonable person having an interest in postings on the EBR respecting the Burlington Airpark Inc. would not have adequate notice of the application as posted in its current form.
Location(s) Related to this Instrument
The posting to the Environmental Registry identify the relevant address as 5432 Bell School Line, Burlington. Our information is that the actual address for the site is 5342 Bell School Line, in the City of Burlington. Again, any reasonable person having an interest in activities related to the Airpark would not have adequate notice that an application had been made for those lands. Also, 5342 Bell School Line is only one of three land parcels forming the Airpark lands.
Statement of the Municipality (s. 5.1)
The City notes that section 1.5 of the Application – Statement of the Municipality has been left blank. The Municipality has to indicate that it has no objection to the construction of the works in the municipality. I can assure you, that the City of Burlington, where the works are located has not been contacted and has not been consulted. Furthermore, the box has not been checked as “NA”.
Our understanding is that a municipal declaration is required from the municipality in which the sewage works are or will be located. The Ministry’s own “Guide to Applying for an Environmental Compliance Approval”, identifies that this declaration, “is required to establish the municipality’s general concurrence with the proposal, to ensure that the proposed works would not contravene any municipal by-laws or other requirements.” Also, the common law requires that the City be consulted in these circumstances.
Based on the background provided in this correspondence, the City of Burlington has very serious concerns about the sewage works identified in the application, and the municipality ought to have been consulted prior to the application having been made. The City takes the position that the installation of sewage works was done concurrent with the illegal infill operation that was occurring at the site, in contravention of the City’s site alteration by-laws.
Burlington’s Request
 Barbara Sheldon look at 32 feet of landfill less than 50 feet from her kitchen window. All dumped without any permits because an airport maintained they were federally regulated and did not have to comply with city bylaws. The City of Burlington is requesting that the application be returned to the proponent as incomplete for the reasons as presented. The application contains incomplete and inaccurate information, and has the effect of misleading any person with an interest in tracking environmental activity on the EBR. The proponent ought to correct the application, and ensure that discussions are held with the relevant municipal authorities, including the City of Burlington and Conservation Halton before an application for environmental compliance is re submitted.
In the alternative, the City is requesting that the time for the submission of comments be extended for an additional 60 days beyond the current deadline of March 20, 2016 to permit adequate time for consideration of the issues by Burlington City Council, and affected residents.
Please note that these submissions are preliminary and deal only with the adequacy of the application and process followed to date. Should the application continue to be processed for approval, the City will submit its technical comments on the application for environmental approval.
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Nancy L. Shea Nicol
City Solicitor & Director of Legal Services cc. Mr. Ian Blue, Gardiner
This is the kind of document that would get circulated to council members and discussed in a closed session of council. Our thanks to the citizen who had the courage to pass it along to the Gazette.
 By Staff
March 16, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The nominations for Burlington’s Best Awards are in. This year there are 20 deserving and devoted nominees for the seven categories.
Residents are invited to join some of Burlington’s finest civic-minded volunteers, advocates and community leaders on Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. at the Burlington Convention Centre, 1120 Burloak Dr., for the 2015 Burlington’s Best Awards, a gala evening in honour of Burlington’s most outstanding citizens.
 Anne Swarbrick is the chair of the Art Gallery if Burlington Foundation. she has been nominated for the Community Service Award.  Ken Woodruff a former Burlington Green president was nominated for the Environment award.  Vince Fiorito was nominated for the Environmental award. The nominees are:
Citizen of the Year – Paul Echlin, Brenda Hunter
Junior Citizen of the Year – Chris Choi, Kelli Hornick, Erin Richardson, Olivia Walker-Edwards
Senior Person of the Year – Ed Dorr, Bob Pring, John Worobec
Environmental Award – Vince Fiorito, Herb Sinnock, Ken Woodruff
Arts Person of the Year – Cate Beech, Dan Murray
Community Service Award – Gilbert Deveer, Frank Lupton, Janice Martin, Anne Swarbrick
Heritage Award – Derek Martin, Winnifred Stewart
 By Pepper Parr
March 15th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
 Mayor Goldring and Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward. The statement released by the city on the decision they made not to oppose the request ADI Development Group made to the Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing for an adjournment that will push any decision forward to 2017 was so typical of this council. Every member of Council is on record as being opposed to the project.
What their thinking was during a two hour plus session of council is secret – but one would like to think that these high school graduates could say something.
Councillor Marianne Meed Ward did say : “This is the right decision and if no more comes from the city I will work with legal to draft a statement that can be shared, probably after the hearing tomorrow.”
Now you know why she is the odds on favourite to become the next Mayor of Burlington.
 By Pepper Parr
March 15, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
In an earlier version of this story we said Councillor Craven did not attend the Special Council meeting: we erred. Council Craven was in attendance, Council Sharman was absent.
Burlington City Council voted to not oppose a request from Adi Developments to adjourn the Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the application for a 26-storey condominium proposed to be developed at 374 Martha St.
 Council members standing for a recorded vote not to oppose the ADI Development group’s request for an adjournment of the OMB hearing they sought. Councillor Sharman was absent. In 2014, Adi Developments submitted an application to the City of Burlington for a 28-storey condominium to be developed on a .136 hectare parcel of land at 374 Martha St. Adi Developments launched the OMB appeal in March 2015. In February 2016, the developer amended its application to 26 storeys.
 The bungalow on the right was recently purchased by the ADI development group and added to their land assembly on which they propose to erect a 26 storey condominium. At the OMB hearing on March 14, the developer told the OMB it has bought the property at 380 Martha Street, and will include that property in its condominium development application. The city’s legal team asked for an opportunity to receive instruction from Burlington City Council.
The Chair of the OMB hearing asked the City of Burlington to have a response to Adi Developments’ request for adjournment by 3:30 p.m. today. The public was informed after 4 p.m. of City Council’s decision.
 The property marked 380 was purchased by ADI and added to the original land assembly. The OMB hearing will resume on Wednesday, March 16 at 10 a.m. in City Hall, Room 247, to deal with the developer’s request for adjournment and to establish a future process for dealing with the appeals that are currently before the board. The meeting is open to the public.
That was what the city had to say: What they didn’t comment on was that the adjournment will push the hearing back to sometime in 1Q of 2017 – that’s the earliest date the OMB can hear this case.
In their comments made while asking for the adjournment legal counsel for Adi said they believed many if not most of the concerns the city had expressed over the original development application could be resolved through discussion about the impact the additional property would have on the scale and scope of the project.
 The most recent rendering of the Nautique Patrick Devine, legal counsel for the condo/apartment building directly across the street from the small piece of property that has been added to the land assembly amount to much more than a small change and should be seen as a new application and treated as such.
Unless someone objects to the adjournment, which could be as long as a year, things at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road are going to be quiet for some time.
Background links:
Original story on the ADI request for an adjournment of the OMB hearing they demanded when the city failed to act within the required 180 day timeline
By Staff
March 15, 2016
Burlington, ON
During the past five days members of the Halton Police service have travelled to both of Canada’s coasts to arrest parties wanted on Canada Wide Warrants.
As previously reported, on Friday March 11, 2016, officers flew to British Columbia and took custody of 35 year old Burlington male who was wanted in Halton Region for drug offences. After being released from custody when originally arrested, the fled to BC, a Canada wide warrant was issued for his arrest.
On Tuesday March 15, 2016, officers flew to Newfoundland to take custody of 33 year old Halton Hills male who was wanted for offences relating to an alleged domestic assault.
Halton Regional Police Service works closely with the Halton Crown Attorney’s Office to identify serious cases that deserve this response. Each case is thoroughly reviewed, if determined to possess a serious risk to the victim or public safety or the gravity of the offence is so great, a Canada Wide Warrant may be issued allowing officer to arrest and return offender from different provinces.
The Halton Regional Police Service encourages the public to visit the Service’s Most Wanted webpage and contact us if you have any information on a wanted party.
If you wish to remain anonymous with information on this or any other crime is asked to call Crime Stoppers at 1 800 222-8477 (TIPS) or through the web at www.haltoncrimestoppers.com or by texting “Tip201” with your message to 274637 (crimes).
 By Pepper Parr
March 14, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
 Can Mayor Goldring keep his council focused and on topic in order to meet the two hour limitation he was given by the Chair of the ADI development appeal now before the OMB. The Mayor is going to have to be brisk and focused when he chairs the Special meeting of Council Wednesday afternoon as they work through what they want to give their legal counsel in the way of instructions on the latest twist in the Nautique development that ADI took to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Can a substantially revised development still be appealed on its original grounds? ADI purchases property to the north of their Nautique development site. The ADI Development Group appealed their application to build a 28 storey structure to the OMB because they didn’t like the fact that the city did not give them a decision on their project within the required 180 day timeline.
Now they have the temerity to ask the city to go along with an adjournment for six months or more – and it will be more because there is no room on the OMB calendar until the 1Q of 2017.
There is also a bigger issue – the addition of a significant chunk of property to the development proposal would suggest that the OMB can (some say should) throw the appeal out and let ADI make a new application to the city.
The Mayor might have been better advised to call the meeting for 9:30 am – there is going to be a lot to talk about and there is significant doubt that this council can get through the jibber jabber they do when they debate in time to meet that 3:30 deadline put in place by the Chair of the OMB hearing.
City council recently approved the salaries for city council and reported on what council members were given in the way of expense and benefits money. On has to add about $60,000 to the number shown – this is what the council members get paid for their work as members of the Regional council.
 Recorded votes are not the norm for Burlington’s city council. In this instance Ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward votes against – it will be interesting to see if she demands a recorded vote for whatever comes out of the closed council meeting on Tuesday. The debate that takes place, in a closed session of city council, which the Gazette believes is one of those occasions when the discussion should take place in camera; however the vote on what the city decides to do should take place in a public session where the public gets to learn what the question was and how individual members actually voted.
This is an important decision that gives the city an opportunity to bring a developer to heal.
One can hope that Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward will do her duty and once again ask for a recorded vote – don’t let your constituents down Councillor.
 By Pepper Parr
March 14, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The fat is in the fire and there are deadlines out there that will be hard for some of the parties to the ADI Development Group Ontario Municipal Board appeal hearing to meet.
The Chair of the appeal to the OMB that ADI made is one Susan Schiller. Ms Schiller was one of the Commissioners who heard the Nelson Quarry appeal for an expansion to their quarry in North Burlington a few years ago. That Joint Tribunal found in the city’s favour. That decision was based on the habitat of the Jefferson Salamander – see the link to that story below. Ms Schiller is a no-nonsense chair – expect her to keep counsel on their toes.
The opening of the OMB hearing was in some doubt when Burlington city council announced on Thursday their would be a special council meeting on Tuesday at 1:30 pm to hear a legal update on the ADI appeal. The city said nothing other than it was related to a property at 374 Martha Street – which is the address of ADI’s 26 story Nautique development.
The eastern end of the site ADI wants to put a 26 storey condominium on and the bungalow to the north of the property at the Martha Street and Lakeshore Road intersection. That was all we knew on Friday. At the hearing this morning we learned that ADI had purchased the small bungalow tucked in behind the property ADI had assembled for the Nautique project.
And here is where the differing interests come into play.
The ADI development group purchased the property at 380 Martha Street and has asked for a delay of their OMB appeal while they work with the city to figure out how to integrate the property into the original development. Some argue that the purchase of the property makes the development a whole new ball game. ADI wanted the hearing delayed until the fall while they worked out how they would fit the newly acquired piece of property into the larger development. The lawyer for the city said he couldn’t agree or disagree with the ADI request until he had directions from his client – the city of Burlington. The meeting at which the city will work out its position is to take place on Tuesday at 1:30 pm
 Can this council make a critical decision in the 120 minutes they were given by an OMB commissioner? Don’t bet the mortgage on it. Chair Schiller said she was fine with adjourning the Monday meeting until Wednesday morning but she needed a decision no later than 3:30 pm on Tuesday.
It will take someone with a big magic wand for that to happen. The city has 120 minutes to arrive at a decision – with seven council members they each get 17 minutes – that won’t happen. Add in the staff comments; the comments from the lawyers and there goes that deadline.
The decision the city has to make is – are they willing to go along with the ADI request for an adjournment until the fall?
The complications get thicker.
There are those who want to argue that the Chair of the OMB hearing should throw the appeal out right now because the addition of a piece of property to what is an appeal means that this is in reality a whole new development.
ADI appealed because they weren’t happy with the city’s inability to approve or disapprove of the application within the 180 days required under the planning act and wanted to the OMB to make the decision.
The addition of that piece of small bungalow at the north end of the property means this is really a new development.
Has the ADI Nautique development reached the point where it has entered that “will never see the light of day” zone? What ADI will argue is that the chair does not have the jurisdiction to refuse to go forward with the appeal application. The city and the owners of a condominium across the street from the bungalow (Sun Life Insurance) will argue that the Chair cannot hear the ADI appeal because the project has had a substantial change made to it.
Patrick Devine, the lawyer representing the Sun Life interests argued that a new project proposal should be submitted by ADI to be followed by the requisite public meetings and a review by the planning department.
He also complained about the short notice he was given by the ADI lawyers on their decision to buy the bungalow – which is reported to have been owned by Nick Carnicelli, the developer behind the Berkeley project on Caroline and John Street that is getting closer to putting a shovel in the ground. Carnicelli also has other property holdings in the block bounded by Martha, Pearl and Lakeshore. A number of years ago Carnicelli bought the Pearl Street Café and a critical strip of property in behind those two buildings.
It is all a bit of a mess – there are pretty good grounds for throwing the ADI appeal application out; that argument will be something to watch.
ADI seemed to be suggesting that with the acquisition of the really small bungalow many of the objections the city had to the development could be worked out. The current zoning for the property ADI wants to build on is for 8 storeys – how a small bungalow is going to impact the 26 storeys ADI wants to put up is going to be an interesting legal argument.
Would it be reasonable to come to the conclusion that the ADI decision to purchase the bungalow at this late date is pretty close to “flying by the seat of your pants” decision making.
For those who have made deposits on units in the proposed development – it’s going to be a while before you can move in.
Chair Schiller advised the meeting this morning that if the hearing is adjourned – there is no room on the calendar for a resumed hearing until sometime in the 1Q of 2017.
By Staff
March 12, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
Halton Regional Police Service are investigating a serious single motor vehicle collision that occurred in the early hours of Saturday morning leaving a Burlington man in critical condition.
Shortly before 4:00am Saturday March 12th a black VW Golf was travelling south on Kerns Road in the City of Burlington. At the intersection with North Service Road, the vehicle failed to stop or to negotiate the turn and continued through the guard rail at the south edge of North Service Road, coming to rest in the sunken area between North Service Road and Highway 403.
The male driver of the Golf, a 22-year old Burlington male, sustained serious injuries and was transported to Hamilton general Hospital where his condition is described as critical. His male passenger escaped with minor injuries.
Due to the serious nature of the incident, the Collision Reconstruction Unit attended and assumed responsibility for the investigation. At this stage speed and alcohol are being considered as factors.
Details of the vehicle occupants are not being released.
Anybody with information regarding this collision is asked to contact the Collision Reconstruction Unit at 909-825-4747 ext 5065.
 By Staff
March 12, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
New street is what is known as a Regional Road – the region gets to take care of it.
The current task is to replace water mains and wastewater main relining on New Street from Cumberland Ave. to Hampton Heath Rd.
 Project is expected to last until September.
The construction work throws a real wrench into the transit schedule. Here’s the detail:
Burlington Transit users will experience detours and schedule changes from March 21 until September 2016 during construction on New Street.
Detours will affect parts of Routes 4, 10, 50, 52, 300, 301 and 302. Route 4 will not stop on Teen Tour Way from May 9 to Sept. 3, 2016, but the Community Connection Routes will still reach the stop during the construction.
The schedules for Routes 10, 11 and 20 have been changed to allow for connections at the Appleby GO Station. Route 10 will no longer become Route 20 at the Appleby GO Station which means a transfer will be needed when going between Routes 10 and Route 20. The new Route 20 schedule will increase to every 15 minutes.
Detour maps and supplementary schedules to the Ride Guide will be distributed on buses, in the terminal and all updates will be available online at BurlingtonTransit.ca.
 By Pepper Parr
March 11, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
Something’s up.
The City of Burlington has “scheduled a special City Council meeting for 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 15 for a legal update regarding a property at 374 Martha St.”
 The original development application was for a 28 storey structure – that got cut back to 26 storeys. The city did not approve or deny the application within the 180 day time frame required – so Adi went to the OMB asking them to approve the project. Just in case the significance of that address isn’t immediately obvious the city announcement goes on to say:
“An application related to the property is the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing involving the city. The OMB hearing on this matter begins on Monday, March 14 at 10 a.m. at City Hall, Room 247, and is open to the public.”
The OMB hearing is scheduled to run for three weeks – it will be interesting to see if that schedule holds up. The Mayor could have held its meeting Friday afternoon – council meets “at the call of the Mayor” – for some reason the city wants to see the OMB hearing begin before it goes into session for the “legal update”
The Gazette was informed recently that the Mayor has had a conversation with the Adi’s – that information could not be confirmed.
Stay tuned.
The development the OMB is going to hear an application on is what is being marketed as the Nautique, a 26 story project that is to be built at the corner of Lakeshore and Martha.
Slip over to the link for a detailed background on just what the issues are on the development.
 By Pepper Parr
March 10, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearings are relevant and for the most part – as dry as unbuttered toast – they are also where some big money gambles get resolved.
Burlington has two hearings on the docket – Ward 4 Council member Jack Dennison’s appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision that did not permit his request for a severance of his 308 Lakeshore Road property.
 A designated home, bought under a power of sale which current owner Councillor Jack Dennison wants to have severed into two lots. His OMB appeal was first heard on April 29, 2013 – yes three years ago. That hearing was adjourned as was the May 29th, 2014 and the September 23, 2014 hearing.
The appeal was heard on April 21st, 2015 and continued on June 22nd 2015.
Nine months later – and still no decision. This was thought to be a pretty simple severance request; something isn’t right here. But don’t expect an explanation from the OMB – one day the decision will be posted on the OMB web site. The lawyers involved will be notified that a decision has been made and they will get a copy. OMD decisions cannot be appealed – so in the fullness of time Jack Dennison will know if he can sever a portion of his property.
City council knows what this appeal has cost – will they make the amount spent public?
Will Dennison run for his council seat in 2018? If the public gets wind of what it has spent on this case and if there is a credible candidate – he could be in trouble.
 Jack Dennison announcing the sale of his Cedar Springs health club. Retirement might be in the works for Dennison – he recently announced the sale of his Cedar Springs sports club.
 Early rendering of a proposed 28 storey structure that cantilevered over the street at the upper level. Tarif Adi explained at the launch of the development that the idea was to have the building look like a “billowing sail” that would be seen as a statement for people entering the city from the east on Lakeshore Road. The second significant matter on the OMB docket is the appeal the Adi Development Group has made to the OMB claiming that the city “refused or neglected to make a decision on the Official Plan change and zoning application” made by Adi for the development of a 28 storey structure on an .070 piece of land at the intersection of Martha and Lakeshore Road.
The public got its first look at the proposed development on Oct. 9, 2014, Burlington Art Gallery at 7 p.m. It was not a happy meeting. Many of the people in the room realized then that this project was headed or the OMB.
While Council didn’t hold a vote on the application until very recently – the development was contentious from the day it was first shown at a public meeting.
The Gazette has written extensively on this development and was the recipient of a libel claim by the Adi Development group. The Gazette was asked to apologize for three articles it published and to take them off their web site.
An apology was published and the three articles are no longer no longer available to the public on the Gazette web site.
The proposal is complex. No one on council liked the project – or at least that was what they said publicly – Ward 1  Councillor Rick Craven re-tweetd a notice of the public event. For a council member on record as being opposed to the development – the re-tweet seemed inappropriate – bu then Adi has a massive development planned for Aldershot – maybe that explains his enthusiasm.
In a staff report on the proposed development the planners said:
Refuse the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, submitted by Andrew Ferancik, Walker Nott Dragicevic Ltd., 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, ON, on behalf of ADI Development Group Inc., to permit a mixed use development consisting of 226 residential apartment units and 348 m2 of ground floor commercial development, on the property located at 374 Martha Street.
Unfortunately, this recommendation didn’t get to a city council meeting for a vote. By the time the city council meeting took place Adi had filed their appeal to the OMB.
Council did hold a vote a number of weeks ago.
It is a complex situation and the city didn’t exactly wrap itself in the corporate flag – they looked like the Keystone cops for a short period of time – but sloppy administration isn’t reason to approve a proposal that doesn’t meet most of the public policies the planners think they should meet.
Adi submitted the following reports to support their application:
1. Planning Justification Report (prepared by WND Associates, September 2014)
2. Functional Servicing Report (prepared by Urbantech West, August 2014)
3. Geotechnical Investigation (prepared by Landtek Limited, February 2014)
4. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Landtek Limited, February 2014)
5. Traffic Impact Study (prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd., August 2014)
6. Noise Feasibility Study (prepared by Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Ltd., September 2014)
7. Pedestrian Wind Study (prepared by Novus Environmental, August 2014)
8. Shadow Studies (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)
9. Site Plan (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)
10. Tree Inventory & Preservation Study (prepared by Adesso Design Inc., June 2014)
11. Floor Plans (P1-P5, Levels 1-28, Rooftop Terrace Plan and Roof Plan)
12. Elevations (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)
13. Sections (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)
Planning staff explained that OPA and rezoning applications are subject to the following policy framework: Provincial Policy Statement, 2014; Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; The Big Move; Halton Region Official Plan; Burlington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 2020.
 Saud and Tarif Adi They provided summaries of their position on all of the policy statements.
Planning Opinion on the PPS:
While the proposed development is consistent with the PPS in principle, the proposal represents over-intensification on a site that is too small and does not provide adequate setbacks, buffering, amenity space or parking standards. The significant reduction of numerous development regulations that are required to facilitate this intensification proposal on the subject property and the failure to satisfy the City’s Official Plan policies described in Section 8 of this report results in an application that is not consistent with the PPS.
Planning Opinion on Places to Grow:
The subject applications generally conform to the principles of the Growth Plan by accommodating intensification in an area that is designated for intensification, and more specifically, within the Urban Growth Centre. However, the subject applications are not proposing an appropriate scale of development and the proposed development does not achieve an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas. The City’s existing intensification strategy is well positioned to meet the minimum density target established in the Growth Plan without significant changes to the existing Official Plan policies and permissions. The City does not require the overdevelopment of one small property in the Urban Growth Centre in order to achieve the minimum density target.
 Planning Opinion on the Big Move:
The proposed development generally conforms to the vision of the Big Move. However, the City can meet its targets without the proposed over-intensification of this site.
Planning Opinion on the Regional Official Plan:
While Region staff generally has no objection to the proposed development on the basis that it conforms to the Region’s growth policies, City staff is evaluating the applications on the basis of land use compatibility. The proposed development represents the over- intensification of a very small site, does not provide an urban form that is complementary to existing developed areas and does not achieve an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas.
Planning Opinion on the City of Burlington’s Intensification Strategy:
The City has conducted several conformity exercises and has developed a comprehensive approach that balances the protection of neighbourhoods and the accommodation of compatible intensification in appropriate locations. As outlined in Section 7 of this report, staff is confident that the density targets established in the Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan and City Official Plan will be achieved by 2031 without amendments that significantly depart from the City’s Official Plan.
 Mobility hubs at the GO stations is close to a no brainer – it is the possible hub in the downtown core that has yet to be thoroughly thought through. Council decided that closing the terminal on John Street to save $8000 a year was not a bright idea. Planning Opinion on the Mobility Hub Opportunities and Constraints Study:
The MHOC Study has no policy implications at this time, but staff is of the opinion that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the principles and preliminary directions stemming from the MHOC Study. Staff also notes that future master planning exercises for Mobility Hubs will determine detailed site-specific requirements should changes to the Official Plan be deemed appropriate. In the interim, prior to the completion of a Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub master plan, development proposals will be required to meet the Official Plan policies that are in effect. If Council approves Mobility Hub objectives that are incorporated into the Official Plan as a result of this Official Plan Review, then de elopment proposals will be required to me t those objectives until such time as the master planning exercise is completed.
Planning Opinion on the Urban Growth Centre Targets:
 Based on the development patterns that have taken place in the Urban Growth Centre in the past ten years, staff is of the opinion that the City of Burlington is well positioned to achieve a total of 200 residents and jobs per hectare by 2031 taking into consideration the existing Official Plan permissions and zoning regulations within the Downtown.
Planning Opinion on the City of Burlington’s Official Plan:
The proposed development represents residential intensification and is therefore subject to the housing intensification objectives and policies in the Official Plan. The proposed development provides additional housing in the form of residential intensification, but the proposed development is not compatible with the scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood and does not meet the objective of the housing intensification policies.
The nearest residential buildings are the one storey detached residential dwelling to the north and the three storey townhouses to the northwest of the subject property. A five storey retirement residence is located on the east side of Martha Street and a 12 storey apartment building is located further northeast from the subject property. The proposed four storey podium which contains a three level parking garage with a 24 storey tower above at this location does not integrate well with the existing neighbourhood and does not provide an appropriate or a compatible transition between the existing and proposed residential buildings.
In fact, many of the taller residential buildings in the area are located northeast and southeast of the subject property and the existing buildings have greater setbacks from the street and from adjacent properties. The block containing the subject property generally has a lower density built form with building heights ranging from 1-3 storeys and the proposed development does not provide setbacks from the street nor from adjacent properties.
A more recent rendering of what has been named the Nautique The proposed development fails to satisfy a number of intensification criterion including
• the provision of off-street parking;
• the achievement of compatibility with the existing neighbourhood character in terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, coverage, parking and amenity areas to provide a transition between existing and proposed buildings;
• the provision of adequate buffering; the compromised redevelopment potential for the abutting property located at 380 Martha Street;
• the requirement for intensification proposals to be well integrated with the existing neighbourhood in terms of built form, scale and development profile in order to provide a transition between existing and proposed residential buildings;
• the building height, massing and density lead to the overdevelopment of a very small lot; and
• the proposal represents overintensification.
The proposed development fails to satisfy the residential intensification policies of the Official Plan and does not represent good planning.
Planning Opinion on the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines:
The proposed development is not in keeping with the City’s Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for high rise development for the following reasons:
• the building setbacks are not sensitive to the existing built form;
• the building does not propose stepbacks to reduce the perception of building bulk from the street;
• the building does not utilize the results of the visual angular plane study to determine the appropriate building height and/or massing;
• the tower is not located away from the corner of the two intersecting streets;
• the building height, mass and architectural design present a tall, boxy structure that does not reinforce human scale;
• the impact of the high rise development on adjacent properties has not been appropriately minimized through a transition of height, mass, separation and landscaping;
• three levels of above-grade parking that address the street are proposed;
• the proposed development does not clearly express a podium at the street level with a proportion and massing that is consistent with the surrounding built form;
• the proposed development has not been designed to provide a height transition to the surrounding lower scale developments to minimize the shadowing and wind impacts; and
• the negative impacts on adjacent properties related to overshadowing and overlooking have not been addressed through building setbacks, stepbacks, height and massing.
 The Nautique sales office on Brant street in a building owned by the Region Planning Opinion on Zoning By-law 2020:
The zoning changes requested are excessive. The site as proposed would be overbuilt and should not be approved.
The siting of the proposed development is partially responsible for the perceived scale and massing of the building. The building will address the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street and proposes no setbacks along the adjacent property lines to the west and to the north. The building footprint will cover almost all of the lot and leaves no room for vegetation or separation distance from adjacent buildings.
The siting does not provide any “breathing room” between the proposed building on the corner property and the adjacent buildings to the north and west; the proposed building will appear “crammed” into the block. The siting of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.
Is the development selling? Do people want to buy units in the proposed 26 storey structure? Adi has not released any sales figures. In a news report they said they have received more than 3000 expressions of interest – those are not sales; just people kicking tires.
Adi has promoted the project heavily within the real estate community and are offering generous commissions. They held an event at their sales office on Brant Street for the real estate agents offering Valet parking.
By Pepper Parr
March 10, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
Festivals and events are big deals for Burlington.
In the summer months there is RibFest; Sound of Music, Canada Day and the Children’s Festival.
 Does RibFest define Burlington? Should it? It is a very popular event. People in the parks and recreation department are looking at what has been done in the past and what they might do in the future in terms of planning for events.
They want to develop a strategy to help guide the delivery of festivals and events in the community and they want public input on the types of events held in the city, how many events are held, where in the city events are held and if and how the city should help to fund events
There is an online survey where you can get your two cents worth in –takes approximately five minutes to complete. Click here.
 The data shown are not the final results – the survey has not been completed yet. There is a historical approach applied to the acceptance of events hosted within Spencer Smith Park. The park and some downtown roads have reached capacity and there is now a desire for a balanced approached to potentially expand events to other areas in our city.
Staff want to:
Set a vision for events in Burlington
Define the objectives for hosting events in Burlington
Determine guiding principles for event hosting including:
define different types of events and priority events
do risk assessments
look at the funding model for events
establish critera for considering new events and removal of duplicate or less desired events
 The city doesn’t stage much in the way of public events north of the QEW – everything happens along the edge of the lake. This event was in Alton – stage certainly wasn’t city issue – shows what you can do with couple of 2×4’s and a sheet of canvas if you have to keep the sun off you. A number of months ago council and staff met as a Committee of the Whole and talked about the direction the city might want to take with its festivals and events. The city consistently wins awards for the quality of the events it does hold – the question that was put before the meetings was:
Are the events we are currently holding the events we should be holding is a question that was asked. How you events get selected? More than twenty years ago city staff opposed the RibbFest being held in the park – but it was a Rotary project and Burlington city councils rarely oppose what Rotary wants.
There was discussion about the “Burlington brand” – are we more than the Sound of Music? Has RibFest met its best before date? Do we want to begin to move events out of the downtown core?
Committee of the whole meetings have an open approach – the rules of procedure that stymies council meetings don’t apply – comments are much more candid.
The Parks and Recreation people are taking an innovative and welcoming approach to citizen engagement – they are going to hold a “party” at Royal Botanical Gardens March 29th from 6:30 to 9:00 pm at the Royal Botanical Gardens in Auditorium B.
The creating of community seems to be replacing community engagement – we are seeing some interesting and innovative approaches coming out of the parks and recreation department.
By Pepper Parr
March 10th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
So what did the rascals do while we were away?
The Burlington’s Best web site nomination process experienced a bit of a screw up – a staffer said it was “experiencing some issues”. The city manager had to jump in and attempt to resolve one of the problems.
 Why hard working citizen groups should have to be put through so many hoops by the planning department is difficult to understand. The group of people who are behind the creation of a really smart looking monument that will commemorate the stop Terry Fox made in Burlington 35 years ago found themselves stumbling over hurdles the people in the permit section of the planning department kept putting in front of them.
The Mayor has come out from the bushes and is putting forward a motion for a private tree bylaw.
 Trevor Copp, the Burlington actor who mobilized the arts into a Collective makes a point on leadership while Executive Director of the Burlington Museum’s operation listens. The Arts and Culture Collective of Burlington (ACCOB) has written the people who are beavering away at getting the Strategic Plan into print and in the hands of the public, asking that the word “arts” be included in the Strategic Plan. Culture is already in the document. Trevor Copp, a sometime spokesperson for ACCOB says they “noticed the lack of the specific term ‘Arts’ and advocated for its specific inclusion (good use of ‘Culture’; we want both terms). Hopefully it gets in there and we can reference it in the future.”
The arts community has high hopes for some city money that will be doled out to the arts community.
As for the Strategic Plan – the document is now more than a year late, has ballooned at two levels, the scope and scale of the document and the cost.
 The early version was a four year plan – somewhere along the way city council decided to make it a 25 year plan – nothing on the public record as to why they did that. Traditionally, Strategic Plans are documents prepared by a city council for its term of office. The document that is coming our way covers a 25 year period – a time frame when not one member (hopefully) of this council will be in office.
The cost of the consultants who created the document ballooned as well – but the public may never know exactly how much they paid – the service based budget we now have doesn’t allow anyone to drill down and learn much about the specifics.
There was an agency that has taken on the delivery of a provincially funded initiative that was being funnelled through municipalities. The dollars went from the province to the cities – and in Burlington there was a plug somewhere that resulted in some close to frantic calls for the dollars to move in the right direction so the payroll could be met.
A resident took issue with the way minutes of public meetings are kept. He was unable to delegate in person and mailed in his concerns – and was surprised and upset at the way the public record was kept. Let the correspondence with the city Clerk tell the rest of the story …
 Marianne Meed Ward delegated many many times – she saw it as a vital part of the democratic process. The comments that follow were not made by Meed Ward. “In 25 years of coming to Council as a delegation, with a submission, I have never, ever, to my recollection, had my name, and my main message, not included in the Agenda and Minutes of the meeting. For a recent example, the message I sent not supporting the downsizing of the Nelson pool had my name and main message included.
“If I send something to Council, to speak to an Agenda item, I automatically want to be identified by name, and by my main message.
“After receiving this reply, I looked at the Agenda and Minutes again for the C&CS meeting and see that you have put my original correspondence, with my name back, into the Agenda packet.
“However, in the Minutes, while you put my name back, you did not include my main message, which was I support the staff report recommendation to refuse the ADI Martha St. proposal as outlined.
“Please change these proceedings record to indicate that I supported the staff recommendation.
“That’s the bottom line here – including my name and main message in Agendas and Minutes – and what I want corrected and never done to my correspondence to Council again, if you please.”
The public record matters – everything the Gazette has published is in the archives – except of course for those items we get bullied into removing with threats of expensive lawsuits.
By Staff
March 9th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
These guys
 Heavy construction equipment in place to dig trenches and prepare the necessary parts of the infrastructure. There are 12 pieces of heavy equipment ready to dig.
Are the reason this part of Lakeshore Road between Elizabeth and Pearl have to be closed. Concrete pipes have to be put underground. Announcement from city says road will be closed from the 7th to the 11th.
We are chasing down city hall to get confirmation on those dates.
When it is all done – this is what it is going to look like.
 The Bridgewater project – made up of two condominiums and a Marriott hotel is scheduled to be completed in 2018 – between now and then there will be all kinds o squawking about road closures and inconvenience – the price of progress.
 By Staff
March 9, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
Do you know of another city that closes down a road so a slimy little creature that tends to breed at night can cross that road?
It happens in Burlington every year in March.
King Road from the base of the Niagara Escarpment to Mountain Brow Road will be closed from March 15 to April 6 to allow the endangered Jefferson Salamander safe passage during its annual breeding migration.
 The Jefferson salamander – He isn’t exactly pretty but nevertheless plays an important role in the local environment. Comes in different colours as well. The Jefferson Salamander is a nationally and provincially protected endangered species. Each year, since 2012, the City of Burlington has closed the same section of road for an approximate three-week period.
The city works closely with Conservation Halton to assist in the protection and recovery of this endangered species.
 “Conservation Halton commends the City of Burlington for closing King Road once again to protect the Jefferson Salamander, this is a great example of the relationship we have with our community partners,” said Hassaan Basit, General Manager, Conservation Halton. “It can be challenging to determine when is the best time to close King Road as spring weather can be unpredictable, particularly this year, however we feel confident based on the advice of our ecology staff who make the call on the best science and information available.”
 One of these was enough for the people in rural Burlington. One of the reasons for not permitting an expansion of the quarry was the impact that would have on an engendered species.
The Jefferson Salamander is quite a bit more than an endangered species. A provincial tribunal made a decision a number of years ago to not allow the expansion of the Nelson quarry due in large part to the impact any expansion would have on the existence of the salamander.
In Canada, the Jefferson Salamander is found in Southern Ontario in select areas of deciduous forest, mostly along the Niagara Escarpment. Several forested areas in Burlington provide the necessary breeding, summer and overwintering habitats required by this species.
Jefferson Salamanders spend the majority of their lives underground. As the weather warms up and the spring rains begin, the salamanders emerge and migrate to breed in temporary ponds formed by run-off, laying their eggs in clumps attached to underwater vegetation. Adults leave the ponds after breeding. By late summer, the larvae lose their gills and become air-breathing (like the metamorphosis of tadpoles into frogs) and leave the pond to head into the surrounding forests.
Adult salamanders migrate to their breeding ponds in mid-March or early April during wet rainy nights. They show strong affinity for the pond in which they hatched and can be very determined to reach it, sometimes requiring them to cross busy roads.
By Staff
March 9th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
Halton Police responded to a report of a robbery yesterday at a Shoppers Drug Mart store located at 1011 Upper Middle Road in Oakville. A male entered the store and demanded prescription drugs from staff who handed over a large quantity of narcotics. The suspect then left the store without further incident.
Subsequent investigation resulted in the arrest of an Oakville resident who investigators believe is responsible for similar robberies in Oakville and Burlington.
February 21st 2016 – Brant Medical Arts Centre located at 672 Brant Street in Burlington.
February 12th 2016 – Pharma Save store located at 2501 Guelph Line Burlington.
January 28th 2016 – Shoppers Drug Mart located at 1011 Upper Middle Road Oakville.
Investigators also executed a search warrant at a North Oakville address and seized a large quantity of prescription pain killers, notably OxyNEO or Oxycodone. Other items related to the robberies were also seized.
Charged with 4 counts of Robbery and Wear Disguise is:
Richard MATHERS, 36 years of Oakville.
MATHERS has been held in custody for a pending bail hearing.
By Pepper Parr
March 8th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
He bought the place in 1980 – when it was a 5000 square foot operation.
It was an emotional day for Jack Dennison – he announced cedar Springs had been sold. This afternoon Jack Dennison announced the sale of the Cedar Springs Health and Racquet Club to Ivan Bradiaric, a Burlington businessman and property owner who has been a member of the club for more than ten years.
Dennison, in what was an emotional occasion for him, was reluctantly passing on the torch to someone who will immediately begin refurbishing the look of the lobby and making better use of the space.
The sale of the property closed on March 1st – why? The place was limping – it needed a freshening up and the corporation needed to make better use of the land.
 A wistful Jack Dennison look on as the new Cedar Springs owner rolls up hi sleeve the grow the business. Bradiaric has property holdings in the immediate area and he thinks he can do some cross marketing to boost the club’s membership – and – most importantly – see if he can get a zoning change to build a condominium at the south end of the property and tie it into the club.
Bradioaric said he expect to spend between $1 million and $1.5 million on upgrades that will be part of a new concept. He wasn’t prepared to say just what he had in mind other than to add that membership had become stagnant and he believed there was significant growth potential.
What happens to Jack? Well he is an avid sports person; he talks about more time for tennis and doing some cycling when the weather is better.
The club grew sort of “topsy turvey” in Jack’s hands. While Dennison earned an MBA at McMaster he brought his own unique management style to his business operations – much the way he brings his unique style to the seat he holds on city council.
 More cycling time – that’s it? Dennison was in the habit of holding his community meetings at the club where he consistently served popcorn and water to those who attended.
The sale of the club may surprise many – it’s something Dennison has been working at lining up for some time.
It was a tough emotional day for him.
March 8, 2016
By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON
We knew it as the location of the Riviera.
The Riviera Motor Court began operations in 1963. The two level, 32-room motel offered guests a beautiful view of Lake Ontario along the back portion of the motel.
The earliest information for a manager was a Mr. William Dikeman. In 1984 the motel was bought by Mr. John Lee who incorporated it as 558644 Ontario Limited.
 The Riviera on the Lake – lots of stories. The last managers to operate the business were Peter and Yolanda Piekarski. Annual profits were in the area of $242,000.
 The balconies at the rear of the motel made the room rate worth every dime. There was nothing exceptional about the motel – it was the view of the lake from the units at the back of the building.
The 0.7-hectare, block-long property between Elizabeth and Pearl streets just east of Brant was assembled over time. The Lakeshore Road portion was part of a land swap that had the city giving some land in exchange for a shoreline walkway at the edge of the lake which has been in place for a number of years.
 When you reach the 70% plus level in sales you don’t need a fancy demonstration site – it had to make room for the construction equipment. In 2006, Burlington city council approved plans for a new construction project on the property. The project, now known as Bridgewater, has been delayed over the years due to economic factors as well as difficulty in obtaining a developer and hotel partner.
 Construction workers stripping away what is left of the sales office for the Btidgewater project on Lakeshore Road. Bridgewater was to have a 7-storey hotel at street level, that got increased to eight storeys; a 7-storey condo behind the hotel and to the west of both buildings, a 22-storey condo. The condo would obscure the view of Lake Ontario for those living in the condos on the opposite side of Lakeshore. The new buildings would feature a central courtyard open to the public that would lead to the walkway along the water.
The property is owned by Mayrose Tycon who, since 1994, were focused on finding a developer to undertake the construction and to take over the property.
Mady Development Corporation was named but they were taken off the site due to a tricky clause in their agreement with Mayrose Tycon.
 The motel is long gone but the walkway that will eventually run from this point all the way to the canal was built a number of years ago as part of a land swap with the city. The project was “in the works” for the longest time; Conservation Halton had informed Mayrose that if development did not occur on the property by the end of 2012 they would lose between 15 to 20 feet of shoreline property under a new Ontario Regulation.
That got things moving – Mayrose had to get an extension from the Conservation people but that didn’t immediately result in shovels in the ground. It wasn’t until New Horizons was invited to develop the site that one got the sense that this was really going to happen.
Jeff Paikin, known for quality work with a number of solid projects under his belt.
Paikin had bought a unit in the project and was later invited to do the development.
It has been nothing but solid progress since then. Sales of the project are reported to have passed the 70% point. There will a planned 150 units in the two condominium towers.
A collection of 12 pieces of heavy duty construction equipment are on the site – they give a whole new meaning to “shovels in the ground” Paikin’s partner Joe Giacomodonato handles the actual construction work.
At one point the hotel was going to be open for the Pan Am Games in 2015.
As for the Riviera the writing was on the wall in 2010. They began offering rooms on a monthly basis only. The Region of Burlington paid Riviera to house the city’s homeless people and immigrants.
In April of 2012 the municipal building code department and fire department served a notice on the owners that they needed to bring the building up to code or close it down.
The owners decided to close the building which was boarded up.
On August 18, 2012, the building came one step closer to demolition when a fire broke out in the hotel, caused by arson.
The 2015 Pan Am date came and went; the designated developer of the site changed but the project had just too much value built into it to not go forward.
 Three structure project has been the “in the works” since the early 1990’s when developers were given the right to build a 22 storey plus building on the property where the Riviera Waterfront Motel used to exist. Last week the sleek sales office met its turn with the wrecking ball. The south side of Lakeshore Road lost its parking meters and traffic is being restricted for a couple of weeks while large concrete pipes get buried. What was the Riviera is now the construction site for an upscale condominium that will consist of a seven story and a twenty two story structure attached to each other by a four level underground garage.
The site will include a four star Mariott hotel – the opening date is still pencilled in as 2018 – those things tend to be pretty loose until construction is well under way.
The four floors down garage work will get started soon; the grade of Elizabeth will change and slowly but surely the Bridgewater will rise out of the ground and reach 22 storeys into the sky.
 An architectural rendering of an aerial view of the Bridgewater project from the lake side. The view from the top floor be something to experience.
Paikin, who is a marketer at heart will tell anyone who is within earshot that : “The design is so fantastic and the location is probably the No. 1 location in all of Ontario, if not Canada, as a place to live.”
He might be right.
By Staff
March 8, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The City of Burlington Animal Shelter invites all cat and dog owners to attend its low-cost microchip clinic on Saturday, April 2 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Burlington Animal Shelter, 2424 Industrial St.
 City by law says cats have to have a microchip – did you know that? “The last thing any pet owner wants to experience is the stress that comes with trying to find a missing animal,” said Dave Lake, the city’s supervisor of animal services. “In addition to a dog licence, a microchip is an easy, inexpensive way to ensure owners can be quickly reunited with their pet if they are ever separated.”
The cost for a microchip is $30 per pet and only cash will be accepted. Visitors to the clinic can expect a quick and minor procedure. Dogs attending the clinic should be brought on a leash and cats placed in a carrier. The City of Burlington’s bylaws require cats to be microchipped.
Appointments for the clinic can be reserved by calling 905-335-3030. Walk-ins are also welcomed. Pet owners are asked to bring proof of up-to-date vaccinations.
All proceeds from the event will go to the Paw Fund in support of stray animals.
How do they work?
Microchips can be implanted by a veterinarian or at a shelter. After checking that the animal does not already have a chip, the vet or technician injects the chip with a syringe and records the chip’s unique ID. No anesthetic is required. A test scan ensures correct operation.
 Microchip implanted in a cat – visible near the top of the photograph. An enrollment form is completed with chip ID, owner contact information, pet name and description, shelter and/or veterinarian contact information, and an alternate emergency contact designated by the pet owner. Some shelters and vets designate themselves as the primary contact to remain informed about possible problems with the animals they place. The form is sent to a registry, who may be the chip manufacturer, distributor or an independent entity; some countries have a single official national database. For a fee, the registry typically provides 24-hour, toll-free telephone service for the life of the pet. Some veterinarians leave registration to the owner, usually done online, but a chip without current contact information is essentially useless.
The owner receives a registration certificate with the chip ID and recovery service contact information. The information can also be imprinted on a collar tag worn by the animal. Like an automobile title, the certificate serves as proof of ownership and is transferred with the animal when it is sold or traded; an animal without a certificate could be stolen.
Did you know?
That you must have a microchip put in your cat? In 2005 the city passed a bylaw:
Control and Registration of Cats
30. (1) No person, being the owner of any cat shall fail to have the cat implanted with a functioning subcutaneous microchip.
|
|
By Staff
The man allowed the caller remote access to his computer and online banking and then the caller requested the male wire transfer money to China to assist the RCMP in tracking it.
