October 4th, 2020
Last week Council endorsed the recommendations from the Planning department on the Scoped Review of the Downtown Core portion of the adopted but not approved Official Plan.
The endorsement goes to Council this week and, if approved, will be come part of the Official Plan that is currently in the process of being revised. It will be sent to the Regional government where it has to be approved.
Citizens created an organization they called We Love Burlington, (WLB). That group released the following statement related to an article the Gazette wrote on the decision of Council to endorse what the planners had brought forward.
The WLB statement should be part of the public record.
Last December and January, WLB delegated before City Council opposing the direction proposed in the returned Official Plan for downtown development and the public waterfront. We were joined in our opposition by our colleague, Gary Scobie, long time civic activist and critic. Today we post a submission by two members of WLB and Gary on the virtually unchanged but ‘final’ direction for downtown and the waterfront. We continue to advocate for local voice and respectfully request that it be heard. If you agree, contact your Councillor and make your voice count. We strongly suggest looking carefully at the morass of documents and not simply the consultant’s Guidelines nor the summaries provided by the City or council members.
September 21, 2020
The following is the joint submission of Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith, two founding members of WeLoveBurlington, and Gary Scobie, long-time civic activist and advocate. We share a common passion for the City of Burlington and a common purpose in protecting its downtown and waterfront from inappropriate development and excessive intensification. We also have a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of local government – that level of governance closest to the citizen and most sensitive to local needs and voice. Indeed, WLB actually was created by the need to counter the provincial direction for amalgamation at the regional government level. The campaign, waged in concert by a number of ad hoc organizations, was ultimately successful and the threat of amalgamation in Halton removed.
Ironically, the government that WLB fought to preserve because of its perceived sympathy to the people’s will, then turned a virtual deaf ear to many of those citizens when it developed its revised plans for Burlington’s downtown. It would appear that proximity to the people is no guarantee of either the ability to hear their voice or follow their wishes.
On December 5th, 2019 and January 12th, 2020, we delegated before Council. On those occasions we questioned the timing and basic process of the course that brought forward the 243-page Integrated Control By-Law Land Use report and the highly interdependent 319-page Preliminary Preferred Concept Report. We challenged the timing, the conclusions and the basic sequencing of events. At that time, we urged Council to address the relocation of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) and the mis-designation of the John Street bus station and the downtown as a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). We argued that these actions must be a priority before any acceptable redesign of the downtown was possible. We asked for ‘no more tall buildings’. And we were not heard. Indeed, with our final delegations there was not one question posed. We raised inconvenient truths and there was no will to exchange ideas, no appetite to debate. We were politely but conclusively dismissed. We determined at that time that further delegation was pointless and the course for downtown irrevocably charted.
Today, however, we are making another statement in response to the latest documents, the Placemaking and Urban Design Guidelines and the Downtown Burlington Fiscal Impact Analysis and the latest, and apparently final, version of Report PL-16-20, Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown Recommended Modifications to the OP. We do this to bring orderly closure to our advocacy and, once again, echo the voice of Burlington citizens who deserve to be but have not been heard. Sadly, the situation remains almost exactly the same as it was nine months ago – all this time spent tinkering with the documents, but not substantially changing the position or the “vision.”
On page 8 of the Guidelines, for example, the two designations that enable both the Province and the development community to force high intensity massing of people and/or jobs in Burlington’s downtown remain unchanged and in force. We refer, of course, to the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) and the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). COB recently announced that Council voted unanimously on August 24, 2020 to request removal of these designations, yet they remain the key component of the downtown OP, the Guidelines, all Schedules and the Fiscal Impact Analysis. Coupled with this is the fact that LPAT, the ‘new’ dispute forum, is a high-rise developer’s dream tribunal where height and massing in designated growth areas are not just supported but are actively encouraged.
The Urban Growth Centre (UGC) designation was first applied to our Downtown through the Places to Grow provincial legislation in 2005 and ratified by Burlington Council in fall 2006, just weeks before the City Election. It demanded a minimum 200 people/jobs per hectare over the area bounded by the Growth Centre and remains in place today.
The Major Transit Station Area designation arrived much later in the second decade of this century through the provincial agency, Metrolinx, based on the unsubstantiated claim that our Downtown Bus Terminal qualified as a Mobility Hub. The MTSA covers roughly the same area as the UGC and requires the same intensification minimums. Both designations support high intensity massing of people/jobs (and buildings) in the Downtown area and reinforce each other as provincial intensification tools. Moreover, both designations share three critical aspects detrimental to the popular “vision” of what constitutes “good planning” for Burlington’s downtown:
The intensification applies over an area, not a building.
There is no maximum stated. Only a minimum is demanded, and municipalities are “encouraged” to go above the minimum.
There is no mention in the legislation of maximum building height – the sky is quite literally the limit.
So, the two most damaging factors remain unchanged and will be ‘in force’ and operative for the foreseeable future – at minimum, until the Regional Official Plan is revised and approved. This factor alone undermines the comforting assurances and lofty principles of the Guidelines. Indeed, the latter are almost a misdirection, intended to appease a skeptical and fatigued citizenry; false guarantees that intensification can be controlled and made amenable to the public will. But, as Guidelines, they exist simply to articulate what “should be” not what “must be” and they can be contravened by any number of higher policies and direction statements. For example, the “Core Commitment: Downtown Vision and Action Plan” (as amended) goes beyond and takes precedence over the “Placemaking and Urban Design Guidelines”.
In essence, the Guidelines are unenforceable, part of an array of reports and documentation that requires a very informed and patient reader to do all the necessary cross-referencing to determine the complete context. As with the past process of last December and January, the documents are too numerous, too dense, too intricate and too complex. They are not intended to easily inform.
Truly, the devil can be in the details. There are instances in which the Guidelines don’t match or conform to the main OP report. One of the best examples is Village Square. The Guidelines talk about 4 storeys “abutting Martha Street” but Village Square, as popularly known, does not extend to Martha Street.
The Guidelines state:
“1. The maximum height of developments abutting Martha Street shall be 4 storeys and/or shall provide a built form transition to Martha Street and north of Pine Street to maintain the existing low-rise character.”
2. Retail frontages should be designed to complement and reinforce the unique human scaled and historic character of the Village Square Precinct.
3. Retail provided at-grade along Pine Street will act as a transaction to the Village Square development and emphasize an intimate relationship with the public realm by providing a minimum setback of 4 metres from the curb.
4. Development should maintain and enhance views of the Village Square.”
The language is intended to give the impression that the low-rise nature of the area is being protected and preserved. However, when the map (notably, only included in the revised schedules and omitted from the Guidelines) is referenced, it is clear that the north portion of Village Square allows 11 storeys. Moreover, both the Report and the Guidelines are silent on the treatment of the Square’s interior. At best this is misleading; at worst, a deliberate omission. And this is characteristic of the Guidelines as a whole. They contain a treasure trove of vague, ambiguous, qualitative language that provides a sense of affirmation but does not allow for measurement or objective validation.
The Guidelines perpetuate a number of known problems and deficiencies already cited with the planning process and the downtown modifications made to the Official Plan. Most glaring, perhaps, is the fact that the Old Lakeshore Road precinct continues to be ignored. Why is this most critical of precincts, the gateway to the downtown, continually out of scope?
Why are the serious issues, constraints and challenges posed not openly addressed? Why reference it as one of the 10 precincts and note that the downtown is “on a beautiful waterfront setting”, then completely ignore what is required to protect the waterfront, enhance its accessibility to the public and maintain the existing views? Indeed, Burlington has had a very uneven record over the last 20 years in terms of preserving and protecting the natural asset of the waterfront. It sold valuable waterfront property to private owners, failed to extend the waterfront trail and allowed development interests to prevail over those of public access. These Guidelines and this Official Plan do little to reverse the mistakes of the past. World class cities provide strict and enforceable measures to ensure that their waterfronts are valued as irreplaceable jewels and true public assets. Burlington, by contrast, posits a “feel good” set of principles (pp 44/45) factored around the discretionary preservation of “views” and “access”.
The same principles with the same poor expectation of effective implementation are used to preserve sight lines to landmark buildings such as City Hall, Knox Presbyterian Church and Village Square. One can reasonably argue that the view of City Hall will be obstructed by the Twin Towers approved for the northeast and southeast corners of Brant and James. Knox is located in the Downtown East Precinct that allows tall buildings and is vulnerable to demolition. Village Square presents a series of already identified issues. In fact, we take serious issue with the whole Downtown East Precinct in which the “precedent” of existing tall buildings is used to justify an ongoing ‘tall building’ development pattern. Why is the “precedent” not anchored in the many one or two storey houses in the area? How does the allowance for 17 storeys on Elizabeth Street and 17 at the Lions Club Park conform to the existing adjacent neighbourhoods? How does it conform to that which the people have been asking and how is it feasible that that small area around tiny Martha Street and Lakeshore/James could possibly accommodate this many tall buildings and additional congestion? Where is the requirement that Carriage Gate finally, after more than a decade, build their promised parking garage and medical centre at the site of their 17-storey condo building atop a three storey “podium” (the much-touted retail portion on ground level still completely vacant) located in the East Precinct? Why is the consultant/staff recommending 22 storeys at the Carriage Gate property at Pearl and Lakeshore, beside the uniformly unwanted ADI property next door?
There is almost a complete lack of green space and amenities. The map in Schedule 3, Appendix D shows three green circles denoting “public parks” (viz. Ghent/Brant, No Frills parking lot and Martha near New Street). They are small, located in insignificant areas and appear as afterthoughts – not integral components of the plan. The City claims to want to create complete communities with all of the amenities, but this worthy goal appears to have been abandoned in the downtown. Indeed, there is no section in the Guidelines dealing with green spaces and parks. Instead of needed amenities, community hubs and actual parkland, we are presented with the concept of POPS (Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces) as leisure and recreational areas for the thousands of people who will populate the new buildings. The POPS were featured in the Fall 2019/Winter 2020 presentations of the preferred concepts for downtown. They were not critically acclaimed then and deserve no better treatment now. In fact, little has changed with either the concepts or the consultant’s treatment of the design for downtown. So, for example, where is the recognition that the pandemic has dramatically changed our reality? In the Fiscal Impact Analysis:
“Table 3-1 summarizes the residential growth projections for Downtown Burlington to 2031. It is anticipated that the within Downtown Burlington, the City’s population will grow by 2,787 population over the 2020-2031 forecast period. The population growth will be facilitated by the development of 1,720 additional high-density residential dwelling units. Consistent with the assumptions of the 2016 FIS, it is assumed that 75% of high-density residential development will be in the form of condominium development, with the remaining 25% comprising apartment developments.”
Remarkably, there is no updated view of the changes that COVID has made to our lives and the nature of our future living. Today, and for the foreseeable future, there is far less desire for condominium living and cloistered spaces. People want to distance and separate, want more open spaces and houses with traditional features and backyards. Accordingly, there should be fewer allowances for tall buildings and much better-defined planning for open spaces. Why is the consultant’s vision unchanged?
This speaks to our final major issue – the implicit cynicism of the consultation process and the lack of meaningful public engagement. Much has been made by the City and Council in ward newsletters and social media posts of the extensive outreach that has been undertaken. Citizens have been thanked for their time and effort reviewing an endless array of documents, helping to make the Official Plan and its policies a better, more inclusive work. However, nothing has materially changed. The preferred concepts, the vision and principles, the Official Plan itself with its myriad ancillary reports and the strategic documents ‘ad infinitum’ have not been varied or amended. The direction has not been moderated by either public comment and feedback or influenced by a differing public perception. The development scenario was essentially set during last Summer and Fall, when SGL Consulting was engaged under a directed tender to validate staff-defined outcomes. The necessary substantiating reports and studies were then concluded with predictable findings and the path forward unaltered from that framed and established at the very beginning.
Neither Council nor Planning staff should believe that a lack of new comments opposing much of these final documents means that the public now finds them acceptable. In the midst of a pandemic and at the end of a very long, quite protracted and overly tiresome process with too many documents, too many cross-references and too many versions, people are fatigued with the need for repetition; for saying repeatedly what they want and never being heard. We know that the council members are there to speak up on our behalf, convey our long-standing and unchanged positions, and to direct staff as they see fit. This is what the public expects and is counting on.
In summary, we’ve been here before – several times actually and nothing substantive has changed. It’s not that we expect that Council is under any obligation to passively comply simply because we attended and delegated. However, we did expect to be respected and to be heard. We represent a popular voice to which you have turned a deaf ear; worse, to which you have claimed an avid attention, then done nothing. We respectfully request that you provide for substantive amendments to the Official Plan, addressing the deficiencies noted in this submission and reflecting what the people of Burlington want for their downtown.
We understand that Council has worked with staff on modifications to produce a revised Official Plan for endorsement but we believe that it is seriously flawed. It leaves the waterfront vulnerable to development and permits a downtown in which tall buildings will dominate, with no real green space or public amenities. As we have said from the beginning, there is only one waterfront and one downtown – once gone there will be no bringing anything back and we urge the current Council, elected with such high popular expectation two years ago, to do everything needed to clearly ensure their permanent protection. Your legacy depends on it.
 By Pepper Parr
October 1st, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It was an eleven hour meeting that went as smoothly as things like this can go.
The result – the city now has an Official Plan that it will soon send to the Regional government where it has to be approved.
 They were sworn in to deliver – yesterday – they delivered. Getting the document to this point has been a massive effort on the part of the people in the Planning Department where many of the people in place now are new to the city.
 Alison Enns on a walking tour with a group of citizens. Alison Enns and Thomas Douglas did a huge job of involving the public and fattened their resumes with some superb work.
Director of Planning Heather MacDonald, new to the city as well, was able to get staff to meet the call every time she asked.
Council deserves credit – they believed a better Official Plan was necessary and they hung together for the most part to see it to the point where it passed through the Standing Committee on a 6-1 vote with Councillor Sharman being the exception.
 Councillor Sharman with Councillor Bentivegna – they voted against the 9 Meed Ward amendments – with one exception. His decision not to support the motion was as much a political move as a vote against what is a good Official Plan. This Council did the work that the 2014-18 Council wasn’t able to get done.
Even Councillor Sharman admitted as much.
Mayor Meed Ward did what she always does – did it her way. She, along with ward 2 Councillor introduced nine amendments to what the Planning department brought forward.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward – she ran on creating a better Official Plan – she has delivered. Much of the amendments focus was on the eastern side of the city where Meed Ward brought forward reasonable changes. Most people agreed with the Mayor; although the Lions Club would have liked the Mayor to look upon the block sized property they own a little differently.
The specifics of the nine amendments will get covered in future Gazette articles.
The now endorsed Official Plan gets put before a City Council meeting early in October where it will be passed.
Is it the right plan for the city? Only time will tell – what is not in doubt is the size of the effort from everyone involved.
The plan should get through the Regional level – but it looks as if a number of vested interests are going to appeal the document.
The number of letters put on the record by different developers and the legal counsel that have in the past represented the interests of the developers more than suggests the battle isn’t over.
 Heather MacDonald talking with a citizen at a public meeting – we used to have events like this. Is the plan defensible at LPAT is the question on many minds.
Only time will tell.
Heather MacDonald was given the task of hiring consultants to support the work that had to be done. The firm hired –SGL Planning & Design Inc., was her choice – she chose well.
 By Pepper Parr
September 30th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
City Council is meeting today as a Standing Committee that is preparing to endorse the recommendation from the Planning department on a Scoped Review of the downtown portion of an Official Plan that was approved in xx 2018, went to the Region for approval – the Region returned the Official Plan pointing to four areas that did not comply with the Regional Official Plan.
In sending the plan back to be made conforming with the Region the invited the city to make additional changes.
That allowed the current city council to make all the changes they thought the city needed.
That process, which began in 2018 is coming to a head today.
It is a convoluted, complex process, evident in the graph set out below.
 A complex process that is coming to a head at council today. The consult the city hired is doing a superb job; planning staff have set new heights in terms of the community outreach they have done.
Some of it has been excellent – what has not been all that excellent is the public participation. There were walking tours that had less than 20 people. The Action Labs were an interesting approach.
The city has gone through two Planning directors – the difference between the two has been very evident.
Councillors are facing a full day’s work. The delegations and letters sent to council went from a through to r. A lot of people want to be on the record for this run at getting an Official Plan in place that can change the way the city will grow as it faces significant population growth targets.
The Gazette will report in detail on what was said and who said it.
By Staff
September 29th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The city now requires developers to take their plans to the public and get feedback at that level before taking their project to the Planning Department.
The ADI Development Group will be telling their story to the public on Tuesday, September 29, 2020 Time: 5:30 -7:00 PM.
Participate On-Line via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/91873809076
Webinar ID: 91873809076
During the meeting, City Planning staff will provide an overview of the development application review process and opportunities for public participation in the process.
Adi Development Group will provide an overview of their redevelopment plans. This proposed development consists of two different design options for community feedback. The first of which consists of three towers with heights ranging from 29 to 39 storeys, and the second option consists of four towers with heights ranging from 18 to 39 storeys.
Both options yield the same approximate number of units, 1,258. There will be a question and answer session to share your thoughts about the proposal with Adi Development Group.
Councillor Kelvin Galbraith and the Mayor will also be in attendance to hear your input.
The four towers are the second phase of this development known as Station West which is within walking distance of the Aldershot GO station.
 By Pepper Parr
September 28th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The intersection of Brant and Ghent is a bit of a waste land. An empty field on the west side north of Ghent, a parking lot on the east side north of Ghent.
A low two story office building that has seen better days is on the south side Ghent on the corner of Brant.
You could drive by and not know what you had just passed.
That location is in the process of changing.
The Molinaro Group released architectural renderings and announced a date for the now required pre-consultation meetings with the public before an application can be taken to the Planning department.
This is a development that isn’t within what most people see as the “downtown core” – which suggests that it will pass muster with the people that are fighting for what they call the heart and soul of the city
Given the virtual world we live in everything is now accessible by a Zoom link.
To participate On-Line via Zoom go to the web site set out below and use the webinar ID set out below.
https://zoom.us/j/96657726680
Webinar ID: 966 5772 6680
Participate by Telephone: 1-647-374-4685 (audio only)
Burlington is in the process of beginning to look like a very different city.
 Three 25 story buildings with some townhouses on Brant thrown in.
By Pepper Parr
September 22nd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
PART 2 of a SERIES: The first piece in this series of articles on the incredible success the citizens living in the Appleby Village part of the city had when they went up against a developer who had filed an appeal with the Local Planning Act Tribunal (LPAT) .
The first the larger public heard about how things had turned out for the citizens who were opposed to the Appleby Village development was when the Mayor announced during a Council meeting that there was a settlement offer from the developer.
The development project in the east end goes back to 2014 – the developer had a plan that got put on hold when the Region realized that the Storm Water System could not handle the amount of flood waters; that a larger pipe would have to be put in place.
That put the project on hold for two years.
Jeremy Skinner, an east end resident who spends his free time going to community meetings, had become friendly with Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman and got into the habit of attending his meetings.
Skinner wondered if there were people in the community who were as curious as he was about how such a development would get past the Planning Department.
 There is a very vibrant community surrounding the site. The area in the center in grey is the land that has undergone significant re-development during the past ten years. The X is where the high rise and town houses are going to be located. The Gazette had been following the story but not as closely as Skinner.
Skinner put together a flyer and dropped them off at homes in the immediate area of the proposed development which at that time was for two Residential Condominium Apartment Towers with one at 12-storeys and the second at 17-storeys. These were subsequently changed to 17-storeys for both towers when the matter got to an appeal application.
The residents who bordered the proposed development of Appleby Village were shocked to receive invitations to attend the initial LPAT Pre-hearing Conference for the First Capital (Appleby) Realty appeal for lack of City decision to amendments to the Official Plan (OP) and the By-law (ZBL). They got the invitation either because their homes were within a boundary set out by the city or because they had attended a meeting and put their names on a sign up sheet.
 Public art is set at the north west corner of the Village. Goats. The Official Plan (OP) and the Zoning Bylaw ( ZBL) for the 6.6-hectare site were defined as a maximum of 12-stories.
Nothing was happening while the Region improved the storm water pipes. That work was completed by the end of 2016.
At about the same time there were rumblings within the development community that the Ontario Municipal Board was going to undergo a significant change. Word at the time was that municipalities were going to have more involvement in the process – that belief supported by the new name. Local Planning Act Tribunal. The LPAT acronym turned out to be very misleading.
The new act came into effect on December 12th. Many developers, believing they could read the tea leaves, filed appeals wanting to be heard under the old OMB rules. First Capital filed their appeal on November 17th, 2017 which meant their appeal would be held under the to-be-replaced OMB rules and procedures. It also meant that the city’s Planning Department was out of the game – the city lawyers now had the file.
By this time Skinner had become quite active in the community and recruited what he called “street captains” people who would distribute another flyer to households.
 The invitation Jeremy Skinner distributed to the neighbourhood. Sixteen people took up the invitation – Skinner now had his community group.
They met on a number of occasions figuring out what their approach should be and what was actually possible. They knew the development wasn’t going to be taken off the table – but believed they could get changes that made it better for everyone in the community.
 It’s an active site with a very good restaurant, a Starbucks, an LCBO, a bank and a supermarket. The first LPAT appeal meeting took place at city hall on May 1st where those seeking Registered Participant status were advised to group themselves with other residents who had common concerns and identify representative speakers who would make statements at the hearing.
That was initiative enough for Skinner to host a neighbourhood meeting on the 26th of June 2018 at Pineland Baptist Church. “At the meeting, we reviewed what was known about the development application, and then considered our response based upon what we believed was possible to win at LPAT and what would be required to do so.
“We decided not to challenge the Developer or the City on matters such as: the number of buildings; building heights; number of residential suites; the number of their guests’ vehicles in underground parking; and impact on traffic for the developer and the City to resolve” said Skinner.
“This was due to the high costs to hire LPAT recognized Subject Matter Experts and suitable Legal representation. Instead, we decided to focus our efforts on documenting our issues of “transition compatibility to our bordering residential neighbourhood properties” and the need to “improve and make safe pedestrian egress to the site”.
“We drafted and ratified a proposal letter complete with eight conditions summarized below which, if satisfied, would result in the community group withdrawing our objection to the proposed development and instead to follow the City’s lead. It was sent to all LPAT parties and the LPAT Case Coordinator on the 8th of July 2018.
 These were the conditions the community took to the developer.
There were numerous meetings with the developer’s architect and senior people at First Capital. The residents knew that the development was eventually going to get approved and that they really didn’t have much clout; the developer wanted to get on with the construction and move the file forward – getting rid of the residents was the price they would have to pay.
At a subsequent LPAT meeting (Preconference Hearing # 2 ) Eileen Costello, a lawyer,with Aird and Berlis, counsel for the developer, advised LPAT that on the 30th of October, 2020 they would be submitting a revised development plan that was being submitted on a Without Prejudice basis and that “discussions have continued with the City”.
Ms. Costello stated that they have looked at the information submitted by the local residents and intend in the future to take a revised proposal out for communication and discussion with the residents.”
What this meant was that the residents had prevailed – the developer was going to go along with much of what the residents had proposed.
 Green = development pedestrian egress & townhouse front yards Now the challenge was to make that point with the city and to get the Planning Department back into the game. They were no longer part of what was happening – the moment the developer filed the LPAT appeal the city’s legal department was in control of the file – not that the city had all that much going for their side of the difference of opinion on the development.
Jeremy Skinner delegated at city hall on a matter that was part of the CLOSED SESSION agenda.
He started out telling the Council members that the day before there had been a ZOOM meeting that his group had been invited to attend. The developer set out the changes they had made.
Those changes were enough for the Appleby Village community group to withdraw their objections.
In a short report on the city web site the scope of the win for the residents is set out:
The settlement between the City and First Capital resolves the issues in dispute between the City and First Capital on the basis that First Capital and the City will seek LPAT approval of a revised development concept for the property. The City and First Capital will request the LPAT withhold a final order approving the development until the City and First Capital are satisfied with technical studies that are required to support the revised development concept.
The revised development concept proposes 368 dwelling units in both apartment and townhouse forms located on a portion of the site of the former Appleby Mall that currently contains a parking area adjacent to existing retail/commercial uses. The revised development concept reduces the building heights of the original proposal from 12 and 17 storeys, down to a 9 storey and two 12 storey buildings that are in compliance with the Official Plan. The revised development concept also: increases setbacks from Pinedale Avenue; reorients and redesigns the buildings to achieve compliance with the City’s Urban Design Guidelines; introduces townhouse units at the base of the buildings; and provides enhanced landscaping, among other things.
The City and First Capital will attend at the LPAT hearing scheduled to commence on November 2, 2020 to seek approval of the Zoning By-law amendment and revised development concept by the LPAT.
End of part 2
Part 1.
 By Staff
September 22, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Wrong building, wrong place and miles outside the Official Plan and zoning for the property.
The development was to be located on the west side of Guelph line just south of New Street.
The Staff recommendation was to refuse the application for official plan and zoning by-law amendments submitted by Weston Consulting, on behalf of Valour Capital Inc. for the development of a 13-storey residential building on the property located at 420 Guelph Line.
CARRIED
Council debated this one for more than an hour and urged the developer to do a makeover and perhaps work with an abutting property owner.
The immediate area already has several development applications in the works – five years from now you will probably not recognize the area.
 The developer was asking for too much and the neighbours didn’t like it.
 By Staff
September 21st, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
A Pre-Application Community Meeting will take place this evening between 7 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.
Millcroft Greens is hosting a virtual consultation meeting this evening to discuss a proposal to redevelop portions of the Millcroft Golf Course. The owners are proposing to develop five (5) parcels of land for residential uses. The intention is to also make design improvements to the existing course layout while retaining an 18-hole golf course.
 Current golf course layout.
 Proposed golf course layout.
The meeting will have an interactive format with live questions and answers.
Telephone and video-conferencing participation options will be available. Millcroft Greens is working with representatives of residents’ groups (Millcroft Against Development and We Love Millcroft), city staff, the Mayor and Council to design the format of the meeting.
This consultation meeting is the first step in a comprehensive review of the draft proposal. The purpose of the consultation meeting is for Millcroft Greens to address key questions and obtain community feedback prior to the submission of any development applications.
The City will assist with hosting the meeting in a virtual capacity and the meeting will be hosted and broadcast live from Council Chambers. Councillor Bentivegna and Mayor Meed Ward will be in attendance to listen to the discussion and hear from residents, they also welcome any resident feedback.
Participate On-Line via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/94419494959
Webinar ID: 944 1949 4959 (internet connection required – Zoom User Guide available at www.burlington.ca/millcroftgreens)
Participate by Telephone: 1-647-374-4685 (audio only)
By Pepper Parr
September 17th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It was to be the last of the meetings where the public could learn more about the Scoped Review of the Revisions to the approved but not yet adopted Official Plan.
This is the plan that was voted on during the closing days of the 2014 – 18 city council that was then turned back by the Region where it has to be approved.
When the document was returned to the city the new council had an opportunity to make additional changes that were more in line with the new agenda.
The document that was being prepared now has 21 appendices, the latest of which was released shortly before the meeting.
The document will go to a meeting of Council where it will be heavily debated. That meeting is on September 30th.
On the 6th of October it goes to city council again and will be voted upon.
 This is a map of the Growth Framework with the Neighbourhood centres shown.  This is the map with the Urban Growth Centre boundaries in place and each of the precincts colour coded. This map has gone through numerous revisions. . The public was introduced to where the neighbourhood centres are to be located. There are eight of them.
It will be passed at city council. Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman might vote against it.
It then goes to the Region where it has to be approved.
Then back to Burlington city council where any last minute touch ups get done – it then becomes the law of the land.
Unless of course it is appealed to the Local Planning Act Tribunal.
Last night the public got to see some new maps.
By Pepper Parr
August 24th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
There is a lot of development taking place in Aldershot where ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith faces a sticky wicket.
There is a development for a six storey structure that is literally around the corner from his house.
He did the right thing by talking to the City’s Corporate Counsel and then declaring a conflict of interest every time the matter was on a Council agenda.
The developer has taken the position that they listened to the residents and made significant changes to the development. Their revised proposal is now before the Planning department.
 While the height was a concern – the massing was terrible. The immediate neighbourhood consists of detached houses, some two storey in a quiet neighbour with a tennis court nearby. The GO train tracks are to the north where the ADI development is well underway but distant enough not to intrude. The six stories were a clear intrusion.  Proposed revision: The height is still there but the massing is gone. The developer added a number of townhouses on the eastern side. Is this an acceptable improvement? Will it fly? In a letter to city council the developer said:
These revised plans represent a number of significant wins for both the City and the community over the original proposal. The revision to the plans can be summarized as follows:
1. Building Length: Reduced from 113 meters to two 51 metre buildings with a connecting element;
2. Increased front yard setback (from Masonry Court) from 3 metres to 5 metres;
3. Increased rear yard landscape buffer from 1.51 metres to 5.25 metres;
4. Reduction in surface parking from 49 to 29 parking stalls;
5. Elimination of one driveway entrance/exit from the Subject Lands;
6. The addition of townhouse facade to the St. Matthews elevation to ensure appropriate transition to the homes along St. Matthews;
7. Setback of building along St. Matthews of 4.5 metres as requested by staff, which will align with the setback of the homes to the south;
8. 45 degree angular plane achieved to ensure no adverse privacy or overlook impacts ;
9. Improved building articulation, landscape and amenity areas ;
10. Increased suite mix from 22% two bedroom units to 35% two bedroom units.
Clearwater Street was the location where Marianne Meed Ward threw her hat into the ring and announced (to the surprise of anyone?) that she was running for Mayor.
By Pepper Parr
August 19th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Most of the reports listed below can be reached by clicking on the link.
The “Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown” (Scoped Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan) is a document-heavy process.
To get a sense as to just how document-heavy it has been – and it isn’t over yet – gaze at the documents listed below.
 That Closer Look amounts to a big pile of paper The project team has released recommended modifications to the downtown policies in the Adopted Official Plan. These policies will guide development in downtown Burlington to the year 2031. The recommended modifications and associated reports are linked below.
The meat of it all is in the first document – not actually in the document itself – it’s in one of the Appendices.
The recommended modifications are discussed in staff report PL-16-20 and in Appendix 1 of PL-16-20, SGL Planning & Design Final Report.
The Official Plan recommended modifications themselves are contained in Appendices 2, 3, and 4 of report PL-16-20.
Appendices 5-14 of report PL-16-20 contain technical studies that have been completed in support of the Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan.
- PL-16-20 Appendix 5: Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Revised Report (Prepared by ASI, Feb 19, 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 6: Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Downtown Mobility Hub Study Area (Prepared by ASI, May 2019, revised September 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 7: Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub Market Analysis (prepared by N. Barry Lyons and Associates, August 2017)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 8: Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub – Illustrative Economic Analysis (prepared by N. Barry Lyons and Associates, July 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 9: Scoped Environmental Impact Study Downtown Mobility Hub (Prepared by Dillon Consulting, October 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(A-1): Flood Hazard and Scoped Stormwater Management Assessment (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions Wood, June 1, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(A-2): Flood Hazard and Scoped Stormwater Management Assessment – Drawings (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions Wood, June 1, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(B-1): Hager-Rambo Flood Control Facilities Study Report: Downtown and Burlington GO Mobility Hub (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, May 29, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(B-2): Appendices to Hager-Rambo Flood Control Facilities Study Report: Appendices (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, May 29, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(B-3): Hager-Rambo Flood Control Facilities Study Report: Drawings (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, May 29, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 11: Downtown Burlington Traffic Overview (Prepared by CIMA+, October 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 12: Downtown Burlington Micro-Level Traffic Operations: Review of the preferred Land Use Scenario (Prepared by CIMA+, May 1, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 13: Updated Area Servicing Plan (ASP) for Stormwater, Water and Wastewater: Downtown Burlington (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, May 28, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 14: Fiscal Impact Analysis (To be prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd and shared in July 2020) This document got moved back a month.
Appendix 15 of report PL-16-20 contains draft Downtown Burlington Placemaking and Urban Design Guidelines, to be prepared by SGL Planning & Design and released in July 2020.
Appendices 16-19 contain information about public engagement that informed the recommended modifications to the adopted Official Plan. This includes responses to feedback received.
Appendix 20 contains updates on other City projects, as of May 2020. This appendix may be further updated in September 2020.
Appendix 21 of report PL-16-20 will contain a project update that will be prepared and released in September 2020, in advance of the public meeting. This appendix will address all feedback received up until August 28, 2020.
Next Steps
The City will share two more documents – expected sometime in September:
- Financial Impact Analysis concerning the recommended policy modifications, and
- Draft Downtown Burlington Placemaking and Urban Design Guidelines for public review.
Aug. 28, 2020: Deadline to submit comments on the recommended modifications to the adopted Official Plan so the project team has time to consider the feedback in advance of the Sept. 30 Committee meeting.
Sept. 2020: The project team will release an additional appendix to the staff report PL-16-20 that was published in June. This appendix will provide project updates and a response to all feedback that was received prior to Aug. 28.
Sept. 30, 2020: City Council will consider all reports at a public meeting of the Community Planning, Regulation, and Mobility Committee on Sept. 30. This meeting will include a presentation from City staff and the project consultants. The public will have a chance to delegate.
Oct. 7, 2020: Council will consider the Sept. 30 recommendations at a Special Council meeting on Oct. 7. Council will decide whether to endorse the recommended policy modifications and submit them to Halton Region for inclusion in the Region’s approval of the new Official Plan that Council adopted in Apr. 2018.
The Gazette will now dive into the pile of documents and report on what it all means.
Stand By and Stay Tuned..
By Pepper Parr
August 19th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It was the best ZOOM production we’ve seen since the lock down.
 Michelle Dwyer handled the flow of questions exceptionally well. There may be a future for her in professional broadcasting. Michelle Dwyer served as the moderator who took the calls during a virtual information meeting about the close-to-final report from the Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown event which she passed on to the team on the other side of the panel that included Alison Enns, Thomas Douglas and Jenna Pulato.
It ran smoothly, a truly professional production. The people who run the city web casts – especially the Standing Committee programs, could learn something from this team.
Dwyer would have looked even better if the camera had been adjusted just a little.
Each of the participants was working from home (Dwyer might have been working out of city hall) and were able to move from person to person without any glitches.
They were doing a virtual information meeting on one of the final Get Involved Burlington segments that was focused on the Scoped Reexamination of the Adopted Official Plan for the Downtown.
By way of background – the 2014-18 city council approved a new Official Plan that was sent to the Region where it had to be approved. The Region sent it back saying there were parts of the Plan that didn’t fit with the Regional Official Plan – they needed some fixes.
That notice from the Region came in after the 2018 election which brought a lot of new faces to the council table and a Mayor who saw the development of the downtown core a lot differently than her predecessor.
In its notice to the city about the Official Plan that it was sending back, the Region said the city could look at other elements of the Plan and not just the four the Region had been specific about.
That gave Mayor Meed Ward the room she needed to take a deeper look at what could be done with the downtown core.
 Mary Lou Tanner, former Burlington Director of Planning The city now had a new Director of Planning: Mayor Meed Ward did not get along with Mary Lou Tanner who was directing and defending what the 2014-18 Council had approved.
Mayor Meed Ward sent City Manager James Ridge packing and brought in Tim Commisso in as an interim City Manager who quickly became the choice of new full time city manager.
Most of the players had changed – which got the city to the point where the Scoped Reexamination of the Adopted Official Plan become almost a cottage industry in itself. The Director of Planning was given carte blanche to hire a consulting firm to lead the Review. They were thorough – and they weren’t cheap.
Heather MacDonald, the new director of planning, was given permission to do a sole source search – she hired SGL Planning and Design who began a process that produced literally dozens of reports with two more to come.
 Alison Enns, part of the panel that took questions from the public on a virtual information meeting, worked very smoothy with Thomas Douglas on the ZOOM presentation  Thomas handled most of the question related to transportation at the virtual information meeting. The FINAL report with some surprising recommendations wasn’t available to the public until a few days before the live review; despite that many of the questions were very detailed – members of the public had drilled down and done their home work.
A transcript of the broadcast, as well as the broadcast itself is expected to be available “shortly” Both will be posted to the Get Involved section of the city web site.
Planning staff have asked for comments before August 28th. The report will go to a Standing Committee September 30th and to Council in October.
If the report makes it through each of these steps, and doesn’t get bogged down with an appeal before it goes to the Region, it could become the law of the land before the end of the year.
It will have been a long, tortuous and expensive trip.
Delegating before city council is both a tradition and an important part of citizens getting their views before those elected to guide the city and direct the administration on what they want done.
Burlington has some fine delegators; people who do their homework and believe their role is to hold city council accountable. Yesterday Hunter Lawson delegated on the plans the Region of Halton has for the updating of its Official Plan.
Lawson delegated several hours before Curt Benson, Planner for the Region, talked about the five Discussion papers the Region has prepared. Benson referred to the Lawson delegation several times during the long explanation he gave members of Council. Hunter Lawson had been heard and Curt Benson had listened.
Lawson now gives his opinion on what public engagement is all about.
 By Lawson Hunter
August 12th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Halton Regional Council held a workshop on July 8th and a Council Meeting on July 15th to deal with the Region’s upcoming Official Plan Review (ROPR) and how it relates to Planning changes recently made by the Province through the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement.
A City’s Official Plan must conform to the Region’s Official Plan which must conform to several Provincial Bills and Regulations. Over the past two years, the Provincial government has been busy making drastic amendments to Provincial Plans and the Provincial Policy Statement. This is why the citizens of Burlington must be informed and engaged.
Five Discussion Papers were drawn up that form the key themes of the Regional Official Plan Review:
Climate Change;
Natural Heritage;
Rural and Agricultural System;
Regional Urban Structure; and
North Aldershot Planning Area.
I delegated to Council to urge them to go beyond what the Region has planned for Public Engagement. From what I can gather, it is limited to the an online survey and one or two Public Information Centres, which will be difficult given our challenges with social distancing due to coronavirus. I propose that the City of Burlington hold its own Public Engagement strategy to inform the public of the importance of the Regional Official Plan as it relates not only to Land Use but to the Climate Emergency that this Council has declared. We need a ‘made in Burlington’ engagement plan. (Note: Curt Benson, Director of Planning Services at the Region, later told Council that there would be 4 PICs)
 Though the Regional Official Plan is not slated to be finalized until Q4 2021, and the Region has hinted that Public Engagement will be undertaken – my concern centres on the fact that public engagement was slated to run from July 15th to Sept. 28th. Summer months are well known to be a slow time to engage the public. The time between July 15th, the day that Regional Council accepted the Discussion Papers, and July 29th, the day that public notice was sent of a request for comments, is a concern. The next Regional Council meeting will be Sept. 16th, when it’s expected Council will discuss public feedback, which is twelve days before the public engagement period ends. Neither inspires confidence that public engagement will be full and effective. (Note: Benson later told Council that Regional Staff would require considerable time to evaluate and prepare a report for Council’s review)
Public engagement is also noted for Phase 3 of the process but by that time Regional staff will have prepared ‘preferred options’ which will limit public discussion, as we have seen over and over again – a public display of an either/or choice or worse, “adopt this or nothing”.
In comparison, the City of Burlington has held extensive public engagement regarding the City’s ‘Adopted Official Plan’ and specifically the ‘Taking a Closer Look at Downtown’. Surveys (online and paper); 7 Citizen Action Labs; 17 pop-up events; outreach to 130 students and the Burlington Youth Council and the Halton Multicultural Council; walking tours; 3 drop-in sessions; and an upcoming online Town Hall on Aug. 18th. An unprecedented amount of effort.
 Scoped Review of the Downtown portion of the affirmed but not yet adopted Official Plan So I must ask, “Is Downtown Burlington more important than North Aldershot, the Rural and Agricultural System, Climate Change?” Each of the five topics that the Region is seeking public comment on is important in its own right. How much emphasis does the Region and the City place on these planning issues?
The timing of public engagement needs to be pushed back into the Fall to allow for a comprehensive process and full disclosure so that residents can digest, and discuss among themselves, the various reports, some of which are longer than 100 pages.
If the Region is not prepared to do this, then the City of Burlington must insist on these changes so that at least Burlington is prepared to look into the future and make its own Official Plan the best that it can be.
A municipal Official Plan does not inspire most residents to take notice. Despite the endless discussions this Council has had on its ‘Adopted Official Plan’, most Burlington citizens, outside of a few committed downtown residents, have only a vague notion of the significance an Official Plan has on how this city will look and operate for decades to come.
We need the Province to hear more than just a nice letter stating that the Region is discussing Climate Change and Natural Heritage and the rest. Each deserves comprehensive public engagement not only with ‘stakeholders’ but with the public that will be affected by those issues and by the Province’s changes to Plans such as the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan, to specific topics such as lessening Environmental Assessments and removing restrictions that protect Endangered Species and eliminating zoning designations.
This is, perhaps, our best chance to let the Provincial government know exactly how we feel about those changes and how we want our city and region to look, feel, and develop for our children and future generations.
 Appleby GO station – one of the hubs (now called MTSA’s) – Major Transit Service Area – where the city wants intensive development to take place. Think in terms of concentrations of apartments I’m sure someone will note that it is the traditional practice of the Province to allow public feedback through letters, online postings or the Environmental Registry. But, you also have to admit that several of these changes were made under the cover of the COVID crisis, behind a wall of secrecy or hidden within some omnibus bill.
This is our chance to be heard. Public Engagement needs to reach the highest level we have ever known in this community. We need to pull out all the stops, educate, explain and underscore that changes to legislation and the Official Plan will have a major impact on our community for the next 30 years.
The Official Plan is the most significant tool that a city has to influence how neighbourhoods will look. How and where parks and amenities are located. What mixture of high, low and mid-level housing will be allowed. What transit and transportation methods will have priority. Where and what kind of development will be permitted – rural or urban, greenfield or intensification. Will we have walkable, complete streets or continue to bow to the car culture? Where and what kind of industry and business will be located in appropriate areas?
 Lawson Hunter All of these things, and more, affect our promise to reduce GHG emissions over that same 30 years. The Land Use policies ‘we’ decide to enshrine will ensure that our air is clean, our neighbourhoods are livable, that we can accept the influx of new residents that we know are coming, 1.1 million residents in Halton by 2051, depending on whose forecasts you choose to accept.
Public Engagement, if done right, represents an unparalleled opportunity to discover what the public really wants our city, region and planet to look like – now and in the future.
Does that not require an extensive, well-funded and timely occasion to inform and listen to what the majority of citizens want?
 By Pepper Parr
June 29th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It is a construction site right now.
 The reflecting pool in the Centre will be a feature of the Court yard setting. The 22-story condominium is on the right. The ballroom will be on the second level of the hotel on the left. But a look around the space that is filled at this point with pieces of equipment and parts of the work completed, you can get a sense as to what it will look like when it opens in March of 2021. Leanne Ciancone who, with her brother Aaron, oversee the development of this latest venture, explains “there will be a soft opening” – “we will phase in the different parts of the project – when one is working flaw-free we will then open another part.”
This is a development that has gone through some awkward stages before the Ciancone people got to it.
Few people have heard of The Pearle.
It will become the destination point for the city; a place where people can dine and have a magnificent view of the lake with the Pier sitting just a bit to the west in full view.
 The concrete block spaced out on the Court yard grounds will hold the trestles that will cantilever over the Court yard. Restaurant will be to the left, hotel ballroom on the second floor of the hotel that faces into the open space. The Court yard of The Pearle is going to be something this city has not seen before.
 The full name is The Pearle Hotel and Spa.
It is part of the Bridgewater development that is close to five years behind its first announced opening date which was to be in 2015 when the Pan Am Games were taking place.
The approval for a 22-storey tower was approved when Walter Mulkewich was Mayor. At one point it was going to be a 30-storey structure and be known as a Legacy site.
The condominium is not yet complete; the 7 story condominium has some residents in place and a security team is now in the lobby – which isn’t finished.
What was to be a Delta Hotel at first, got upgraded to a Marriott and something went wrong – the Marriott pulled out and The Pearle took its place. They took a much different approach than the one the Marriott people had in mind. “We wanted something that was more family oriented – and not driven by a corporate approach.”
The people behind the Pearle are no slouches. They operate Spencer’s on the Waterfront, The Old Mill in Ancaster, The Elora Mill in Elora, which has become a premier location for large weddings… these, along with a number of respected and well run hospitality locations in the area.
 Leanne and Aaron Ciancone, a brother and sister team: he does the long range planning – she makes the plans a reality. Aaron and Leanne Ciancone (brother and sister) are the operators; they took over from their Dad in 2000.
The operation will consist of a Spa, a 150 room hotel and a restaurant that includes a small private venue and the Court yard.
The Gazette has been watching this site from it earliest days when the property was owned by the Mayrose Tyco interests, people who owned the land for decades before deciding it was time to build.
The land was once the site of the Riviera Motel, a location with fond memories for many.
Pearle, the name given to this latest hospitality venture by the Ciancone’s, is taken from their Grandmother. She would be very proud of what her grandchildren have done.
The entrance to the hotel, restaurant and Spa is off Elizabeth Street south of Lakeshore. The Spa has another separate entrance on Lakeshore.
Once inside the doors there will be a hotel registration desk and a grand curved staircase going up on either side of the lobby getting you to the second level. A lot of wedding pictures are going to get taken on those stairs – they will have the majesty of something like Gone with the Wind.
There is nothing steep about the stairs and there is an accessibility ramp as well.
Elizabeth Street, south of Lakeshore, slopes a bit to the lake. The 4 and a half level underground garage entrance is at the bottom of the street.
On the second level you enter the restaurant and can walk out into the Court yard. Based on what the Gazette has seen so far – it is the Court Yard that will be the jewel.
It will be hidden from the street – tucked in behind the portion of the hotel that stretches along Lakeshore.
Some of the open area is a shared space.
 The view from the top of the stairs leading to the lake looking north to the entrance to the public space on Lakeshore Road. The 22-storey condominium is on the right, the hotel on the left. The Court yard is on the west side with a public right of way on the east side that leads from Lakeshore right through to a magnificent set of stairs that lead down to the edge of the lake. While a little on the steep side there is a series of gently sloping ramps that people can walk down.
 An early rendering of what the Bridgewater development was to include. Some of the heights and the location of some features changed Those stairs will be a great place to sit and enjoy a cup of coffee. It will be public space which rules out holding a glass of wine or bottle of beer in your hand.
The area is spacious – far more than we expected.
Sitting on the east side of the Court yard is a reflecting pool.
It will without a doubt become the place to wine and dine.
Aaron Ciancone explains that it is the kind of place where you will be able to have a cup of coffee or a piece of pizza if that’s what you want. This is going to be a people place.
What’s on the menu? They hasn’t been revealed yet but given the locales that the Ciancone’s operate it will be fine fare; a lot more than slices of pizza.
The hotel has a ballroom that will be able to hold 400 – that will get crimped a bit until we have the Covid-19 virus under control.
The business model is to operate a small hotel, restaurants, the Spa and make the venue a wedding destination.
The Gazette will be tracking this story right up to that soft opening in March of 2021.
New Year’s Eve of 2021 it will be the locale for a great party – unless someone books it for a wedding. The only unknown is whether or not we will all have to wear masks.
 By Staff
June 26th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The City of Burlington is now able to digitally review and finalize decisions for all types of development applications.
 While City Hall remains closed to the public due to COVID-19, our virtual services are open for business and we are ready for the future beyond the current State of Emergency.
There is all kinds of information on the digital approach on the city web site at: urlington.ca//developmentinfo
*those with an asterisk must go through a pre-consultation with planning staff
Development Resources
• Radiocommunication Faculty Review Protocol (PDF) An 8 page document on the locating of cell towera
• 2020 Development Application Fees (PDF) Very interesting document – worth keeping at hand.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward has been pushing for a digital approach to everything since her first term of office in 2010. “It’s great news that we’ll be able to provide this extra level of service” she said. “I have been intending to go in this direction for a long time. One of the silver linings of the circumstances we find ourselves in with COVID-19 is that some of the digital plans we’ve had at the City that had previously been on a backburner are now front and centre as we look to new ways to adapt. We’re looking forward to offering this new level of service.”
 Chief Planner Heather MacDonald speaking to a resident at on of the public preconsultation meetings. Heather MacDonald, Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility now has tools that make it much more efficient for her people to complete their tasks. “With the advancements that we have made since March, we are positioned with a new modern process that will continue beyond the current State of Emergency. This is a key milestone in the intention to create a City of Burlington online portal for development applications.”
By Pepper Parr
June 25th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
That request for an extension from EMSHIH Developments and their Garden Trails II development is getting a little messy and revealing some cracks in the cohesion of city Council.
The request for an extension – several have been given in the past – on a development that is close to 20 years old.
 EMSHIH Developments did the first Phasae of the Garden Trail subdivision tears ago. The area coloured green is their Phase II plan. The want an extension to the end of the year to complete the paper work and eventually get a building permit. Staff has argued so much has changed on the regulatory side that a new application should be filed. Council spent more than an hour at a Standing Committee on this matter earlier in the month – ending up with a 4-3 vote to grant the extension.
That decision had to go to Council – same thing – more than an hour of debate during which the mayor commented on the amount of lobbying that Councillors Galbraith and Kearns has been involved in.
The vote was the same 4-3 with the extension limited to the just end of August. The Mayor worked the Council meeting and managed to get two Staff Directions added. One to the City Treasurer and another to the City Solicitor.
In her A Better Burlington Newsletter, Mayor Meed Ward sets out her position on this development:
It’s clear to me that the application has not met conditions of OMB — they’d had 20 years to meet those conditions and they haven’t. They expire in June. What should Council do? We’ve been told by staff that so much has changed, the studies the applicant will have to do, the work all agencies will have to do is the same as a new application. We’ve been told the applicant is willing to pay fees. We don’t make handshake deals, we have an accountable fees system. We heard the applicant’s concerns is time delays, not paying the fees.
 Mayor Meed Ward standing during the playing of the National anthem at the start of a virtual city council meeting. I believe the right path for us is to call this application what it is and that is a new one. The timeframe for processing this, we have been told, is roughly the same. We have an obligation to the applicant to ensure things are processed in a timely manner – we have new legislation to make sure. We’ve heard concerns that the new studies will cause the delays, but there are no ways around that — those studies must be done. The facts are fairly clear on this file.
This report from staff has been straightforward – the work required is that of a new application and the recommendation from them is for us to treat it as such. We need to give our planning staff the resources they need, so that Council is not the cause of any delays. A new application has protections in place for the applicant and the City.
With that said, I am OK giving a two-month extension on the deadline to hear from staff on the financial and legal implications on this file.
That is really very generous of the Mayor. She’s Ok a shorter extension wrapped with two Staff Directions that will eat up more than an hour of council time when it is on the agenda in August. The will of Council is clear – a majority voted for the extension twice.
The last we heard a majority counted mattered. Kearns, Galbraith, Sharman and Bentivegnia voted to give the extension.
 By Pepper Parr
June 23rd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
A seasoned commercial real estate developer bought a home in Burlington in 3Q 2019.
He and his wife and their child were looking forward to the move but before the moving trucks were called the met with an architect who drew up some plans they wanted to make to the house,
The architect met with the appropriate people in Burlington’s Planning department where the plans had to be approved before a Building Permit could be issued.
 City of Adjustment counter at city hall during a festive season. There was a bit of confusion that got cleared up. The Planners weren’t the problem. The property owner needs a building permit which he can’t get until there is a decision from Committee of Adjustment (CoA). The planner’s hands are tied.
An application was made to the CoA for a minor variance– that was turned down.
The property owner understood, he knew the rules and was more than prepared to abide by whatever those who gave permissions required.
The plan for the addition to the newly purchased house were revised again and ready for the second submission to the CoA early in March
Then Covid19 hit – and everything came to a grinding halt.
The problem for the homeowner who now owned the Burlington residence was that he had sold his home elsewhere in the GTA.
The need to get before the Burlington CoA took on a new urgency.
The problem was made more complex when the CoA found that it could not give dates for hearing that were going to be virtual.
Hamilton was able to hold Committee of Adjustment hearings but none of the smaller municipalities were ready.
The homeowner met with a real estate agent in Burlington looking for a home that could be rented. He found one that would meet what was becoming a pressing need.
The home that was being sold was due to close at the end of June – which was fast approaching.
All the homeowner could get from Burlington’s Committee of Adjustment was that they expected to begin holding hearings in July – not when in July – just July.
The homeowner wanted to know where he stood in the pecking order – was he number 1 or number 101.
Everyone is being polite – what isn’t understood is – what is taking the Burlington CoA so long to get to the point where they can hold virtual hearings.
No one seems to have an answer.
The property owner wasn’t able to get much from the ward 4 Councillor. He got a bit more from the ward 1 Councillor who was more attuned to development issues
Burlington city council has been doing business virtually for a couple of months. The Regional government has been doing things virtually for several months.
Why not the Committee of Adjustment? No one is talking.
The property owner needs to know how long he has to rent for. He is currently looking at a year. Yikes!
By Pepper Parr
June 10th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It was an arm-wrestling contest worth watching – except you couldn’t see the contestants.
With city council meetings now viral – we don’t get to see the players – we can hear them though.
Yesterday, Dana Anderson, of MHBS, a planning consulting firm, was before council delegating for an extension to the development application the Emshie interests had before the city.
 The original plan of sub-division for what has been named Garden Trails looked something like this. Conservation Halton had some issues. The problem with the application is that it came out of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in 1958 when Tony Millington and Associates was representing the Emshie people.
It had languished for years – with as much as five years passing with nothing being done.
The city planners had issued a number of extensions – they felt the one had reached the end of the line. They asked council to force Emshih to file a new application, partly because all the technical reports would have to be updated.
In the Staff Report planners concluded that:
Staff must confirm that the draft approved lot configuration is able to achieve compliance with the current policies. Given this uncertainty, it is not appropriate to grant an extension request for the draft approved plans. Staff are of the opinion that the current proposal should be reviewed against current policies, regulations and standards as part of a new application.
The policy framework has changed substantially since draft plan approval in 2001, and given the ecological significance of the lands, it is important that current standards and regulations are considered and maintained. It is not appropriate to assess the proposal using outdated policy framework given that the applicant has not actively been working toward clearing conditions. In the opinion of staff, these requirements are not minor and should not be considered as part of an extension request; but rather, be more appropriately comprehensively reviewed as part of a new plan of subdivision application.
 Dana Anderson – MBHS The problem was that – creating a new development application file carried fees that approach 1 million dollars – whereas staying with the current application the fees would come in at around $12,000.
You can see what the issue was – Council spent more than half an hour debating that one with the Mayor saying that if the planners have to do the same amount of work on the extension as they would have to do on a new file – then she wanted them to be paid for the work they were going to have to do.
Councillors Stolte and Nisan agreed with the Mayor but the other four felt that Emshie should be give some time to do what they could to get the issues resolved.
Councillors Galbraith, Kearns, Sharman and Bentivegna voted for an extension to not later than December 31st.
The planners left the meeting feeling they were being taken – the city manager wasn’t happy.
When this gets to a Council meeting one of the four who voted for the extension might flip.
While discussing the fees involved we learned that the city take a bundle, the Conservation Authority takes a bundle and the Region takes a bundle – then they all take an additional fee per house built.
By Pepper Parr
June 10th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
There is a massive development planned for Fairview Street – just east of the Burlington GO station.
It is the biggest development ward 2 has seen – the only development bigger is the Georgian Courts in Aldershot. In that situation it is the complete redevelopment of an existing community.
 Seven buildings – not that much in park space and a layout that reflects what developers put up in the 50’s
The former Holland Nursery lands are now known as the Holland Park development, a tribute to the garden supplier that was on the site for years. It is on the North side of Fairview.
The lands are owned by a joint venture announced in June 2019. Brookfield Property Group joined a partnership with InterRent REIT and CLV Group to develop a multi-family-anchored, mixed-use project.
Because the development meets the current Official Plan and the zoning for the area it doesn’t have to go before City Council. It does have to undergo a Site Plan Review – that process is managed by the Planning department and they aren’t required to hold public meetings.
In an interview in March with ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns we commented on the heights that will be permitted and the density.
We asked at the time why the development wasn’t on the list of properties being developed. Kearns told us that it met wit the Official Plan and the Zoning – all the city had to do was review the Site Plan and that was not a public process.
There is no maximum height for buildings on the site – the sky is the limit.
Kearns said that her “own platform position was to work towards a collaborative relationship.”
In her discussions with one of the partners, the CLV Group; known apartment operators in the city Kearns said there was mention of a possible curling rink.
We asked Kearns if she had any concerns about the 47 storey height the developer had asked for. Kearns replied “Over my dead body”.
Due to the size of the development and the impact it will have on that part of the city the public will want to have the opportunity to make some comment.
At this point public input has come from the ward Councillor and people she has chosen to involve. Kearns has not identified those people.
The review of the site plan is in the hands of the Planning department where a senior planner manages the file
However, there is a process where Council can undelegated the authority the Planning department has to proceed with the Site Plan Review.
They just pass a motion undelegating the Site Plan review – which means that Review is overseen by Council.
Kearns hasn’t made any mention of getting this site Plan Approval put in the hands of Council where citizens can look at what is being proposed and delegate to comment on the plans
The Gazette asked the Planning Director Heather MacDonald how this might be done. Jamie Tellier, Manager of Planning Applications, responded through Kwab Ako-Adjei, Director, Corporate Communications & Government Relations who wrote:
“The approval authority for site plan applications is delegated to the Director of Community Planning. Notwithstanding this, Council can “undelegate” the approval authority for a specific site plan application from the Director of Community Planning back to Council.”
The Gazette was not permitted to talk to Tellier directly.
In a recent Newsletter ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns said: “Many residents are taking a keen interest in the lands for development near the Burlington GO – casually known as ‘Holland Park’. ”
 The site is a very short walk to the Burlington GO station and the location many felt high rise should be located in. Did anyone expect this many buildings on a site this size? “The owners have been working with City staff to develop the plan over the past 2 years. Meetings included Planning pre-consultation, Burlington Urban Design Review Panel, public site walking tour and several other informal meetings with various City of Burlington departments.
“My Councillor Office has met with the applicants in 2019 and 2020, as captured in the Ward 2 Business Meeting Registry.
 The Councillors meetings are interesting; does she meet with just developers and are there any detailed minutes? “There is a proposed phased mixed-use development consisting of 7 towers with heights ranging from 29-37 storeys. Towers will include a combination of residential and commercial uses. Parking will be accommodated both underground and at the rear of the property in a parking structure utilizing the required 30 metre setback from the rail.
 Kearns listening “The site is an 8.5-acre parcel located east from the Brant and Fairview main intersection – within 250 and 500 metres of the Burlington GO Station (3-5-minute walk), which is recognized under provincial policy as a Priority Transit Corridor and a Gateway Mobility Hub.
“The proposal features a public realm experience that includes a linear park located on top of the parking structure, Public Park, focal intersection at the heart of the site and POPS (privately owned public space).
“This site is zoned MXT in the City’s existing zoning bylaw, which is a Mixed Use Corridor zone in proximity to the Burlington GO Station.
The MXT zone does not have an established maximum height in the existing zoning bylaw. This application will be reviewed in accordance with the City-initiated Zoning By-law Amendment 2020.418 that resulted from the findings of the 2019 Interim Control Bylaw Land Use Study and which was approved by Council on Jan. 30, 2020.
“Zoning By-law Amendment 2020.418 requires a maximum building height of six storeys within the first 10 metres of Fairview Street and Drury Lane to ensure that future development will achieve an appropriate transition to adjacent areas through a mid-rise, pedestrian-scale built form along these streets.
 Councillor Kearns at one of her ward meetings. “However, this Zoning Bylaw amendment is currently under appeal and therefore the Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) is still in effect. As a result, no approvals will be granted until the appeals have been resolved and the ICBL is no longer in effect.
Kearns adds: “ This is one of the rare sites in the City of Burlington where the applicant intends to comply with the Zoning By-law, the site is zoned MXT. This means that a development application proceeds straight to Site Plan – which it now has – and does not follow the process many are familiar with.
In contrast, when a Zoning By-law Amendment is requested, the proponent will go through community meetings, a statutory public meeting, and receive a planning recommendation report for Council to vote on. None of these steps are required for applications that are in compliance with the regulations of the Zoning By-law – as is the case for the lands known as “Holland Park”.
“For the property including 2243, 2269 Fairview Street & 864 Drury Lane, a subject Site Plan Application was deemed complete and materials have been circulated internal and external review.
“Currently in the review phase, this file has not come to the Councillors office for comments as of yet, nor is there an established timeline to announce, including what the impacts of the ICBL on the site’s zoning.
“Residents have inquired why this development is not available for public review on the City of Burlington website Current Developments – Ward 2. This is because, unlike a Zoning By-law Amendment and/or Official Plan Amendment, Site Plan Applications are not a public process under the Planning Act.”
But the Site Plan Review can be made public – if the Councillor asks her colleagues to approve a motion to undelegated that work and put it in the hands of Council where the public can be included.
“As Councillor, I know how important it is to keep the community informed and engaged on such a significant development” said Kearns. “I intend to continue a collaborative approach on this development and bring options to create a complete community with useful the facts amenities on an established transit line. In all likelihood, this will be a size and scale unseen in Burlington, potentially bringing with it anxiety and unrest; without doubt there will be lessons learned to apply to future applications.
 Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns at a council meeting “I continue to work with City Staff on new ways to provide the public with technical information and timely progress updates. It is important to be clear that the applicant is working within the existing zoning (set by previous Council) and that decisions on height and density will not come before this Council to grant planning permissions. That said, I remain optimistic and diligent that this development can be done right.”
It could be done very right if the Councillor includes all the public and not just her chosen few.
By Pepper Parr
May 29th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
 If you thought traffic was tight on Lakeshore Road as you come into the downtown core from the east – get ready for a real squeeze.
 The Adi Development Group is now getting serious about their Nautique Development. A passageway for pedestrians in the north side of Lakeshore Road is being put in place; it will take up one of the two lanes that run west from Martha.
They will be in place for years. Hopefully they will not find themselves with a timeline similar to that of Bridgewater on the south side and a block to the west.
Adi has had a bumpy relationship with the city; they are a little on the roguish side but do build smart looking buildings. Their architecture is progressive and we’ve yet to hear a negative word about the quality of their developments.
Adi is also putting up the Station West development in Aldershot at the same time.
This development and The Gallery (26 storeys) that is being built across the street from city hall will, in the future be seen as the beginning of a process that changed to feel of the downtown core.
What that change will come to look and feel like is something we won’t know for another four, maybe five years.
Add to this the difference the pandemic is going to have on the whole world – leaves one asking the question: what will it be like ?
|
|
