Councillor Taylor beats around the Bureaucratic bushes explaining why the draft OP has to be passed ASAP.

News 100 redBy Staff

April 10th, 2018



We are beginning to get a little more detail on why the city chose to hold an additional public meeting on the draft Official plan that a number of people want to see moved back until after the municipal election when they hope they will have a different city council to deal with.

Not through this part of th Escarpment if you don't mind. Citizens want to make sure the province fully understands how iopposed they are to a raod through this part of our city.

Rural lands and how the province is determined they are to be used is the most recent hiccup with getting Burlington’s draft Official Plan adopted and sent along o the Region.

John Taylor, Councillor for ward 3 explains to Jim Young, an ECoB member, that the meeting in Alton last night “really has nothing to do with the Official Plan Review process at either the City or Region of Halton.

“The blame rests solely with the Province of Ontario and their February 9 unilateral decision to gazette their error filled mapping of agriculture lands and natural heritage systems for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and require full municipal compliance. As this was at the end of the city’s OP process this required us to delay our process for an additional public consultation.

(When Taylor refers to the gazette he is not referring to the Burlington Gazette but rather to the publication the provinces uses to formally issue its decisions.)

”The way forward is not completely clear at this point and I have requested senior planning staff from the Region and City to meet next week in an attempt to resolve this mapping issue and how to make our new OP fully compliant with provincial legislation at the same time as the new regional OP is adopted. I will expect city staff to report back on these issues at the April 24 Planning and Development Committee meeting.”

Young replies saying:

Jim Young

Jim Young delegating before council – reminding them who put them there and what they are expected to do while they are there.

“I was commenting that it seems perfectly acceptable to delay the adoption to clarify one item for council while the many other outstanding concerns for citizens are blithely ignored in the rush get this really unpopular OP through council before an election.

“This OP does not belong to council or staff. It belongs to the people of Burlington whether urban, rural, farming, commuter, working or retired.

“Clarity for Councillors is not the criteria by which it should be judged, delayed or implemented.

“Clarity for the people of Burlington should be the only criteria and the fiasco at Haber on the mapping issue is simply one more indication that people are not clear on how this OP affects them and when they become aware of some of its impact they do not like what they hear.

“Again I ask, Why the Rush? Why not Clarity for All?

Tanner and Taylor at June 21-17 workshop

Councillor John Taylor on the left n conversation with then Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner on the far right

Taylor’s rationale for moving forward with all possible haste is set out in this statement: “As for intensification it is in the best interest of Burlington as a whole to adopt the official plan now in order to put forward a new defendable reference point on this issue. To continue to rely on a way out of date OP is irresponsible and will only invite further land speculation.”

Having been a member of a city council that has dithered away with the writing of a new official plan for years, during which time the developers were quietly assembling properties, it is a little disingenuous of Taylor to claim that the barn door has to be shut when we can see all the horses in the fields.

The Planning department is now flooded with development applications. The developers have got this figured out. They are doing what any good business does – look for a good business opportunity and make the best of that opportunity.

Citizens were expecting their council to protect them.

Return to the Front page

An almost total cock up on the part of the Clerks office - they will refer to it as a 'learning moment'

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

April 10th, 2018



Back to the way the city administration communicates with the people that pay their salaries. A very controversial item was due to be put before city council – the Section 37 agreement with the developers of the 23 storey tower approved by city council.

421 Brant

How does a development that has some merit manage to get so much undesirable publicity?

Many people were not aware that the item had been placed on the Agenda of a Planning and Development meeting for this evening.

A resident who is particularly good at digging out information and some of the ECoB people were able to find the mention of an item that was added to the agenda – the added item doesn’t appear on the actual agenda – confusing? – Welcome to the world of municipal government.

Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward explained that she too had difficulty finding the agenda item – and she uses the city calendar feature regularly and urges people to use it.

Here is what Meed Ward had to say about access to notice of an item on a meeting agenda:

Meed Ward H&S

Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward is expected to ask city council to defer hearing the Planning until the public has been given adequate notice.

“I have received multiple emails from residents who were not able to find the Section 37 item on the Agenda for tonight’s meeting.

“I myself couldn’t find it initially after I was told it had been posted and spoke to clerks. (I am paperless, so rely exclusively on the electronic record for my agendas and reports). They showed me where to find addendum items – these are items that are released late, after the agenda for the meeting is already published.

“But without that knowledge gained speaking to clerks, I wouldn’t have found it, and it’s not where the public would think to look.”

Meed Ward is apparently going to ask council to defer this item until the public has been properly notified and made aware of the item being on an agenda.

What Meed Ward hasn’t said so far is where she stands on the Section 37 agreement the Planning department is passing along to council for approval.

Related news stories:

Muir hammers city council.

It was the late Paul Newman who once said in a riveting movie: What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Return to the Front page

Angry rural residents vent at a public meeting, Councillor Lancaster sends one packing

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

April 10th, 2018



A little more on that public meeting last night in the Alton Village at the Haber Recreation Centre.

A source reported that ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster told a citizen who was reported to be shouting at people that he had to leave the room.

Councillor Blair Lancaster gets out to almost every photo op there is and has served as the lead spokesperson at a number of NGTA community events with crowrs of 250+. Her constituents are not happy with how she is handling the Air PArk issue.

Councillor Blair Lancaster – can be one tough cookie when she thinks she has to be.

The man was said to be more than six feet in height – being ejected by Lancaster must have been a sight.

The event was an Open House at which the Planning department provided maps showing the changes on how land use in the rural part of Burlington was going to change.

The “farmer” was angry over changes to what he was going to be able to do with his land.

In attendance were Councillors Sharman, Taylor, Lancaster and Meed Ward. Our source was not able to say if any other council members were in the room.

Debate Warren

Vanessa Warren during the 2014 municipal election.

Vanessa Warren, a candidate for the ward in the 2014 election was certainly in the room commenting on what was shown on the maps that were on display.

Warren is an exceptionally able researcher – she would know what she was talking about.

Our source reported that there were a lot of angry rural residents at the event.

A Gazette reader who was at the meeting commented: “I attended last night, and it was an embarrassment to this city. The Enraged Citizens of Burlington or whoever these people were have every right to be upset, I am too, but you can’t behave like that. It was borderline violent at times, with people so out of control with rage that they had to physically be removed from the building. Right or wrong, it crossed a line. Security Guards, real ones, not night watchmen, might be a good idea for the April 24th meeting. We’re supposed to feel safe at these meetings. Last night, for the first time, that safety was called into question. Come on Burlington, we’re better than this.”

Quite a build-up to the October municipal election.

Return to the Front page

There is room for some decency in the way the city administration and the elected officials treat the taxpayers.

News 100 blackBy Pepper Parr

April 9th, 2018



This is getting just a little ridiculous.

City council approved a height of 23 storeys for a condominium opposite city hall.

421 BrantFinal, final approval was subject to a Section 37 agreement being put in place.

ECOB logoECoB – Engaged citizens of Burlington, were waiting for that Section 37 agreement to be put in place so they could appeal the decision to the OMB.

The city releases the Section 37 agreement – astounding is the best way to summarize what the citizens get for giving the developer an additional 11 storeys of height.

A citizen writes a stiff rebuke on just what the Planning department has apparently agreed to.

No date is given as to when this Section 37 agreement for the development known as 421 Brant is going to be put in front of city council.

On Tuesday evening there are two Statutory meetings scheduled for the Planning and Development Standing committee. Statutory public meetings are held to present planning applications in a public forum as required by the Planning Act.

There is no mention of anything else on the agenda for the Tuesday evening meeting.

421 James street rendering

Is the 421 Brant Street development too close to city hall? We are not talking distance here. –

The ECoB people learned that the Section 37 agreement for the 421 Brant development will be on the agenda.

They advised the Gazette that:

City P & D have sneaked the section 37 community benefit proposals for 421 Brant St on to tomorrow night’s agenda without announcing it on the agenda made public on the city website. We found it by digging around elsewhere after Tom Muir made us aware of it.

Penny Hersh, part of the ECoB leadership sent the following to media: it was addressed to ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward

“It has come to our attention that Section 37-Public Benefits for 421 Brant Street will be discussed at the Planning and Development Committee tomorrow evening.

“It is only by searching the City’s website does this appear. No change to the Official Agenda.

Added agenda item graphic

The item added to the Planning and Development meeting Tuesday evening doesn’t appear in the agenda – but it did appear elsewhere on the city web site. Citizens should not have to search for information.

When was this “additional item” placed on the website and why was the Agenda that most residents would check not updated?

“What is staff afraid of? What is the thought process, definitely not transparency? It certainly gives one the impression that they are trying to get this done under the radar. The hope that no one shows up to question this travesty of NON Community Benefits for increased height and density. This is yet another reason why residents have no trust in staff and Council.

“Staff seems to forget that they work for the residents and Council elected to protect the interests of the residents.

“I am asking that Council direct staff to defer discussion of the Section 37 Benefits for 421 Brant Street to the April 24th meeting.”

This situation is intolerable. Last week the city discussed the adoption of a Good Governance model for the members of council. They are going to need more than a model on how to govern to get past this mess.  The optics on this just stink.  It is going to take quite an explanation to convince anyone that this was not deliberate.

Both the city administration and the members of council are duty bound to ensure that the public is fully informed.  The city did put out a notice saying maintenance work was being done on the city web site:

While we are making changes, please note that some online services will not be available on Monday, April 9 from 9 to 10 p.m.:

• Online business license renewal
• Online Property information requests

There is room for some decency in the way the city administration and the elected officials treat the taxpayers.

Return to the Front page

Citizen anger over draft Official Plan erupts at public meeting.

Newsflash 100By Staff

April 9th, 2018



A Burlington resident attending the public meeting taking place at the Haber Recreation Centre in the Alton Village reports that “there is a shouting match going on at Haber right now.”

The city Planning department was holding an information session on the most recent changes being made to draft of the new Official Plan.

growbold-847x254The Planners are expecting to bring the latest version of the Official Plan being prepared to a city council meeting April 24th and have set aside time on the 25th if needed to be able to take the document to a special meeting of city council where they expect the document to be approved and sent along to the Region where it will sit for a period of time before t is approved at that level.

Burlington’s Official Plan must comply with the Region’s plan.

The Burlington document has been the subject of a lot of delegating by residents who do not want the document approved until after the municipal election in October.

Tension between the elected council and citizens has been growing – it appears to have blown a gasket at this most recent public meeting.

Return to the Front page

What might be the last single family detached homes project in Burlington is underway.

News 100 redBy Staff

April 9th, 2018



They aren’t going to be building many more of these; detached single family homes.

Close to the last development project for detached homes is underway at the intersection of Dundas and

Walkers and Dundas housing

Single family detached homes under construction at the intersection of Walkers Line and Dundas is close to the last the city will see.

Walkers Line is underway.

Former Director of Planning, now Deputy city manager, Mary Lou Tanner said a number of months ago that the land available for single family homes will permit not more than 800 new homes.

What the city can expect to see next are townhouses, stacked townhouses and back to back townhouses with much less space and a lot less in amenities.

National Homes image

A graphic from a development proposed for 2100 Brant shows the change that Burlington is experiencing. The existing community, shown in blue has 736 homes: the planned community, which is much much smaller is projected to have 233 units. That is what intensification s all about – and the locals don’t like it.

A development planned for 2100 Brant has raised the ire of residents in that community – National Homes has an application for 233 units that will be some form of townhouses with no park proposed for those 233 families.

It is going to be a different Burlington when they are all done.


Related news stories:

Not everyone is buying what comes out of city hall

Return to the Front page

Tom Muir wonders if 'city residents are completely stupid, and fools to be bilked'.

News 100 redBy Staff

April 9th, 2018



There were few people lining up to tell city council how much they liked the building that is to go up across the street from city hall and rise to 23 stories.  City council approved the Staff recommendation on a 5-2 vote; ECoB (Engaged Citizens of Burlington) almost immediately said they ddn’t like the idea and the Mayor nodded in agreement – his was one of the two votes against the project.

No word from ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward but expect her to have some choice words for the Section 37 agreement the city arrived at with Carriage Gate the developer of the building that has yet to be given a name.

ECoB at one point was standing at the counter in the Clerk’s office panting to file an OMB appeal but were told they couldn’t do so until the file was complete – meaning that the city had to agree on a Section 37 – which is a process whereby the citizens get some benefit for the extra height and density a development gets that is above and beyond whatever the site had in terms of zoning.

The site for Carriage Gate is comprised of a number of properties that were assembled, each having slightly different zoning.

No word yet on what, if anything, ECoB plans to do with that plan to appeal the decision the city made.

Tom Muir, let the city knows where he stands: ” unacceptable sweetening of an already sweet deal for the developer.”  Muir has delegated to city council and has provided the Gazette with a copy of the delegation that will get put into the record of the April 10th meeting.

To: Burlington Planning and Development Committee
From: Tom Muir, Resident
Subject: Written delegation to April 10/18 P&D meeting item of Section 37 staff report for 421 Brant St

Dear Councilors;
I am unable to delegate personally to this item, so I am sending this written delegation of my comments for the record of the proceedings.

To simplify my comments I will target them item by item by following a copy of the staff report text that is pertinent.

1. Regarding; “Specifically, the City “may encourage the use of community benefits provisions with regard to the following matters:””

The words of describing a total voluntary nature of the action by the City, and developer, i.e, “The City may encourage the use of …”,makes me wonder if the staff and Council thinks that city residents are completely stupid, and fools to be bilked.

421 Brant

Building without a name – just a street address.

“May encourage” is a double form of contingency that means the City doesn’t have to do anything at all to secure anything at all, but maybe just think about trying to get the developer to deliver something, and this can be enough.

Given the track record of this very same developer in refusing to deliver on a previous Section 37 agreement on the Carriage Gate development, why on earth would the City agree to such terms and a course of action?

Who benefits from this except the developer, and there is no representation of city residents that I can see.
It’s a ridiculous on its face insult to the residents of this City. This is not a Section 37 Community Benefits agreement, but a very bad for residents agreement, presented as such.  It is completely unacceptable.

2. Regarding, (i) “Provision of a wide range of housing types including special needs, assisted, or
other low-income housing.”

• To assist in the pursuit of long-term affordable housing, the Developer agree to a discount of $300,000 to be used against the purchase price of up to 10 dwelling units within the subject development, or in the event that a purchase(s) is/are not to occur within the subject development, the Developer agrees to provide the City with a cash contribution of $300,000 prior to condominium registration, to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building.

This idea is acceptable as long as there are tight provisions to ensure that the units are sold to those demonstrating as needing of affordable housing, and this should be overseen by public agencies involved in such activities.

Provisions must be made to ensure the units are not sold and then appear back in the free market for resale at market prices.

3.Regarding, (iv) “improved access to public transit or implementation of a Travel Demand
Management Plan.”

• The Developer agrees to provide one (1) publicly accessible car share parking space (indirect community benefit assessed at $50,000) and contribute to the City’s emerging car-share network by accommodating a carshare vehicle for a minimum of two years starting from the first occupancy (indirect community benefit assessed at $50,000), or equivalent, to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation; and (v) “provision of public areas, crosswalks, and walkways, and connections to external walkways/trail systems.”

• The Developer agrees to provide a direct community benefit of a $50,000 contribution towards the future expansion of Civic Square, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Capital Works; and

• The Developer agrees to provide public access by way of an easement to be registered on title for lands located at the northeast corner of Brant Street and James Streets, the minimum dimensions of which are in the form of a triangle measured at 16m by 16m (128m2)(an indirect community benefit assessed at
$75,000), to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Capital Works; and (vi) “provision of public parking.”

All of this is acceptable to me, although I fail to see how this is not part of the negotiated agreement for the added height and density permitted.

As well, I am not sure about the adequacy of the amounts provided, and I see no transparent explanation of how any of these terms were rationalized and arrived at. I would like to see this rationalization.

421 James street rendering

The structure will dwarf city hall.

4. Regarding, • The Developer agrees to provide eight (8) visitor parking spaces (indirect community benefit accessed at $400,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation;

This is an unacceptable sweetening of an already sweet deal for the developer. I can’t imagine how a negotiation for 23 stories in an 8 to 12 story existing permission (which is also in doubt of validity) can justify no or inadequate provision for visitor parking. And even more so, when parking was a top public concern expressed in the review process.

In my view, this is unjustified to provide this as a benefit to the public when it is really the developer that is benefiting.

5. Regarding, (ix) “protection or enhancement of significant views” • The Developer agrees, and it is enshrined within the amending zoning by-law, that increased building setbacks, including widened sidewalks on Brant Street, James Street, and John Street, and view corridors on Brant Street and Page 5 of Report PB-33-18 – James Street to City Hall and the Cenotaph (indirect community benefit accessed at $250,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building; and (x) “provision of affordable housing, beyond the basic Provincial requirements;”  • See (i) above. (xi) “provision of public art”

• The Developer agrees to provide a direct community benefit of $150,000 towards the public art reserve fund to be used within the publicly accessibly privately owned easement area referred to in subsection (v) and/or in the future Civic Square expansion area, to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building; and (xii) “provision of green technology and sustainable architecture”

The Developer agrees to implement green technology and sustainable architecture elements into the subject property in accordance with either LEED certification standards and/or compliance with the City’s Sustainable Building and Development guidelines (indirect community benefit accessed at $300,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building; and (xiii) “provision of streetscape improvements in accordance with Council approved design guidelines”

• The Developer agrees to implement City of Burlington Streetscape Guidelines Standards within the Brant Street, James Street, and John Street public realm areas, including the expanded building setback areas at-grade and the publicly accessible open space easement area outlined in (v) above (an indirect community benefit accessed at $150,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building.

Before enacting the amending zoning by-law, the applicant will be required to execute an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building and the City Solicitor, and that such agreement be registered on title to the lands in a manner satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to secure said benefits.

The provisions for community benefits are also included in the zoning by-law.

These features are all acceptable to me, but I have no basis to see on how these were negotiated and agreed to. I also have no rationalization on the values of these, and/or the adequacy of them.

I also have no rationalization of why these features are considered for Section 37, and not a proper included part of the negotiated and Council approved development for the project.

6. Overall, my view is this, and I ask the planners and group that determined these Section 37 “Benefits” for the additional information describing how the “Benefits” are calculated, with transparency.

The fact is it’s cashing in on the City ability to create money with the OP and Zoning permissions.The Benefits should not all go to the developers. – there needs to be a fair share.

Don’t ever think only central banks can create money out of nothing but air (height and density rights written on paper).

This is a powerful wealth creation tool that most people don’t think about really until times like now when the overall “air parcel” bits and pieces, sprinkled all over the place, that is driving the money value, gets too big not to notice.

Just imagine – creating 26 floors of nominal residential space, by converting zero floors of empty space (one can imagine converting 2 or 4 floors) of commercial/retail space with half the unit value, is a mighty injection of wealth created out of practically or comparatively nothing.

The per unit land values, and associated rents, of course inflate in some multiple of proportion of the expected gross return of the build.

I think that the the city planners and someone who works for the City who is in in charge of keeping track of these values for City purposes, can do this, and should be directed to do by Council or the managers. it’s additional information that is needed for financially prudent financial decision-making by Council.

And of course, you have to add in all the negative costs and crap and inflation and lost existing business income that goes along with this set of tear-downs, that gets dumped on residents and businessmen, for them to bear.

So, the city ought to cash in on what it creates, since they control it and it is the city ownership of, and responsibility for, the Plan. It needs a very close look.

If Section 37 benefits are to be calculated, then these are the land value gains, and residents costs, that should determine what these are. I would suggest that the gains as described above be shared 50/50. Those referred to above can provide estimates of these values.

And this is another reason why the city must not give away all the heights to developers “by right”, where there are no Section 37 benefits allowed.

We now know where one citizen stands.

Muir with pen in handTom Muir is a retired federal civil servant who lives in Aldershot and delegates before city council frequently.

Related news stories:

Public involvement in determining Section 37 benefits.

Muir on the city manager’s approach to negotiating.


Return to the Front page

Planner explains provincial policy - doesn't mean we are going to like it. James and Martha is another example.

News 100 blueBy Staff

April 5th, 2018



The announcement of an 18 storey structure at the intersection of James and Martha is one more addition to the very significant changes that are taking place in the city.

At a recent community meeting – a number of questions were asked – the answers were insightful – even if they are not what people want to hear.

Bruce K glance The Issue #2

Burlington’s former Director of Planning Bruce Krushelnicki

Burlington’s former Director of Planning Bruce Krushelnicki was on Cogeco’s TV with moderator Mark Carr who asked Krushelnicki just how and why all this intensification is taking place. Krushelnicki, who was always very good at explaining just what planning issues are all about, gave interesting answers. His comments are short – 4 minutes; well worth listening to.

Watch the video CLICK HERE

The following comes to you via information originally published by ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward

1. How is the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), different from the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT)?

A key difference is that the OMB bases decisions on what is good planning whereas the LPAT is more restrictive—they will ask if the development is conforming to provincial and regional plans.

2082-2090-James-at Martha Perspective

Proposal is for an 18 storey building with 153 units.

2. What is happening to the creek?

Realignment of the channel is proposed. Some vegetation will be cut out to create better flow condition. A flood analysis has been done, and flood elevation will be reduced.

3. Will pumping be required for the underground parking?

There will be pumping required.

4. Are you putting cement in creek?

A retaining wall will be right at the creek.

5. What is the design factor for the flood plain?

The City’s Capital Works department will be looking at both regional and 100-year policies. Site engineering staff will be looking at technical studies to ensure there are no adverse impacts to the creek.

Transit - unhappy customer

An unhappy transit customer talking to the Mayor and Director of Transportation at a Bfast Forum.

6. Many residents expressed concern that traffic will be worse in the local neighbourhood.

City staff stated that they will ensure that traffic is within acceptable levels by conducting traffic forecasts and redistributing traffic. Staff will look at existing traffic patterns.

The forthcoming Transportation Plan has an emphasis on moving people, not cars… Staff are not expecting that every trip is going to be made by car and believe that people travel at different times during the day.

7. What magnitude of change are we going to see in traffic volumes? Will neighbouring developments be considered in forecast?

Anticipating 40 trips in a peak hour. Staff will be layering every development within proximity.

8. Why are we amending official plan, without transportation plan?

9. Multiple residents are concerned that this development is the beginning of many more like it, and we do not have the infrastructure and roads to support the volume.

Staff will not be widening roads, instead they are looking into transit, and moving people in a sustainable way. Staff are in early stages of reviewing transportation and traffic.

10. Who is going to pay for the sewage and transportation upgrades that will be required due to the increased usage that the development will bring?

Halton Region will determine if there is capacity for our sewage system. The developer pays upfront, and in long-term residents pay through taxes.

11. Would Mattamy have been interested in the site if they could have only gone to 11-storeys?

No, due to the cost to develop site.

12. By the time we get to the site plan phase, the applicant will have already been granted high density.

13. What allowances have you made for visitor parking?

31 parking spaces will be provided on first level.

14. We all chose to live here because it’s not downtown Toronto (congestion). How will you ensure pedestrian safety?

Applicant hasn’t gotten to that stage yet.

15. What is the estimated build time? What street will you be using for staging?

2 years for construction…. doesn’t have answers for staging area yet.

16. Is there going to be a drop off area at the entrance of the building? Resident recommends roundabout at corner of Martha and James.

There will potentially be 2 or 3 spaces at the front of the building for drop-offs.

17. Can City ask applicant to also put together an 11-storey application to compare to the current application in real time?

Would be expensive for developer.

18. Can the developer explain how the development fits with the character of the neighbourhood of 1 to 3-storey buildings?

Downtown is a mobility hub and what you see today is not what you’re going to see in the future. The character is shifting and downtown is going to change.

19. What is price point of units? Will there be affordable housing?

Mattamy doesn’t have answers at this point…application is in early stages.

There were a lot of ‘pig in a poke’ answers given at that meeting.  Exactly what does: “Staff are looking into transit, and moving people in a sustainable way.”, mean?   You may not want to know.


Survey will close April 6th. Takes two minutes to complete.

When you hear what Krushelnicki had to say on Cogeco TY (link to that conversation is above) you will begin to understand why Burlington is going through the changes ahead of the city.

Return to the Front page

Is a 'clerical' error going to turn a small downtown parking lot into a Mobility Hub?

opinionandcommentBy Pepper Parr

April 3rd, 2018



Transit is an issue that Burlington city council has difficulty with. It wasn’t always that way. Doug Brown, the best informed Burlington citizen when it comes to transit, will tell you of the time that bus service to the one GO station Burlington had was free. It was something city hall bragged about. It was so popular that the city eventually put a price on the service and that changed the usage.

Doug Brown, chair of Bfast, wants to see a bus schedule with routes that work for people and not the current bus route set up in place. It doesn't work claims Brown.

Doug Brown, one of the Bfast founders is getting ready for the 4th Annual Transit Forum.

If you get Doug going on transit, and that isn’t very hard to do, he will tell you of the days when the city’s transit service was something to be proud of.

Gary Scobie is another Burlington resident who, not unlike Doug Brown, does his homework and asks questions and digs away until he gets answers,

Scobie delegated to city Council in March to talk about transit the plans to turn a very small parking lot between Brant and John Street that has a small transit terminal siting at the edge of the lot that has been under a construction upgrade doe a number of months.

The parking lot will have fewer spaces than it had previously and it will be one of the links in what the city will come to know as the Elgin promenade that will cut right across the city and allow people to walk or ride a bike on a safe path that will be illuminated and have plenty of places where you can sit and just relax.

That promenade and transit use and the mobility hubs the city is working on as the place in the city where development is expected to take place all come together.

The city Council meeting last March was the occasion where Scobie set out to explain to the city that a mistake had been made by the province and that the city was making a decision based on the mistake. He wanted city Council to see the error.

Scobie said:

I live in Ward 3 and my Burlington includes the downtown.

I did some further research on the Downtown Mobility Hub and found out this mobility hub is based on a clerical error. Well, I may be exaggerating a bit. If you check out the screen image of the Metrolinx December 2015 Profile, note that the second paragraph begins “Downtown Burlington is identified as an Anchor Hub in the GTHA and includes the Burlington GO Station on the Lakeshore West Line.

Gary Scobie

Gary Scobie

That last phrase confused and disturbed me. How could one Mobility Hub (a junior partner Anchor Hub) include another Mobility Hub (the Burlington GO Station) that is over 2 kilometres away?

Their 800 metre catchment areas don’t even touch. I could find no other pair of Metrolinx Mobility Hubs that are close to each other in municipalities outside Toronto (ie. Hamilton, Newmarket and Mississauga) that claimed one Mobility Hub included the other one of the pair.

I contacted Metrolinx and asked “Is this a mistake?” My contact felt it must be and someone must have accidentally done a cut-and-paste error and inserted it by mistake over two years ago. Funny, no one caught it until I mentioned it. Was it a mistake, or done with some purpose in mind? The phrase did not appear in the 2012 version of the Profile.

It took about three weeks for a full Metrolinx investigation to report back to me that yes indeed it was a mistake, but that it shouldn’t change the Mobility Hub’s legitimacy.

I beg to differ – our Downtown Mobility Hub does not have Rapid transit and barely integrates with Regional Express Rail. The Bus Kiosk on John Street can barely hold 20 people, let alone an actual bus. Attaching the GO Station to it might have given it, in some eyes, the only chance at legitimacy it could ever have.

A week ago, I requested that Metrolinx do three things:

1. Notify the City that no, the Downtown Anchor Mobility Hub does not include the GO Station,

2. Remove the offending text from the 2015 Profile and

3. Make sure it doesn’t reappear in the 2018 version coming out soon.

No response yet, but I understand these things take time. I’ll wait patiently.

Site rendering

This site rendering of the upgrade being done to the downtown parking lot between Brant and John Streets tells a lot more than you might expect. Running through the middle is part of the Elgin promenade pathway – one of the smarter things the city has done

I am still waiting in anticipation to see the coming transit plan that will have to show a dedicated light rail transit line going up John Street and then bulldozed through residential neighbourhoods to the GO Station, or else the subway that will take the same route underground. Nothing short of this will legitimize the Downtown Mobility Hub.

The Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations that Council accepted in 2006 are now leading to uncontrollable intensification and height in the downtown. They contain no height limits. The OMB acceptance of the 26 storey condo at 374 Martha Street has set a precedent that will only be used again and again by developers to gain further height along Lakeshore Road and up Brant and adjacent streets.

Council’s enthusiastic acceptance of a 23 storey condo across from our City Hall, beyond its own planned height, leaves us embarrassingly with little chance of appeal of the OMB decision.

The developers’ lawyers know this and so should we. We have no case under these current designations.

downtown mobility hub

Is it a parking lot that has been given an upgrade or is it an anchor that is part of a Mobility Hub?

Our only option now to exert any future control of height and density downtown is to ask the Province to remove these designations from the downtown and place them at the three GO Stations, living up to our commitment for 2031 and coming 2041 growth targets.

Last time I made this request, I was met with stony silence. One of you on Council must bring back Councillor Meed Ward’s motion to save our downtown, not from gentle change, but from this massive change that is coming.


The readership survey will close April 6th

The practice at city Council is for a delegator to stay at the podium to answer questions that any Councillor might have. Scobie has done this before and in the past he has given the members of Council a good run for their money.

There were questions – one from Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward and two from Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison.  Scobie added in a comment he made several days after his delegation that his “new information was not what the broad Council wanted to hear.  They embrace the over-intensification of the downtown instead of questioning it.  They don’t want to hear of getting us out from under the Province’s mandate.  It remains their best and only excuse.”

Gary Scobie and Doug Brown are long time residents of Burlington who have been tireless advocates for sensible growth and a city council that hears what the voters have to say.

Return to the Front page

Take identification if you want to read the one copy of the latest draft Official Plan at the Library.

News 100 redBy Staff

March 29th, 2018


This is funny – were it not so sad.

A regular Gazette reader got a notice from city hall advising her that a revised draft Official Plan was now available – and that copies were available at the library.

Official-Plan-Binder_ImageOur citizen skipped along to the library to review a copy.

We will let her tell you what happened when she go to the library:

Yesterday I received an email from the City telling me that the Revised New Official Plan was available for residents to see. I understood this to be that I could get a copy of the revisions, at any City Library, City Hall, etc.

Today when I as at Burlington Central Library, I was told that there was one (1) copy that I could look at and I would have to provide I.D. Why would anyone need to provide identification to look at this document? Are printed copies available?

Now that is citizen engagement!

There was a time when city hall at least talked about citizen engagement.  They created a xxx

In 2010 the then Mayor, Cam Jackson set up a task force to report on how well city hall was engaging with its citizens. The report, Shape Burlington, was written by the late John Boich and former Mayor Walter Mulkewich; – read the report for that full story.

Relevant background links:

A Charter Action Team was created to put the Community Engagement Plan into action.

Shape Burlington

Return to the Front page

ADI settles with the city at the OMB on their Alton Village development.

News 100 yellowBy Staff

March 28th, 2018



A settlement agreement has been approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for the development proposal at 4853 Thomas Alton Blvd.

In December 2016, city staff recommended approval of an Official Plan and Zoning ByLaw Amendment to permit a residential development by Adi Development Group at 4853 Thomas Alton Blvd. City Council refused the application which resulted in an appeal to the OMB.

During the OMB process, city staff sought and received direction from Burlington City Council to enter into settlement discussions with Adi Development Group.


Decent changes made to the Alton Village development – will it make all that much difference to the look and feel of the community?

City staff worked within the settlement parameters approved by Council and subsequently reached an agreement that would:

• Reduce the height of the two towers from 19 storeys to 17 storeys;
• Reduce the total number of units from 612 to 601, thereby reducing the density of the site;
• Replace two rows of stacked townhouse blocks with two mid-rise, six storey apartment blocks, resulting in a reduced building footprint on the site;
• Increase the size of the publicly accessible park on the site from 2,064 square metres to 2,481 square metres;
• Keep the 21 standard townhouse units on the west side of the site adjacent to existing townhouse development.

The agreement also included Section 37 benefits consisting of $60,000 for improvements to Doug Wright Park and public access over the park on the site by way of an easement registered on the title to the property.

Burlington wasn’t as fortunate with the ADI development at Lakeshore and Martha where 26 storeys were approved by the OMB. The city is seeking a review of that decision.

Sation west - shovels in

Shovel are in the ground.

The ADI West Station development has shovels in the ground.

Lynx wes side

The eastern part of a large development is partially occupied. Adi is currently the most active residential developer in the city.

Their Lynx development on Dundas next to Bronte Creek has residents in some of the units.


Return to the Front page

Aldershot residents get an early look at plans for the Solid Gold site

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

March 21, 2018



Whenever there is anything to do with the Solid Gold adult entertainment operation in Aldershot there will be an audience.

Things were not any different last night when Darko Vranich and his team were on hand to speak to and support their application for changes to the current Official Plan, and a change to the current zoning on the site to permit the construction of two apartment buildings that with a total of 450 units.

Solid G from south west corner Plains

View from the south west corner of the site

Residents packed the East Plains Road United Church where planners from Bousfield, a Planning consultancy and the project architect explained what the project was about and why it should be approved.

Most in the audience didn’t share their views.

The only thing there was agreement on was that the adult entertainment operation had to go. Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven isn’t particularly proud of one of the busier commercial establishments in the ward – an opportunity to put something else on the 3 acre site is something he might welcome.

The residents weren’t all that keen on what was put in front of them.

Solid G Plans and Cooke Rd

The view is from the intersection of Cooke Avenue and Plains Road

The Planning department took the audience through the process:

A public neighbourhood meeting.
A Statutory public meeting at city hall
Staff analyses the application
A report to city council Planning and Development Committee (P&D) that either recommends, does not recommend or asks for modifications.
The P&D committee meeting recommendations go to city council where a decision is made to approve or not approve the requested changes in the Official Plan and zoning changes.

The rules call for 874 parking spaces – Vrancor, the developer proposed 581 which led one resident to tell the audience that there would be parking wars without more parking space.

There were a number of concerns expressed by the residents – parking spaces, height and massing: the ground floor of the two buildings, which will be commercial space, would be set back just six feet from the sidewalk – that isn’t likely to get past the city planners.

There was no park space in the proposal.

The development is at the corner of Plains Road and Cooke Street. The 12 storey apartment building will run along Cooke; the ten storey will run along Plains Road.

58% of the units will be two bedroom units, 40% will be 1 bedroom.

Darko Vranich and his team

Darko Vranich on the left with his team.

Besides wanting to get rid of the Solid Gold operation what the people of the west end of Aldershot want most is a supermarket.  If Darko Vranich could deliver on a supermarket in the building the residents might let him have a 15 storey building.

One resident asked the Vrancor people what the benefit to the community was for approving the development would be. The answer was: “You would be getting rid of Solid Gold”

Judy Worsley, Executive Director – Aldershot Village BIA told the audience that a supermarket is probably not in the cards. She explained that Loblaws has announced that it is closing 22 stores in Ontario and that the future model is going to be one where people order grocery items on line and pick their order at a GO station kiosk.

Vranich told the Gazette that he has talked to every supermarket operator that will take his call to see if he could convince them to locate in the development – no takers so far. “If you know of anyone who might be interested, have them call me please” said Vranich.

Related new story:

The new model for grocery shopping.


Return to the Front page

Date for council to receive Official Plan recommendation report moved back 20 days to allow for new maps to be included

News 100 blueBy Staff

March 13th, 2018



The April 4th meeting of the Planning and Development Committee that was to accept a report recommending adoption of Burlington’s proposed new Official Plan has been moved to April 24 at 1:30 and 6:30 p.m. and, if required, Wednesday, April 25 at 9:30 a.m. at City Hall in Council Chambers.

Official-Plan-Binder_ImageThe meeting date for the recommendation report has been moved to allow for new provincial maps to be added to Burlington’s proposed new Official Plan. The updated natural heritage and agricultural systems mapping was released by The Province of Ontario on Feb. 9, 2018 as part of its Places to Grow program.

The Official Plan (April 2018) that is recommended for adoption will be released the week of March 26th.

As a result of further discussions with the Province and the Region of Halton a number of refinements to policies and mapping have been required to clearly demonstrate conformity with senior plans. Two main areas are highlighted below.

The Province of Ontario recently released new mapping that relates to the Natural Heritage System and Agricultural System in Burlington. As a result, the City is now adding maps to its proposed new Official Plan to incorporate this new provincial mapping.


On July 1, 2017, the Province of Ontario approved a revised Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), which outlines policies for planning and managing growth in the GGH to the year 2041, and which includes the City of Burlington.

The revised Growth Plan policies recognize the importance of both a Natural Heritage System and an Agricultural System to the GGH. The protection of these resources is vitally important to the Plan’s long term vision for the GGH.

The revised Plan states that the Province will map a Natural Heritage System for the GGH to support a comprehensive, integrated, and long-term approach to planning for the protection of the GGH’s natural heritage and biodiversity. Municipalities are required to incorporate the Natural Heritage System as an overlay in their Official Plans, and apply appropriate policies to maintain, restore, or enhance the diversity and connectivity of the system and the long-term ecological or hydrologic functions of these features and areas.

The revised Plan also states that the Province will identify an Agricultural System for the GGH. Prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, are to be designated in official plans in accordance with mapping identified by the Province and these areas must be protected for long-term use for agriculture in municipal Official Plans.

On Feb. 9, 2018, the Province announced the release of the final mapping for both the Natural Heritage System and the Agricultural System for the GGH to support the Growth Plan. It is now in full force and effect, as of the date of its release. It therefore applies in the consideration of all planning matters, including development applications, within municipalities in the GGH, including the City of Burlington.

Ag land base map cropped

Provincial agriculture land base map released February 9th, 2018

(The resolution of the maps available is very low.  The Gazette will work at getting higher resolution and a subset map for just the Region of Halton and then Burlington,)

The City of Burlington will now be incorporating the Provincial Natural Heritage System and Agricultural System mapping as released by the Province into the mapping of its proposed new Official Plan, in order to conform to the Provincial Growth Plan.

In implementing the Natural Heritage System and Agricultural System, the Province permits municipalities to refine provincial mapping with greater precision in a manner that is consistent with the Growth Plan.

However, this is only permitted as part of a “municipal comprehensive review,” which is a new official plan or an official plan amendment initiated by the upper-tier or single-tier municipality, in this case Halton Region, that comprehensively applies the policies and Schedules of the Growth Plan.

The refinement of the Natural Heritage System and Agricultural System mapping will be undertaken on a Regional basis as part of the Region of Halton’s next Regional Official Plan Review. The City cannot make refinements to the mapping in the Burlington Official Plan until the Region completes its municipal comprehensive review through its Official Plan Review process.

Return to the Front page

City wants the OMB decision on the ADI Lakeshore and Martha development to be reviewed.

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

March 12th, 2018



How does that line go? It ain’t over until the fat lady sings; there is considerable debate as to who actually coined the phrase.

The Ontario Municipal Board decision to allow the construction of the 26 storey tower at Martha and Lakeshore has moved into another round of legal arguments – the City has asked the Executive Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to review the decision using what is called a Section 43 review request.

Bruce Krushelnicki

Center – Bruce Krushelnicki former Director of Planning for Burlington.

The Executive Chair of the OMB is Bruce Krushelnicki, who is the former Director of Planning for the city of Burlington. The failure of the city to file a response to the development application back in 2015 took place while Krushelnicki was the Planning Director

The OMB released a decision on February 13 regarding these development applications that allows 26 storeys.


Will the Nautique ever get built?

Under Section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Act, a review may be requested so the Board may “rehear any application before deciding it or may review, rescind, change, alter or vary any decision, approval or order made by it.”

Among the reasons cited by the city for requesting a review of the decision are:

• The Board failed to properly consider the planning hierarchy set up in the Urban Growth Centre by City Council when the Board approved the height and density at 374 and 380 Martha St.

• The Board did not consider that the city’s Official Plan allocated height and density at different levels with the Urban Growth Centre, with the greatest growth directed to the Wellington Square and Old Lakeshore Road areas. As a result, the tallest building in the city, 26 storeys, is on a site designated for significantly lower levels of height and density.

The city is asking the Executive Chair to grant the city’s review request and to dismiss the appeals related to 374 and 380 Martha St.

If that does not happen, the city requests an order directing a rehearing of the appeals or changes to the Board decision to reduce the height and density allowed on the site.

It is certainly not over.

The Gazette will review the letter (it is eight pages long) that was sent to Krushelnicki and het back to you on the details.

Return to the Front page

If you can't change the culture and you can’t change the behaviour then the only real option is to change the players. City manager and the Mayor are the lead players.

opinionandcommentBy Stephen White

March 8, 2018



Admittedly I’m not a big fan of the City Manager’s style, but James Ridge isn’t the only problem or the biggest one.

Continuity and consistency is the hallmark of a good organization. If the City of Burlington were a publicly corporation, and that corporation had gone through four CEO’s in six years, someone on the Board of Directors would be asking the inevitable question: why?


City manager Jeff Fielding: About to put his stamp on the way the city has to be run.

Jeff Fielding got an offer he couldn’t refuse – Calgary; the city with one of the smartest Mayor’s in the country.

Roman Martiukformer Burlington City Manager, was often described as someone who thought he was the smartest man in the room - quite often he was and many people couldn't deal with that.

Roman Martiuk a former Burlington City Manager was given a one way ticket out of town.

Patrick Moyle

Pat Moyle came to town to do a job, got it done and went south – it was getting cold.

Turnover is usually indicative of a much broader problem. That, in itself, presupposes an investigation, and truthfully, that is best conducted by a neutral third party who, ideally, would probe for reasons, issues, concerns as well as solutions.

Based on what I have seen a big part of the problem at City Hall comes down to a lack of alignment, a lack of genuine engagement, and a dysfunctional corporate culture. You have a Mayor and a City Manager who, frankly, have a vision that does not strongly resonate with many citizens. Public trust is seriously lacking.

You have a Council with a very broad array of personalities and personal agendas, many of whom have been on Council way too long, are seriously disconnected from mainstream opinion, and often appear to be mouthpieces for special interest groups.

You have a Planning Department spearheading a major initiative that, to put it kindly, has gone seriously awry.

Grow bold - front doorFinally, you have an electorate that is growing increasingly militant and is uncomfortable with not just the vision ( OP, intensification, Mobility Hubs) but with a perceived lack of receptivity and understanding from both elected and appointed officials.

This is not a good dynamic, and it does not bode favourably for those at City Hall. If you can’t change the culture and you can’t change the behaviour then the only real option is to change the players. Since the Mayor and the City Manager set the tone for the organization that’s usually the place to start.

Stephen White is a Human Resources specialist with experience in the finance sector – banking and the civil service – provincial. He is a resident of Burlington.



Return to the Front page

ECoB holding an Information Rally Saturday afternoon 1-4 pm in Civic Square

News 100 yellowBy Staff

March 8th, 2018.



Those engaging people at ECoB are holding an information rally on Saturday, March 10th, to remind people of several meetings they feel are critical.

City Meeting March 19, 6:30pm – City Hall
Council Meeting on the Official Plan. They are hoping people will pack the Council chamber, delegate, and support neighbours who are opposed to the draft plan.

April 3rd at both 1pm and 6:30pm there will be a Committee of the Whole that will be the last time the public can address Council before a final vote is taken on the Official Plan.

April 4th; 6:30 pm City Council meeting at which the final version of the Official Plan is to be “approved” and sent along to the Regional government.

ECoB lawn signs will be available at the Saturday rally.

ECoB apparently has some “public” art that will be on display showing a model of what they think the downtown core could look like.

In their media release ECoB said

“City Council plans to vote a proposed draft Official Plan into law on April 4 2018, to govern our City Growth to 2041.  They don’t have answers to these vital questions:

Question: Can’t we just say “no” to growth in Burlington?

We all know a healthy city grows, ECoB is not saying NO to growth, we are saying YES to balanced growth. We understand the need for development to accommodate increased population. We want the right type of development, by ensuring the supporting plans for the mobility hub and precinct definitions are in place first.

Question: What are we gaining in a rush for intensification and what tools are available to keep it under control?

We are told by the Mayor that “A new Official Plan means we can move away from the site by site negotiations and instead, bring clear expectations to our planning. This is what residents have been telling us, delaying the Official Plan approval would only create more instances where unexpected outcomes can occur; similar to the reaction which led to 421 Brant Street (Council approved 23-storey building across from City Hall).” Mayors Blog February 8, 2018

This was not an unexpected outcome; the Mayor did not make a case urging any Councillors to support his reduced recommendation of 17 storeys – the draft Official Plan height. An approval for 23 storeys was passed giving residents less retail, less office space and for many a broken trust. The opposite corner and many sites downtown now have applications that start at heights which are 3-4x the current permissions. The Mayor believes it is important to complete the critical work of approving the draft Official Plan, we believe it is important to get it right.

Can we trust Staff and current Council to get the supporting plans right? We are told in the same blog that the supporting plans cannot come in step until the Official Plan is adopted – we are being asked to wait and trust that the concerns expressed will be in the Downtown Area Specific Plan which is a more detailed plan that will include matters such as transportation, transit, cycling, parking and servicing.

Question:  What is the Population Growth required in the Downtown Burlington core to meet intensification targets? 

The City of Burlington’s Strategic Plan 2015-2040 indicates: “The city will include growth targets and their related opportunities in its Official Plan. This will be complete by the end of 2018”.  There are no established minimum population growth targets for the Uptown or Downtown areas. More importantly, once development starts there is no maximum intensification target either; the sky is literally the limit for development. How will the dozens of applications for height and density far in excess of current permissions be handled if we don’t have any limits? It is not only tall buildings, but excessive density in every neighbourhood. What happens in the Urban Growth Area’s affects us all. We will simply not get affordability with this excessive density.

Question: Is Burlington using up all of its green space?

The City of Burlington’s Strategic Plan 2015-2040 indicates: “A City that Grows demonstrates density (intensification) done well. There are green design options, less sprawl, more affordable housing choices and improved public health in a vital, diverse and safe city.”

We agree with the importance of green space in all of our communities. Planned Green Space is more essential in the designated Urban Growth Centre, where people live in tall buildings. Green space should NOT be traded with developers to gain increased height. Greenspace is not a parking lot or cement view corridor.

ECoB is working with developers and has asked City Staff to collaborate with the Province to not freeze the land from any development and to explore re-designation of some of these lands to balance residential/employment use. This could help create communities within our community and take some of the pressure off over intensification in the downtown.”

ECoB new Burlington

The ECoB flyer promoting the Saturday Information Rally.

Return to the Front page

''I will tell you an interesting story'' wrote a reader.

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

March 7th, 2018



Got another note from another Gazette reader.

“I will tell you an interesting story” he said. “I was on my way into a conference yesterday in the Big Smoke. Went in by GO Train with a colleague who also lives in Burlington. We got into a discussion about the municipal election. This person isn’t particularly political, but what surprised me was how incredibly knowledgeable she was on the election, how well-versed she was about downtown redevelopment, and how passionate she felt about what was happening to the downtown.

City Clock angle looking north on Brant

The Burlington that people like – at least that is what the Gazette is hearing.

“As we travelled between Mimico and the CNE Station we were both aghast at the proliferation of high rises condos. All had the same look, feel and style as what is proposed for downtown Burlington. What stood out for both of us was when we saw a mid-sized building and how unique these seemed. They also seemed to fit into the character of the neighbourhood much better.

Brant lakeshore - Molinaro rendering a

A development idea for the south end of Brant at Lakeshore. Those two towers on the left would be opposite city hall.

“Coming home I picked up my car at a GO station and drove past Speers and Kerr Street area on Oakville. I grew up about a mile away from this location. The new condos across from the mall south of the railway tracks look overwhelming. I was astounded by how they dwarfed everything around them. Then I looked at the lower level of the complex. Two proposed businesses are both hairdressing salons…in the same complex no less. Bizarre. Didn’t see a grocery store, or a mom and pop store, anywhere.”

Our reader didn’t seem too happy with what was being developed. Change is never easy to accept.

Return to the Front page

The end is in sight for Solid Gold - owner wants to go legit and turn it into apartments for families.

News 100 blueBy Staff

March 7th, 2018


Solid Gold imageWhere will the boys go if the Solid Gold adult entertainment establishment gets torn down?

The owners of the Burlington strip club have filed a development application to construct two new rental apartment buildings.

The developer, 71 Burlington Plains Inc., wants to demolish Solid Gold which spans 53 and 71 Plains Rd. E. and 1025 Cooke Blvd., and replace it with two mixed-use buildings at 10 and 12 storeys with a combined 1,208 square metres of retail and service commercial space at grade level and 450 residential units.

Solid Gold replacement

Rendering of what a developer wants to build on the site of the Solid Gold adult entertainment club.

The proposal will have 581 parking spaces (91 at surface, 461 underground and 29 lay-by) Accesses will be from Cooke Boulevard and Clearview Avenue.

Ward 1 Councillor Rock Craven has wanted to get the club out of Aldershot – the price he might have to pay is accepting one ten and one twelve storey structure.

Craven is reported to have said that “While some may be pleased with the redevelopment plan, the heights of the buildings are causing some concern”.

Solid Gold apartments

Arial rendering of the site for an apartment development project in western Aldershot

Building heights on Plains Road are generally restricted to six storeys, but city planners see this as a part of Aldershot that could handle some intensification – the Aldershot GO station will be within walking distance.

A neighbourhood public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 20 at the East Plains United Church, 375 Plains Rd. E. 7:00 pm.

People in Aldershot are not shy about telling the planners and the Council member what they think and feel about development. The set back from the street might become a major factor – and where is the playground going to be?

City staff is also looking for public feedback on the application before a recommendation is made to the planning and development committee of council. Written comments can be mailed or emailed to senior planner of development review Lola Emberson at

The submission deadline is April 6.

Return to the Front page

Gazette readers point to at least one error in the draft Official Plan - that's what happens when you rush.

News 100 redBy Staff

March 7TH, 2018


This news story has been revised due to an error in an earlier version. That error has been corrected. 

A Gazette reader sent the following comment:

Official-Plan-Binder_Image“I’ve been advised and have confirmed that clause 8.3.3.(1)b) is actually a hold over from the 2006 Official Plan. It is inconsistent with the provisions noted by Mr. Skinner and provides a backdoor to intensification in areas in which intensification is expressly discouraged. As such, I believe that it should be eliminated and that it highlights the dangers of a rush to approval.”

Here is what Section says.

“Notwithstanding Subsection 8.3.3(1) a) of this Plan, other forms of attached, ground-oriented dwellings may be permitted on lands designated Residential – Low Density, provided that these forms meet the density as specified in Subsection 8.3.3(1) c) of this Plan, and provided that the development form is compatible with the surrounding area and respectful of the physical character of the neighbourhood, including the provision of a functional common amenity area at grade.”

Our reader adds:  “As such, it contradicts at least four (4) other clauses of the proposed new OP, as identified by Jeremy Skinner in his comments to Marianne Meed Ward’s response, that specifically discourage intensification/development in low density residential neighbourhoods.  In other words, clause 8.3.3.(1)b) seems to provide a qualified backdoor to intensification in areas that are not intended to be intensified.  I believe that this is a product of careless drafting (less haste, more speed) where a holdover clause from the 2006 Official Plan has unintended impacts and is inconsistent with the overall intent of the new plan.  If clause 8.3.3.(1)b), as drafted, is an intentional inclusion then I believe that the new plan is not internally consistent and is providing an “open door” to development across all areas of the City.”

Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward adds:   The clause states in part “other forms of attached ground-oriented dwellings may be permitted” provided the overall density is less than 25 units per net hectare. This allows townhouses and apartment walkups in single family neighbourhoods. During questions at committee about it, staff advised this was a change to the existing OP. Upon further review, however, this clause is in the existing OP. However, with the increased pressure for intensification coupled with land assembly, we will see more of these types of applications (eg. The Blue Water/Avondale application which staff, the community and council rejected and is the subject of an OMB hearing in May). The clause also isn’t in keeping with the spirit of the new OP which directs growth away from established neighbourhoods. I believe we need to take this out of the proposed Plan, or every neighbourhood in the city could fundamentally change due to the pressures of growth.

Meed Ward has said she is going to ask that the section be struck from the draft Official Plan.  Hopefully she will ask how the section got past the vetting that usually gets done in the Planning department.

Our reader is quite right – let us take the time to make sure we get it right.

The Gazette doubts that never before in the history of this city have so many citizens actually read the Official Plan.

Return to the Front page

What the downtown core might look like in five years.

News 100 yellowBy Pepper Parr

March 7th, 2018



A number of citizens who delegated on the draft Official Plan wanted to know what their city was going to look like if the Plan was approved.

They asked if the city could prepare a digital three dimensional rendering of the city showing each development.

Great idea – but that isn’t something the city can do.

The city has a digital representation of the city – the problem is that it is far from complete.

They bought what they have a couple of years ago. In order to create a digital image you have to have data – some of that data does not belong to the city.

The rights to the data of a piece of property belong to the person who owns the property.

When the property owner approaches the city with a development application they have to include a digital profile.

The city can then plug that digital profile into what the city already has.

City manager James Ridge is quite right – he doesn’t have what the public wants.  We are told by people that use this kind of software that there are work arounds that can be put in place but Ridge does not want to do that – he doesn’t have the budget and his staff is stretched to the limit.

He did say at committee that he would try and do something but nothing was going to happen in 2018 and if it was in 2019 it would be late in the year.

But there are plucky citizens in this city. Watch how some of them make the point that there is a way to give people an idea of what their city might look like in five, ten or fifteen years into the future.

Citizens can get a sense of what we have now; click on the double headed arrow on the lower right and get a 360 degree view of city hall and the buildings across the street from city hall.

Now imagine what that same space will look like when you add what has been approved and what is in the mind of a planner and you can come up with a bit of an idea as to what lower Brant Street will look like.

421 James street rendering

Now add in what is planned for the south side of James Street. Rendering with Bake ShopAnd then add in the rendering of what is being thought about for the bottom of Brant Street. Brant lakeshore - Molinaro rendering a

Return to the Front page