 By Gary Scobie
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
You have been put in a very difficult position as a Council. You wish to please citizens with good development in our downtown, yet you feel you must also create a new OP that will kowtow to the Province’s demands and developer wishes to over-intensify the area of our city that people look to as central to our existence.
 Adjust the current OP to reflect the downtown density we really want.  This was the first nail in the coffin for our downtown. You are in this position because of failures of past Councils, dating back to the Council elected in 2002, which threw up its hands
in defeat when trying to re-vitalize the downtown and accepted help from Big Brother in the form of the Places to Grow legislation designation of the downtown as an Urban Growth Centre. That Council and the one following in 2006 welcomed further intrusion in local planning by accepting a questionable designation of our Bus Terminal as an Anchor Mobility Hub.
That Council was more interested in saving the City by building a pier instead. Just think what they might have accomplished if they’d focused on the downtown instead, or not.
 Part of the gift that kept on giving.  The first decision -and they just kept on coming. Fast forward to the 2014 Council who after turning down the Adi request to build a 26 storey skyscraper at Martha and Lakeshore, didn’t know how to defend the decision at the OMB and soon after in November 2017 gave Carriage Gate a gift that keeps on giving, the OK for a 23 storey building at 421 Brant that went way beyond the Op’s 8 storey limit and even beyond the 17 storey limit that was being pondered for an updated OP, all for the asking.
This was the first nail in the coffin for our downtown. Since then Council OK’d a 17 storey building at 409 Brant, again across the road from City Hall. I am almost certain that the developer-friendly LPAT will give in to the request for more height to match the 23 storeys of its neighbour across the road, leading to the Twin Towers of Burlington, a mockery of our OP and our City Hall.
Now we have before us tonight what I’d term Plan D, an attempt to please the Province, LPAT and developers with the over-intensification they desire and are prepared to fight for. And they have all the high cards in the deck and the high-paid talent to do so. No consideration of our current OP and the views of citizens who wish to keep our downtown to a human scale with retail buildings that are two storeys in height in certain areas and individual in character and façade.
When I see either of the two concepts, looking up or down Brant Street, I am reminded of a near faceless canyon of steel, brick and glass fronting sidewalks, with podiums that are a minimum three storeys in height and stores that have no character except for the name on the glass. So the D is for failure – failure to listen to citizens at labs and walkabouts like those that I attended. The D is also for Destruction because if either of these concepts (or a combination of the two) is accepted by Council, it will likely sound the death knell of our downtown, a complete replacement over time of the character we value on Brant Street.
 The Brant Street that was – can any of it be saved? But what did we expect, as developers have been buying up our retail street lots for assembly for years for a redo of the downtown in their image? With these concepts we give them free reign, with the blessing of the Province, to go beyond the minimum density goals of the Urban Growth Centre, Anchor Mobility Hub and Major Transit Station Area designations.
Developers can always claim they are only doing what the Province asked in intensifying growth centres. Unless this Council rids us of these designations we will see continued destruction of our downtown. And it hasn’t really started yet, so we have yet to realize what will be taking place. We only have vacant lots at 374 Martha and 421 Brant. Wait until the construction starts. We only have a stalled Bridgewater project on the Lake that hasn’t really impacted our congestion during construction like these others will.
But wait, there’s more. We have applications for 29 storeys at Lakeshore and Pearl, two 27 storey building applications for the Old Lakeshore Precinct and a redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel waiting in the wings. The latter three are not even being considered in the concepts we have before us tonight. Why is that?
There is no defense possible at the LPAT by the City to stop them. So we are being sold a backup plan that can’t possibly work to save our downtown. There is only one plan that might work, but apparently we are still waiting for a report about talking to the Province to get us out from under the downtown-killing designations our previous Councils so passively accepted. We don’t need a report. We don’t need a Plan D. We need to hear from Council that it is talking now with the Province on moving the intensity away from the downtown and the Lake up to the three GO Station Mobility Hubs. In other words, put a halt on these concepts and show us some action to save the downtown.
 Please don’t tell us that you aren’t at least setting the stage with the Province.  If you don’t do something with our OP, zoning and heights revert to the current 2008 version. Please don’t tell us that you aren’t at least setting the stage with the Province because the Interim Control Bylaw is in place till March. By then the timeline shows we’ll have selected a concept and maybe even a new OP. This would be like giving the enemy their ammunition.
There is one more thing that you must do as well though – adjust the current OP to reflect the downtown density we really want and the heights we would be comfortable with once we regain control of our downtown growth plan. Looking at creating a Heritage District up Brant Street to Caroline Street might also be suggested, but according to Oakville sources this is a time and effort-consuming task that may or may not fly. If you don’t do something with our OP, zoning and heights revert to the current 2008 version, the one conforming to intensification targets from the Places to Grow legislation. Only heritage buildings will be safe from being demolished unless this is done.
This is our last chance to stop many more skyscrapers from rising from Brant Street lots that will be cleared of the last remnants of unique stores and storefronts. Please don’t tell us these concepts are it – the plan to stop the high buildings. Because they aren’t.
By Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith
December 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Good morning Chair, Councillors, Your Worship.
I am Lynn Crosby and with me is my colleague, Blair Smith, and we represent the advocacy group, WeLoveBurlington. WLB fought against the prospects of municipal amalgamation in order to preserve and protect local voice. We are here today because we continue to advocate for local voice. We believe that Council and the citizens in Burlington are at a crucial point where we have one last chance to fight for the vision of Burlington that citizens have been expressing for years. We have one final opportunity to protect our downtown, preserve our waterfront and ensure that the people are heard.
 Lynn Crosby in conversation with a citizen. While we applaud the committed efforts of Planning staff, we would like to add our opinion to that of many of the citizens of Burlington and express both disappointment and concern with the two options or “concepts” that are being offered for the development of the downtown core. We will leave discussion of our main issues for whenever Council will be endorsing amendments to the Adopted Official Plan. We have many technical and policy arguments which justify a more popularly supported vision for the downtown – we will offer them then. This morning, we would like to speak to fundamental flaws in the concepts.
 Where will the growth go? The Esso station site is reported to have been sold. WLB members attended two different sessions (hence received two different perspectives) of the recent ‘action labs’ designed to garner public opinion on what the vision and conceptual layout should be for the development of Burlington’s downtown. We also received feedback from several of our associates who attended different sessions. Notably, all sessions had the same deficiencies.
The two concepts (and the mention of a possible third melded concept) were presented – each based on the existence of the same factors or planning constraints:
The urban growth centre designation for downtown
The mobility hub located at the current bus station, and
The major transit station area designation
No consideration was given to any concept that was not based on and framed by these constraints. So, if these constraints change, and we believe that they should, then don’t the concepts also need to change? Indeed, if after the ICBL expires, and Burlington is successful in removing the classification of the urban growth centre or moving its location further north, then the limiting factors underlying the two concepts become irrelevant. Our fear is that if either of the options are selected for the downtown or anything substantially similar, then the relocation of the Urban Growth Centre becomes moot. You will be backing yourself unnecessarily into a corner that is inconsistent with your stated direction and intent.
Both concepts presented this morning are based on the Adopted Official Plan. The Adopted Official Plan reflects the direction and desire of the past Council. So, first we ask “what does this Council want?” Is the Adopted Official Plan your vision as well? The vision of the past Council, which we believe largely ignored what the people wanted for the downtown, should not automatically be inherited or repeated by you. To be fair, many of the errors made with regard to the future of Burlington’s downtown cannot be completely laid at the feet of the immediate past Council – they go further back. However, what does stand before you is the opportunity to correct these mistakes. This will be your lasting legacy.
In the ‘Action Labs,’ participants were told that the two concepts were developed because they were “defensible”. In other words, they would be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and satisfy the requirements of Halton Region as sole approval authority of the plan. But both concepts represent just slightly different flavours of the same thing – tall buildings in the downtown. Should there not be at least one true alternative? Participants were told that any concept that involved ‘no more tall buildings’ was not “defensible” and could not be included. So, when choosing a concept, participants selected the one that was the least offensive of the two rather than that which might actually reflect what they wanted to see.
Many participants that we questioned felt that neither concept was what was desired for downtown. Many felt that they were voting for the option that was ‘the best of a bad lot’; that even the informing vision for downtown (Section 3.3 of the Report) missed the fact, frequently expressed, that it cannot be achieved if tall buildings are part of the environment. This feeling of dissatisfaction with both process and available options is also apparent on the City’s facebook page where over 160 negative comments are registered. Overall, we believe this means any results from the polls and selections made by attendees are skewed and have little if any validity.
Perhaps the most fundamental question concerns the starting point of this process – the Adopted Official Plan. Why was this chosen when it clearly has neither legal status nor resonance with the citizens. Many who participated in the workshops had expected that this exercise was building a fresh view rather than one that merely “refines” an existing and frankly unpopular vision. Indeed, Section 3.4 of the report states that “the overall vision for the downtown remains the same”. Why? Add to this the fact that an Official Plan is intended to be read as a whole. The parts are interconnected and must be considered together to avoid taking things out of context. The downtown, which we are examining here and through this whole exercise, may be the most controversial portion of the OP but it is not the only one and each impacts the other.
WLB believes that the people need to be heard; that ‘tall building’ development in Burlington should not occur in the downtown core and particularly not in proximity to the waterfront. We will expand on this position whenever the final concept is brought back. However, we would like to be clear. WLB is not opposed to development in the interests of intensification but believes that this form of development should occur in areas other than the downtown core; if in the downtown at all, then much further north. The waterfront and our downtown are vitally important to our city and must be protected. The OP is the best way to protect them.
 Why, wondered Crosby and Smith, was the city using the Adopted Official Plan when it did not supposedly represent the current city council? WLB believes that Council should carefully listen to the voice of the people and defend it to the best of their ability. We believe that the new OP should be redrafted to present a ‘no more tall building’ concept for Burlington’s downtown core. Indeed, what is the rush? Why are we here now? There is no deadline in the Provincial Planning Act that is forcing us to push this through without sober second thought. We have been given a “time-out” to carefully reconsider what Burlington needs and what the people want. Why are we here today at the beginning of the Christmas season, rushing to execute on a consultant’s vision for our downtown with arbitrary deadlines and time-frames for response?
We read Mayor Meed Ward’s article piece published last week in Inside Halton about the recommended changes to the OP for the downtown. We were encouraged that she feels “they still represent over-development” and that she’s “looking for an option that is more in line with what residents have expressed throughout the OP process that began in 2017.” We note that Councillor Kearns appears to have similar concerns and are equally encouraged by statements in her recent Newsletter. We also agree that the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Area designations are a concern and should officially be removed or relocated.
This whole process to date – the Action labs, the downtown tours, the surveys, the one-on-one discussions with staff and council members – is rather meaningless since it was all predicated on a direction that we believe is flawed; the premise that the popular desire for no more tall buildings at all downtown isn’t defensible and thus can’t even be considered. And why? Because we have designed these options based on the current existence of the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Area being downtown, in fact they are “givens”. A circular argument at best.
And we should neither fear nor anticipate LPAT. We believe that at LPAT the position of a municipal Council is paramount. The hearing must first understand the position of Council and the relationship between this position and the existing OP and the PPS. The type of LPAT hearing to be held and the decision resulting can be totally based on Council’s stance and direction. The new or reintroduced issue is the ‘de novo’ hearing and we will get into detail on that when we delegate next. But the critical thing is the strength of Council’s voice and the consistency of its position. A good municipal lawyer will use this to maximum advantage. This position of fearless champion of what is best for Burlington is what we expect our Council to adopt.
 Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith during their delegation: Were they heard? Finally, the result is that we feel that we are again not being sincerely engaged or truly heard. All the public engagement that has been done has landed us here in a position where the two concepts presented do not reflect what the public wants. We understand that Council will work with staff on modifications to produce an option for endorsement by early next year. This is far too important to be done in haste.
We respectfully request that Council take as long as is needed to produce the right solution for Burlington; one that protects the waterfront for generations to come and preserves a downtown free of any additional tall buildings. Please extend the ICBL if need be, complete the necessary studies, including the transportation study, the market analysis and the fiscal impact study, among others, acknowledge that the Official Plan is an integration of perspectives and should be addressed as a single entity. There is only one waterfront and one downtown – once gone there will be no bringing anything back and, fairly or not, you as a Council will be judged by the Burlington you saved or permitted to be lost.
 By Pepper Parr
December 3rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It was a year ago this evening – the new city council was sworn in.
 City Manager James Ridge is shown the exit door. The next day the Mayor called a Special Meeting of Council and got their approval to fire the city manager.
There were other changes in the wind. The Council’s first budget increase was modest – but the Mayor had to convince her Council to shake $4million out of the hydro Reserve Fund.
That this was going to be a different council was made evident the night the Goldring Council held its last meeting. Meed Ward had some comments she wanted to make – Mayor Goldring politely advised her that comments were not permitted at that point. Marianne Meed Ward stunned the Mayor and the City Clerk that she wanted to speak on a point of personal privilege. While the Clerk was shuffling through the Procedural bylaw Meed Ward gave her a copy with the appropriate section marked.
And then she let blast. The full report of that meeting is linked below.
Paul Sharman was the only holdover from the 2006 through to 2018 terms; the others either resigned or were defeated. ( In 2010 every council member was re-elected.)
The other five were new to municipal politics. They had basically zero political experience and several had to struggle but they learned the ropes and little by little we began to see where there was some talent and where some help was going to be needed.
There was a new city manager who had served the city in the past; he was known, well-liked by most and was able to bring some stability to an administration that had gone through a very difficult period of time and knew that there were many rough months ahead.
 Mary Lou Tanner’s job disappears – she finds the exit door. The Deputy City Manager was shown the door; there was a new Chief Planner with a team that needed help and support.
The learning curve for the five new council members was steep; some are not doing all that well. Some have surprised us while others have been a disappointment.
What is evident is that this Council is pulling together and doing so rather well.
Collectively they are taking on huge issues – Climate Change was a challenge they did not shirk.
The opportunities to do things that were badly needed were embraced and while there is a lot that is not yet known – the outcome, whatever it is, will not be because this council didn’t try.
The members of council are learning the strengths and weaknesses of their colleagues; they are as well learning which Staff members are straight shooters and which are not to be relied upon all that much.
None of the five had any idea that the experience they are having is what they imagined the day they submitted their nomination papers.
The city’s downtown core is under an Interim Control Bylaw which means nothing moves forward until the research and the deep thinking is done.
 Official Plan gets re-write.  Might work in Mississauga – not wanted in Burlington. The re-write of portion of the Official Plan is taking place – with the Planning staff trying every idea out there to involve the citizens.
Some stunning developments have been brought forward; all of which would be embraced quickly by Mississauga – but Burlington is not Mississauga.
Council has to come to terms with wanting to do everything and what fiscal reality will permit. There are only so many Reserve funds that can be raided.
At this point council deserves to be told publicly that we appreciate what they are trying to do and wish them well as they enter their second year of their four year term.
A closer review however is merited.
The day Meed Ward let the outgoing council have it right between the eyes.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
 By Pepper Parr
November 28th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It is amazing what can be done by a Mayor when they decide something has to be done.
The Meridian Brick operation on King Road has been a threat to the Tyandaga Community. They organized as TEC and raised tens of thousands to hire people who they believed could help them stop the quarrying that was going to take place for years close to their small back yards.
The previous council looked at the issue, said the quarry had a license to do what they wanted to do, shrugged their shoulders and let it go.
The Tyandaga residents were not prepared to give up.
They had worked with then Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward who was elected Mayor in October of 2018.
On Tuesday of next week she will formally introduce several Staff Directions.
 The quarries as seen from the back yards of the West Haven residences. Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility to investigate the Air Quality Bylaw for Oakville and report back to council with a recommendation for a similar bylaw for Burlington by Q2 2020; and
Direct the Executive Director of Legal Services and Corporation Counsel to retain an environmental lawyer to advise on the municipal role in the Aldershot Quarry, the potential air quality bylaw and any other matters arising; and
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility to review and report back on the peer reviews of the studies done by Meridian/Aldershot Quarry and requirements for ongoing monitoring and potential impacts on human health. As part of the review, report back on the cost and process to conduct an independent peer review of studies conducted to date; and
Direct the Director of Roads, Parks and Forestry to review the forestry plan for phased removal and replacement of trees at the Aldershot Quarry, and report back with an assessment to council in Q2 2020; and
Direct the Mayor to:
• write to the three local MPPs for Burlington, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and the Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry to request a meeting to discuss the conditions of the site plan and their oversight and due diligence in ongoing monitoring and studies conducted on the air quality impacts of the quarry activities to ensure the quarry is operating within provincial regulations.
• establish a Community Council Liaison Committee with representation from Meridian/Aldershot Quarry, local citizens, provincial ministries, city staff and council, and other stakeholders (as identified below), to provide regular communication among stakeholders, renew monitoring studies, and discuss quarry activities and any emerging/new issues.
 Bricks ready to be delivered. What a difference a Mayor makes.
The background on all this:
Meridian/Aldershot Quarry operates in the city of Burlington off King Road, north of North Service Road. The quarry is governed by both a provincially approved license and a site plan. The license was issued in 1972.
In 2010, a revised site plan was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The site plan spells out certain provincial conditions that must be met to continue operations.
Meridian Brick purchased the Aldershot Quarry in 1990. In 1998, the Tyandaga West subdivision, including what is now Westhaven Drive, was approved by the then-Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The OMB-endorsed Minutes of Settlement included conditions for the plan of subdivision regarding ongoing monitoring of dust and noise, which were met prior to the issuance of building permits.
The west and centre cells of the Quarry are almost depleted, so Aldershot/Meridian Brick is now moving into the east cell, closer to the homes on Westhaven Drive.
Residents on Westhaven Drive, along with the broader Tyandaga community and beyond, formed the Tyandaga Environmental Coalition (TEC) and have raised concerns about the impact on human health from dust from the quarry. Additional concerns have been raised regarding loss of tree canopy and noise. Residents have asked whether the decades-old license would be granted today, or the subdivision approved today in such close proximity, given up-to-date information about the environment and potential impact of quarries in close proximity to residential neighbourhoods.
TEC is advocating for three actions related to the quarry:
1. Endorse TEC’s proposed Minister’s Zoning Order and Request for Review to allow for the permanent protection of the site, or at the very least the required three-year salamander survey work;
2. Seek, along with the Halton Medical Officer of Health, independent peer reviews of all Meridian’s technical studies, and
3. Commission a Stakeholder Design Charette exercise to explore sustainable rehabilitation and development solutions across the entire Aldershot quarry operation.
Requesting an MZO of the province would depend on the findings of the review of studies and ongoing monitoring requirements and oversight of the site. TEC has advised they have information about salamanders in the vicinity; we have requested they forward that information.
The city has recently taken the position with the proposed expansion of the Nelson Quarry that any post-use design discussion will not commence till the site is decommissioned; the same approach will be taken with the Tyandaga quarry.
There is merit in reviewing the studies that have been conducted, and the ongoing requirements for monitoring and provincial oversight.
In June of this year, myself and Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith met with TEC members Fran Fendelet, Heather Lareau, Maria Rozakis Adcock and their consultant Dr. Franco DiGiovanni.
Mr. DiGiovanni is an expert in air quality, is often called on to testify at hearings (most recently on the proposed Milton CN logistics hub), and currently works for Hemmera, a leading environmental consultancy.
A number of issues were identified and shared by Dr. DiGiovanni regarding the quality of the studies conducted by Meridian Brick/Aldershot Quarry, and the nature of the peer review work that was completed, specifically:
– not conducted by a licensed engineer practitioner
– some contaminants were not examined
– unclear how Meridian is held accountable for ongoing monitoring
The issues raised by TEC, Dr. DiGiovanni, and citizens regarding the nature and quality of the studies done to date warrant the city taking a deeper look at the quarry activities, the ongoing monitoring, and the oversight provided by the province.
Former Mayor Rick Goldring and Councillor Rick Craven must be shaking their heads: they did nothing.
 By Pepper Parr
November 29th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Looks like things will get a little boisterous during the early part of December,
There are three Standing Committee meetings the week of December 2nd at which some contentious issues are going to be heard.
 Alison Enns, lead planner on the Taking a Closer Look Walking Tour  City Planner explaining some of the locations during a Walking Tour. The Taking a Closer Look at Downtown report that will be presented has a number of people disappointed with what the Planning team is bringing forward – they intend to delegate.
The Gazette is aware of two people – with several others wanting a little more time to think about what they want to say, registered to delegate. The report that is going to council is lengthy and at times confusing.
Alison Enns and another planner led a small group on a Walking Tour to gather thoughts and opinions from people and to answer questions. The two were quite keen and listened intently – there were a few points where they didn’t have much in the way of background on other developments in the area – the Bridgewater being a development where they didn’t want to say a word. What the public saw were two planners trying very hard to understand what people had to say.
 The council meeting was originally intended as a Committee of the Whole, a process that does not permit delegations. The complaints about that decision were close to visceral. For reasons that still aren’t understood the Clerk’s Office vacillated between ‘it would be a COW and then it would be a Standing Committee’. Some thought that concern was over people wanting to delegate which would take up much of the time. It certainly will – delegations are for as much as ten minutes and then as much as an additional ten minutes when the seven members of council ask follow up questions of the delegator.
This is the elected listening to the electors, folks; the reason we all stood out in the cold on Remembrance Day.
The point is – there will be delegations which we thought was the reason this council wanted to serve the public – so they could listen to them.
There is some concern as well over the report the Mayor will be making on her trip to Japan – the amount spent is thought to be over what was budgeted. We cover that in a different story.
By Pepper Parr
November 27th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The map below shows the boundaries of all the proposed precincts.
The focus of this article is the Mid Brant Precinct that includes the No Frills Plaza
 Map showing all the precinct boundaries The Mid Brant Precinct is located north of Caroline Street and south of the schools and contains the NoFrills plaza. It was created out of the Brant Main Street Precinct and Downtown Core Precinct of the Adopted OP.
Vision The Mid Brant Precinct will serve as a mixed-use neighbourhood containing a significant amount of retail space including servicing a food store function. The precinct will function as a major retail centre that serves the day-to-day and weekly shopping needs of Downtown residents.
 Map of the Mid Brant precinct. To support a walkable community the entire area must provide an accessible and attractive pedestrian environment with wide sidewalks, and greenway connections to adjacent residential neighbourhoods. Future development will also result in the filling of surface parking lots and the intensification of under-utilized buildings.
Brant Street will be enhanced as a Pedestrian Priority Street with wide sidewalks, bringing buildings close to the street and small urban squares adjacent to Brant Street. An increased buffer will be provided along Rambo creek with a walking trail along the west side of the Creek. A new public urban park will also be created.
Brant Street frontage will have a low-rise character.
The east side will allow for 3 storeys within the first 20 m. Beyond 20m, tall buildings are permitted.
Concept 1:
A proposed extension of John Street to Victoria is incorporated beside Rambo Creek, which provides increased separation to low-rise neighbourhoods.
A step down in height along the west side of the John Street extension will provide a transition from the existing neighborhood.
Brant Street frontage will have a low to mid-rise built form.
Adjacent to Brant Street, low to mid-rise built form will be permitted in the first block depth. In the second block depth, mid-rise buildings are permitted.
A proposed extension of John Street to Victoria is incorporated in the centre of this precinct.
A step down in height along the west side of Rambo Creek will provide a transition to the exiting neighborhood.
Additional green space and a trail will be required on the west side of the creek.
 Concept 2.
This concept introduces a low-rise character to the Precinct which was not provided for in the Adopted Official Plan.
Includes a road extension of John Street to Victoria Avenue and requires transitional step-downs to the neighbouring precinct to the east which was not required previously.
Maintains low-rise character on Brant Street.
Tall buildings are permitted.
Additional green space and a trail will be required on the west side of the creek.
The concept introduces mid-rise buildings to the Precinct.
Includes a road extension of John Street to Victoria Avenue and requires transitional step-downs to neighbouring precinct to the east which was not required previously.
Allows mid-rise character on Brant Street.
As only mid-rise buildings are permitted, the block may not have a variety of built form.
Mid Brant is an area where re-development will likely occur.
 The Image above shows how 3 storeys are permitted within 20m of Brant and beyond that 17 storeys. The view is at Brant and Caroline looking north. The 3D Model Image above demonstrates the Mid Brant precinct where re-development will likely occur. The Image above shows how 3 storeys are permitted within 20m of Brant and beyond that 17 storeys. The view is at Brant and Caroline looking north.  The 3D Model Image above demonstrates the Mid Brant is an area where re-development will likely occur. The Image above shows how mid-rise is permitted along Brant. The view is at Brant and Caroline looking north. The 3D Model Image above demonstrates the Mid Brant precinct where re-development will likely occur. The Image above shows how 3 storeys are permitted within 20m of Brant and beyond that 17 storeys. The view is at Brant and Caroline looking north.
During a walking tour of this precinct Planning staff elaborated on what some of their thinking was. There would be a pathway along the east edge of Rambo Creek with benches in place.
The supermarket would remain but parking would be underground and some park area in the center.
Where would Joe Dogs go?
Related articles:
The outline
The bigger picture.
By Pepper Parr
November 27th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The city’s Planning department is ready to take its first cut on what the downtown should look like. Council will review, discuss, debate and listen to delegations.
This article covers the available information on the Brant Main Street precinct.
While the overall vision for the Downtown remains the same, the Planning staff came up with two proposed concepts that are distinct and provide different ways in which to achieve the overall vision.
The two concepts are based on the revised Precincts. The development of the concepts is not starting from scratch. It was also necessary to take the following factors into account when developing the land use concepts: existing context; other related City policy; Provincial and Regional policy; and the directions given by Council for the re- examination including specifying 2031 as the planning horizon.
There are 11 precincts – two are administrative in nature – the others cover all of the downtown core.
Within each Precinct, there is an existing context of built and approved residential towers, office buildings and heritage buildings that is not anticipated to change before 2031 but which influences the character of the precinct.
The map below shows the location of all the precincts. More derail on the Brant Street Main precinct is below the ward boundary map.
 Brant Main Street Precinct applies to the portion of Brant Street that residents associate with the traditional downtown main street. Residents noted that the portion north of Caroline Street has a different character and it is now part of the Mid Brant Mixed-Use Precinct.
Vision The Brant Main Street Precinct will serve as a unique destination within the Downtown and City-wide. It will be enhanced as a priority retail main street where the character of small retail shops lining the street is maintained.
Brant Street is identified as a Pedestrian Priority Street where the streetscape provides a safe and comfortable environment with Clear Path Zones and bump outs to narrow the distance to cross at key intersections.
A new large festival square, which is partially completed, will be located on the City parking lot between Brant and John Streets.
Permitted uses are primarily retail and service commercial uses on the ground floor with residential uses above.
Concept 1:
Brant Street will have a low-rise built form character.
Only low buildings will be permitted within the first 20 m. of Brant Street.
The remainder of these blocks adjacent to John Street and Locust Street will permit mid-rise buildings.
In addition to the overall Downtown vision, Concept 1 respects the low-rise built form character by permitting only up to 3 storey buildings along Lower Brant and parts of Lakeshore and extends it through Mid Brant.
 Concept 1 – would allow for taller buildings tucked in behind building that reflect the traditional Burlington.  Concept 2: Image above represent a 6 storey Midrise building, an example of what could be built The low-rise permission provides an opportunity for greater number of existing buildings to be maintained along Brant Street, while any new low-rise buildings will allow for greater flexibility in store sizes and unique store fronts, which provides the ability to maintain the eclectic look and feel that creates the unique sense of place of Brant Street. Mid-rise buildings are directed to John Street and taller buildings are directed to precincts north of Caroline Street and within parts of the Downtown East Precinct north of the Elgin Promenade.
 3D rendering of concept 1  3D rendering of concept 2 When reference is made to categories of buildings (i.e., low-rise) the following summarizes the range of possible building heights for each building type:
• Low-rise: up to 3 storeys
• Low-mid Rise: 4 – 6 storeys
• Mid-rise: 7 – 11 storeys
• Tall: 12 + storeys
Pros and cons of concept 1.
The Concept is most similar to the Adopted OP requiring low rise-built form character at street level but with a greater setback of 20 metres to mid-rise buildings.
Maintains a maximum 3 storey low-rise character along Brant Street.
Twenty-metre-deep building podiums provide flexibility to maintain existing retail stores or accommodate new retail space.
Allows mid-rise along John Street and Locust Street.
Concept 2: Mid Rise – an opportunity for an increased pedestrian realm and open spaces.
In addition to the overall Downtown vision, Concept 2 provides for a renewal of the Downtown through a low-mid rise built form along Lower Brant and Mid Brant and mid- rise built form along parts of Lakeshore. This ‘in between’ scale of buildings provides a human scale, walkable public realm that will provide opportunities for future gathering places and open space, through potential additional setbacks and privately owned publicly accessible open spaces (POPS1) along the vibrant streetscapes.
The taller mid- rise buildings allow for wider sidewalks and more open space at the street through greater building setbacks. Taller buildings are directed to precincts north of Caroline Street and within the Downtown East Precinct.
Currently no maximum height is identified for Tall Buildings. Input received through the engagement process will be used to inform the evaluation and confirm a maximum Tall Building height for each Precinct to be included in the preliminary preferred Concept.
Pros and cons concept 2
Compared to the Adopted OP, this concept permits shorter mid-rise buildings without stepbacks.
No stepback is required resulting in the potential for a 6-storey building to be introduced on Brant street.
Apartment towers limit flexibility of retail space due to columns.
Permits low to mid-rise buildings.
Related news stories:
The Outline
The bigger picture.
By Pepper Parr
November 27th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Directly below is a map of all the precincts. Detail on the Lakeshore precinct is below this larger map.
 This area to many is the very heart of the city – directly across from Spencer Smith Park at the west end. All the land that has not been developed is in the hands of developers who have held it for some time. There will be a battle royal over what gets to be permitted. The Lakeshore Precinct is a new precinct which has been created out of the lower section of the previous Downtown Core Precinct in order to highlight the gateway nature of Lakeshore Road.
Vision: The Lakeshore Precinct will serve as the gateway to the Waterfront. This precinct will continue to develop as a priority retail main street particularly on the north side of Lakeshore Road. Permitted uses are primarily retail and service commercial uses on the ground floor with residential uses above. Lakeshore Road is identified as a Pedestrian Priority Street2 where the streetscape provides a safe and comfortable environment with Clear Path Zones3 and bump outs4 to narrow the distance to cross at key intersections.
The Precinct is largely developed with existing buildings ranging from 12 to 17 storeys on the north side of Lakeshore Road and one approved building of 26 storeys and with one site with permission up to 22 storeys on the south side of Lakeshore Road. Only parts of 4 blocks remain for redevelopment.
 This is the kind of thing the Planners are putting forward as Concept 1 for this precinct.  This is a 3D rendering of what the street will look like under Concept # 1
Concept 1:
On the remaining undeveloped blocks, a low-rise built form character will frame the street.
On the east side of Brant Street and north side of Lakeshore, only low-rise buildings will be permitted within the first 20 metres from Brant Street and Lakeshore Road.
On the remaining parts of these blocks tall buildings will be permitted.
Taller buildings will have a “slender” or point tower form with a maximum floor plate of 750m above the first 3 storeys.
Pros and cons for concept 1
Differs from the Adopted OP, which permits 12 to 17 storeys, by permitting only low-rise built form adjacent to the street with slender tall buildings being permitted 20 metres back from the street.
Maintains existing low rise-built form adjacent to the street and slender towers being set back from the low-rise towers.
Only 3 storey buildings permitted within 20 metres of Brant and Lakeshore.
Twenty metre depths provide flexibility to maintain existing retail stores or accommodate new retail space.
Tall buildings permitted in the back half of the blocks away from Brant / Lakeshore.
Concept 2
 This is an example of what the streets would look like under concept # 2  This is a 3d rendering of what the street might look like under concept 2 On the remaining undeveloped blocks, mid-rise buildings will be permitted.
Buildings that are mid-rise will incorporate a 3-storey podium with a minimum 3m setback.
Pros and cons for concept 2:
Differs from the Adopted OP, which permits 12 to 17 storeys, by lowering the height limit to a maximum of 11 storeys with a 3-storey podium.
Creates an opportunity for mid-rise built form by lowering the maximum building height to 11 storeys from 12 to 17 storeys.
To accommodate the lower density of mid- rise buildings, only a 3 m podium setback provided instead of the 20 metres.
Apartment towers may limit flexibility of retail space due to placement of structural columns.
On the remaining undeveloped blocks, a low-rise built form character will frame the street.
On the east side of Brant Street and north side of Lakeshore, only low-rise buildings will be permitted within the first 20 metres from Brant Street and Lakeshore Road.
On the remaining parts of these blocks tall buildings will be permitted
Taller buildings will have a “slender” or point tower form with a maximum floor plate of 750m above the first 3 storeys.
On the remaining undeveloped blocks, mid-rise buildings will be permitted.
Buildings that are mid-rise will incorporate a 3-storey podium with a minimum 3m setback.
Differs from the Adopted OP, which permits 12 to 17 storeys, by permitting only low-rise built form adjacent to the street with slender tall buildings being permitted 20 metres back from the street.
Maintains existing low rise-built form adjacent to the street and slender towers being set back from the low-rise towers.
Only 3 storey buildings permitted within 20 metres of Brant and Lakeshore.
Twenty metre depths provide flexibility to maintain existing retail stores or accommodate new retail space.
Tall buildings permitted in the back half of the blocks away from Brant / Lakeshore.
Differs from the Adopted OP, which
permits 12 to 17 storeys, by lowering the height limit to a maximum of 11 storeys with a 3-storey podium.
Creates an opportunity for mid-rise built form by lowering the maximum building height to 11 storeys from 12 to 17 storeys.
To accommodate the lower density of mid- rise buildings, only a 3 m podium setback provided instead of the 20 metres.
Apartment towers may limit flexibility of retail space due to placement of structural columns.
No tall buildings
 By Pepper Parr
November 27th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The Gazette has, or is in the process of, publishing news stories on each of the nine precincts the city planning department set out.
Those precincts are a part of a plan for the downtown core that, once approved will be part of the city’s adopted but not yet approved approved Official Plan.
In order to get a bigger sense as to what the city could look like we have set out below a number of maps that provide detail for all of the downtown core including heights recommended for Concept # 1 and Concept #2, as well as maps showing where commercial and retail will be located and where the designated historical properties are located.
Immediately below is a map that shows the precinct boundaries. The maps that follow are overlays with very specific data.
 This map shows the boundaries for the precincts that will be created once the work on the revisions has been completed.  This map shows what has been built and what is planned.  This map shows where the designated historical properties in the downtown core are located along with those that are on the city registry.
 This map shows those streets that will have retail and other commercial operations.  Proposed building heights for Concept 1  Proposed heights for concept 2 Related articles:
The outline
By Pepper Parr
November 25th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Every month the Rocca Sisters produce a report on residential real estate sales in Burlington where they break out houses and condominiums data.
In their most recent issue they report the following:
The trend line for condominium sales is consistent while the number of units sold moves around a bit. The high so far for the year is 67 units with a low of 40.
For the purposes of the point we want to make – let us use 65 units per month as what can be sold.
At this point in time there are about 1500 condominium units that will come on line. The Berkley is selling units that you can move into; same with the Paradigm. The Bridgewater, Saxony, Gallery, and the Molinaro development on Ontario Street are under construction with perhaps something coming out of the Revenue Property development that is at LPAT waiting for a decision on their 23 story request – they are already approved for 17.
 Can the market absorb these two developments that are side by side in the “football”?
The CORE development for 27 floors, the Old Lakeshore Road (Carriage Gate people) development also looking for 27 floors and their other development on Perl (29 floors), are at the early application stage.
Simple math – 1500 divided by 65 – suggests that it is going to take 23 months to sell those units.
There are other projects that have been put on hold.
Has the development community realized that there are limits on what a community can absorb ?
Maybe the demand isn’t what many have convinced themselves it is.
The Gallery development opposite city appears to have decided to sleep for the next while; construction on the site has come to a halt.
 By Pepper Parr
November 20th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Someone on city council made the point: We are a transit friendly council.
How friendly – well they are putting a tonne of your money into new buses and they are boasting about the significant increases in transit use.
The numbers are early: Presto, the people who operate the card system that is replacing tickets, are a little on the slow side on getting data out.
The increase in transit usage was reported to have risen by 10% on a month to month basis for July of 2018 and July of 2019.
The free transit use during the off peak hours for July through to September was reported to have improved by 40%.
Mayor Meed Ward called those number “astounding” and added that “we don’t need a plan to know that we need more buses.”
The Mayor has said that she wants transit to be free for everyone – every day.
She has also said that she thinks transit should be a Regional matter. She will have to wait until she is Premier of the province before we see anything like that.
This council has got a head lock on the idea of making the transit fleet completely electric. Director of Transit loves that idea theoretically but cautioned council that converting from diesel to electric is not a simple matter – electric buses are complex and a lot has to be learned by the people who are going to drive the electric buses and those who are going to maintain them.
 Sue Connors, Director of Transit, does not appear to be very happy. Council was discussing transit because a report that had been discussed at a Planning and Development Standing Committee meeting was unhappy with some of the numbers that were contained in a report – unhappy is an understatement.
They decided that rather than make any decisions they would refer the matter to the council meeting – which took place Monday evening.
 Councillor Paul Sharman But – there was nothing to discuss – whatever the concern was over the report, which could be fairly described as faulty, no one was going to talk about it Monday evening. Councillor Sharman read a statement into the record – we have asked for a copy of that statement, He added that with the changes in the grid structure and the new buses that have been added to the fleet it would be a little premature to put much stock in numbers that had been generated by the consultant. So hold off for a year.
Fine – but then – why was there a report from the consultant? And when is the public going to see the revised numbers ?
This council is sometimes a little fast and loose with numbers that they deem to be positive.
Related news story:
Councillor Sharman said the numbers were all wrong. He was right
By Pepper Parr
November 19th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
City Council meetings are sort of like a big rubber stamp. The details in Staff reports get discussed at length during the Standing Committee meetings which run rather long. Council meetings are usually under an hour and a half. Former Mayor Rick Goldring once got through one in just over twenty minutes.
One has to listen carefully and watch closely to pick up some of the detail that gets skipped over.
The Council meeting Monday reported that there were 24 hours of meetings between November 4th to the 12 during which there were 34recommendations put forward and 4 bylaws proposed.
City Council has to approve all that to make it the law of the land.
There were two items that we observed during the Standing Committee meetings that were going to get some attention at the Council meeting; those were the stiffing that Councillor Nisan got from the Transportation department over changes in the speed limits in Kilbride and the problem the Director of Transit had with data in a report that was being discussed.
Councillor Sharman had, as is his want, looked at the numbers carefully and came to the conclusion that there was something very wrong with them.
Ah – for the love of faulty data: Councillor Paul Sharman As he put it at the Planning and Development meeting – they were just plain wrong. None of the other members of Council appeared to have the same grip that Sharman had on the numbers; the suspicion was that they either hadn’t fully read the report or failed to see the errors that Sharman identified.
After much discussion the Standing Committee decided to refer the report to City Council, which happened last night.
 Direct of Transit Sue Connor giving a consultant a very hard look. She was not happy. The problems appear to be more serious than originally realized. Council decided to refer the report back to the Standing Committee during its next round of meetings.
They basically punted the ball up the field where they would deal with it when they get to that point.
How are you liking the Burlington version of transparency so far?
Councillor Nisan said that he still didn’t have the speed limit changes he had promised his Kilbride constituents but he was still working at it. I think we were seeing an example the tail wagging the dog.
There is a process at city meetings whereby a Staff report can get approval if there aren’t any council members who want to say something. These are referred to as Consent items – they just get passed.
Among those that were consented to were: The report on Vision to Focus; the Active Aging Report and the Cootes Escarpment initiatives. Councillor Sharman had learned of an event that takes place in Detroit where more than 1,000 people show up for a community walk. |He was going to bring it up at the Council meeting and had run it by Parks and Recreation Staff who told Sharman that they didn’t need a Staff Direction – they would just do it.
 Councillor Nisan still doesn’t have the speed limit changes he promised his Kilbride residents. Now either Councillor Sharman has skills that Councillor Nisan doesn’t have or the Parks and Recreation department fully understand the relationship between Council and administration. Sharman has the community walk idea as a good to go; Nisan might have to stand on the road in Kilbride and wave a sign to slow down the speed of traffic.
Councillor Lisa Kearns chose to make some comments on the mammoth development that CORE Development Group want to build within the football – 27 storeys in a place where eight are possible as of right and up to 15 if there are benefits given to the city.
The Gazette has been advocating for some bold moves in that part of the city. We learned from Mayor Meed Ward that the acceptable benefit is for the developer to buy the land on the south side of Old Lakeshore, deed it to the city and they can have the additional seven floors.
 The Mayor seemed to be saying that all the Core Development Group had to do was buy the land inside the black box, deed it to the city, and they would be allowed to build 15 storeys instead of just the eight permitted. The developer has an application in for 27 storeys. Nothing can be built on the land, there are top of bank issues that would make any development not feasible. That is the first time we have heard the Mayor be quite that specific. Something to think about.
Councillors Kearns reacted to a comment in the Gazette where we wondered why she had not moved the motion to receive and file the report on the development that was to have retirement apartment units in one tower of a two 11 storey tower development on New Street and nursing home care that would include what were referred to as “memory units” intended for people with dementia, in the other.
 Excited – this is as good as it gets. Councillor Kearns told her colleagues that it is not her practice to “get too excited” in public nor does she “get upset” in public. She said that what Council was hearing was the extent of her public comment.
 To the victor go the spoils. Both Councillor Kearns and the Mayor commented positively on the development with the Mayor saying that “Burlington was open for business” and that Council wanted to “shape where it goes and the use it is put to.”
“Take note” she added: “Do it right and you get a thumbs up”.
Those comments will stick in the craw of the development community but it is what she said she would do when she ran for the Office of Mayor – and she is doing what she said she would do.
Related news stories:
Transit Director gets sloppy data – Sharman spots the errors
Nisan credibility takes a hit
By Pepper Parr
November 18th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The 2018-2022 Vision to Focus Financial Plan is complex, expensive and a different approach for Burlington.
The meeting was to receive the Financial Plan for the implementation of the strategic initiatives as defined in the 2018-2022 Burlington’s Plan: From Vision to Focus (V2F).
The portions of that vision that were to be tackled by council and Staff were:
Promoting Economic Growth
Intensification
Focused Population Growth
Increased Transportation Flows and Connectivity
Healthy Lifestyles
Environmental and Energy Leadership
Good Governance
Community Building through Arts and Culture via Community Activities
On April 11, 2016 Council approved the city’s 2015-2040 Strategic Plan; transforming the Strategic plan into a central policy document and guiding the community’s key activities, investments and actions. Realize that the city council we had in 2016 is not the city council we have today. Nevertheless the Strategic Plan created then is still in place.
What city council has done is approve the creation of a Business Plan that has been named Vision to Focus (V2F) which sets out what Council and the Burlington Leadership team have identified as the key priorities for the balance of this term of office. This document establishes the strategic actions and initiatives that will focus the city’s efforts over the next four years.
The V2F work plan intends to deliver on five focus areas, with a total of 75 initiatives which are aligned to the 25-year Strategic plan.
The five focus areas are as follows:
• Focus Area 1 – Increasing Economic Prosperity and Community Responsive Growth Management
• Focus Area 2 – Improving Integrated City Mobility
• Focus Area 3 – Supporting Sustainable Infrastructure and a Resilient Environment
• Focus Area 4 – Building more Citizen Engagement, Community Health and Culture
• Focus Area 5 – Delivering Customer Centric Services with a Focus on Efficiency and Technology Transformation
 It’s a solid plan – can the city deliver on council’s expectations? And do enough of the city Councillors fully understand what it is about? They are at phase two and have hit some speed bumps. The trick is to ensure that the five focus areas and the initiatives within them are aligned with the budget – that translates into – are we sure the money to do all these things is going to be in the bank.
Phase 1 of the Financial Plan for the 2015-2040 Strategic Plan was approved in July 2016 and provided a long-term financial plan to build for the long-term implications that would be realized with a 25-year vision.
None of this is going to be cheap.
A Strategic Plan Reserve Fund was established to hold funds to administer and deliver the initiatives laid out in the plan. Any unspent dollars from the annual strategic plan base budget funding is allocated to the reserve fund.
Retained Savings: Minimum of $500,000 towards the Strategic Plan reserve fund provided the city’s retained savings is $1 million or greater. Retained Savings is what most of us know as the surplus – money that was budgeted but not spent or revenue projections that turned out to be better than expected.
Base Budget Funding: The following is a list of annual base budget funding that will be used for strategic plan implementation;
Strategic plan implementation $150,000
Policy initiatives reserve fund for planning initiatives $100,000
Culture reserve fund for cultural initiatives $50,000
Community Investment reserve fund for community engagement and empowerment initiatives $80,000
That’s a cumulative total of $380,000 – before any goodies that might come from Burlington Hydro. Policy is to allocate future special dividends received from Burlington Hydro towards the strategic plan
The following financial plan was approved by Council to meet the funding requirements at that time and plan for future requirements.
This is to cover “much of the core planning and policy work associated with achieving the implementation of the 25-year vision of the city’s Strategic plan. Also, there are certain distinct initiatives that begin to directly deliver some of the plan commitments. Incorporated within the Focus Areas are references to many other important documents, such as the
Official Plan,
Zoning By-Law Review,
Integrated Mobility Plan,
Transit Business Plan, and Mobility Hub Plans, to name a few.
These documents will represent a holistic approach to planning ahead and form the foundation for the future success of many of the initiatives laid out in the V2F work plan and the overall strategic plan.
 Type is small – if you can read it – is this what you want your city to do for you? All this planning got Mayor Meed Ward “fussed” as she put it.
The Urban Forestry Management Plan has her asking why trees could not be planted while the planning was being done. We know we are going to be planting trees – so let’s start doing just that, said the Mayor.
With the Staff report read into the record the meeting moved on to asking questions of Satff
 The Mayor was not impressed – she describes council as nimble and agile and wants that reflected in the work that gets delivered to them. Meed Ward had had enough.
She said that what we have here are plans to develop plans.
We will be spending a lot of money without seeing any change happen.
This council has shown itself to be very action oriented
Can we not reduce the time frame or the cost for all this – preferably both.
Can we not go outside and get some of the help we need?
Meed Ward said she understood that Planning and implementation are joined at the hip but we need to see changes on the ground.
So what can we do she asked.
City manager Tim Commisso responded saying he understood and that the report was a snapshot of where we are.
We are starting so that we have something to measure; we want to be able to nail down the numbers. Meed Ward still wasn’t happy.
She said she wanted to see “expedited” and added that she gets a little jaded about plans and added to that that in her time on council she has seen four or five different master plans.
Trees are something we can measure while we plant.
We want to be a nimble, agile council; can we act and plan at the same time ?
City manager Commisso said “yes we can”.
That was the best the Mayor was going to get out of staff that evening.
The report was moved as received and filed.
But a message had been delivered.
Council was told that “Following the quick wins and initiatives that are transitioned to operations, 51 initiatives remain.
Of these, 19 initiatives are well defined, financial resources are clearly identified and the target for completion is within the four-year time-frame.
The other 32 initiatives are multi-faceted. Multi-faceted initiatives have a foundational and an implementation component. The foundational aspect of the initiatives represents comprehensive planning that needs to occur in order to lay the foundation for future work and decision making. This planning period will occur over a four-year time-frame (2019-2022) and the resulting documents will collectively assist in guiding the City through critical decision points on executing the completion of the initiatives. The implementation component will extend beyond the four-year time frame and the required costing and timing will become available once the planning work associated with it is complete.
The following plans/ reports (not a comprehensive list) are scheduled for completion and/or initiated within the next four years;
• Adopted Official Plan
• Audit and Accountability Report
• Mobility Hub Plans
• Transit Business Plan
• Integrated Mobility Plan
• Climate Change Action Plan
• Green Fleet Strategy
• Fire Master Plan
It was close to mind boggling. The challenge is to determine if the Staff are available to do the work and if the funds are there to pay for the consulting that is going to be needed.
There will be more on this file in the months ahead.
By Pepper Parr
November 13th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Easterbrooks will be missed – it represents an age that was. Was it a barn that fronted on a country road? It used to be a site where people would walk to New Street at Guelph line to buy an ice cream cone or a hot dog. It was one of the two Easterbrooks establishments that had been there for years. The building looked like a barn and probably was a long time ago.
This evening the site got approval in principle for a development that will consist of two towers that will reach 11 storeys; one will be a retirement home with 197 retirement home units to include 33 memory care units, and 145 apartment units.
 The design is unique – the need the development fills is real. The two towers will be joined by a passageway at the sixth and seventh floors.
The existing commercial on the site will disappear.
The approval of the development was significant in that it is the first development that acknowledges the need for both residential and retirement care space for a seniors’ population that is growing at the rate of 2% a year and will not top out for thirty years.
Councillor Paul Sharman has been both a persistent and insistent advocate for more in the way of accommodation and care for the aging population.
The original application went through numerous changes.
There was going to be commercial at grade – that was changed into space that would be a recreation/community amenity for the residents and the wider community.
The location is close to perfect for seniors who want to remain active. The library is a short walk away, the Seniors’ Centre is just as close and there is the Centennial Walkway five minutes to the south and a very very short block away a plaza that has all kinds of retail. The Dutch Confectionary shop is going to love the new business from this development.
The Tim Hortons in the Roseland Plaza is reported to be looking for a new location.
The Standing Committee approved a modified application for official plan and zoning by-law amendments made by TRG (New-Guelph) Inc. to permit the development of two joined 11-storey buildings on the site consisting of a retirement home building and a residential apartment building.
All the boxes that have to be checked off were covered. Staff did ask for some changes which for the most part were approved.
The Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility, Heather MacDonald will hold discussions with the applicant to secure community benefits in accordance with Section 37 of the Planning Act.
The modified approval consisted of additional front and side of building step-backs as well as increased setback of the underground parking structure from the front lot line.
The application went to the Planning department on February 2, 2018. On February 22, 2018 Planning Staff acknowledged that the application submitted was complete. That’s a very decent turn-around time.
On June 19, 2019 the applicant submitted a complete re submission for review; this had to do with the change of plans for a Road Diet that had been proposed for New Street.
 Lisa Kearns: The ward Councillor didn’t move the report – didn’t sound all the excited about a development that makes sense. This development is exactly what Burlington needs. It meets an immediate need for rental residential and it meets a need coming straight at us – places for seniors who need some care.
What was disconcerting was that the ward Councillor wasn’t up on her feet to move the report. The Mayor took on that task.
The buildings are proposed to be joined on the 6th and 7th floor, with the 7th floor being exclusively used for the care of residents with dementia and are referred to as memory care units.
Both buildings are proposed to be terraced down to 6 storeys at the back. The development proposes a combination of underground and surface parking, with the majority of spaces being provided in an underground parking structure. Vehicles are proposed to enter the site from a single driveway off New Street between the two proposed buildings. There are no dwelling units proposed on the ground floor of either building.
The revised submission will have 197 retirement home units to include 33 memory care units, an increase in the number of apartment units to 145, and an increase in the on-site parking to 360 spaces.
The property is known to be affected by groundwater contamination from an off-site source. Prior to any development occurring on the site, the applicant will need to demonstrate that the contamination can be mitigated, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP); a Holding Zone will be applied to the property.
CITY OF BURLINGTON POLICY CONTEXT
Current City of Burlington Official Plan has for the most part been met.
i) Compatibility is achieved with the existing neighbourhood character in terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, coverage, parking and amenity area so that a transition between existing and proposed buildings is provided.
Massing
The massing of the proposed buildings is appropriate at the rear of the property in the 6-storey building form. The lowest and narrowest profiles of the proposed buildings are located closest to the lot line abutting the low- density residential uses to the north; the proposed buildings fit within the 45-degree angular plane to the property line abutting the low- density residential uses, subject to the minor modifications recommended by Planning Staff.
Height
The proposed building height represents a substantial increase to what is permitted as-of-right by the current Official Plan designation of Neighbourhood Commercial (which permits 3-storeys). However, the siting of the proposed building and general building massing has resulted in an 11- storey building that will fit within a 45-degree angular plane to the lot line abutting the low-density residential uses to the north, subject to the modifications to the 6th floor building setback and 7th floor rooftop terrace setback recommended by Planning Staff. At the front of the building, facing New Street, the lower building section closely aligns with the height of the adjacent 6-storey building to the west.
Siting
The proposed buildings have been sited so that a 45-degree angular plane can be achieved from the property line abutting the low-density residential properties to the north. The proposed buildings have been sited closer to the front of the property to generally align with the established building setbacks along the north side of New Street on this block. The longer building faces are located along the side property lines, resulting in narrower building components at the rear yard interface. The siting has resulted in a generous rear yard amenity area for the future residents of the buildings. With regard to building siting, Planning Staff consider the proposed buildings to be compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.
 The development is well situated on thee site – lots of pathways and good open space at the rear of the property. Setbacks
The proposed building setbacks of the lower building form (floors 1-5) are acceptable to Planning Staff. Likewise, the reduction of the building massing to 6-storeys and proposed rear yard setback assists in providing compatibility with the adjacent low-density residential properties to the north. The proposed setbacks of the upper portion of the building require adjustment to ensure compatibility with the streetscape of New Street and adjacent properties on either side of the development. As noted previously in this report, Planning Staff are recommending modified approval to require a 3m building stepback at the front of the building starting at the 6th floor, as opposed to the 1.5m stepback proposed by the applicant. The additional building stepback recommended by Planning Staff assists in reducing the upper building scale and massing along the New Street frontage. This building face stepback aligns with the recommendations of the City’s Mid-Rise Design Guidelines.
The building design proposed by the applicant provided one 7.5m building wall setback (6.0m to the balcony) for the 11-storey building. Planning Staff have recommended that a 2.5m building stepback be provided along the building sides starting at the 6th floor. The additional side of building stepback will assist in providing adequate separation of taller building elements, should adjacent properties develop with a taller mid-rise building form. Subject to the modifications recommended by Planning Staff, the building setbacks can be considered to be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood character.
 Elevation from the north – the floors above the sixth are set back considerably. Coverage
The applicant has proposed buildings which take up approximately 35% of the site area at grade. The remainder of the site is developed with landscaped and hardscaped area and a limited area for parking (10 spaces), driving and drop-off. The proposed building setbacks and site design allow for a large landscaped open space area at the back of the property and amenity area at the sides of the buildings. The proposed rear yard amenity area abuts the rear yard amenity space of the two low-density dwellings to the north. The applicant has amended their below grade building area to ensure the long- term protection of the cedar trees along the rear property line. Planning Staff feel that the proposed building coverage is appropriate in terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood character.
Amenity Area
The proposal includes outdoor common amenity area at-grade at the rear of the property, as well as along walking paths at the sides of the building.
 Elevation from the west showing the setback for the top five floors. Outdoor amenity area is also proposed as a rooftop terrace at the back of the building on the 7th floor. This rear terrace space is proposed only for use by the residents and staff of the memory care suites. A rooftop terrace on the 8th floor is provided as additional amenity space for the residents of the apartment building. All units in both buildings (with the exception of the memory care suites) are provided with private outdoor amenity space in the form of a balcony. Indoor amenity area is provided on the ground floors of each building and is also provided on the 7th floor exclusively for the residents of the memory care suites. A total of approximately 10,000 square metres of amenity area is provided throughout the site to support the 342 units proposed. Units in the residential building are proposed to be provided with approximately 27 square metres of amenity area per unit. Units in the retirement home building are provided with approximately 29 square metres of amenity area per unit. Memory care residents are proposed to have approximately 37 square metres of amenity area per unit.
 View of the development skyline from the north. There are two properties which share the rear lot line with the subject lands. The proposed rear yard common amenity area at grade abuts the rear yard amenity areas of the low-density residential dwellings on Karen Drive. The interface is appropriate as the uses at-grade in the amenity area on the site are passive and informal, and the amenity area is primarily landscaped with soft landscaping elements up to 8 metres from the rear property line.
Conclusion: As modified by Staff, compatibility is achieved with the existing neighbourhood character and represents an appropriate transition between lower density and higher density residential uses.
City of Burlington Adopted Official Plan, 2018
The intersection of Guelph Line and New Street is identified as a Neighbourhood Centre in the adopted Official Plan. Halton Region has identified areas of non-conformity, and as such, the adopted Official Plan will be subject to additional review prior to its approval. Further, City Council has directed a new staff review and public engagement process to consider potential modifications to the adopted Official Plan in the area of the Downtown.
Burlington Hydro has commented that capacity is not available on the existing overhead power lines along New Street to accommodate the hydro services required for the proposed development. The developer will need to upgrade the hydro service from the northwest corner of Mayzel Road and New Street to make adequate servicing available. The system upgrades will be at the expense of the developer. The building will need to provide an electrical room along the south wall of the underground parking structure, accessible to Burlington Hydro staff. Burlington Hydro will be consulted on the specifications of the electrical room requirements at the Site Plan stage.
By Pepper Parr
November 8th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
When I first heard the word POPS at a Standing Committee this week, I thought the speaker was talking about a pop up stand or an event that takes place for a short period of time – like a couple of hours.
 The 27 storey tower seen from Old Lakeshore Road. The view to the lake would be unobstructed. City council was listening to the Statutory presentation being made by the Urban Design Group on behalf of CORE developments who are proposing a 27 storey tower with a heritage building kept on the site that is in the “football” opposite the bottom of Martha Street..
One of the features of the development is a piece of property on the west side that was described as a POPS which stands for Privately Owned Public Space.
 The space shown as green would be private property that the public could use. The called it POPS The developers plan was to open up the space to the public who would be able to walk around and enjoy the ambience.
The POPS space lined up with the foot of Martha Street and would allow a clean line of sight from Lakeshore at Martha through to the lake.
No mention was made of Emmas Back Porch sitting in the south side of Old Lakeshore Road.
Park space in that part of the city is going to be limited. Spencer Park is in the area but it is a bit of a walk.
Every development has to provide the city with 5% of the land as park dedicated land. Developers can choose to give cash in lieu of the land.
The cash that is given goes into the Park Reserve fund and can be used elsewhere.
 The POPS looking north to Martha  The POPS looking south to the lake. Mayor Marianne Meed Ward saw what looked like a bit of an opportunity to apply some leverage to a development that no one seems to want; she asked how much area would the POPS take up – would it amount to 5% of the overall land.
Turns out the 5% Park dedication would equal just 15% of the POPS space. The Mayor might not give up on that angle.
 If you were standing on Martha Street, half a block up from LAkeshore Road – this is what your view would look like. There are several concerns with the POPS concept. The owners of the development will eventually be the condominium corporation that takes over once the development is completed and at least one very vocal condominium resident pointed out that a public space is 24/7; condominium owners would really have no privacy.
With ownership of the property comes the right to do whatever they want with it as long as they stay within the rules. And that might well be the end of the “public space” part of the POPS.
By Pepper Parr
November 7th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The developer got a rough ride. It wasn’t any better than the public reception they got when they first let Burlingtonians what they had in mind.
On Tuesday they were doing the mandatory Statutory presentation – a time when Planning department staff say relatively little other than the bare bones about the project.
The Core Development Group have yet to give the project they have planned for the “football”, that oblong piece of land bound by Lakeshore Road on the north side and Old Lakeshore Road on the south side, a name.
There is the Carriage Gate Development proposed for the eastern end of the “football” that didn’t pick up a lot of support when it took their idea to the public in a very poorly attended meeting. Less than 40 people in the room.
 This is what the CORE development group is proposing; the heritage building will continue as a restaurant; traffic will flow on to Lakeshore Road the other side of this rendering. Two people from Urban Design headed up the presenting – they were professional and polished and they gave it their best shot. It didn’t appear to be enough to move this council.
Lisa Kearns, the Councillor for Ward 2 made it very clear that she would not support the development.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward reminded the meeting that she was holding the football property to no more than eight storeys – and would go up to 15 if there were significant benefits for the public – which to her way of thinking was much more land for public use.
During the presentation the architect was brought up to explain what was sustainable about the site. He said the building would be heated and cooled geothermically – the equipment would be put in by a firm they owned.
The traffic expert came up to the podium to clarify just where the cars would get out of the 27 storey building that would have four floors of underground parking. Believe it or not they plan on having traffic in and out on Lakeshore Road. Keep in mind that the Nautique development will be on the other side of the road – almost directly across from the CORE development.
When asked what would the Chrysler Carriage House be used for the meeting was told it would be commercial and that they would probably use it as a restaurant location.
 Someone has finally come up with a reason for building the Pier – it was that “iconic” location from which people could see the city skyline and point out all the tall buildings. There is a word for that kind of traffic flow – wondering what the Transportation department will have to say when the project gets to them?
Bryan Nykoliation, who was introduced as the development owner (which he isn’t) was asked by the Mayor if he would withdraw the development until such time as the city has completed the study it intends to do once the review and refinement of the adopted but not yet approved Official Plan work is completed. Nykoliation said he would not do that.
 The western edge of the development lines up with Martha Street Their design consultant said she believed the CORE group had a very strong argument justifying the location and the building her client wanted to build.
A large part of the presentation was on how the proposed development fit into that part of the Lakeshore community. The design consultants used the existence of the under construction Bridgewater project and the approved ADI Nautique development as their view on what was to come and how their development fit into the bigger picture as they saw it.
 The developer argued that they weren’t adding anything to the skyline that wasn’t already there.  The outline on the right is the ADI Nautique structure. Lakeshore Road is in the middle with Emma’s on the other side. The CORE development would block the view of Emmas. They provided illustrations showing that there project wasn’t going to be any bigger than anyone else’s. They have illustrations of view from the Pier and an illustration that purported to show that the view from Martha street looking south to the lake left people with a clear view. They didn’t include Emmas Back Porch in the illustration.
The event was one of the more boisterous Statutory meetings we have seen in some time. The developers have been meeting with the Planning department people for some time; they left the impression that the planners are comfortable with the development. Consultants get paid to do that.
 Views on what the development will look like from different locations.  The consultants took the position that there development was, to some degree, an extension of Spencer Smith Park There will be a wide public path at the edge of the lake behind the Bridgewater that leads up to Old Lakeshore Road. Making the case that it is an extension depends on what gets built on the western end of the “football”
By Pepper Parr
October 31st, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
This is the second of a six part series on how the city is revising the adopted but not yet approved city plan.
The Taking a Closer look report was prepared by SGL, a consulting group and delivered to the city last August.
The public didn’t become aware of the document until earlier this week. So much for “meaningful engagement”.
The report is the first step in the re-examination of the Official Plan. It is intended to provide a guide to the background to the City’s Official Plan (OP) Policies for the Downtown and the process the City is currently undertaking to re-examine the Downtown OP Policies.
 Planning Staff met with citizens during an Action Plan meeting where the participants had workbooks to record their thoughts. A companion piece to this report is the Public Engagement Plan. It provides a roadmap of the engagement activities that were to take place over the next few months, highlighting at which points in the process engagement will take place, who will be engaged and the level of engagement. The plan also clearly defines which aspects of the process the City and public can influence throughout the discussion.
On February 7, 2019 the new City Council voted to re-examine the policies in the adopted Official Plan. The Council motion directs Burlington’s Director of City Building to commence a process to re-examine the policies of the Official Plan in their entirety as they relate to matters of height and intensity and conformity with provincial density targets.
A Council workshop was held on March 18, 2019 to obtain further Council feedback on this direction. Council’s further feedback resulted in focusing the work on the Downtown and on refinements to the Neighbourhood Centres policies.
A work plan for re-examining the Official Plan policies was presented by City Staff to Planning and Development Committee on May 21, 2019 and approved on May 27, 2019.
The outcome of this work will be a set of modified policies for the Downtown supported by a Final Report prepared by SGL – the consulting firm the city hired to produce the study and manage a large part of the public engagement.
It is amazing how many people do not fully understand what the purpose of an Official Plan is; what it does and how it gets revised.
An Official Plan is a statutory document that describes the City’s long-term, land-use strategy for the next 20 years. It is prepared with input from the public and helps to ensure future planning and development will meet the specific needs of the community.
An official plan deals mainly with issues such as:
• the location and form of new housing, industry, offices and shops;
• the anticipated needs for services such as roads, watermains, sewers, parks, schools and community amenities;
• where future growth will happen in the City and how to make effective use of land;
• opportunities for community improvement initiatives; and
• community identity, place-making and urban design.
The over-rising issue during the October 2018 municipal election was the matter of height – and where the tall buildings would be located. Most people did not object to tall 25 storeys + buildings – they just didn’t want them in the downtown core – south of Caroline. At this point in time the citizens are looking at three that have been approved (one has shovels in the ground) with three others working their way towards the planners at city hall.
 Once they were sworn in they got down to business – the day after this was taken they fired the city manager. An Official Plan is typically intended to plan for a 20-year time frame but could provide direction beyond that time period. The Re-examination of the OP is intended to guide planning to 2031.
The Official Plan Burlington is working under today was approved in 2006.
The City commenced an Official Plan Review in 2011. The review included preparation of numerous studies, analysis and public engagement over an 8 year period including preparation of a Mobility Hubs Opportunities and Constraints Study, Employment Land Studies, and a Commercial Strategy Study. This review was intended to conform with and implement the Region’s Official Plan and conform to the new Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
This is how we got to where we are. The next installment is about the process being used.
 How we got to where we are – it is not a pretty picture. Mobility hubs were to be one of the planning approaches Burlington would use to accommodate the growth that was to take place.
 The Molinaro Group were the first to develop around a GO station – one of the three mobility hubs in Burlington. A Mobility Hub, as defined by Metrolinx, is a major transit station area that has the potential to accommodate a range of employment, housing, recreation and shopping around it. Mobility Hubs are intended to be mixed-use neighbourhoods that are walkable, bikeable and transit-oriented and to be a focus for intensification. The Hubs will also take advantage of Metrolinx’s planned Regional Express Rail, which will feature two-way, all-day service every 15 minutes along the Lakeshore West line. The four areas included in the Mobility Hubs Study were Aldershot, Burlington, and Appleby GO Stations, as well as Downtown Burlington.
A major transit station area (MTSA) is an area around a higher order transit station or the area around a bus depot in an urban core or downtown. Higher order transit includes subways, GO lines, streetcars and buses in dedicated rights of way. An MTSA is generally the area within a 10-minute walk (500 to 800 metres) of the transit stations. However, the Region is required to delineate the specific boundary of the MTSA, which will be done as part of their current Official Plan review. Lands within an MTSA are required to provide a diverse mix of uses, support transit, be a focus for growth, and in certain cases achieve a minimum density.
The Halton Region Official Plan recommends that Mobility Hubs receive a higher level of development intensity and design consideration to support transit than what may be applied in other MTSAs.
Following the identification of Mobility Hubs by Metrolinx, the City’s long term 2015 – 2040 Strategic Plan identified the importance of Mobility Hubs near the City’s GO Stations and in the downtown.
 The original view was that there would be four mobility hubs – the one in the downtown core was little more than a bus station. It is expected to be removed from the list. In July 2016, Burlington City Council approved a staff report, which outlined a work plan, allocation of staff resources and required funding to simultaneously develop four Area Specific Plans, one for each of Burlington’s Mobility Hubs. An Area Specific Plan, also sometimes called a Secondary Plan, is a plan that is more detailed than an Official Plan and guides future development in a specific geographic area. An Area Specific Plan can include a variety of studies and contains specific policies to guide future development.
City Council unanimously approved the project, with the goal of completing all four Area Specific Plans no later than June 2018. In April 2017, the Mobility Hubs Team began a comprehensive public consultation program around the future vision for each of the Mobility Hubs as shown in the timeline for the Downtown Mobility Hub work.
 Downtown Mobility Hub Study Timeline. The work on the Mobility hubs was put on hold when the city realized that the number of developments in the downtown core were overwhelming the planning staff and except for the Molinaro Group and the Adi Development Group, no one was doing anything within the hub boundaries. Staff began working on the Downtown Mobility Hub Area Specific Plan in advance of the other three Mobility Hubs with the objective of including a vision for the downtown in the draft New Official Plan in late 2017. The New Official Plan provided an opportunity to strengthen the existing policy framework for the downtown.
The boundary for the Downtown Mobility Hub included both the existing “Downtown Mixed Use Centre” boundary in the current Official Plan as well as the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) boundary. The Downtown Area Specific Plan was developed with a long term, full build-out perspective which extended well beyond 2031.
The City of Burlington Official Plan 2018 was adopted by Burlington City Council on April 26, 2018.
A new city council was sworn in on December 3rd, 2018.
On December 4, 2018, the Region of Halton provided a notice to the City advising that the adopted Official Plan does not conform with the Regional Official Plan in a number of respects including issues related to agricultural, employment, transportation and natural heritage. The Region did not identify any issues of conformity with the Downtown Precinct policies.
The Region informed the City that the City can make additional modifications before the plan is approved by the Region with appropriate planning justification and public consultation. Today, the adopted Official Plan is still under review by the Region for regional approval.
City Council together with the direction to re-examine the Official Plan also passed an Interim Control By-law (ICBL) and put the Mobility Hub Area Specific Planning on hold.
Part 1
Next installment: The Process.
By Pepper Parr
October 30th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
This is the first of a six part series on how the city is revising the adopted but not yet approved city plan.
It doesn’t carry the same weight as the Shape Burlington report but if we don’t manage what the Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown: What You Need to Know report sets out – there won’t be all that much left of the shape people who voted for the new city council wanted.
The report is lengthy and we aren’t going to set it all out for you in a single document. What we are going to do is publish the report in six pieces based on table of contents which read as follows.
Introduction
What is the Purpose of this Report?
Why is the City Re-examining the Adopted Official Plan?
What is the Purpose of an Official Plan?
How Did We Get Here?
 People who took part in the Walking Tour looking over the map. The Process
What were the Objectives of the Downtown Precinct Plan?
What Public Events were Held During the Official Plan Process?
What did the City Hear During the Official Plan Process?
What is Involved in Re-Examining the Downtown Policies?
Governing Policies and their Role in the Outcome
What is The Provincial Policy Statement?
What is A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe?
How does the Halton Region Official Plan Guide Planning in the Downtown?
What is the City’s Vision in the Adopted Official Plan?
What are the Key Policy Directions that Influence the Downtown?
Connections to Other Projects
What is the Timing of the Region’s Official Plan Review?
What’s the Status of the Area Specific Plan for the Downtown Mobility Hub?
What is an Interim Control By-Law?
What is an Interim Control By-Law?
The Engagement Plan and What You Should Know
What is an Engagement Plan?
What Does Meaningful Engagement Look Like?
What Does Meaningful Feedback/Input Look Like?
What You Should Know to get Involved
The work being done on the adopted but not yet approved Official Plan is referred to as a Scoped Re-examination. The next step is to finalize the background technical studies that were initiated during the Mobility Hub Area Specific Planning Study including, but not limited to, studies on cultural heritage, municipal servicing and transportation.
We will use these themes to guide the creation of two land-use and built form concepts for the downtown. We will also use the themes and principles developed with the public to create evaluation criteria, which will be used to evaluate the two concepts.
We will then share the two land-use and built form concepts to start a discussion with the public. Based on public and technical inputs and application of the evaluation criteria, a recommended concept will be developed and presented to Council for endorsement.
The concept endorsed by Council will be used to refine the Downtown Precinct Plan policies in the adopted Official Plan. Those refined policies will in turn be presented to Council for endorsement. The concept and policies endorsed by Council will then be sent to Halton Region for final approval.
The report was released to the public today – unfortunately it wasn’t given to the 150 people who took part in the Action Plan Workshops, nor was a copy given to the 40 some people who took part in the Walking Tour.
That was regrettable.
The Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown: What You Need to Know report is the first step in the re-examination of the Official Plan; it is intended to provide you with a guide to the background to the City’s Official Plan (OP) Policies for the Downtown and the process the City is currently undertaking to re-examine the Downtown OP Policies.
By Pepper Parr
October 29th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 The land between Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road has been referred to as the football every since we started publishing. Why would the city want to name is the peanut? Is it a football or a peanut?
What most people know as the “football” was referred to as the peanut by Director of Planning Heather MacDonald at one of the Action Plan sessions last week.
 Is it a football ….  …or a peanut? It is probably the most significant piece of developable land left in the downtown core.
In time it might equal Spencer Smith Park in importance to the look, feel and public open space in the city.
Right now there are developers crawling all over the land with proposal for developments that will rise more than 25 storeys.
The Carriage Gate Group subsidiary Lakeshore Old Burlington gave a presentation to a very small group at a public meeting recently. No one has yet to explain why that meeting was so poorly promoted.
 Not much of that quaint, walk-able community in this 3d model of what the CORE Development group want to dump into the ‘football’. The CORE Development group gave the public a good look at what they have in mind for the properties to the west of the Burlington Old LAkeshore proposal.
They will be making the required Statutory presentation to city council on November 5th at city hall
 Lakeshore Mixed use precinct – on the north and south side of Lakeshore from Locust to Martha. Each property will have its own rules put in place. During the two Action Plan workshops the city held for residents some people wanted to know why the “football” and the Lakeshore Precinct were not included in the public think sessions.
They were told by the Director of Planning, Heather MacDonald that those precincts were to be the subject of separate studies once the revisions to the adopted but not yet approved Official Plan are in place.
One can sympathize with the workload the Planning department faces but the “football” and what has been defined as the Lakeshore precinct are just as important as the look and feel of Brant Street if not more so.
What makes Burlington the city it is – is the lake.
 At the eastern edge of the football – the tower will become the gateway to the downtown core. This structure is to the immediate west of the latest Carriage Gate Development.
The millions spent on the Pier; the millions spent on getting public access to the lake at the foot of the Bridgewater development and public access to the lake through that development will be for naught if there are no rules that apply to the football and the Lakeshore precinct.
At this point there are two mammoth development applications for the “football” on the table
Let us not repeat the terrible mistake with that Anchor Hub – the label that got stuck on a tiny bus terminal.
Related news stories:
The stunning development planned for the “football”
Can high rise development be brought to an end?
By Pepper Parr
October 28th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
There are mobility hubs
There are anchor hubs
There are MTSA’s – Major Transit Station Areas
There are urban growth centers.
They are all tied together but not all that well understood.
 We know it as the bus terminal – the bureaucrats call it an Anchor Hub; a developer saw it as a great stroke of luck. A bus terminal made the height of this development possible. One of them, the Anchor hub that had been proposed for what most people know as the bus terminal on John Street, put the city in a position where they could not deny a developer the right to put up a building – which really screwed up the plans the city had for property on Lakeshore Road close to where it meets up with Old Lakeshore Road. The developer used the existence of an Anchor hub as justification for the high rise.
The Anchor hub is basically a small bus depot that at one point was to be torn down.
 Three of the five towers that make up the Paradigm development on the north side of Fairview right next to the GO Station. The Mobility Hubs are clustered around the GO stations where the developers have bought up as much of the and as possible. The Molinaro Group was ahead of the development crowd when they broke ground for the Paradigm development – five towers snuggled up beside the Burlington GO station.
 Adi Developments Station West in the early development stage. Councillor Kelvin Galbraith has a number of major developments taking place in the western end of the ward that will increase GO train traffic. The Aldershot GO station area has a very large two stage ADI development underway.
Nothing in the works yet for the Mobility hub that will be part of the Appleby GO station.
There isn’t all that much controversy around the Mobility hubs – although Dr. Shie would like to see the eastern edge of the Burlington GO hub moved to the east – to the other side of Guelph line so that it includes the property at Guelph and Harvester Road.
 The boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre that the province required every municipality to have. Many now believe that the location chosen and the boundaries put in place need to be changed. The Urban Growth Centre is something the city had to create. That was a provincial requirement. The city had to have one – but it had some influence on where it would be located and what the boundaries are. The current UGC boundary is a little too far to the south for many people.
It was created in 2006 – many think both the location and the boundary lines were a mistake. Members of the current council have come to believe that the location of the current UGC can be moved and the boundary changed.
You had to have one but you get to determine where it will be located.
The Anchor isn’t a gotta have. The story we got from Councillor Lisa Kearns is that the city will get rid of the Anchor Hub (bus station) just as soon as the Interim Control Bylaw is lifted – which is expected to happen in March of 2020.
 Burlington MPP Jane McKenna stuck her head in the door, didn’t like the look of the meeting and left. Getting the location and boundary of the Urban Growth Centre is not as easy. Kearns told the Gazette that the members of the provincial government: Jane McKenna, Burlington and Effie Triantafilopoulos, Oakville North Burlington will be drawn into the discussions.
Triantafilopoulos understands the complexity of the issue and is for the most part approachable and works at having good, strong working relationships with her peers.
Many residents have not had the same experience with McKenna.
It will be interesting to see how this work out. We weren’t able to get much in the way of a sense as to how long this will take from Councillor Kearns.
|
|
