 By Gary Scobie
June 7th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
I am writing this to expose the absurdity of the Province’s growth centre density targets and how this absurdity is working against good municipal planning, against the livability of Ontario cities where targets apply, against the democratic right of citizens to control their own neighbourhood growth and for just one group – developers.
 Mobility Hubs can be either full-fledged Gateway Mobility Hubs along GO Transit lines or Anchor Mobility Hubs where municipal transit stations occur. Is this really an Anchor hub? Henceforth when I refer to growth centres I mean official Urban Growth Centres assigned to municipalities by the Province and Mobility Hubs assigned either by the provincial Metrolinx organization or created by municipalities themselves. The Mobility Hubs can be either full-fledged Gateway Mobility Hubs along GO Transit lines or Anchor Mobility Hubs where municipal transit stations occur. Each has a density target assigned consisting of the number of People and Jobs (P&J’s) per hectare. Not all growth centres have the same areas or density target, but for simplicity I will use the largest area and the highest density target to describe the maximum effect, unless I use an actual growth centre that has been designated.
 The thinking was to create four mobility hubs and allow significant growth. The studies needed to flesh this out have been put on hold, A theoretical growth centre is circular and can have up to an 800 metre radius. The area is calculated by the pi X r-squared formula we learned in school, where pi is 3.1416 to four decimals and r is the radius in metres. In this case the area could be up to 3.1416 X 800 X 800 = 2,010,624 square metres. A hectare is 10,000 square metres. So the maximum area of a theoretical growth centre is 2,010,624 / 10,000 = 201.0624 hectares. Let’s round this off to 200 hectares for simplicity.
The growth target for most growth centres is 200 P&J’s per hectare. So theoretically the largest growth centres could have up to 200 X 200 = 40,000 people and jobs within it. That in itself is quite a staggering number, when you consider that Burlington has a population today around 180,000 and if just one growth centre had a maximum area and no jobs, it would have to house 40,000 people in a relatively small area, about 22% of the current total Burlington population.
 Going up opposite city hall – sales centre is operational. But let’s pause here and examine a real growth centre in Burlington, the Urban Growth Centre in the downtown. It is smaller than the circle I described as theoretical and it is shaped more like a upside down capital “T”, stretching up Brant street and adjacent streets and along Lakeshore Road. It is about half the size at 104.6 hectares. So its target is 104.6 X 200 = 20,920 P&J’s. Yes, that’s pretty dense. We were at 157 P&J’s in 2016, over 78% toward target. So we need to get to 200 P&J’s in this growth centre by 2031. At the pace of current approved and constructed or awaiting construction buildings, we will handily reach target well before 2031.
In actual fact, we will not need one more high rise building, beyond those approved, added in the Urban Growth Centre in the next 12 years. We could get to target with a mix of low and mid-rise new buildings. Even though overall Burlington population growth (again assigned by the Province without our consent) will have a new higher target assigned for 2041 compared to 2031, the growth centre density targets are unchanged for both dates. The new assigned population will be expected to be housed at the three GO Station Gateway Mobility Hubs that have been spec’d out for up to 69,000 people and jobs. So even with more assigned growth of population, it would seem that our downtown just might be able to survive and still be liveable at about 21,000 people and jobs by meeting its density target.
 Citizens are arguing for some limits on just how much development takes place in the downtown core. Interim Control Bylaw has halted any development for a year. But wait, there’s more! You see, the density target for growth centres of 200 P&J’s per hectare is a minimum target, as developers often point out. So what, you may say. We’ll make our minimum target and no municipality is being threatened by the Province with nasty repercussions if they don’t make theirs. But the Halton Home Builders Association is recommending density targets be increased once municipalities reach the minimum. So municipalities wouldn’t get rewarded for meeting the minimum target, they would get penalized by being forced to densify even further if this recommendation ever went through. Some reward.
Now here’s the real absurdity. The Province “encourages” municipalities to go beyond the minimum density target. OK, but how much beyond? Well, er, there is no “how much”. In the absence of a maximum density or a suggested maximum, there is no number given by the Province nor a hint of what it might be if there was one.
As an Applied Math grad, that can only mean one thing to me. The maximum is infinity. And most people know that means there is no maximum whatsoever. You can bet that the developers and their planners and lawyers, who are smart people by the way, certainly know this and love this gift from our Province. And they make good use of this phraseology of encouraging higher than minimum targets to lobby cities, the OMB and the LPAT that it is their civic duty to go, as Buzz Lightyear would say “to infinity and beyond”. It’s like a license to build ever higher, ever more high rises in growth centres “because the Province wants us to do it”.
 Approved – at 24 storeys – the city opposed the development – the OMB said they could. No hole in the ground yet – they are testing to determine just where the water table is. Would any Official Plan (OP) that doesn’t allow infinite growth in a growth centre therefore be not “in compliance” with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Provincial Growth Plan? So OP’s might be useless to stop this quest for infinite density? Good city planning might also be in danger, although the LPAT & OMB often refer to “good planning” as something they can identify and appreciate, especially when it comes from “experts” (most Planning Departments need not apply since only the Province decides who’s an expert, it seems). All these are worrisome issues for citizens who care about Burlington and support reasonable growth.
Confused? Don’t be. The latest suggestions for changes to the LPAT from the Province are to dismiss a municipality’s OP if it isn’t “good planning” and decide for them what “good planning” is and how many high rises should be allowed and how high these building should be in growth centres, so that we can reach toward infinity by 2031, by 2041, or by infinity I guess.
How many P&J’s should be stuffed into growth centres? An infinite number apparently. And developers are lining up to feast like they’ve never feasted before with high rises everywhere in growth centres, foisting these on unsuspecting municipalities.
In our capitalistic society, where money trumps all reason, municipalities and their citizens seem nearly powerless to stop this. Welcome to the absurd world of growth centre math and the greed that is satisfies.
Now I fully realize that the target is not infinity, but citizens must realize that the impetus from developers to build higher and higher is strong and steady and the Province with its proposed weakening of citizen input to the LPAT process and its proposed takeover of decisions on just how far we go with density and height (under its “good planning” auspice) are putting all cities in Southern Ontario at risk for destruction of the character of their downtowns, the increase of congestion in both people and vehicles and the lowering of livability standards.
 Looking south down Brant the light shaded building has been approved at 24 storeys, the building to the south of that has been ok’s at 17 – they are appealing to get 24 – same as the guy next door. Is this what Ontario city populations desire? Is this what Ontario citizens thought they were voting for a year ago? I don’t think so. Yes, there will be more people coming to cities and for many that will mean being housed in high rises around GO stations. Citizens realize and accept this. In Burlington we have room for this. So we’re not against growth, only growth in inappropriate places, like our downtown.
 Developer is asking for 24 storeys – same as the approved building to the east, What can we do? Contact the Mayor and your Councillor and support their efforts to stand against over-development of the downtown and also of the numerous plazas and strip malls that are or will face the same sort of pressure to infill at high density numbers far out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. City governments and their planning departments must stand firm against what may seem an impervious and imponderable regime constructed by the latest version of our Provincial masters, who apparently think they know best how to manage our cities. Contact your MPP and let her know you want a made in Burlington development plan.
Citizens must attend local meetings on development hosted by the City and delegate at City Hall when Statutory Public Meetings are called. Let the Province know that we care about our city and our elected officials know better how to manage growth than the Province does.
Only the sky is the limit to developers. We need to lower that limit.
 Gary Scobie is a frequent commentator on how Burlington can grow – he advocates for responsible and thoroughly thought through growth.
 By Pepper Parr
June 7th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Reality has hit the city’s planning department.
They have put the Mobility Hub Study on hold while they deal with the re-examination of the adopted Official Plan and the Interim Control Bylaw, passed on March 25, 2019.
 The first three of a five tower project right beside the Burlington GO train tracks has sold well. It was the right kind of development in the right location. Work on the Mobility Hubs, including the development of the Downtown Mobility Hub Area Specific Plan (secondary plan), has been taken out of the day to day operations.
What will the impact of that decision be? There are so many balls in the air that it is difficult to fully comprehend what can impact what – loads of room here for unintended consequences.
Kudos for the Planners for making a tough call.
The focus on the GO stations as the location for growth was a sound decision – the trick is to get it right the first time.
 By Pepper Parr
May 27th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Marianne Meed Ward at the State of the City address to the Chamber of Commerce. One of the promises Mayor Marianne Meed Ward made to the Chamber of Commerce when she delivered her State of the City address to them was to improve the way business was done in the city.
She created a Red Carpet Red Tape initiative that was going out into the commercial sector to ask questions and to listen. She brought Kelvin Galbraith, the Councillor with the best small business experience in as her co-chair and they have been listening.
For reasons known only to the Mayor the listening sessions have been closed to media – all we have to work with are the statements she releases. There is a lot of information in them.
The first session took place at the Waterfront Hotel where issues that were to become a theme as the Red Carpet Red Tape (RCRT) wagon rolled along.
Parking, getting paperwork and approvals through city hall and finding talent that could be employed and able to find affordable accommodation were mentioned at every session.
We have lifted portions of the reports the Mayor released and put them within quotation marks.
Small business types wanted “Access to qualified young labour. Factors that play a significant role in that challenge are a) the high price of living in Burlington and b) the difficulty in commuting here by anything other than a personal automobile, which many don’t have.
“Trying to recruit skilled employees from surrounding trade schools/colleges/universities is difficult when they find out how expensive starter townhomes or condos are here. With the often bus-train-bus experience most would have to partake in should they decide to commute from a neighboring community with potentially more affordable real estate options, the length of time of the commute becomes too prohibitive. Bottom line: more needs to be done to allow young people to live and/or work here, whether it’s through more affordable housing options or better/faster transit options.
 Is an $800 Engineering report necessary for signageÉ “Red Tape. Many examples were given of challenges before a business could open, and the labyrinth of approvals and expenses that came along the way. Reference was made to needing engineering approvals on storefront signage (a reasonable request to ensure they’re safe and won’t fall on anyone) but there was a lack of understanding of whether the $800 engineering fee was reasonable, or whether more could be done to educate new business owners about alternative options that may be more affordable. Other examples were given about starting down one path of approval, only to be told later in the process that additional items were needed and additional expenses would have to be incurred that they had not budgeted for.
“Answers given by City Staff were referenced as sometimes being inconsistent with one another, leading to confusion. Overall, many spoke about a lack of support through the process. Those who had been around for 20+ years made reference to having strong and experienced mentors and using their own hard work and ability to pull in experts to advise them on things from accounting to networking and beyond.
 BDBA General Manager Brian Dean working a crown during a downtown festive event,. “Some attendees had no idea if they belonged to their local BIA (or whether they even could), and most did not know about support that could be provided to them through partner organizations like the BEDC. Many wished they could give advice to new businesses setting up shop and better inform them of whether the location they are choosing is appropriate for their business model to help them avoid failure, and whether landlords and real estate agents can better help facilitate that evaluation for likelier long-term success.
“Bottom line:” posited the Mayor, “Can a smarter welcome package be created for those exploring starting a new small business in Burlington – one that outlines all the steps needed before opening, the demographics of different neighborhoods, and clearly directs people to the other resources available to help them get there? Can our staff be well-trained to provide a supportive and welcoming “red carpet” experience when new businesses reach out to start the process?
 Parking meters are a challenge at several levels. “Parking. While this is more of an issue for small business owners south of the QEW, such as in Aldershot or Downtown Burlington, it is a known challenge and source of frustration. When discussing Free Parking in December…business owners referenced abuse by people who already have parking passes elsewhere like their condos (but find street parking more convenient), and those who are employees of local businesses and drive to work that month since they can now get free parking. Neither option helps paying customers find additional spots.
It was generally felt that there were too many confusing rules around parking in general (paid during the day but not after 6, but free in December, but still no parking anywhere for longer than 3 hours although there are some lots with exceptions to that, etc…). Bottom line: we need to think about the initiatives we are implementing around parking and whether they are supporting the goal they were intended to support.
The large manufacturers had their own issues.
The Permit process – flaws and delays
Dealing with the MTO – lack of accountability to timelines, unwilling to conduct site visits
City is too slow to react
City staff have a lack of knowledge behind the scenes/of private sector and are unresponsive
Staff are inconsistent in their application of policy
Fees are inconsistent
Turnover of City staff
Sense of confrontation with City staff – rational conversation is difficult
Lack of common sense and practicality in processes
Commercial/employment zoning needs
Regional transit connectivity and transportation/traffic overall
Lack of land availability / larger space for manufacturing
Sign bylaws are too restrictive
Access to high tech talent / post-secondary / new fields & areas of study
Site visits are needed to understand practical issues
Tough finding the right department at the City
Incremental feedback on multiple submissions
Need clear timelines / business timelines
Ineffective communications
Lack of incentives if not manufacturing
Skilled and non-skilled labour/talent
There were issues that were positive; The Mayor referred to them as “issues that were already working from their point of view.
 Recent immigrant, on the left, receiving a certificate after completing a course at The Centre. New council = progressive thinking
The Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force – appreciate the City is listening and willing to change
BEDC support, networking events and TechPlace
Employee retention and recruitment
Recent immigrants in the area provide a great talent pool
Success in exporting / export funding was helpful (got cut thought)
Location: close to highways, the border, and Go train
Innovation through partnerships
Growth of manufacturing locally
Rotational Engineer program uses fresh grads to fill roles
Product development support funding (SRED, IRAP)
Access to a huge market next door (Toronto)
Engineering staff at the City of Burlington are constant, fair, good to deal with, consistent
The Mayor added that the “wealth of knowledge and experience in the room put forward the following ideas about what can change and improve:
Work hard to create a customer service culture at City Hall. Start at the top and trickle down. Help everyone feel good at the end of the day for what they did and how they did it.
Change how work is assigned: Rather than having work assigned to whoever is next available, have the same person allocated to all permits for the same building so that the familiarity is there to increase speed and customer service rather than have so many different people involved each time and forcing them to start at square one and get up to speed.
Advocate and influence with other government and regulatory agencies.
Site plan vs. survey education – field trips and training
Include copyright protection (not here now)
Ombudsman backed by Council
Better performance management of City staff with KPIs attached / measurements
Consider CRM/Software solutions for better digitization/automation of processes as well as tracking
Electronic file transfers of documents submitted
Status on reports on file in less than 3-4 weeks / Customer Status reports conducted by Staff
Lunch & Learns for Developers
Exception approvals at the counter
Staff to ask the question: how can we make this work?
New City staff should have to have spent time in the industry first (externally)
 Much of the longer term development will be located at the mobility hubs. Leverage development around Go stations
List of issues that are black/white – clear & automatic (ex: building code)
Personalization of website – “what are you here for today”
Self-serve options
Overall management / admin/ project management for applications
Business concierge support
More mixed-use service available without getting in car
Better marketing and promotion of Burlington to businesses
Need tax credit advocacy with Minister of Finance
Review incentive programs to be more accessible
Incentives to hire new grads
 Several of the courses given at The Centre are fully booked months in advance – the students usually know where they are going to be working before they graduate. Need a tech school in Halton (post-secondary)
Ontario apprenticeship: training and tax credit (needs new process released)
Increase limits on “Now Hiring” portable signs
More affordable housing (for employees)
Foreign worker depository
All day Go train (24 hours)
Transparency on timelines / status updates
Be willing to refund processing fees if deadlines aren’t met by City
“Overall”, said the Mayor, “the session on Monday provided a forum for this group of leaders to directly communicate with myself, other City leaders, and each other, helping ensure our businesses feel heard, valued and supported as critical parts of Burlington’s economic health and well-being.
Next up on the focus group list was a session with City staff and partnership organizations:
Mayor Meed Ward explained “the room was asked to identify the most common issues they hear from business owners and there was a lot of commonality: zoning, permits, signs and approvals were all identified as taking too long, requiring too many stakeholders’ involvement, and being challenging to navigate (especially for first-timers).
“Everyone agreed that working towards more of a “One-Stop Shop” would provide a better customer service experience and staffing that shop with subject matter experts who can guide people through the process, set realistic expectations, and provide all the information up front would be ideal. Having people to triage applications so they require fewer revisions would also be helpful in reducing timelines and workload on both sides of the table.
“The room noted that more could be done to get information online and searchable, letting business owners self-serve and self-educate when possible, and do things after hours when appropriate. Marketing, education, and information sharing was a common theme, whether through campaigns to educate prospective business owners on avoiding common pitfalls in the application process, or having monthly open-house sessions where business owners can meet with experts like those in the focus group room to get free advice to help them along the way.
“Looking at technology systems and platforms that enable barcoding/tracking of applications would improve speed and accountability in everyone’s view, and exploring ones that dovetail with those of partner organizations would be helpful as well.”
What was both surprising and disturbing was that the people making these comments were the very people hired to run the city. The Mayor reported that the attendees at this one included the following (the Gazette has added some comment on several):
“Ron Steiginga (by the way a very smart guy who has served the city well) “25+ years in real estate management with the City of Burlington has let him get to know most of the developers and builders in town, build relationships, and stay aware of what is available for sale. He is involved with fees (such as park dedication fees), and the purchase of parks, fire hall sites – sees his role as keeping stakeholders aware and informed of those issues and availabilities.”
“Rosalind Minaji has been in planning and development for 30 years, and a big part of her role is to help walk people through the application process, as well as ensure the city has sufficient and identified employment areas, as well as affordable housing.
 Director of Finance Joan Ford does a great job of providing the data ad her department does a good job of collecting the taxes as well. It’s the spending side that is causing the long term financial stress. Ms Ford doesn’t do the spending. “Joan Ford (who runs the best department in the city) has been in finance for 30 years and sees her role as ensuring fees and taxes for business owners are collected in a fair and equitable way, and being transparent to businesses on these items.
“Mary Lou Tanner has been with the City for three years and in her Deputy City Manager role for 18 months. She sees her role as creating a culture of customer service for business owners who come to the City with questions and looking for guidance with what can often feel like an overwhelming or complicated journey. She wants to ensure people feel welcome, get the answers they need, and help make processes easier and better understood.” Tanner created the Grow Bold initiative that Mayor Meed Ward had council scrap once she took office.
“Sue Connor is two years into her role, with 30 years overall in the transit industry. She knows she needs to help move employees around so that businesses have access to the people they need to make their business run.” Connor brings an incredible reputation to the task of creating a transit service that people will use – all she needs is the support of council and the funds to make it happen. If she manages to do for Burlington what she did for Brampton we will be a much different city.
“From the BEDC, Anita Cassidy’s focus is in helping create a competitive advantage here in Burlington so that businesses want to locate here, helping them find talent or space, as well as advocating for what businesses need with partner organizations like the MTO or the Region. Cassidy is waiting to be moved from acting to full bore Executive Director.
John Davidson has been at Halton Region for 13 years and mentioned the Small Business Centre that is run out of there as a good resource for business owners starting out. He sees his role as ensuring businesses don’t get stalled in their approvals/permits journey and working behind the scenes with partners like the City of Burlington and others to remove obstacles.
“Tim Commisso, in the industry for 35 years now, sees one of his priorities as helping implement more of a 1:1 personal touch for smaller businesses who don’t necessarily have the experts and resources of larger firms and developers to help navigate the system. He also expressed interest in seeking out technology that makes the process easier and more trackable, and ensuring city staff have the skills and customer service attitude to make these experiences better for businesses.” Commisso knows the Burlington file – he served as part of senior management before he was appointed city manager for Thunder Bay. He is keeping the city manager seat warm until council makes a permanent appointment – expected sometime in July.
“Brian Dean has been at the Burlington Downtown Business Association for 18 years now and sees his role as retaining and attracting businesses to this area of our City. He works to help acclimatize new businesses, give them market data to help with their business planning, and keep them engaged with their community.” Dean must have been stunned when he heard that some business people had not heard of his BIA.
 “Keith Hoey, outgoing President of the Burlington Chamber of Commerce (15 years now), focuses on: a) connecting people through networking and events; b) educating businesses on things like managing their books or understanding government decisions that will impact them; c) advocating with all levels of government on behalf of business owners; and d) providing discounts and savings to help businesses save money.” A Prince who has earned retirement and will be missed – those shoes are going to be hard to fill.
 Allan Magi, on the left, brings a capacity to listen and a collaborative manner to the work he does for the city. “Allan Magi, 27 years into his tenure, oversees the building of parks, roads, and other infrastructure that needs to be in place to support the businesses in our city. He helps oversee development charges, and advocates with partner agencies to streamline and find common ground to help move things along.
Nick Anastasopoulos has been with the City for 3 years, and 20+ years in the industry. He sees his role as helping get businesses “in the ground” and up and running. He looks for efficiencies and overlap to help streamline processes, and is focused on finding ways to connect partner agencies to work faster together for businesses.
Gerry Smallegange at Hydro gets involved with new businesses and expansions as many businesses have unique or additional hydro needs when they relocate/start up here in Burlington. He sees his role as finding ways to partner with businesses before they sign leases or purchase property to advise them on what is possible and consider meetings or site visits to better equip businesses with the information they need before they sign on the dotted line, so they can avoid zoning or other problems down the road.
“Kelvin Galbraith is new to his role as Councillor but has been a small business owner for 21 years in Aldershot, and is a member of the Aldershot BIA. He sees his role as similar to the Mayor’s: see the issues and help solve the problems.
 Heather MacDonald, Director of Planning has the most difficult job – a department that has been flooded with work during a time when both the regulatory and political environment were difficult (impossible?) to cope with. “Heather MacDonald is newer to the City of Burlington in her role, but has many years of experience including years at Metrolinx, the City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga. She and her team (including Rosalind and Nick) are tasked with ensuring we have buildings and businesses that are safe and of high quality, and helping people through the development process. She wants to impact the level of education and communication outward to business owners to avoid people feeling surprised down the line and ensure they have the right information – and all of it – as early in the process as possible.”
It is difficult to read the narrative on those who took part in the meeting with the complaints that were heard from the commercial sector. There is a disconnect in there somewhere.
When Meed Ward announced the RCRT initiative she said: “My goal is to find a way to help our city grow in the right way and in the right places, and to partner with my colleagues at City Hall, with residents, and with our development community to make that happen.”
The Mayor then met with the developers, using the Tech Place facility as the venue. She was probably not surprised at what she heard:
 Is there a vision? Is it in the minds of city council or in the approach staff take to problem solving.? Or does the public have a vision no one else shares? The Permit process – flaws and delays
Ability to attain SPAs in a reasonable time
Dealing with the MTO – lack of accountability to timelines, lots of delays
Delays with Halton Conservation
Conflict between the different levels of government
Business mindset is lacking
Lack of accountability with the City
Too many agencies involved
Staff act like they’re afraid of losing their jobs
No incentives to reduce operational friction
Hydro
Inconsistent bylaw/zoning interpretation/zoning uncertainty
Lack of vision
Lack of control over other agencies / influence
Affordability of projects becoming unrealistic: land, construction, time all push up costs
No “leader” to manage applications
Lack of KPIs for city staff (perceived or otherwise)
 Provincial policies trump everything – and they keep being changed making it difficult to do long term planning. Provincial policies are shifting / rethinking
Lack of staff knowledge in understanding market forces
Lack of respect for landowner rights
Too in the weeds – focus on important issues
Lack of common sense being applied
Opinions can depend on mood of person who is assessing the application
Building envelopes
No severance / Niagara Escarpment Commission
Environmentals on particular corridors
All the time delays cost money
Political agendas – development applications treated politically instead of on their own merit
Time associated with the severance process (took 2 years)
Zoning inflexibility (ex: Seniors Long Term Care facility)
Timing associated with obtaining a zoning verification letter – used to be 10 days now over 5 weeks
City staff raising issues that do not apply to the application in question
Limited incentives available for developers to build sustainably, and integrate sustainable design features
Public transparency re: cost recovery/recovery funding
Compare to Brampton, where 100 units got approval in less than a year – fast process, open to discussions, and Mayor/Council wanted things to happen
Perception that plants and animals have more rights than people
Hard to get calls returned from City Hall (all departments)
Outdated city standards (ex: Parks)
Lack of downtown parking for offices, bars, restaurants and retail
Transit dead spots
After listening to the complaints and concerns the Mayor did a smooth political pivot and said: “While it took a few minutes to switch gears and focus on the positives, there are certainly reasons everyone in the room is still doing business in Burlington and we wanted to ensure we clearly understood what those are and then she listed them:
 Developers want clear instructions – and will do everything they can to find a way to make those directions work to their benefit; which is exactly what we do with our tax returns. BEDC as a facilitator, expeditor and supporter
Great fast-track process for building permits
Experienced city staff are good to deal with
Online process that shows if a building permit is closed
Mayor seems very on board
Facilitation at this event was great – Interim City Manager was great facilitator at the table
Professional people to deal with
Sustainable design guidelines
Ability to start work early to help shorten delivery sometimes
Burlington building process is good
Councillor was helpful overriding bad staff decisions
Building department closing out an old permit +
We win most if not all appeals to OMB/LPAT
Development application website is good
Community safety – businesses with shifts / evening hours are less worried for their staff getting to/from work
Burlington’s culture, family-orientedness & energy draws people here to live and work
Access to talent, amenities and housing (high tech talent is easier than other segments though because of housing costs).
Developers do business in Burlington because it is a great market – they can build almost anything and sell it. They have chosen to focus on the high end of the market and for the most part are doing very well.
The Mayor took what she could from the meeting and closed by saying: “We finished the day by leveraging the knowledge and experience in the room to come up with solutions, ideas and changes that the City can spearhead to make things better:
 The key word is service – does city hall know how to deliver it? Will the new city manager make that a key deliverable ?  Private sector experience makes for better public sector employees. Support a culture of service and efficiency by ensuring staff have clear KPIs and they are part of their performance reviews
Incentives for hitting KPIs and going above and beyond
Business/file liaison to track, communicate, and shepherd a file to completion in a reasonable time
Leadership needs to stand behind file planner
Encourage staff to learn more as things change to drive subject matter expertise (regulations, etc.)
Leverage better technology to streamline and automate / CRM system / Self-Serve
Customer service training / commitment to customer service
Hire more people if short-staffing is impacting speed of turnaround
Cut the timelines to match the Municipal Act
Apply a stronger sustainability lens and offer incentives
Allow multiple levels of approval to run concurrently
Seniors housing/land zoning strategy
Business advisory board
BEDC needs more influence
More advocacy/upward pressures necessary to other levels of government
Stand firm on the position of what is good for Burlington – don’t sit on hands with other agencies
Be collaborative vs combative
Site visits at properties to understand context and better apply common sense
Create more “fast track” and “premium” services – willing to pay for speed
Do more to educate the public about the benefits of growth to help those inherently resistant to change to see the positives
Make it a priority or essential that new hires in these departments have spent at least some time in the private sector on the other side of the table to provide better perspective and understanding
Next round of comments shouldn’t go back to bottom of the pile
Be ok with weighting the value of certain projects in their worth to the community (jobs for example) and be willing to prioritize those in terms of speed and attention – not every project is equal
Apply Artificial Intelligence / automated processes to remove personal opinion from the process
Shorten time frames for turnarounds of minor revisions
Fees should be payable on approval not all up front (or reimbursed when deadlines are missed)
Empower staff with more decision-making power to apply common sense
Remove height restrictions
Educate the public on good planning practices
Be more consistent – don’t change policies when Councillors change
Leverage tech being used in other municipalities (ex: Mississauga)
Focus group with staff: what are THEIR challenges to moving quickly & how can we help
Provide more info on the steps that happen in the process & why it takes so long. What is happening each day over the course of all those months (and sometimes years)?
Quick morning meeting/daily scrum (15 min) each day by team leaders to set goals with staff: what will you get off your desk today and move forward? Then hold people accountable and recognize good performance. Ask the question “What will it take to get this approved today?”
More of a culture of recognition for making things happen. Celebrate those staff.
Interesting that the city spends something in the order of $7 million a year on cultural matters: Performing Arts Centre, Art Gallery and the Museum but there wasn’t a mention of how big a driver this sector is to a local economy.
The Red Carpet is a brave initiative – one hopes that even a small percentage of what got put on the table will actually get done. Let us leave it at that.
Related article:
Public service is noble work
 By Pepper Parr
May 15th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Two things struck me during the Monday and Tuesday Standing Committee meetings.
 The first was during the Statutory meeting on the development proposal for 411 Maple Avenue where the operator of a long term care nursing home wants to sell the property to a developer and use the proceeds from that sale to build a new long term care retirement home in the Alton community.
The proposed development is inside the Urban Growth Boundary, which is currently under an Interim Control Bylaw that has stopped things cold.
Much of the discussion during the lengthy meeting was about the heights involved. What started out as a 22 + storey building, got whittled down twice to the now 11 storey development.
The operators of the long term care retirement home were hoping that they would get an exemption from the interim control bylaw.
That didn’t happen.
 Heather MacDonald – City Planner Here is what did happen which was interesting. Kelvin Galbraith asked Heather MacDonald, the Planning Director if the practice in the new official Plan would be consistent in its use of measurements.
The Director wasn’t able to say – absolutely.
We have heard complaints from a number of people about the way the height of a structure is defined. Planners tend to use the number of storeys – but a storey isn’t a unit of measure – it is used to describe some space.
 Ward 1 Councilor Kelvin Galbraith wanted to know what unit of measure was being used to determine the height of a development. Galbraith wanted to see metric measures used and he appeared to want the actual height of the building to the top of the very top floor. He appeared to want to know just how many metres in the air the building was going to rise.
On occasions a developer will say it will be 11 storeys with an amenity area at the top. That amenity space is an additional number of metres of height.
One would have thought the Planning Director would have taken the opportunity to say that there would be data that would be clear.
A missed opportunity. Hopefully we might see a council member pick up on the need for clarification and get a staff direction in place setting out how developments will be described when it come to their height.
Burlingtonians are a little sensitive about height these days.
The second thing that struck me was what we spend on the culture-entertainment sector. Some whoppers in those numbers – that is covered in a separate story.
By Pepper Parr
May 10th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Oh to have been a fly on the wall.
There she was at the front of the room asking a group of developers and real estate types – what can we do for you?
Had Jeff Paikin been in the room the Mayor would have gotten an ear full. In a recent communication with us he said:
 Jeff Paikin – New Horizons Development. “Moved to Burlington permanently for our offices just in time to be subject to a council that shuts down our business and a mayor who twice uses unauthorized videos of our site to stand on her soap box and pump up over-intensification even when it doesn’t exist. Nice warm welcoming feeling for a company that pays and has generated hundreds of thousands of tax dollars annually.”
We wonder how Jeff really feels.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward was doing another part of her Red Tape Red Carpet initiative to learn how the city could be what Premier Ford has already declared we are: – and that is Open for Business.
The focus group Meed ward was meeting with was made up of a full-house of over 40 leaders from the development and real estate industry. It appears that the audience was made up of people who volunteered to attend and perhaps a few that were asked to take part.
In her newsletter on what has become known as the RTRC initiative Meed Ward said:
Development in the City of Burlington is a very hot issue: Mayor Marianne Meed Ward “As everyone is well aware, development in the City of Burlington is a very hot issue, and was one of the most commonly discussed during last fall’s election campaign.
“My goal is to find a way to help our city grow in the right way and in the right places, and to partner with my colleagues at City Hall, with residents, and with our development community to make that happen.
“With that said, the Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force initiative is not just about development. It’s about helping all of Burlington’s businesses thrive. Developers and real estate professionals are just two industries of many in our city, but they overlap with those of businesses that are growing, relocating, or starting out here. Their struggles become the struggles of other businesses too.
“At the same time, developers are a business like any other, and while they face challenges around permits and approvals, they also have to deal with access to talent, adequate transit, employee parking, and beyond.
“The focus group was an important step in better understanding the top issues facing this group, and I appreciated how many leaders from these industries showed up to participate in this journey.
“While the City of Burlington’s current Interim Control Bylaw was top of mind for many in the room, we know that geographically that only applies to 1% of our land in Burlington. Furthermore, we know things weren’t perfect before that was put in place, so we focused on the challenges that already existed and have long-term impact.
“What we heard from this audience was the following challenges – again, many of which were commonly heard at other groups we’ve met with over the past 2 months (common themes from yesterday’s session are highlighted in bold):
The Permit process – flaws and delays
Ability to attain SPAs in a reasonable time
Dealing with the MTO – lack of accountability to timelines, lots of delays
Delays with Halton Conservation
Conflict between the different levels of government
Business mindset is lacking
Lack of accountability with the City
Too many agencies involved
Staff act like they’re afraid of losing their jobs
No incentives to reduce operational friction
Hydro
Inconsistent bylaw/zoning interpretation/zoning uncertainty
Lack of vision
Lack of control over other agencies / influence
Affordability of projects becoming unrealistic: land, construction, time all push up costs
No “leader” to manage applications
Lack of KPIs for city staff (perceived or otherwise)
Provincial policies are shifting / rethinking
Lack of staff knowledge in understanding market forces
Lack of respect for landowner rights
Too in the weeds – focus on important issues
Lack of common sense being applied
Opinions can depend on mood of person who is assessing the application
Building envelopes
No severance / Niagara Escarpment Commission
Environmentals on particular corridors
All the time delays cost money
Political agendas – development applications treated politically instead of on their own merit
Time associated with the severance process (took 2 years)
Zoning inflexibility (ex: Seniors Long Term Care facility)
Timing associated with obtaining a zoning verification letter – used to be 10 days now over 5 weeks
City staff raising issues that do not apply to the application in question
Limited incentives available for developers to build sustainably, and integrate sustainable design features
Public transparency re: cost recovery/recovery funding
Compare to Brampton, where 100 units got approval in less than a year – fast process, open to discussions, and Mayor/Council wanted things to happen
Perception that plants and animals have more rights than people
Hard to get calls returned from City Hall (all departments)
Outdated city standards (ex: Parks)
Lack of downtown parking for offices, bars, restaurants and retail
Transit dead spots
“While it took a few minutes to switch gears and focus on the positives, there are certainly reasons everyone in the room is still doing business in Burlington and we wanted to ensure we clearly understood what those are:
BEDC as a facilitator, expeditor and supporter
Great fast-track process for building permits
Experienced city staff are good to deal with
Online process that shows if a building permit is closed
Mayor seems very on board
Facilitation at this event was great – Interim City Manager was great facilitator at the table
Professional people to deal with
Sustainable design guidelines
Ability to start work early to help shorten delivery sometimes
“None”
Burlington building process is good
Councillor was helpful overriding bad staff decisions
Building department closing out an old permit +
We win most if not all appeals to OMB/LPAT
Development application website is good
Community safety – businesses with shifts / evening hours are less worried for their staff getting to/from work
Burlington’s culture, family-orientedness & energy draws people here to live and work
Access to talent, amenities and housing (high tech talent is easier than other segments though because of housing costs)
“Again, we finished the day by leveraging the knowledge and experience in the room to come up with solutions, ideas and changes that the City can spearhead to make things better:
Some of the comments Meed Ward highlights are:
Support a culture of service and efficiency by ensuring staff have clear KPIs and they are part of their performance reviews
Incentives for hitting KPIs and going above and beyond
Business/file liaison to track, communicate, and shepherd a file to completion in a reasonable time
Leadership needs to stand behind file planner
Encourage staff to learn more as things change to drive subject matter expertise (regulations, etc.)
Leverage better technology to streamline and automate / CRM system / Self-Serve
Customer service training / commitment to customer service
Hire more people if short-staffing is impacting speed of turnaround
Cut the timelines to match the Municipal Act
Apply a stronger sustainability lens and offer incentives
Allow multiple levels of approval to run concurrently
Seniors housing/land zoning strategy
Business advisory board
BEDC needs more influence
More advocacy/upward pressures necessary to other levels of government
Stand firm on the position of what is good for Burlington – don’t sit on hands with other agencies
Be collaborative vs combative
Site visits at properties to understand context and better apply common sense
Create more “fast track” and “premium” services – willing to pay for speed
Do more to educate the public about the benefits of growth to help those inherently resistant to change to see the positives
Make it a priority or essential that new hires in these departments have spent at least some time in the private sector on the other side of the table to provide better perspective and understanding
Next round of comments shouldn’t go back to bottom of the pile
Be ok with weighting the value of certain projects in their worth to the community (jobs for example) and be willing to prioritize those in terms of speed and attention – not every project is equal
Apply Artificial Intelligence / automated processes to remove personal opinion from the process
Shorten time frames for turnarounds of minor revisions
Fees should be payable on approval not all up front (or reimbursed when deadlines are missed)
Empower staff with more decision-making power to apply common sense
Remove height restrictions
Educate the public on good planning practices
Be more consistent – don’t change policies when Councillors change
Leverage tech being used in other municipalities (ex: Mississauga)
Focus group with staff: what are THEIR challenges to moving quickly & how can we help
Provide more info on the steps that happen in the process & why it takes so long. What is happening each day over the course of all those months (and sometimes years)?
Quick morning meeting/daily scrum (15 min) each day by team leaders to set goals with staff: what will you get off your desk today and move forward? Then hold people accountable and recognize good performance. Ask the question “What will it take to get this approved today?”
More of a culture of recognition for making things happen. Celebrate those staff.
 The next focus group will include several contributors from the rural business ecosystem who sit on the newly formed Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee with the City of Burlington.
The next step is to take the learnings and information back to the Committee at their next meeting later this month.
Meed Ward has moved with considerable dispatch on this initiative. What is disturbing is that she has ensured there is no media in the room. Why not?
By Staff
May 3rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The policy announcement made yesterday by the provincial government covered a lot of bases.
It said that: “The Greater Golden Horseshoe is the economic engine of our province, generating more than 25% of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product. Right now, approximately 9.2 million people, or 25% of Canada’s population, live in this area and that number keeps growing – fast.
And added that: “To make sure that our policies put people first, we are updating A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It is the product of a broad consultation where we heard from more than 1,100 people and received more than 650 submissions. We heard the government should facilitate the building of affordable housing options near transit to prevent sprawl and protect agricultural lands. The plan will help manage growth so communities in the region develop in ways that expand economic opportunity, while maintaining protections for our environmentally sensitive areas, including the Greenbelt, cultural heritage assets, and key employment and agricultural lands.
“We need to build more housing that people can afford so people have places to live near stable, reliable employment. That’s why we’re creating provincially significant employment zones to make sure that businesses – from manufacturers and industrial parks to high-tech offices – have room to grow.
 Toronto Star headline What do they plan to do?
“Across Ontario, there are empty-nesters who want to downsize, but they can’t find or afford the home they need near family and friends. If they could, it might free up a larger home for a young couple looking for a house with more space for their growing family, close to a park and a great school. Instead, everyone feels stuck.
 Approved – across the street from city hall – with the block to the immediate south awaiting a development that will want the same heiight. “It can take years of paperwork before a shovel ever breaks ground on a new housing project. Some government policies and processes are duplicated and can create delays for no reason, which drives up costs for home buyers.
“That’s why we’re reviewing every step of the development process and every policy, regulation and piece of legislation to eliminate unnecessary steps, duplication and barriers. We are cutting red tape and as we do, we are holding firm to our commitment to ensure the health and safety of Ontarians, and protect the environment, agricultural lands and our rich natural heritage.
Making it easier to build new housing
bring housing to market faster by speeding up local planning decisions and making the appeals process more efficient
make it easier for homeowners to create residential units above garages, in basements and in laneways
help build housing, including affordable housing, near transit
help municipalities implement community planning permit systems (e.g. in major transit station areas and provincially significant employment zones), which will streamline planning approvals to 45 days
simplify how funds are collected for community benefits such as parks and daycares
make upfront development costs easier to predict
give communities and developers more certainty on what they can build, and where they can build it
 Increased GO train service and high rise towers – all about being open for business. “An item sent to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal is still waiting for a decision, seven years later. That’s thousands of homes stuck in the pipeline, waiting to be built, and seven years of rising costs. Getting rid of that backlog will bring new housing to market, today.
“Conflicts can arise during the process of land use planning. The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal hears these disputes, but there is a backlog of Ontario Municipal Board legacy cases — approximately 100,000 units are tied up in Toronto alone. There are also too many complex processes standing in the way of creating new housing.
The province is proposing changes that will:
hire more adjudicators to help address the backlog of legacy cases by investing $1.4 million in 2019-20
ensure the tribunal has the powers and resources needed to make more timely decisions
allow the tribunal to make the best planning decisions in the place of Council
charge different fees and move towards a cost recovery model, while allowing community groups and residents to maintain affordable access to the appeals process
By Staff
May 2nd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The provincial government announced a program that, they say, will allow all Ontarians to find a home that meets their needs and their budget.
The plan that was announced will:
Cut red tape to make it easier to build the right types of housing in the right places
Make housing more affordable
Help taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars
“Housing innovation isn’t just about new designs and materials, it’s about creative partnerships too. By working together, non-profits, co-ops and the private sector can help solve Ontario’s housing crisis.
 A 5 point plan – is it really that simple? “When individuals find a home, they are healthier and more productive. This benefits not only the individual, but also the province, as each person has the opportunity to contribute to our economy.
“More housing that meets people’s needs and budgets boosts Ontario’s economy by helping us keep jobs and support job creation. Businesses – from manufacturers to high tech firms – need employees, and those employees need affordable places to live. By making housing more affordable, businesses large and small will invest in Ontario again.
“More homes, more choice is about unlocking the development of all kinds of housing. From ownership to rental housing, whether built by private developers or non-profits, our action plan will help give people more choice and help bring costs down.
The plan is complemented by our Community Housing Renewal Strategy, which helps people with low and moderate incomes who can’t afford today’s high rents to find affordable housing. It will transform a fragmented and inefficient system into one that is more streamlined, sustainable and ready to help people who need it most.
It also includes early steps to improve community housing across the province:
helping tenants become economically self-sufficient
making it easier to predict and calculate rent
shortening waiting lists
helping people in greatest need
making community housing safer
We will work with municipalities and non-profits to sustain, repair and grow our community housing system.
Together, these plans respond to the diverse housing needs of all Ontarians.
What are they going to do for renters
 In today’s market, finding an affordable rental apartment can feel like winning the lottery. People are renting longer and more people are looking for a place to rent, but new construction has focused on condominiums rather than rental apartments.
Many people prefer to rent. But high home prices mean those who want to buy are also renting, or renting longer, which drives rents up. We need more housing – to own and to rent – to bring the market back to balance.
More homes, more choice will make it easier to build rental housing. For example, right now, home builders pay development charges up-front. A developer who builds a house and/or condominium builders can offset these development charges by preselling units. A developer who builds a rental unit can’t.
By postponing development charges until the buildings are rented, developers will be encouraged to start building rental housing again. More homes, more choice will also work to cut red tape around development approvals so new homes will be available to rent sooner.
Making it easier for landlords to navigate the complex building code approvals process will help create more rental housing. In Ontario, roughly 30,000 to 35,000 new homes are built each year, and many of them could include secondary suites, like basement apartments.
 We’re encouraging small landlords to create new rental units too, by making it easier to build second suites (like basement apartments) and helping them navigate the complicated building code approvals process. We are also expanding development charge exemptions to include second units in new homes.
As more rental units are built, tenants will have more choices and rents will decrease.
Creating more rental units is an essential part of our action plan. But once they have a place to live, renters shouldn’t have to worry about being treated unfairly or being unlawfully evicted. Ontario has strong protections for renters and we will do more to help tenants and landlords know their rights and how to resolve disputes.
Helping renters and landlords resolve disputes is the role of the Landlord and Tenant Board, but a shortage of adjudicators has created delays – average wait times are more than two months! The government is working with Tribunals Ontario on addressing shortages of adjudicators at the Landlord and Tenant Board. There have been a number of recent appointments and recruitment is underway to fill other adjudicator vacancies.
The government is also providing more than one billion dollars in 2019-20 to help sustain, repair and grow community housing and help end homelessness. Hundreds of organizations across Ontario have long-standing agreements to provide community housing to Ontario’s most vulnerable, and as many of these agreements approach their end, our government’s Community Housing Renewal Strategy will help them become more sustainable.
 Can this type of delay be brought to an end. The changes all have merit. A first read suggests that the delays, the red tape and the costs are all bunched at the municipal end of the spectrum.
There isn’t a thing the province can do about how effective the municipal bureaucracies are.
Skip over to the series of meetings on Red Tape and the attempt Mayor Meed Ward is making to roll out a Red Carpet for people who have to work with city hall to get a sense as to just how bad it is.
A couple of the more painful comments:
• City is too slow to react
• City staff have a lack of knowledge behind the scenes/of private sector and are unresponsive
• Staff are inconsistent in their application of policy
• Turnover of City staff
By Pepper Parr
April 18th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
There is nothing more powerful than a motivated citizen with research skills who takes the time to read lengthy, incredibly boring documents.
 Lucy Belvedere in conversation with ward 5 candidate Mary Alice St. James Lucy Belvedere didn’t like the look of the proposed development for the Lakeshore Village Plaza but she wasn’t prepared to sit idly by and let the developer roll over the residents of the community.
After delivering a zinger of a delegation Belvedere went over the documents that were public and realized she had missed something.
“I don’t know how I missed this! I discovered that in the Official Plan now under review, there is already a designation for the smaller sites of mixed-use properties that can apply to the Lakeshore Village Plaza site.
This designation is called Local Centre Designation and describes Policies for sites that are 1 to 4 hectares.
Belvedere argues that “Lakeshore Village Plaza should be given the designation as a Local Centre since it is under 4 hectares. This would resolve many of the major concerns of height and density and in reality it reflects the Neighbourhood Commercial designation of the existing Official Plan beautifully…allowing intensification without being excessive.”
The controversy over this redevelopment proposal could have been avoided had Lakeshore Plaza been given the correct designation: it is under four ha and should be designated a local designation centre.
“I don’t understand why it was given the Neighbourhood Centre designation that applies to properties that are 4 – 12 Hectares, especially considering the narrow roads that serve this property and the character of this east-end neighbourhood surrounding the site.
Local Centre Designation better suits a Secondary Growth Area Designation allowing reasonable intensification, but not to the extent of a Primary Growth Area.
Belvedere’s finding was sent to everyone that mattered.
During the delegation none of the council members raised the designation that was given, Lola xxx didn’t make any mention either. Did they not fully read the report?
A complete application has been in the hands of the city for some time. Are the east end residents looking at yet another development application that is going to squeeze through because of a timing goof?
 This one at Martha and Lakeshore.  This one opposite city hall. That’s how ADI got away with their Nautique development in the downtown core. The OMB approval of the ADI development gave the Carriage Gate development the loop hole they needed to get a 24 story structure approved opposite city hall.
 Is this what the residents of the east end can expect for the Lakeshore Village Plaza? Will Lucy Belvedere have run the alarm bell soon enough?
By Staff
April 16th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The big news for the city last week was the delegations made at city hall on the proposed development plans for the plaza in the east end of the city that had fallen into disrepair and much in need of an upgrade.
There were 14 registered delegations at the required Statutory Public meeting with an additional 10 walk ons.
Lucy Belvedere set the tone that was heard throughout the evening when she said:
 The proposed development. “The Plaza isn’t in a major commercial area. Lakeshore Rd. isn’t a major road. It has less width than Guelph Line, Fairview St., New St. or Appleby Line. The proposed Official Plan Neighbourhood Centre Policy should be revised to distinguish between the smaller and larger properties given this designation. Halton Region doesn’t support this plaza proposal because this site isn’t in the regionally mapped Intensification area where such a density is generally supported.”
The proposed Neighbourhood Centre Policy applies to sites between 4 to 12 hectares. At 3.84 hectares, this Plaza falls under the minimum size. The new policy permits a reasonable 2 to 6 storey height. However, the floor area ratio established at 2.5:1 is far too much and unwarranted for this smaller site. That same floor area ratio is used in the Uptown Corridor, a Primary Growth Area.
 Lucy Belvedere Further, variance applications can even increase this floor area ratio and allow a height of up to 11 storeys. But, the city has stated that Lakeshore Road, a minor arterial 30 meter road will never be widened. A max of six storeys with a reduced floor area ratio makes more sense. It sufficiently increases the existing OP policy for a Neighbourhood Commercial site under five hectares, with the CN1 zoning which permits 3 storeys, and a lesser floor area ratio. In contrast, Appleby Village is Community Commercial with a CC1 zoning because it is larger in size and has wider roads to serve it.
Accepting this proposal will permit many undesirable taller buildings and allow the unbelievable and incompatible 900 residential units, in addition to the expansive 14,655 square metres for commercial use. It is ludicrous, over-crowded and completely unsuited to its surrounding neighbourhood.
East-end Lakeshore has only 2 tall residential buildings: one, 19 storeys built in 1978; the other, 12 storeys built in 1983. The rest built since the 80’s have much less height. The average for all 12 buildings is 8 storeys, stretching across 900 metres; these are well spaced and surrounded by green open spaces. This sharply contrasts the claustrophobic concrete jungle created by this proposal. On the Plaza frontage, a mere 165 metres, it proposes 6 buildings, with 4 far exceeding the 6 storey limit.
They are presented as 2 massive structures separated by a dangerously narrow entrance and hide the other 5 buildings in the back. These unacceptable taller buildings, with such extreme density that can’t be justified and don’t enhance the streetscape. On such a small site, the proposed Policy variances are abused by this proposal.
 Dana Anderson, planner for the developer. The developer’s lead planner has successfully pressured and swayed city planners through numerous meetings and delegations to the previous Council to form the Neighbourhood Centre Policy that favours this excessive density and height, absolutely impractical for our neighbourhood. Former Councillor Dennison called it “a Golden Egg in our basket of opportunities”.
Is money and greed to be the primary goal? The proposed policy illustrates the unprecedented influence of the project’s lead planner to shape the proposed Policy to clearly benefit her employer, the developer. It totally ignores residents’ legitimate concerns regarding increased traffic congestion, increased overflow traffic on neighbouring streets, and increased noise levels.
It will result in decreased safety for children and seniors, decreased air quality and decreased sky view. It threatens to jeopardize our present quality of life.
The 5 stage phasing locks us in an endless lengthy construction zone, a nightmare of noise, dirt, dust, and traffic tie-ups, estimated at 7 to 15 years, as I was told at the July Open House. What if the developer abandons these intense, complex plans mid-way and doesn’t complete the project? We could end up with a very unbalanced, unattractive plaza.
The developer is Joseph Popack, who has owned this property since 2001. This American billionaire developer, absentee owner, appears as #7 on the list of top 10 worst landlords in the Crown Heights area of Brooklyn, New York where he owns over 3000 apartments. He has allowed Lakeside Plaza to deteriorate to its present inglorious state.
This over-intensification is ultimately meant to maximize his profits and represents his greed. He doesn’t care about our neighbourhood!
Please revise the Neighbourhood Centre Policy to distinguish between larger and smaller sites, to prevent future development proposals from ruining residential neighbourhoods similar to ours.
 Jeremy Skinner Belvedere, a retired school teacher covered all the bases – those who followed her weren’t able to add all that much – except for Jeremy Skinner who has a penchant for getting into the weeds on any task he takes on.
We will report on his delegation later this week.
 By Pepper Parr
April 15th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
A crowd that filled the city council chamber, spilled out into the foyer and had people sitting in the room adjacent, wanted to know what happened to the visions that were expressed at the public meeting four years earlier where hundreds poured over large drawings of what existed at the Lakeshore Village Plaza and what could be done to the site.
Everyone knew the plaza needed an upgrade desperately but what the developer had proposed was offensive to many.
 City staff were on hand to help residents develop the vision they had for their community. They wanted to know what happened to all the ideas that were expressed at the 2015 public meeting when residents talked about what could be developed and the amenities that might be available. People were excited and at the time the city was quite prepared to be an active player in the development.
More than a dozen staff members took part in the visioning exercise. There was a lot of enthusiasm. The then Mayor met with the developer – who turned out not to be the developer – just a representative for the developer.
An architect was on hand, a planner who once worked for Oakville and now represented the interests of the property owner was on hand to listen. It was an interesting start with a lot of potential.
There were some early stage drawings that showed great potential.
Then things went quiet for a while during the lead up to the municipal election that put everything on hold.
Prior to the election there was huge concern over the changes that were being proposed for the downtown area of the city. The east end of the city sort of got forgotten.
The Planning department got swamped with the number of development applications and the focus shifted to the downtown core.
Approval of one high rise tower opposite city hall and then the approval by the Ontario Municipal Board of a second 24 storey building resulted in the election of a new Mayor and five new members of a seven member city council.
Prior to the October election, in July of 2018, the public got to see what the developer wanted to do with the Lakeshore Village Plaza – they were stunned.
 Lucy Belvedere on the left with ward 5 candidate Mary Alice St. James. “Accepting this proposal” said Lucy Belvedere, ” will permit many undesirable taller buildings and allow the unbelievable and incompatible 900 residential units, in addition to the expansive 14,655 square metres for commercial use. It is ludicrous, over-crowded and completely unsuited to its surrounding neighbourhood.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman had a fight on his hands to hold his seat in the 2018 election. For the residents a development of this size, scale and scope was just not on. The Council member would have lost his seat had the vote not been split amongst two women who individually were strong contenders but collectively they let the incumbent hold the seat.
The public had been led to believe that Joe Elmaleh was the owner of the property. He is the authorized agent for the owner, Joseph Popack, an American with a rough edged reputation based on his Crown Heights rental apartments that has him listed as #7 on the list of top 10 worst landlords in the Crown Heights area of Brooklyn, New York where he owns over 3000 apartments.
 Former Mayor Rick Goldring, architect Cynthia Zahoruk and property manager Joe Elmaleh in discussion at the 2015 visioning event for the east end of the city. In city documents prior to 2018, the owner is shown consistently as United Burlington Portfolio Inc. Then the name Glanelm Property Management begins to appear giving the impression that Joe Elmaleh is the owner.
During the Statutory Public meeting on the development Elmaleh was referred to as the developer.
Popack is the owner of the property, Elmaleh is the agent for the owner. There are some very good public relations reason for creating the confusion.
 The plaza site as it is today – desolate and close to empty. The Statutory meeting is a required event under the Planning Act during which the city planners explain what they have been given and the public gets to say what they think.
The members of council, the Mayor and the residents don’t like what they saw.
The four towers along Lakeshore Road would hide everything behind them. During the questions and comments part of the meeting staff didn’t have very much to say, other than that there were a number of other city departments involved – Parks and Recreation and Transportation.
The meeting was not an occasion when decisions were going to be made. It was a Receive and File event – the report and public reaction are part of the record.
There wasn’t the feeling that anyone on the staff side had a firm grip on what was taking place or that a something even remotely like what had been presented would ever see the light of day.
That feeling used to exist within the hearts and minds of those who live in the downtown core learned the hard way that keeping their elected representatives fully accountable is not a part time job.
Frank Toews made the point when he told city council during the Statutory meeting that they were the “gate keepers” in place to prevent projects like this from getting beyond the talking point.
By Pepper Parr
April 10th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The Council chamber was packed.
They were sitting in the foyer and in the room next door to the council chamber.
They were there to express their concern with a development proposal that stunned most people when it was made public.
 The council chamber was filled – the foyer outside the chamber had people watching the proceedings on monitors and the room next to council had people watching. Largest meeting Burlington council has seen in close to a decade. The re-development of the Lakeshore Village Plaza in the east end of the city has a long history. The city has been involved with the developer since 2014.
What started out in November of 2015 with a visioning exercise where people were enthused, excited and optimistic turned into really sour feelings when the drawings of what was proposed by the developer.
The meeting last night was the required Statutory Public meeting at which the Planning department sets out what they have been given by the developer.
There were 14 registered delegations and another ten that were walk-ups.
The Gazette will report on those in depth.
Council listened carefully, asked good questions and were very aware that they were facing a public that was not happy.
 Lucy Belvedere gave a strong, detailed delegation on what was wrong with the development and where the public had not been properly engaged. Frank Towes, a resident of Admiral’s Walk, across the road from the proposed development made the point very well when he said to Council: We elected you last fall to be the gatekeepers – keep developments like this outside the gates.
By Lucy Belvedere
April 8th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
How has the community been engaged in the redevelopment of the Lakeside Village Plaza ?
 Staff with a resident at a Visioning exercise for the Lakeside Village Plaza. in November of 2015 Our first inkling of the redevelopment of the Plaza came at the Community Visioning Workshop held November 24th, 2015. A summary of key fears listed from this event repeatedly included: fear of too much density and height, numerous concerns for intensified traffic congestion and lack of safety, and that it will take too long to redevelop, to name just a few.
We only learned of the actual proposal in the summer of 2018 with open house sessions in the afternoon and evening—July 18th and August 8th. It was appalling because what was presented appeared to totally ignore residents’ fears expressed in 2015.
The July Open House session provided limited information since no formal presentation was made and proved to be disappointing with angry, worried residents milling about trying to get answers, but in truth we were all stunned with what we were facing.
 This is the look of the plaza from Lakeshore Road – if the development is approved. At the August Open House some new charts were created for us. One summarized comments from July and are worth noting here. Under land uses it listed support for revitalization, for new tenants, for a range of housing and rental units. However, the rest on the chart was not as positive and echoed the same fears from the initial workshop with criticizing the proposal’s height and density and generally being overdeveloped. Concerns with traffic impacts, congestion and insufficient parking were listed.
 The Plaza as it stands today. Few shops. Apprehensions about lack of public green spaces with trees, and connection to the parks were recorded. Under design and construction appeared that a better design for seniors be considered and worries about construction and phasing were noted. It’s safe to say that all residents’ first fears were simply stressed once again.
The August Open House also produced a new timeline: that community input would be assessed and a community meeting would be held in January with a statutory meeting held in March. This was encouraging and gave us hope that our voices from the open house events would be heard. Sadly, our hopes evaporated in January when we were unexpectedly notified by the City of the February 12th Statutory Meeting. The proposal remained the same at that time.
Inclement weather cancelled that meeting. Now it is set for Tuesday, April 9th.
Has a revised proposal been presented to Council? If there are any revisions, they are unknown to residents the day before the Statutory Meeting. Our delegations for the Statutory Meeting have been prepared based on the original proposal.
 Residents who took part in the Open Houses last July and August were not impressed with the size and scope of the proposed development, What happened? I quote from page 29 and 30 of the developers proposal under the heading of Public Consultation: “…We anticipate that a local community meeting will be held following the application submission…to present a master plan and engage the community for comments and input…We will summarize all public input through the community engagement process and identify how community input has been addressed with updates and changes…The consultation strategy described herein will ensure that members of the public are given an opportunity to review, understand and comment on the proposal.” Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Obviously, that didn’t happen!
It seems that developers’ proposals always sound fantastic on paper, but they don’t put it into practice in reality. Residents have been locked out with this very limited, almost meaningless engagement process. The developer’s planners spent 3 years engaging with the city planning staff, making presentations to Council and convincing all involved at City Hall that it was the most fantastic, enlightened plan for this property. The developer’s planners were so effective in this regard that they were able to shape the new Official Plan policies for the Neighbourhood Centre designation to perfectly suit and allow their proposal amendments. The numerous amendments they request are mind-boggling with many bylaw modifications needed. The proposal mixes policies from the present Official Plan in effect regarding zoning, but presents plans that apply to the Neighbourhood Centre policies in the new Official Plan now under review. It is very confusing. The original proposal for this relatively small site—3.84 hectares represents over-development on steroids!
 Wendy Moraghan will be delegating on Tuesday – she was a candidate for the ward 5 seat in the October election. Where do the neighbourhood residents’ concerns fit into the picture? Why have we not had an official community meeting where we have the opportunity to have the proposal presented and the opportunity to ask questions? How disheartening! What surprise awaits us at the Statutory meeting? Will there be a revised proposal to show that residents input is taken into consideration? We shall see.
Related new stories:
Part one of a two part series on the Lakeside Village Plaza development.
Part two of a two part series on the Lakeside Village Plaza development.
By Pepper Parr
April 6th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The two pictures below tell the story – the first is what is in place today in the eastern part of the city. A plaza that has been allowed to deteriorate to the point where more than half of the units were empty.
The second is the first version of what the owners of the property showed the public at open houses last August. The people who live in the neighbourhoods are up in arms.
A drab rundown property on Lakeshore Road in the eastern reaches of the city might get a huge makeover if the developer can convince the planners and then city council that their idea is beneficial to everyone.  Massive in scale, overwhelming in scope – but it does go some distance to meeting the intensification targets. The city went to considerable lengths to pull in feed back from the public. Two packed meetings took place at which the public had a chance to look at drawings and ideas put together by the Planning Department.
 The public had hours to go over drawings and talk through ideas with city hall staff. Why is it that the ideas never seem to be reflected in the proposal the developers put forward?  The room was packed – the public interest was there. Few if any of those ideas made it to the plan the developer brought forward in July and August.
A required Statutory Public meeting is to take place on Tuesday evening at city hall.
City staff will present a report to provide background information for the statutory public meeting required under the Planning Act for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications. The report provides an overview of the proposed applications, an outline of the applicable policies and regulations and a summary of technical and public comments received to date.
There is a chance that the developer will have heard some of what the public had to say and maybe moderate the size and scale.
 Some of the early thinking about development ideas for the site had the city contributing the arena and the parkland on the north to a project that would pull together the area, the plaza and the Burloak Park to the south. The original design put together when the idea of getting something done to the plaza pulled together the park-arena on the north side with the upgraded Burloak Park on the south side. Some of the original design work done then appears below as well.
 Carrie DeMunck Carrie De Munch, a resident in the eastern part of the city who was active in one of the ward 5 election campaigns said: “Lakeside Plaza is a huge concern for all of the east end of Burlington, particularly for our senior friends who reside in the immediate area. The redevelopment of this plaza will impact all of the south of Burlington, and those from southwest Oakville that utilize our corner of Burlington, and also those beyond our western borders who commute along Burlington Lakeshore daily at all hours to get to their workplaces and back.
This development is not part of the area covered by the Interim Control by law that has frozen development in the downtown core.
 By Pepper Parr
April 4th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
They are sometimes referred to as “unintended consequences” and that appears to be the kind of hole that the very successful Molinaro development on Fairview next to the Burlington GO station has fallen into.
 Towers 1 and 2 when they were under construction. The development is going to be a five story project with building 1, 2 and 3 clearly visible on the city’s skyline.
The structures are bold and have been selling very well.
The development was planned as one that would be completed in phases.
The company is now ready to begin the final phase – the last two building that will front on Fairview.
When the Interim control bylaw was dropped on the development community with no notice everyone assumed the Molinaro project would not be included. They were well past the site plan approval stage which was the cut off stage.
Ed Fothergill, the planning consultant who spoke for the firm on Tuesday, explained that complex projects that are approved in principle go through several site plan approvals – partly because as a project is built some things change – mostly minor in nature but the kind of thing for which approvals are required.
 Layout of the five tower Paradigm project on Fairview. The size, nature and scope of the Paradigm project meant there would be several site plan approvals. One would like to believe that the intention was not to shut down everything that moved on a construction site in the Urban Growth Centre while the city figured out just what it wanted to see done with the land within those boundaries.
The Paradigm has been described as the largest residential property development the city has ever done and may well be the largest for a some time.
When it was first taken to the public the Molinaro’s met with the area residents; they listened carefully and went back to the drawing boards and made some significant changes.
As developers they have set the standard for listening to the public.
Because of the way the development was structured the approval of the site plan for the last two buildings was on hold – there weren’t any problems with the development – it was always understood that there were to be five towers and that the site plan approval for the final two towers would get taken care of when the company was ready to begin construction.
 A massive concrete barrier had to be built between the development and the GO train tracks. Much of the infrastructure for the final two towers is already in place – that work was done when the three towers on the north side was being done.
But – the Interim Control bylaw is clear – if the site plan of a project has not been approved the project cannot go forward.
The ICBL was put in place for very good reasons – no one fully understood what this would do to the Molinaro’s.
Mayor Meed Ward didn’t have all that much to say about the implications on the Molinaro’s at the Standing Committee meeting yesterday afternoon and there wasn’t a word from Lisa Kearns, the ward council member.
Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith made it very clear that he understood what was happening and that he would do everything he could to correct the situation.
The Molinaro’s are getting ready to put together the marketing plan for the last two towers and expected to be able to begin work on those two towers next year.
 Marketing campaigns don’t get written on the back of an envelope over a weekend. Marketing plans don’t get put together on a weekend. They are carefully crafted using the most recent data to ensure that the product they are going to market meets the needs of those buying condominium units.
There are additional issues. The actual registration of the condominium units gets held up as well.
City planner Heather MacDonald didn’t appear to be all that sympathetic to the problem.
The new city council had very solid reasons for putting a pause on the rate at which developments were flooding into city hall.
The Councillor for ward 2 said she has had conversations with people who are thinking in terms of towers that are in the 50 storey range – and along the GO station mobility hub this kind of intensification might make sense.
Burlington was seen as the place to make a killing in development; firms with cash and the kind of in-house expertise needed to put projects together quickly couldn’t get to the city fast enough.
The Molinaro’s aren’t a Toronto based operation – they built most of what we have on Lakeshore Road and have plans in the works for developments on Brant street north of Prospect where many felt high rise construction should take place.
There is a solution to the Paradigm predicament – the brain power in the Planning can find it. It may include an exemption.
By Pepper Parr
April 3rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
It is now close to crystal clear that there will not be any exemptions to the Interim Control bylaw that froze all development in the Urban Growth boundary in downtown Burlington for one year and possibly two.
It is also crystal clear that when the Mayor is angry – she lets you know just how angry she is. That was something Cindy Prince learned yesterday afternoon at a Standing Committee meeting where the matter of allowing exemptions to the new bylaw was debated.
There are not going to be any exemptions approved by this council at this point.
None – even though there is at least one that has to be given a hard look if developers are to be treated fairly. The Molinaro development on Fairview has run into a snag related to site plan approvals for its five tower Paradigm project.
 Site location: an awkward piece of land that was made usable when the co-op to the east was acquired. Project looked great – until the interim control bylaw froze everything within the Urban growth boundary – the development is on the very western edge, Cindy Prince spoke for Amica, the retirement home operator that wants to build a rather large retirement home on the North Service Road where it intersects with Hwy 403 – right across from the Joseph Brant Hospital.
 Amica made what they described as generous offers to the owners of the co-op units – that offer may not close. The plan has been in the development stage for more than three years and started when Amica made an offer for the 56 residents at the co-op that is presently on the site.
The deal, which Prince described as a “premium + + +” offer to the residents over the market value at the time was to expire on May 17th. Amica is also reported to have paid the co-op residents a non-refundable deposit.
 One resident called it a “warehouse” for older people”. Amica doesn’t want to close on that deal unless it can be assured that city council is going to give them an exemption from the bylaw that has frozen development.
The owners of the co-op units just want to get on with their lives and have the deal close. Amica said they were prepared to make changes and that they had been meeting with the Planning department.
Ward 6 Councillor Angelo B asked if there were any drawings to show just what any changes might look like. No one seemed to be able to say that there were renderings of possible changes.
There was considerable public comment on the size of the development – one Burlington resident called it a “warehouse” for older people”.
Based on what the mood of Council was on Tuesday no one is going to get an exemption.
 Mayor Meed Ward – not the lady you want to attempt to mislead. Mayor Meed Ward was close to scathing in her comments. She said she felt Amica should not use the co-op owners as hostages while the the corporation works to get an exemption.
Meed Ward also took issue with the way Amica made statements in the Planning Justification report they provided when they found them useful and then changed direction when they found that the comments no longer served their purpose.
It has been some time since Burlington has heard very direct and pointed comments about both a development and the people behind the development.
If there is ever a ribbon cutting ceremony for the opening of a retirement home on the site – don’t expect the current Mayor to be a participant.
Councillor Sharman pointed out that the development freeze is highlighting a serious problem for the city. There is a serious shortage of space for seniors to live in when they get into their late retirement years. Sharman said that “intensification is not the issue” – the lack of space for seniors accommodation is the issue for the city. It is coming at us and we are not prepared.
Council was meeting as a Standing Committee where they voted 6-1 to take a pass on any exemptions. The matter goes to a city council meeting at the end of the month.
By Pepper Parr
March 27th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The early announcement stunned a lot of people.
 26 storeys high – 250 units with a park and retention of the restaurant. A 26 storey tower on the north side of Old Lakeshore Road on a property that would run from Old Lakeshore north to Lakeshore Road at the base of Martha Street was seen as a bold move on the part of the Core Group – a Toronto developer who took their proposal to the public last night and, for the most part, got a decent response.
The height for almost everyone was the issue. Come back with a 15 storey proposal and you might have a deal was the way most people seemed to feel.
Mayor Meed Ward was on hand along with Councillors Nisan and Bentivegna who joined Councillor Kearns who hosted the event.
The existence of a one year development freeze didn’t deter the developers – they were getting their story out and, to some degree, setting the agenda.
Other developers in the room who had property interests in what is referred to as “the football” that stretch of land that is between Old Lakeshore and Lakeshore sat rather glumly as the Core people told their story.
 A 3D model was on display – showing very clearly where the structure would be and its relationship to other buildings in the area. The design is very smart looking, the developer used all the right buzz words – “context” seemed to be the preferred word at this point.
 The Bridgewater, while it has fewer storeys, does loom as large on the horizon The Gazette will report at length on what the plans are all about. The key features were the retention of the Carriage Gate restaurant and the creation of a park that will make the location a place where people will want to hang around and enjoy the setting.
The Core Group brought a team of six people to the presentation. They were professional and answered a lot of the questions – but there were some gaping holes in the context.
More later in the week.
By Pepper Parr
March 8th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Earlier this week city council slapped an Interim Control Bylaw on large portions of the city. The freeze was for a period of one year and became effective the moment the by law was signed.
The rules of the game are such that the city is required to accept every application that is presented. New development applications cannot go beyond the Statutory Meeting phase.
This development, being put forward by the Core Development Group that works out of Toronto has scheduled a meeting at which they will present the development. That meeting will take place at Central High School on March 26th: 6:30 to 8:30. Expect it to draw a large audience.
The developers have said that the Mayor and the ward Councillor have been invited. Wild horses couldn’t keep them away.
Marianne Meed Ward used her opposition to development on the waterfront to get herself into office and hasn’t wavered a bit since she became a resident of ward 2.
 Everything within the shaded area has had new developments frozen for a period of one year.
 The rendering doesn’t show the full height – there is a reason for that. The proposal is for a 26-storey mixed use residential development with commercial uses at grade at what is known as 2093-2101 Old Lakeshore Road & 2096-2100 Lakeshore Road.
The heritage building located at 2101 Old Lakeshore Road will be retained as part of the development.
It is this kind of development application that pushed the planners to the point where they felt a development freeze was needed. City Council readily agreed but the agreement wasn’t unanimous.
The Nautique – approved with construction underway. There are funds in the 2019 budget for some research to look into what can and should be done in the way of development for the land between Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road; often referred to as the football because of its shape. Land assembly has been quietly taking place in that part of the city.
The proposal for 26 storeys would make the building the same height as the ADI Development Group Nautique which has been approved. The contractors have been drilling to learn just where the water table is – they plan on five floors of underground parking for their project.
 The battle to save the waterfront continues. The Mayor just might decide to pull some of the banners used in her Save the Waterfront days out of storage and rally the troops once again.
 By Staff
March 6th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
On Feb. 7, 2019, Burlington City Council voted to re-examine the policies in Burlington’s Official Plan, adopted in April 2018.
The motion, approved by Council, directs Burlington’s Director of City Building to immediately commence a process to re-examine the policies of the Official Plan adopted April 26, 2018 in their entirety related to matters of height and intensity and conformity with provincial density targets.
Council and staff will discuss the scope of work for further study related to the Official Plan (including Mobility Hubs) at an upcoming Committee of the Whole Council Workshop.
 City used this photograph in announcing the Official Plan workshop – most of the development is going to take place on the other side of the city. Council Workshop
Monday, March 18, 2019, 1 – 4 p.m.
City Hall, 2nd floor, Council Chambers
Burlington, Ontario, L7R 3Z6
By Staff
March 5th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The bylaw is pretty clear, almost blunt and it has $100,000 behind it to, get the work done “expeditiously”.
The task is to:
Assess the role and function of the downtown bus terminal and the Burlington GO Station as Major Transit Station Areas, including assessing the existing and long range planned transit service for the Study Area and the connections between the two respective MTSAs;
Examine the planning structure, land use mix, and intensity for the lands identified on attached schedules. (These are the maps included in the Staff Report.
Update the Official Plan and Zoning By-law regulations, as needed, for the lands identified.
Delegate authority to the City Manager in conjunction with the Director of Finance, the ability to single source or sole source work for this initiative that may exceed $100,000, allowing staff to begin the Study expeditiously.
To do all that the city wants to put a one year freeze on all development within a designated area. They will use an interim control by-law to permit the development freeze. That bylaw they want to have council pass states:
Notwithstanding any other by-law to the contrary, no person shall, for the lands identified on Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto:
a) use any land, building or structure for any purpose whatsoever except for a use that lawfully existed on the date of the passage of this By-law as long as it continues to be used for such purpose; or
b) be permitted to construct, alter or expand any building or structure, save and except where such construction, alteration or expansion is an outcome of a site plan application currently in process on the date of the passage of this By-law that is fully in accordance with the approved zoning bylaw. Site plan applications received for lands within the study areas include: 374 Martha Street, 490-492 Brock Avenue, 421 Brant Street, and 442 Pearl Street.
This By-law shall come into force and take effect immediately upon its passing by Council and shall be in effect for a period of one year from the date of passage of this By-law, or until such time that the Study is completed to the satisfaction of the City Council, unless this By-law is otherwise extended in accordance with the provision of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P.13, as amended.
The Municipal Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the giving of notice of the passing of this By-law, in accordance with the Planning Act.
This means those developers with projects that have yet to be approved will be getting a letter in the mail.
 Planners asking council to put the brakes on development. What does it all mean? The city has put the brakes on the number of development applications being put before the Planning department – with the exception of the four that are exempted because they are in the site plan phase.
Anything else is on hold while the city figures out what it wants to do with the Urban Growth Centre boundary and the Downtown mobility hub that has been a contentious issue almost from the day it was dropped on us.
The Planning department explains:
“The need for an interim control by-law is due to staff concerns with the cumulative growth pressures quickly emerging in the Urban Growth Center and on lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station that are requesting intensities significantly higher than anticipated by the Official Plan.
“The proposed study area includes lands that are within the Urban Growth Centre and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station. The interim control by-law will allow the City the opportunity to complete a land use study.
“An interim control by-law would ensure that new developments within the Study Area will be informed by the City’s transit, transportation and land use vision for the Study Area. The recommended interim control by-law will ensure the City can realize the following objectives as set out in the City’s 2015-2040 Strategic Plan:
“An interim control by-law puts a temporary prohibition or limitation on the development of certain lands while a municipality is studying or reviewing its land use policies. This “freeze” can be imposed for only a year, with a maximum extension of a second year. In accordance with the Planning Act, there is no ability to appeal an ICBL when it is first passed; however, an extension to an ICBL for the second year may be appealed.
“The Planning Act provides that an ICBL remains in effect if the new zoning regulations resulting from the ICBL are appealed. The Planning Act also sets out that when an ICBL ceases to be in effect on certain lands, a subsequent ICBL may not be imposed on those lands for a period of 3 years.
 The part of the downtown core that will be subject to a development freeze. There are more detailed maps below. “lCBLs are an important planning instrument as they allow a municipality to reconsider its land use policies by suspending development that may conflict with any new policy. ICBLs can also be exercised in situations where unforeseen issues arise, as a means of providing breathing space during which time the municipality may study the issues and determine the appropriate planning policy and controls for addressing the issues under study.
“The 2017 Growth Plan identifies an Urban Growth Centre as an existing or emerging downtown area and mandates a density target of a minimum of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. It is noted that there is a minor discrepancy in the boundary for Burlington’s Urban Growth Centre (UGC) when comparing between the city’s current and in force Official Plan and that of the Halton Region Official Plan. For the purposes of this interim control by-law, the boundaries of the UGC as shown in the Halton Region Official Plan will be used to establish the boundaries of the study area relating to the UGC.
 The northern part of the study area.
 The southern part of the study area. The 2017 Growth Plan defines a Major Transit Station Area as:
“The area including and around any existing or planned higher order transit station or stop within a settlement area; or the area including and around a major bus depot in an urban core. Major transit station areas generally are defined as the area within an approximate 500 metre radius of a transit station, representing about a 10-minute walk.”
 This is part of the transportation system. The 2017 Growth Plan defines Higher Order Transit as:
“Transit that generally operates in partially or completely dedicated rights-of-way, outside of mixed traffic, and therefore can achieve levels of speed and reliability greater than mixed-traffic transit. Higher order transit can include heavy rail (such as subways and inter-city rail), light rail, and buses in dedicated rights-of-way.”
“The 2017 Growth Plan does not define a Major Bus Depot.
 Is this part of the “higher order” of transit? “It is also noted that amendments to the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) policies are currently proposed by the Province in Amendment No. 1 to the Growth Plan. For example, the area around a Major Transit Station Area where intensification may be supported is proposed to be increased from 500 to 800 metres.
“In the context of the UGC and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station, staff are concerned about the role and function of the Downtown John Street Bus Terminal as an MTSA as set out in the 2017 Growth Plan, and as relied upon by the Ontario Municipal Board (0MB) in the Adi Decision for 374 Martha Street.
“While the concept of an MTSA has existed since the emergence of the 2006 Growth Plan, the 2017 Growth Plan differentiates between those MTSAs located along a priority transit corridor (such as the GO Transit rail network) and those that are not. For those MTSAs located along priority transit corridors, the Growth Plan assigns prescribed minimum density thresholds of 150 residents and jobs combined for lands served by the GO Transit rail network. It is noted that this density threshold is less than the minimum density threshold of 200 persons and jobs combined as ascribed to the UGC by the 2017 Growth Plan.
“For all other MTSAs, the Growth Plan directs municipalities to plan and design these to be “transit-supportive” in accordance with Section 2.2.4.8 of the Growth Plan. Transit supportive is defined by the Growth Plan to essentially mean compact mixed use development that has a high level of employment and residential densities.
 In order to get a better grip on development in the downtown core the planners are asking city council ti impose a freeze on development for one year. “The 2017 Growth Plan does not include minimum density thresholds for transit supportive MTSAs that are not located on a priority transit corridor.
“While the Terminal is located in the UGC and a number of bus routes connect to it, it generally would not be considered to be “higher order transit” as would a GO Transit Station (for example: Burlington GO Station) or a conventional subway station as is the case in the City of Toronto where significant transit ridership occurs.
“The Study will allow for a detailed examination of the future planned function of the Terminal, which is a critical element of planning justification for the Downtown precinct framework which is absent in the Official Plan. The Terminal comprises a potential key land use element of the Downtown, and in staffs view, pursuant to the Adi Decision, is emerging as an unanticipated driver of residential intensification which may be unjustified, and which has not been planned for in the context of community and infrastructure services.
“Studying the appropriate role and function that the Terminal should play is critical in shaping the final pattern and mix of land uses and transit supportive development within the UGC and is consistent with MTSA policies.
“Moreover, given the close proximity of the Burlington GO station to the northern part of the UGC, it is prudent to study these two MTSAs and the areas around them in concert as they could have a direct influence on one another.
“The Growth Plan has steadily promoted the intensification of development within settlement areas since its inception in 2006. The 2017 Growth Plan has placed additional importance on intensification and transit through prescriptive policies targeting all UGCs and MTSAs. This is readily apparent from the Decision of the 0MB in the Adi case for 374 Martha Street. The 0MB held that compliance with the provincially prescribed minimum density target for Burlington’s UGC is not entirely sufficient; that the provincially prescribed target for the UGC is but a minimum, which municipalities should not hesitate to exceed, subject to good planning. Moreover, lands located within the boundary of the downtown MTSA deserve even higher densities.
“The City strongly objected to this Decision and requested a Section 43 review by the 0MB. The Section 43 Decision was released on November 5, 2018, and dismissed the City’s appeal for a re-hearing.
 The OMB approval of the ADI development threw all the long term thinking in the air. The Director of Planning at the time missed a major opportunity to change the way the original hearing was proceeding. “The Adi property is located within the Downtown Core Precinct which has a maximum height limit of 8 storeys in the Official Plan. Contrary to the Downtown Core Precinct policies, the 0MB approved a height limit of 26 storeys for the Adi property. The Adi Decision causes serious concern as it throws into question the merit of the established land use framework of the current and in force Official Plan for allocating and distributing the Growth Plan’s mandated density target within the UGC and the Terminal’s capacity to absorb the transit impacts of such unanticipated growth.
“When the boundary for the UGC was defined, staff’s best estimate at the time indicated that at build out, the densities prescribed in the current and in force Official Plan could meet the target set by the Growth Plan.
“With the incorporation of Adi’s recently approved density, together with other pending development applications that are requesting intensities higher than anticipated by the current and in force Official Plan (or the 2018 adopted Official Plan now before the Region for approval and currently under review), staff are concerned about the cumulative growth pressures quickly emerging in the UGC. At the Adi hearing, the Terminal was seen to be an MTSA that supports intensities well in excess of those contained in the Official Plan. Moreover, the OMB’s view was that by not approving the Adi proposal, it would be contrary to MTSA policy of the Growth Plan.
A portion of Growth Plan policy reads as follows:
“Within all major transit station areas, development will be supported, where appropriate, by …
d) prohibiting land uses and built form that would adversely affect the achievement of transit supportive densities” After considering the Adi decision, and the reliance that other developers in Burlington will place on the downtown MTSA as a rationale for additional intensity, it is imperative that the role and function of the Terminal in concert with the Burlington GO Station, be determined as part of a land use study.
“The Study will provide certainty as to the future use of the Terminal and in turn, provide staff with the planning justification to undertake any policy refinements which may be warranted, both to the study area and to the City’s urban structure as a whole. Clarity respecting the long term structural role of the Downtown as an intensification area will also assist in setting infrastructure priorities for the City as a whole, including the land in proximity to the Burlington GO Station.
“The findings of the Study will facilitate an examination of the mix of land uses within the study areas and the role of their respective MTSAs in these intensification areas. The Study will also assess the existing and long range planned transit service for the study areas and the connections between the two respective MTSAs.
“Considering the two study areas together will inform staff and Council on the future planned function of the Terminal with regard to transit supportive development.
 Developer is requesting intensities that are well in excess of those anticipated by the current and in force Official Plan. James at Martha “There is an urgency that this Study proceeds as soon as possible as cumulative growth pressures in the UGC continue to escalate. Planning staff are aware of multiple pending developments in the application review stage such as 2082-2090 James Street, 409 Brant Street, 2069-2079 Lakeshore Road, as well as other expressions of high density development interests in the UGC and on lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station, which similar to Adi, are requesting intensities that are well in excess of those anticipated by the current and in force Official Plan (or the 2018 adopted Official Plan now before the Region for approval and currently under review).
 Development proposed for south east corner of Brant and James. “It is noted that there is an appeal of the application at 409 Brant Street, which at the time of writing this report is scheduled for a case management conference in summer 2019. Staff are also aware of a number of major land assemblies within the UGC where higher than prescribed intensities are anticipated to be applied for over the next few years.
Land Use Study Exemptions
“Applications for site plan approval fully in accordance with the approved zoning bylaw, received prior to the date of the passage of this by-law, on lands within the study areas shall be exempt from this by-law given that most of these developments have received planning approvals by the OMB/LPAT or Council.
“At the time of writing this report, site plan applications received for lands within the study areas include: 374 Martha Street, 490-492 Brock Avenue, 421 Brant Street, and 442 Pearl Street. No new site plan applications for lands within the study areas will be processed from the date of the passage of this by-law.
Nautique will rise at the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha. The Carriage Gate development – The Element will get built across the street from city hall. “Staff recognizes that there are some existing uses such as low density residential within the study areas that will be affected by the ICBL and they will be prevented from being altered or expanded during the term of the Study.
“There are some downsides and perhaps unintended consequences. “Potential financial matters as an outcome of an interim control by-law will likely include: reduced planning development application fees and revenues, reduced building permit and construction activity, reduced development charges received, and deferral of Capital Works projects within the study areas.
“Given the need to proceed expeditiously with the Study, this report recommends that the City Manager be delegated the authority for single or sole source the required work should the value exceed $100,000.
“The Study will require collaboration with the Transit and Transportation Departments to ensure the function of the Terminal aligns with the planning structure of the UGC and lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station. It will also provide greater clarity to the Capital Works Department when predicting life cycles and investments for various city assets within the study areas.
“No notice is required prior to the passing of a by-law for an interim control by-law however, notice has been provided for the proposed interim control by-law. Notice of passing of the interim control by-law shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act.
Conclusion:
“Given the implications of the recent Adi Decision and its reliance upon the MTSA status for the approval of 26 storeys, which is beyond the density level established in the Official Plan, and the above-noted significant development pressures, staff recommends that an interim control by-law be passed as outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. The interim control by-law will provide sufficient time for the Study to examine the planning structure, land use mix, and intensity for the lands within the study area. It is planned that this Study would be initiated immediately by staff in order that there be an expeditious planning process in 2019.”
This gets debated at a Standing Committee meeting this afternoon. Assuming the recommendation coming out of the meeting is to go forward – the Standing Committee will become a city council meeting and the by law will be passed.
Would it be fair and reasonable to cal this a Bold move?
 By Pepper Parr
February 28th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The first part (Capital) of the 2019 budget has been approved;city council now moves on to completing the debate on the Operations part of the budget.
This city council has shown that it is ready to do things differently. The capital focus has been on infrastructure and transit. Spending for 2019 will amount to $96.4 million with a 10-year program of $819 million.
Seventy two per cent of the 10-year capital budget will be invested in renewing Burlington’s aging infrastructure.
A breakdown of spending for the 2019 capital budget of $96.4 million includes:
 Burlington has to do a major upgrade of its information technology systems – some of it is urgently needed. • $49.5 million, the largest component, for roadways
• $10.1 million for facilities and buildings
• $8.4 million for parks and open spaces
• $6.3 million in storm water management
• $10.6 million towards fleet vehicles and equipment
• $9.5 million for information technology
• $0.9 million for local boards (Burlington Public Library, Burlington Performing Arts Centre, Art Gallery of Burlington, Burlington Museums)
• $1.1 in parking.
Some highlights of the 2019 capital budget include:
 Burlington Transit getting new buses – to deliver less service. • $1.9 million in funding to improve public transit with the purchase of three new conventional buses
• $234,000 in funding to purchase one new para-transit bus
• $550,000 in funding to build a new splash pad in Brant Hills Community Park
• $450,000 in funding for a new sports lighting system for the ball diamond and pathways at Maple Park
• $600,000 in funding for new amenities at Tansley Woods Park.
Council was able to whittle away some of the Finance department recommendation of $96.8 million down to $96.4 million.
|
|
