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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

 

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.

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 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 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.

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.

“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 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.”

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.

“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.

“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 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.

“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).

“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.

“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 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward

February 22nd, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward released the basics of a letter she received recently from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We will let the Mayor speak for herself.

My office recently received a letter from Minister Steve Clark of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding their work on the provincial government’s Housing Supply Action Plan.

Minister Clark outlined their desire “to take swift action to streamline the development approvals system” and “speed up the time it takes to get the right kind of housing built in the right places”. He further explained that “land use planning and development approvals are critical to achieving housing and job- related priorities” in our communities.

I agree with these assertions and am glad to see their continued commitment to expediting these processes. As part of the new Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force that my office has initiated to support local business attraction and growth, I am committed to cutting red tape for development applications that are supported by council and the community.

The Minister’s office continues to consult on proposed changes to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and review the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement as well, with the intention to bring forward legislation and policy changes in the coming months.

While Minister Clark’s letter advises local municipalities to consider pausing on activities that may be impacted, such as Official Plan reviews, I want to reinforce that until we get more specific details from the Province related to the municipal land use planning process, the City of Burlington will continue to move forward as planned with our review of the Official Plan as per the motion approved by City Council on February 5th.

On a related matter, I am disappointed to learn today that the province has announced the June 30th closing of the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre (LPASC), a resource that offers support to the public in navigating both land use planning matters and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Public participation, a vital part of democratic community planning, should not be sacrificed in the name of ill- defined or non-existent efficiencies.

The best way to save time and money is to eliminate the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal altogether. The tribunal, like the Ontario Municipal Board it replaced, provides unelected and inefficient involvement in planning matters that are best left to local councils, unnecessarily slowing down the development process.

Leaving planning in local municipal hands would not only speed approvals and remove red tape, but also provide more incentives to the development industry to work with municipalities and their residents to plan full communities rather than just build housing.

By Pepper Parr

February 19th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The site is just yards away from where Marianne Meed Ward officially threw her hat into the ring for the office of Mayor. Months later she sits in an office on the eight floor of city hall.

Her campaign was about sensible, responsible development. She spoke to a small, enthusiastic audience at the top of Clearview Avenue overlooking the site on which the ADI Development Group is building what will amount to a new neighbourhood that will align with the mobility hub, the plans for which have yet to be finalized.

An application has been made to change the Official Plan designation to High Density Residential to allow the development of a mid-rise, 6-storey apartment building, with 160 dwelling units at a density of 258 units per hectare. A rezoning application has also been made to change the corresponding zoning to a site specific Residential High Density RH1.

The lands are currently designated as low density residential in the City’s Official Plan which allows for detached and semi-detached dwellings, and other forms of ground oriented housing not exceeding 25 units per hectare. The lands are zoned R2.1 in the City’s Zoning By-law which allows for detached dwellings and an accessory dwelling unit within a detached dwelling.

A date for the first public meeting has not yet been set.

By Pepper Parr

February 18th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

In October 2017, Burlington City Council approved the development application submitted by Roman Home Builders for 2085 Pine St., permitting a five-storey residential building.

Since that time, the ownership of the property has changed. The new owners are working toward submitting a new development application and concept for 2085 Pine St. that will increase the height from the 5 storeys that have been approved to 11 storeys.

The approved 15 residential units would increase to 40 units.

A development application has not been submitted to the city at this time.

A public meeting is to be held on February 21st at 6:30 pm at the Lion’s Club at 471 Pearl..

The changes the developer wants would require an amendment to the Official Plan and a change to the zoning bylaw.

The immediate area has a number of development applications that have either been approved (ADI at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore 24 storeys) or are in the process of being considered by the city’s Planning department. They include plans for an 11 storey development on the east side of Martha south of the James – New Street intersection, the Mattamy development –  18 storeys at the corner of James and Martha

A proposal for 29 storeys – (the highest so far for the city) at the intersection of Pearl and Lakeshore Road.

This number of developments gives the word “intensification” a whole new meaning doesn’t it.

The Mayor is now looking at a number of developments that challenge the current bylaw – crunch time soon for what kind of city Burlington is going to be a decade from now.