By Pepper Parr
May 4th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
While it may be that the battle for saving the land that the Waterfront Hotel sits on the area that is known as the “football” is still very much at risk.
Nick Carnicelli put together plans for a structure that is nice enough from an architectural point of view – some just thought it was inappropriate for that space.
The site is at the eastern end of the football and would become the entrance to the downtown core – not something this council is prepared to do at this point.
 The city doesn’t feel design is appropriate for the location and they have not had a chance to prepare a staff report. Good arguments but will they be heard at the OLT
The Carnicelli development went to the Ontario Land Tribunal for lack of a decision from the city. At the time the Urban Growth centre was put under an Interim Control bylaw which put a halt to all development in the UGC.
Council went into a Closed Session this afternoon to discuss this and then came out and delivered not only the address of the property they were talking about but what some of the issues were.
After that some of the council members chose to clap themselves on the back for making the change in the way they report out on Closed sessions.
The big big issue on how this development is treated at the OLT is the impact it will have on the football.
 Ignore the subject site notation. The development in question is at the right hand side of that football shape – where Old Lakeshore Road and Lakeshore Road meet.
That land has not had the benefit of any really progressive thinking – the developers spotted the opportunity six years ago – bought up the land and came back with incredible developments. That use of the word incredible was not meant as a positive statement.
 This is a model of what the CORE Development Group wanted to build. There development is to the immediate west of the Carnicelli site – which is not shown in this model.
Meed Ward based her first campaign on saving the waterfront. She hasn’t done all that well with Spencer Smith Park and the Waterfront Hotel site – perhaps she will pivot to the football and set out to save that.
By Pepper Parr
April 18th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
It is a sticky situation.
The cost of a house has sky rocketed.
The inventory of houses for sale is low.
Two groups are currently looking into the housing problem.
And a Housing Working group that was brought into being due to the persistent efforts of ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte.
And she is about to get a public spanking on Tuesday for telling the public about some of the things being said in Closed sessions of Council about property that is being redeveloped by public agencies to benefit the public.
Go figure.
Having said that, the city planners are doing some solid work; gathering the information on which to base the strategy that is needed to find a way to provide housing for the thousands of people who are going to move to Burlington in the next two decades.
 Expect the work that City Council has approved on the housing file to become a major election issue. Will it get the Mayor re-elected? The people who will benefit have yet to move to the city.
There is the common ground established that housing is a basic human right, and there is a collective civic responsibility to ensure that the supply of housing available within a community can accommodate the varying needs of residents throughout their lifetime, including financial needs.
 Working Group on Housing, made up of both volunteers and people steeped in the business of housing has met virtually for a number of months.
Burlington has initiated a project to develop an Innovative Housing Strategy that sets out policies, tools, identifies partnerships, and actions to address residents’ current and future housing needs. The consulting team of Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) and SHS Consulting (SHS) were retained by the City to carry out this work, in partnership with the City’s Housing Strategy Project team, Housing Strategy Working Group, and Housing Strategy Steering Committee.
Housing: what can Burlington do and how do they go about doing it.
While there has been a lot of effort and emphasis on improving housing opportunities in the City, this Housing Strategy project provides an opportunity for a focused approach. The principal objective is to develop an innovative Housing Strategy for the City of Burlington that sets out policies, tools, and actions to address residents’ housing needs, identifies opportunities for partnerships, and redefines Burlington’s role in meeting local housing needs, now and in the future.
What is the biggest issue? Affordability or inventory?
There are many different ways of defining affordable housing. Definitions that exist in provincial laws, may differ from definitions used in federal housing programs. For many people, there is also a very personal definition of affordability based on their own income.
Affordable Housing
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) defines affordable housing as housing with a price for purchase or rent where households spend no more than 30 percent of their gross household income on housing.
In the case of ownership housing, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) defines affordable housing as, the least expensive of:
- Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross annual housing income for low and moderate income households; or
- Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area;
In the case of rental housing, the PPS defines affordable housing as, the least expensive of:
- A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 percent of grow annual housing income for low and moderate income households; or
- A unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area.
In Halton Region’s Official Plan, affordable housing is defined as:
“housing with a market price (or rent that is affordable to households of low and moderate income, spending no more than 30 percent of their gross income.
-
-
- a) Affordable rental housing should meet the demand of households at the low end, as described in Halton’s annual State of Housing Report, pursuant to Section 86(7). Such households would be able to afford at least three out of ten rental units on the market.
- b) Affordable ownership housing should meet the demand of households at the high end, as identified in Halton’s annual State of Housing Report. Such households would have sufficient income left, after housing expenses, to sustain the basic standard of living.”
Attainable Housing
While there is no universal definition of attainable housing, it is often used to refer to rental or ownership housing without any subsidies which is affordable to workforce households or households with moderate incomes. In the US, it is defined as non-subsidized, for-sale housing that is affordable to households with incomes between 80 and 120 percent of the area median income.
Using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), to bring the 2016 incomes to 2021 values, the estimated average household income in Burlington for 2021 is $159,083 and the estimated median household income is $124,154.
Based on research conducted as part of this report, findings indicate the following 2021 average ownership prices in Burlington:
 This development at 2100 Brant sold out before the sales office was opened.
Single-detached: $1,398,357
Semi-detached: $901,963
Townhouse: $894,997
Condominium townhouse: $575,299
Condominium apartments: $575,299
This means that, within the context of Burlington, ownership options are only affordable to households earning $164,016 or more on an annual basis, unless they had a down payment greater than 5% or spent more than 30% of their income on housing costs.
With respect to rental tenure, the research conducted as part of this report indicates the following average monthly rents in the primary rental market in Burlington9:
-
-
 Some of these units at the Burlington GO station will be rentals.
Bachelor: $1,229
- One bedroom: $1,577
- Two bedroom: $1,641
- Three+ bedroom: $1,658
This means that, within the context of Burlington, rental options within the primary rental market are only affordable to households earning $60,072 or more on an annual basis. This is further complicated by the low vacancy rates for rental housing in the City, which has remained below 3% since 2010.
Within the Burlington Context, where the cost of all tenures of housing is high, there are very few “affordable” housing options for households within low and moderate income deciles when applying the Federal and Provincial government’s definition of “affordable”.
Given the City’s stated objective for the Housing Strategy to provide a toolkit with options to address housing needs across the entire housing continuum, the strategy will need to provide tools to address both housing “affordability” and “attainability” throughout Burlington to best position itself as an inclusive and complete community that provides housing options for all.
When “affordable housing” is used within the context of this report it is meant to encapsulate the definition of affordable as set out in the Halton Region Official Plan and does not mean government- assisted housing or subsidized housing.
 These two developments; one at the Burlington GO station and the other in the east end are part of the inventory that will come on line at some point. The GO station development has most of the approvals it needs. What isn’t know – how much will the rents be?
Burlington’s role in housing.
Through the work completed to date, it was determined that the biggest impact the City of Burlington can make, as a lower-tier municipality, is to provide innovative solutions to address housing affordability and attainability for middle-income earners. Increasingly, middle-income households are struggling to find housing that is appropriate for their needs and income level in Burlington with the high cost of housing posing significant challenges for middle-income working households.
Providing support to these households insures that they can remain housed in Burlington.
It is in addressing the middle income needs where the City can make the biggest moves.
By Pepper Parr
April 16th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
While most of us enjoy the break from the day to day life we live, hoping that we are getting through the pandemic and that whatever the new normal is going to be that nice warm weather is included – there are civic issues that need close attention.
Earlier in the week the Integrity Commissioner released a report in which they stated that a city Councillor had breached the Council Code of Conduct and recommended that the Councillor be docked five days pay.
The report is lengthy. It sets out four items and decided that ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte had breached the Council Code of Conduct on two of them.
 Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith
 Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan
The Integrity Commissioner was responding to complaints filed by two other members of city council: Rory Nisan and Kelvin Galbraith.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward is not a party to the complaint but is believed to have been very active in getting the complaint to the Integrity Commissioner.
Councillor Stolte does not deny doing what she is accused of doing. She published a statement the day the contents of the Integrity report were released saying that if her being docked five days’ pay was the price it took to get the issue of Closed sessions of Council on the table and part of a robust public discussion then so be it.
A robust public discussion is exactly what the city needs – there is no certainty that any such thing will take place.
The Mayor said on Thursday that she had yet to read the report and would do so on the weekend; Councillor Sharman said he too had yet to read the document.
Take those two statements with more than a grain of salt.
Councillors Nisan and Galbraith have not made themselves available for comment.
Councillors Kearns and Bentivegna have not made any comment.
Those close to what happens at city hall have known for some time how fractured this council has become. When Meed Ward was elected in 2018 the population was for the most part filled with hope that development would be reined in and towering residential buildings would be located away from the downtown core.
 The Nautique condo development found a way to get around a transportation issue – shortly after shovels were in the ground and the crane was in place purchase agreements were pulled and higher prices put in place. It was the kind of development people feared would take place.
The developers wanted to build and sell condominiums close to the lake.
Five of the seven member council were new to municipal politics and have struggled to deal with the very significant issues.
Burlington is being forced by the provincial government to grow its population at a startling rate. The Burlington that many love as it is are having a difficult time accepting the construction of towers that rise 26 storeys across the street from a six storey city hall.
Some 40 development applications are before the Ontario Land Tribunal, a jurisdictional body where Burlington has not done very well.
The number of Closed sessions city council has held is the nub of the issue. Stolte is not the only member of Council who wants to see fewer
Closed sessions and only when they are absolutely necessary.
Burlington is the subject of an investigation by the provincial Investigator of Closed Meetings. There is no date for a report on that investigation.
In 2017 the Halton district School Board decided to close two of the city’s seven high schools. It was a divisive process. In the fullness of time the HDSB decided to declare the former Robert Bateman High school surplus – which meant it was able to sell the property.
 Conceptually it is a great idea – winners everywhere – until Council decided to seal their lips and keep the public out of the picture.
There is a very tightly defined process for selling surplus school property. The city of Burlington turned out to be the only bidder for the property.
At the time Brock University was looking for a new home for its Faculty of Education. Suddenly there was a real synergy in play.
When matters of property are before city council they are usually discussed in a Closed session. A developer making an application to construct a large residential tower or a property that is going to have a hundred or some homes always involve zoning and Official Plan amendments. The city administration wants hold these discussions in private, as well they should. Thus the rationale for going into a Closed session.
The difference with the Bateman property is that all the players were public – none of them were asking for or seeking a zoning change or an amendment to the Official Plan for an organizational profit.
The interests of three public organizations (a school board, a university and a municipality) that serve the interest of the public (You and I) were being worked through.
To add to the discussions there was a very real concern about the amount of asbestos in the former Bateman high school, what the cost of its removal and who was going to pick up that cost.
 The site is big, the Mayor wants it to be a public place, the school board wants to get rid of the property but rent back some of the space. Brock University wants to make the place home for the Faculty of Education. Councillor Stolte wants the public to know what all this is going to cost. .
Councillor Stolte felt that because these issues were important to the public at large the need for Closed Sessions was lessened and took the positioned that the greater good was more important. She never made any secret of her position.
The city’s legal department didn’t see it that way nor did the Mayor. Both wanted much more control over the issue
And so here we are in the midst of crass, vile, political chicanery.
It is time for the public to weigh in and let their member of Council know what they think and feel.
This is not something that should be allowed to slip by without a close public review.
Related news stories:
Integrity Commissioner’s report in full
Councillor Stolte Statement
The Closed Session issue has been around for a while
By Pepper Parr
April 4th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
A report that was going to need a couple of months to be completed by the consultant the city had hired was given a big push and – on Tuesday Council will be asked to receive the report and endorse the recommendation from The Planning Partnership
The Appendix A part of the 245 page document is where the meat on the bone is set out. We will publish that as a seperate article.
The 400 page addendum to the Standing Committee will be debated on Tuesday. – virtually
 The white dotted line is the study area. The elephant in the room is the waterfront hotel site. What gets put on that property impact everything else.
Receive the “Waterfront Hotel Planning Study Planning Justification Report” dated March 23, 2022, prepared by The Planning Partnership Limited, E
Endorse in principle the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study, the recommended Preferred Concept Plan, site-specific draft Official Plan policies, directions for a future Zoning By- law amendment and site-specific Urban Design Guidelines as detailed in Appendix “A” to community planning department report PL-28-22; and
Consider the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study findings in Council’s consideration of the site-specific development applications for 2020 Lakeshore Road.
The consultants are saying – no more public engagement – we have heard all we need to hear – let’s just get on with it – or words to that effect.
 The Mayor and Councillor Lisa Kearns bought into the Plan B objectives and became champions for it.
The Plan B people put a lot of pressure on the ward Councillor Lisa Kearns and the Mayor – those two bought into what Plan B was advocating, championed that point of view and ipso facto ( an inevitable result) a report comes popping out.
The city needed to close this poorly handled stage of downtown development.
What is particularly concerning is that the continued failures on the part of the Planning department took place when we had a Mayor who was going to bring some order to the way developments were handled.
One paragraph in the report, as dismal as it is, reflects what has been going on. It reads: Subsequently, the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study was placed on hold due to other various priorities in the Community Planning Department such as the new Official Plan process.
The decision came from the City Manager and Council went along with it. No one asked what the down side risk was. We now know what that risk is.
One Councillor who didn’t want to be quoted said to me during a conversation: “What Vision” – this city doesn’t have a vision.
 The PIER went trough its trial and tribulations. The city ended up with a tower that did nothing other than add to the price. It was supposed to house a wind turbine that would pay for the electricity used.
The building of The Pier went through a similar tortuous process. In that situation the city paid for The Pier twice and went through one of the biggest collection of insurance law suits this city has ever seen.
The purpose of the study was to provide a land use and urban design framework to inform site-specific policies to guide a future redevelopment of the Subject Site.
 The quaint small village feel is hard to experience as you walk by the six level podium that has been proposed.
The problem with that approach was that the city took so long to get the study completed that the owner of the Waterfront Hotel got tired of waiting and filed a development application that will plunk two 40+ towers at the bottom of Brant Street and crowd the sidewalk of Lakeshore with the kind of structure you find on Bloor Street in Toronto.
The time line the city was faced with was a treacherous path. When the Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee iinformed Council on January 11, 2022, that the anticipated timeline to complete the study was 16-17 weeks a wave of indigestion must have hit the tummies of every member of council. They came back with a Staff Direction:
 They did it virtually – made sure that the Waterfront Study was going to be completed in time. Out went the 16 – 18 week. They had a couple of weeks to deliver.
Direct the Director of Community Planning to complete the Waterfront Hotel Study within the statutory time frame of processing the pending application related to the Waterfront Hotel (2020 Lakeshore Road) so as to inform the review of any development proposal on this site in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan.
The time frame was this: The developer had the right to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a decision because the city did not respond within the allotted 120days – in order to avoid such an appeal the city had to complete their review of the application before April 17th.
The city Planning department “refusal” report is to be heard at Council on the 12th.
An overview of the Study findings is summarized below:
 This is the concept the consultants working on the Waterfront Hotel Study are putting forward based on the work they have been doing since 2017. The question is – Is this the best the city can do? And does it comply with the vision.
The recommended preferred concept (2022):
has regard for matters of Provincial Interest, policy and legislation and has been designed with consideration for the intent of the applicable Regional and Local Municipal policies and guidelines;
reflects overall alignment with City’s in-force Official Plan (1997), the new Official Plan (2020), ROPA 48 and emerging context within the Study Area;
delivers a vibrant mix of uses that will reinforce and support the continuing evolution of the Downtown;
provides for a compact built form that is transit supportive, provides for a range of housing, supports intensification and provides for a range of uses
enhances the streetscape along Lakeshore Road unified with a common language of materials and design elements;
provides for public view corridors down Brant and John Streets to Lake Ontario;
provides for on-site parkland dedication to enhance public access to Spencer Smith Park and build upon an important landmark through high quality open space;
Proposed urban design guidelines will provide site-specific guidance related to the conditions and context of the site to implement the Vision and Principles established through the consultation process and subsequently endorsed in principle by Council in early 2018;
An Official Plan Amendment (OPA) to the in-force OP is required to implement the findings of this Study, and include site specific directions related to matters such as massing and scale, transportation and public open spaces; and,
A Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) will be required to implement the OPA. The Study recommends that a rezoning process take place in the future to consider the Preferred Concept (2022) and would also be supported by detailed technical studies.
The following sections of this report summarizes the recommended preferred concept and implementation tools.
The recommended preferred concept is based on the inputs and work completed in 2017 and 2018, feedback on the emerging preferred concept (2022) and consideration for the relevant policy drivers and changes since the Study paused in mid-2018. Section 6.0 of the Planning Justification Report (see Appendix “A”) provides a comprehensive overview of the preferred concept plan.
Highlights of the Recommended Preferred Concept/ Highlights of the preferred concept include:
Land Use / Built Form
• Building heights: 21 storeys for the west tower and 22 storeys for the east tower
• John Street public view corridor with a minimum width of 18 metres
• Stepping down of built form toward Lake Ontario
• 3-storey podium/street wall along Lakeshore Road
• Active at-grade uses like commercial, retail and restaurants
• Focus on a strong pedestrian relationship to the streets and public spaces
Public Realm
• Enhance Brant Street as a gateway to the Downtown, the Waterfront and the Waterfront Trail
• Enhance the entrance to Spencer Smith Park and the Brant Street public view corridor
• Additional public parkland identified on the west and south sides of the Subject Site:
o West side: 0.13 ha
o South side: 0.05 ha
o Total: 0.18 ha
• Provide a John Street public view corridor and inclusion of a privately-owned public space (POPS)
• Maintain existing trees along Lakeshore Road
Mobility and Access
• Remove existing vehicular access at the foot of Brant Street
• Site access for parking and loading from Elizabeth Street
• Active Transportation route along Lakeshore Road, including a painted buffered bike lane as identified in the City’s Cycling Master Plan
• No surface parking on site
Future Zoning By-law Amendment
A Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) will be required to implement the OPA. The Study recommends that a rezoning process take place in the future to consider the Preferred Concept. Furthermore, the Study provides that:
“A future rezoning process, supported by technical studies and further evaluation, would allow for flexibility to achieve an interesting built form that would better respond to the landmark nature of this site. This ZBA process would take place in the future and would advance additional engagement through the statutory public process. It would allow for the principles of this Study to be further advanced and explored through meaningful active engagement with the public and stakeholders of this project. Furthermore, a rezoning in the future would allow for community benefits to be leveraged through Section 37.” (or in accordance with alternative benefit charges).
Site-Specific Urban Design Guidelines
The Study recommends site-specific urban design guidelines that will apply to the development of the Subject Site.
 When the two towers are in place the pressure to allow higher intensification on this part of Brant that is a two walk away in distance will be tremendous. The two towers remake the downtown – which is fine – if that it what you want.
The intent of the site-specific urban design guidelines is to augment and enhance the City existing urban design documents by providing site-specific guidance related to the conditions and context of the site. They will work together with the guidance provided in the City’s design documents to implement the Vision and Principles established through the Study’s consultation process phase and subsequently endorsed in principle by Council in June 2018.
The site-specific urban design guidelines are provided in Section 6.3 of the Study (Appendix “A”).
The recommended site-specific urban design guidelines provide guidance with regards to:
• Built Form (Building Placement; Building Height, Massing and Transition; Tower Separation; Podium Height; and Setbacks / Stepbacks);
• Access and Mobility; and
• Public Realm (John Street View Corridor; Spencer Smith Park; Lakeshore Road; and Elizabeth Street).
Staff Position on The Study’s Recommendations
Staff are supportive of the recommendations as outlined in the Study
Delivers a vibrant mix of uses that will reinforce and support the continuing evolution of the Downtown;
• Has regard for matters of Provincial, Regional and Local Municipal policies and guidelines;
• Includes tall mixed-use buildings with commercial uses at grade, and residential and/or hotel uses which address many Provincial, Regional objectives and aligns with the overall directions established by ROPA 48;
• Achieves the City’s vision as articulated in the in-force OP (1997) and considers the policy direction of the new OP (2020);
• Provides residents and jobs and public open spaces in this central location that will further support the creation of a complete community; and,
• Creates a special place by balancing significant new redevelopment with public amenities and accessible open spaces.
It is staff’s opinion the completion of the Study has been fulfilled with the delivery of The Planning Partnership’s Planning Justification Report.
By Pepper Parr
April 4th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
Prices for detached single family houses have soared during the past year. Homes have sold for 49% above the asking.
The folks in the condo market are now experiencing the same problem – with the difference being that people who paid deposits are now finding the price of the condo they have yet to take possession of has gone up
Construction delays and price increases, according to the developers, are the problem in the condo world theses days.
 The Gallery, a 26 storey tower currently under construction across the street from city hall is behind schedule.
Folks who have purchased in the Carnicelli Gallery going up opposite city hall have been told that it will be something in the order of eight to ten months more before they can call the moving van. They had expected to move in sometime in November
A couple of blocks to the west people who have purchased in the Nautique have been told that the original deal isn’t on anymore,.
The ADI Group development determined that construction costs make it impossible for them to build at the original selling price.
 The Nautique has been plagued with problems from the day they filed their application to build. Readers of the Gazette have followed this amazing story.
People who had sales agreements will have their money returned and be paid interest on the deposit or they can pony up an additional 50 to 60% and wait until the building is ready for occupancy.
One Gazette reader said there was a weasel clause in the sales contract that let ADI take the action they took.
ADI has access to exceptional legal talent – buyers are going to have to retain smart talent of their own. The lawyer on the client side should have seen the clause in the agreement and advised their client as to what was possible.
Glenn Gillespie, an about to retire fire fighter expected be in the unit be bought in 2015.
The unit he purchased for $508 thousand dollars seven years ago is going to require an additional $300,000 if he want to take ownership when the construction is complete.
Gillespie said he had a choice: either pay the extra money for a condo that doesn’t exist yet or get his $126,000 deposit back with 6 percent interest and give up his unit.
Gillespie told CHCH news that “he thinks the developers want the owners to take their money and leave so that they can charge a higher price for the condos. He contacted a lawyer who says 14 other owners from the same building are also reviewing their legal options.”
By Pepper Parr
March 31st, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
There is a consulting group that operates under the name of The Planning Partnership.
Thy were hired by the city to take part in the study of the Waterfront Hotel site that everyone knew was going to be developed at some point.
The city began this work in 2015 when staffer Jodi Wellings was tasked with putting together some of the early thinking.
At that time the plan was to have whatever was built om the site face west and give a view of the Naval Promenade.
Among the decisions that came out of the early part of the study was the agreement that there would be a detailed study that the develop would par for but that the city would control.
The Waterfront Study got put on hold in 2018 because the Interim Control Bylaw that had been imposed and the issues related to the re-writing of the new Official Plan – call it the Meed Ward version for clarity – were taking up most of the capacity at city hall. The deep thinking planners appear to have concluded that they had all kinds of time and that the developer would wait until the study was completed..
That decision has resulted in the developer deciding to proceed on his own with a development application that stunned a lot of people when it was first released.
The city should have seen that coming. Darko Vranich is a very strategic thinker – he saw an opportunity and went for it.
The Planning Partnership released their final report (240 pages plus) and offered their Preferred Concept that will get xxx
While holding the many public engagement events all kinds of ideas came to the surface and were set out in different reports.
Set out below are some of the drawings that reflected what kind of thinking was being done.

Then there was a couple of truly brutal designs.

Another that looked something like the stretch of building built on the south side of the Gardner Expressway in Toronto almost obliterating any view of the lake

Are their options for the city to get out of a situation they created by not staying on top of a critical file ? There was a point where the city did not have a planner assigned to the file.
We have an interesting month ahead of us.
Related news stories:
The man behind the development plans
Plan B has made a difference – have they gone far enough>
By Pepper Parr
March 31st, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
All kinds of activity on the waterfront.
The Waterfront Hotel Planning Study released their Preferred Concept for the site.
The city Planning department has announced that they are not approving the application that was submitted to the city.
Their report will be covered in a separate article.
Right now we want to show you want that Waterfront Study concept looks like.
 In this concept the city did manage to get a 20 metre strip of land to add to Spencer Smith Park.
 The structures as rendered are pretty brutal looking.
By Pepper Parr
March 30th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
The pandemic certainly cut into meeting with people.
It wasn’t until I was part way through an interview with Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith that he mentioned he is never in city hall unless he is chair of the Standing Committee. Other than that he works from home. The suggestion was that he might be able to sublet the space he has at city hall.
 Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith during a Standing Committee meeting.
While Galbraith isn’t in the office all that much he is certainly busy enough with the development activity in his ward – which he now refers to as Ward 1 and not Aldershot – the Tyandaga people don’t like that name and the Maple people would rather be part of ward 2 – so for Galbraith – using the description ward 1 makes life a little less contentious.
I started out by asking Galbraith why he ran for office and how much of what he said he would do has actually been done. I followed that up by asking if he is running got another term. He is.
He ran for office because he wasn’t happy with the kind of development that was taking place in the community. He wanted to see more variation in the commercial space that was going to be in the ground floor of the developments popping up on Plains Road.
 It took Galbraith some time to find a place in the community to meet with constituents. The Peach Cafe is where he is most comfortable.
He wanted space that had the duct work needed for restaurants in place and he wanted to see a larger variety of commercial operations. The ward doesn’t have the supermarket choices he thinks the community needs.
The changes coming to Plains Road in the summer are significant and mark a distinct change that Galbraith thinks will get people out with their bikes.
The disappointing part of getting people on bikes is that Galbraith drives a gas guzzling pickup back and forth to city hall. Optics on that one aren’t good.
 Mayor Meed Ward and ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith are the co-chairs of the Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force.
There was a point during this first term where Galbraith appeared to be almost joined at the hip to Mayor Meed Ward; some felt that he should be a little more independent. Galbraith points out that he has voted differently than the Mayor on a lot of the motions. When Mayor Meed Ward drafted Galbraith the the Red Tape Red Carpet Task Task Force she said she needed someone who understood what the commercial and development people were having problems with.
Kelvin is often uncomfortable with the pace at which business gets done at Council meetings. He is a much more get on with it kind of guy – talking just so he can hear himself isn’t his style.
Galbraith made the point that many people think all the development is taking place in ward 2 – in the downtown core. He passed along a list of the development applications taking place in his ward and suggests he might have at least as many.
Pending Applications
Amendment Applications
Applications in Other Stages of Development
1085 Clearview Ave.
1157-1171 North Shore Blvd
1371975 Ontario Inc. (Markay Homes) – 1167 Bellview Cres.
Adi Development Group – 101 Masonry Crt
Aldershot Properties Inc. – 35 Plains Rd
Fellowship Canadian Reformed Church – 1350 Waterdown Rd
Markay Homes – 1159 Bellview Crescent
National Homes (Brant) Inc. – 2100 Brant St
Urban Solutions – 539 King Forest Court
Where Galbraith differs from ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns is the way he interacts with his constituents. He hasn’t held a meeting for the past two years – saying that Covid19 didn’t make meetings possible. Kearns found a way to hold both live meetings that were also virtual. It worked quite well.
 Kelvin Galbraith talks to constituents in a coffee shop. He has yet to hold a community wide meeting that is live.
In terms of his retail politicking – Galbraith has some distance to go. He is approachable – but you have to approach him. He is not a glad handler.
His focus is business and he is very much in tune with the development community pointing to several developments where he believes he solved a lot pf problems that were created by community involvement.
 National Homes Development on Brant – sold out in weeks.
The 2100 Brant National Homes development that is now underway was a mess. Getting it through the various community development and Statutory meeting stages was a challenge.
Galbraith now finds that the problems are with the city engineering department and other departments.
What surprised Galbraith was that National Homes, the 2100 Brant developers, tore down the sales office that was set up on the site. All the homes were sold in a two week period – which points to just how significant the demand for housing is in the city. Galbraith can’t get them approved and at the shovels in the ground fast enough.
Part two: What Galbraith wants to achieve in a second term if he is returned to office. Coming soon
By Pepper Parr
March 30th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
You will not get much in the way of an argument from anyone on making buying a home easier.
Today, the Ontario government introduced legislation that, if passed, will support a plan to crack down on speculators who are driving up the cost of housing, protect home buyers from predatory development practices, and create more housing options for homeowners and renters by accelerating development timelines to get more homes built faster.
The More Homes for Everyone Act outlines the next suite of concrete actions the province is taking to address Ontario’s housing crisis. This plan, built on recommendations from the Housing Affordability Task Force and the first-ever Provincial-Municipal Housing Summit, will deliver both near-term solutions and long-term commitments to provide more attainable housing options for Ontario families.
It didn’t take long for the West End Home Builders Association to put out a statement. Here is what they had to say.
The Provincial Housing Affordability Task Force hit the nail on the head – we need to build more homes. More homes on the market in Hamilton and across Ontario will give everyone a fair shot at becoming a homeowner and building a future. For the last several years we have not been building enough homes to keep up with demand. This is exactly why bold provincial intervention is critically required: to reduce red tape and bureaucratic inefficiencies while incentivizing municipalities to speed up the housing approvals process.
 A development that eventually got through the application process found that it didn’t have to set up a sales office – they were sold out in two weeks. Now they are stumped and stymied by the city engineering department.
The West End Home Builders’ Association (WE HBA) is supportive of the wide range of policies proposed in the More Homes for Everyone Plan and encourages all political parties to support a quick passage of legislation prior to the Writ being dropped for the provincial election. We need action now.
 Mike Collins-Williams, CEO of the West End Home Builders’ Association.
“The West End Home Builders’ Association is supportive of the measures proposed by the provincial government to speed up the planning process through the More Homes for Everyone Plan to address Southern Ontario’s growing housing crisis. Building from the Housing Affordability Task Force report, this new legislation proposes efficient, targeted policies that recognize the need to get all kinds of new housing built faster in communities across the province,” says Mike Collins-Williams, CEO of the West End Home Builders’ Association.
WE HBA notes that the provincial government regards the Housing Affordability Task Force Report as Ontario’s long-term housing road map. Our members support the immediate measures in the proposed More Homes for Everyone Plan to encourage more timely municipal decision making and to streamline approval processes. The government has indicated that there will be additional measures implemented over the long-term through the establishment of a Housing Supply Working Group and future Housing Supply Action Plans.
The housing crisis is a complex issue that requires a long-term strategy and commitment from all levels of government and industry to work together as partners, to build the necessary supply of housing for a rapidly growing population.
Housing is a complex business as is the process that puts in place the regulations that set out the costs of completing a development application.
Recently Burlington city Council had to defer the determination of what planning application rates would be put in place. BILD (Building Industry and Land Development Association) and WE HBA took months of back and forth meetings and questioning the consultant that had prepared the report that set out what the rates would be.
In the end there was no appreciable difference between the end result and what was proposed in the first place.
The city manager mentioned during one of the meetings that the work the consultants were doing at the extra meeting was above and beyond what they had been hired to do – and that the city was going to have to get a retainer in place for the additional hours
That phrase – if the shoe fits – wear it; would seem appropriate right about now.
By Staff
March 28th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
A number of Council members have been unhappy and somewhat disturbed over the way information was kept from the public by having the debate take place in a CLOSED session of Council.
When a CLOSED session of Council was about to take place – a notice would be read out saying what they (Council) needed to go into CLOSED for and then the web cast went dark displaying just GET THE VISUAL. When Council came out of a CLOSED session they would report that Council has agreed to do what was agreed upon in the CLOSED meeting.
Once council member complained publicly that “we can’t even tell the public the address of the property that was being discussed. The struggle to determine what could and should be released was between Council and Nancy Shea Nicol, the City Solicitor.
Last week for the first time we saw a situation where Council talked about going into CLOSED but decided not to. The City Solicitor said she would provide a report on what the issue was with all the details.
Some context:
The site was zoned MXT and as such the development application being made complied with the zoning by law and would go directly to site plan approval, Development Application proceeds straight to site plan.
In contrast when a zoning bylaw amendment is requested the proponent will go through community meetings, a Statutory Public meeting and receive a planning recommendation report for council to vote on.
None of these steps are required for applications that are in compliance with the regulations of the bylaw, as is the case with these lands.
What Councillor Kearns was able to do was undelegate the application which meant site plan approval would be determined by Council and not staff.
The developer chose to take their application to the Ontario Land Tribunal. While waiting for a hearing date the city and the developer were able to come to terms on the differences and entered into a Settlement Agreement which will now be heard by the Ontario Land Tribunal on GET THE DATE.
There is a bigger question: When the city learned that intensification was going to be focused on what were originally called mobility hubs – later changed to MTSA Major Transit Service Areas – why didn’t the Planning department look at the zoning status of all the lands around the MTSA and do what needed to be done to change the zoning.
The following is what the City Solicitor released.
On April 4, 2020 the Community Planning Department acknowledged that a site plan application had been received by Brookfield Properties, Inter Rent REIT and CLV Group Inc. (the “Applicant”) for Site Plan Approval for 2269, 2243 Fairview Street & 864 Drury Lane (the “Site”) to support the development of the Site with seven (7) residential towers on top of four (4) mixed-use podiums, with overall tower heights ranging between 29 and 37 storeys. However, the Site was located within an area that was the subject of an Interim Control By-law and related study, resulting in a development ‘freeze’ on lands within the study area.
The Official Plan Amendment (“OPA 119”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA 2020.418”) that resulted from the recommendations of the ICBL study were appealed, including by the Applicant, in February 2020. These appeals to ZBA 2020.418 had the effect of continuing the development ‘freeze’ on the Site, and resulted in no decision being made on the site plan.
On August 11, 2021, the Applicant appealed the site plan application to the Ontario Lands Tribunal based upon non-decision of the City within the required time period set out by the Planning Act.
On December 17, 2021 the Applicant submitted a Settlement Offer to the City for consideration. The Applicant is seeking a settlement of its appeals of OPA 119, ZBA 2020.418 and its site plan application. The Settlement Offer proposes a resolution of the appeals in which the Applicant would withdraw its appeal of OPA 119 and the City and the Applicant would seek approval from the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) for site-specific amendments to ZBA 2020.418 to permit the development contemplated in phase 1 of a phased site plan. These site-specific amendments would add to the regulations contained within ZBA 2020.418 to regulate the development proposed in phase 1 of the site plan, as described below. The City and Applicant would also seek an Order from the OLT removing the Site from the ongoing development ‘freeze’ that applies to this area. The Settlement Offer proposes to resolve the site plan appeal by the City and the Applicant seeking approval from the OLT for site plan contemplating development of phase 1 of a multi-tower residential development on the Site. Future phases of the development of the Site would require Site Plan Approval from the City. Additionally, the Settlement Offer contemplates the City and the Applicant agreeing to certain parameters that would not only apply to Phase 1 of the development set out in detail in the Settlement Offer, but also to the future development of phase 2 that would be subject to a future site plan approval process by the City. Key parameters of the proposed site plan appeal settlement include:
Phases 1 and 2 will each contain two towers of 33 and 37 stories (Phase 1) and 33 and 35 stories (Phase 2) in height;
The four towers proposed in Phases 1 and 2 will all be purpose-built rental buildings, with 100% of units in the buildings being in rental tenure;
Phase 1 will provide a total of 38 three (3) bedroom residential rental units, including 25 three (3) bedroom rental units contained within the two towers;
When the Applicant seeks site plan approval for Phase 2, the towers will include at least 25 three (3) bedroom residential rental units;
Provide a minimum 30m separation between proposed towers;
The tower floor plates of the four towers in Phases 1 and 2 will have tower floor plates of up to 890 square metres;
The Applicant will dedicate 1.71ha of parkland, in addition to providing cash-in-lieu of parkland in the amount of approximately $13 million. Additionally, the Applicant will provide a privately-owned publicly accessible space (‘POPS’), maintained in perpetuity at its expense, of 0.25ha located immediately adjacent to the dedicated parkland located along Fairview Street to function as one cohesive park that may be further expanded should lands to the west of the Site re-develop in the future.
Phases 1 and 2 of the Site Plan (containing two levels of underground parking will address groundwater through a private permanent pumping stormwater management system discharged into the City’s storm sewer system at regulated volumes and quality, with ongoing stormwater management system maintenance requirements registered on the title of the rental buildings. Future phase(s) of development on the Site will have separate underground facilities and stormwater management for those phases will be reviewed by the City in future applications for site plan approval.
The Applicant will make a Municipal Consent application to bring permanent buried hydro to the entire site (Phases 1, 2 and 3). Should the applicant wish to install additional temporary overhead hydro, those drawings and details will be included with the Municipal Consent application, along with required fees and securities.
 Height of the site relative to other major developments in the city
GET THE GRAPHIC OF THE SITE
Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses
The subject site has an area of 3.4 ha, and approximately 224 m of frontage along Fairview, and 143 m of frontage along Drury Lane. Access to the site is currently provided via both Drury Lane and Fairview Street. A vacant garden centre, brewery, auto repair shop, dance studio and furniture store are currently located on the Subject Lands. It is the intent that the existing buildings and structures be demolished prior to the site being redeveloped.
Surrounding the subject site are the following uses:
North: The Lakeshore West GO rail line is located adjacent to the Subject Lands directly to the north. A low-rise residential neighbourhood occupies the lands north of the rail line. An overpass pedestrian bridge at the north terminus of Drury Lane provides access over the rail line to the residential community to the north.
South: Fairview Street, low rise institutional and medical building consisting of the Halton Catholic District School Board and a medical clinic.
East: Drury Lane, and a number of low-rise service commercial and retail uses are located east of the Subject Lands, including an automotive repair and home store.
West: A car dealership is located adjacent to the Subject Lands directly west, followed by a creek and the Burlington GO Station. The Paradigm Condominium development, (5 tower and 24 storey residential condominium development) is located immediately west of the Burlington GO Station.
The Site Plan Application:
The Site Plan application that is the subject of the appeal includes 4 buildings with a total of 7 towers ranging in height from 29 to 37 storeys. The comprehensive development plan will provide 2,515 residential units of mixed type and tenure; 3,703 square metres of retail/ commercial space; there will be shared amenity space between all buildings in a variety of forms, including indoor, rooftop and outdoor elevated amenity area; all proposed parking to be located within a combination of a 4-storey above-ground parking structure abutting the northern lot line or within 5 levels of underground parking abutting the southern property line. Each building is proposed as follows:
Building A will consist of a six storey podium and a 33 storey tower with 338 residential units.
Building B will consist of a five storey podium and two towers with 651 residential units. Tower B1 will be 29 storeys and tower B2 will be 34 storeys. Ten (10) Townhouse style units are incorporated into the podium fronting onto Fairview Street.
Building C will consist of a four storey podium and two towers with 774 residential rental units. Tower C1 will be 33 storeys and tower C2 will be 37 storeys.
Building D will consist of a four storey podium and two towers with 752 residential rental units. Tower D1 will be 33 storeys and tower C2 will be 35 storeys.
Vehicular access to the proposed development will be provided primarily through an internal driveway through the site from Fairview Street to Drury Lane, similar to the driveway that presently exists on the Subject Lands. The parking structure will be accessed via Drury Lane and the internal east-west driveway, which will function as a private street. Access to the underground parking will also be provided through the internal driveway. A minimal amount of layby parking is proposed at grade. Parking is proposed as 1-5 levels of underground parking and 4 levels of parking in a structure at the rear of the site. In terms of parking rates, there are 2761 spaces for 2515 units (including visitor), 154 spaces for commercial and 34 spaces for maintenance. The total parking rate is 1.16 spaces per unit.
The Site Plan in the Proposed Settlement
The Proposed Settlement contemplates a phased approach to the development of the Site, with site plan approval for phase 1 by the OLT, and subsequent phases of the development of the site to occur through future applications for site plan approval by the City. Phase 1 will consist of a four-storey podium and two towers with 774 residential rental units. Tower C1 will be 33 storeys and tower C2 will be 37 storeys. Phase 1 also includes the internal (private) east-west road and a public park. The OLT’s approval of the Site Plan for phase 1 of the development would include conditions of Site Plan Approval that would apply to Phase 1, which consists of buildings C1 and C2 on the Site Plan. As noted above, the parameters of the settlement (such as height and floor plate size) would apply to Phase 2 (Buildings D1 and D2 on the proposed plan); however, a new Site Plan Application to the City would be required to be approved by the City, subject to conditions. Phase 3 on the Site Plan, which includes Buildings A and B to the south fronting onto Fairview Street remains independent from the settlement and will require separate review and subject to that review, may or may not be approved by the City in its current form.
By Staff
March 25th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
Everyone appears to want the development to be a go – but it isn’t a deal yet.
The proposed xxx story development onFairview betwnn Drury Lane ans xxx is at the settlement stage.
It goes to the Ontariool Land Trubunal on May 6th.
The proposed towers would accommodate a range of purpose-built rental units including 3-bedroom units which will provide urgently needed new rental housing supply in Burlington which are encouraged through the City’s Official Plan and the City’s Housing Study currently underway.
 The drawings show seven towers – the city media release reports four to be built in two phases. What happened to the other three?
The development will be done in phases.
The site plan for phase 1 of the development of the site is for two buildings, 33 and 37 stories in height containing a mix of 1, 2- and 3-bedroom units; 100% of the units in these buildings will be rental units.
Phase 2 of the development will include two additional towers of 33 and 35 stories, with 100% of the units in those buildings being rental units.
Phases 1 and 2 account for four buildings – the original proposal was for seven buildings – no mention of how high the other three will be – ot if there will be more than three.
The proposed development has Brookfield Properties, InterRent REIT and CLV Group Inc. as the developers. CLV Group has been in the Burlington rental market for some time. A quick look at comments made by some of their residents raises concerns.
The development contemplated by the settlement would consist of a multi-tower residential development on lands within the City’s Urban Growth Centre (UGC) where City Council has directed high-density growth to occur.
 Holland Park is shown with a red border. The Molinaro development is west of Holland Park – it will have five towers when completed.
The development contemplated in the settlement will promote accessible linkages for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users with multi-modal access to the Burlington GO Station.
The development also includes private open space for the residents of the buildings and the dedication of land for a public park adjacent to Fairview Street.
The project also has a feature that only a planner could think of: linear parks, which no one at city hall has ever defined. Sound like a path with some trees and grass on the side.
In the media release from the city there is no mention of a real park within the development. No mention of a library or a community centre.
With three bedroom units – there should be plenty of park space.
More on this one when we dig a little and get some comment from the ward Councillor.
By Pepper Parr
March 22, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
 Now open – with a masking protocol
A sign that the new normal has taken on life and that there are places where masks will not be worn
Solid Gold, the Adult Entertainment location in Aldershot is now open.
The site, die for re-development at some point. will have a public park. no word on the size of the park, at the rear of the building.
A location with a lot of traffic will evolve and become a two structure development that will tise to 10 to 12 storeys.
The property owner has said he will ensure that the site has a coffee shop and there is a report that there will be a park at the rear of the development.
Time line – nothing in place yet – the item did go to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
 The developers application – yet to be approved
.
By Pepper Parr
March 22, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
 The construction team has not yet topped off the structure.
It is now all about density which means height.
The Gallery, one of the Carriage Gate buildings going up across the street from city hall.
Hasn’t topped off yet.
By Pepper Parr
March 12th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
The deadline for responses to the survey put out after the Waterfront Study virtual meeting that took place on February 22nd, was March 1st the last date they would be accepted.
 There are two things taking place with the area outlined in blue. The oldest activity is a study of the area outlined in blue which the city says has been ongoing since 2018 – it actually started way back in 2015 when the city had a Staff member doing some work on what would be possible and fit in with the Promenade and Spencer Smith Park when the owners of the Waterfront Hotel decided they were ready to redevelop the property. The area within the red boundary is the property owned by Darko Vranich . In August of 2021 he began the process of providing the City Planning department the information it would need to prepare a report for City Council which would decide to Approve the development, Not approve the development or approve a development with required changes. hotel site was ready. The report from the Planning department has to be before City Council and approved no later than April 17th of 2022
It was a very short survey; two questions – what did you think and where do you live.
 The X’s mark the land the city would take as permitted park land allowance.
Shouldn’t have taken all that long to sift through the responses, pass them along to the consultants overseeing the study and share both the results of the survey and whatever the next step was going to be.
There was some interesting news shared during the DATE meeting – the most significant being that the city planned on taking a 20 metre wide piece of land from the west side of the site. The width would run from Lakeshore Road to the southern and of the the property line.
There doesn’t appear to be any sense of urgency about a study that is intended to “inform” the long term development that will take place. Wouldn’t the Hotel site development application, if approved, set the pattern for any development in the immediate area. No?
Related news stories:
A time line that didn’t work for the citizens.
What about a land swap
The Statutory meeting
By Pepper Parr
February 26th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
The resumption of the paused Waterfront Hotel site study began on the 15th.
On balance is was a good first step – even though it was hobbled by the fact that there is an active development application before the city’s Planning department while the city studies what should be done long term with the property.
One of the things the public learned was that the city has the right to take a certain amount of land as park land dedication. Burlington, in the past, had accepted cash in lieu of land so often that the development community felt that it was the common practice.
 The two red X marks are parkland the city might take from the developer. The Planning Act permits a municipality to acquire a portion of the property as parkland.
It is evident the city will be asking for what it is entitled to in the way of parkland dedication.
At this point the land the city appears to be going after is a 20 metre strip of land on the west side of the hotel running from the property boundary on Lakeshore Road and the southern boundary.
During the meeting city staff announced they had put together a survey that they wanted people to answer.
The Gazette look at the survey questions and found it very limited. There were two questions, along the lines of: ‘What do you think’ and ‘what is your postal code’.
We thought we might have gotten it wrong and we asked city staff the following:
I am doing a piece on the survey that came out of the most recent Waterfront Study meeting – finding that all they appear to want is your view on the site development and your postal code
Is that the extent of the survey?
The response was brief:
If the survey responses are going to guide where the Waterfront Site Study is going the answer may well be – not very far.
The survey closes Tuesday March 1st – link to the survey is HERE
Related news story”
Resumption of the Waterfront Hotel site study
By Pepper Parr
February 25th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Quiet, quaint, downtown Burlington may become a thing of the past.
The owners of the Waterfront Hotel have filed a development application to build two towers on the site; one at 35 storeys, the other at 30 storeys with both sitting on a five storey podium.
 This is what we have. Some development can be justified – but it has to be the right development for the city.
There is a public that is opposed to a development of this size. Disturbingly there is also a city council that has been less than vocal in its views on the development.
During the Statutory meeting held earlier in the month the Mayor, the ward Councillor and one other member of council spoke out not totally against the development but certainly against the height the developer was asking for.
 The developer would like to make Lakeshore |Road 6 m narrower; they want to put up towers that will rise 40 storeys.
 This is what the developer want to build. It is very good design, it could well win awards – it is the location that is wrong.
Of the limited number of delegations (there were six) the one that drove home just what the issue is came from Plan B, a group that has 500 supporters and 5000 people following them on the Facebook page – which you can find right HERE
There are two processes being handled at the same time which to many seems awkwardly odd. The city is processing a development application while at the same time the city is working its way through a Waterfront Study that will “inform” and guide the development of the area.
Part of the study is a survey that is asking people how they feel about some of the ideas that were put out during the Statutory meeting last week.
Confusing – true – the developers, their legal counsel and their planning consultants are quite comfortable with the confusion – they understand the issues and they have a tonne of money invested in the process.
For parents dealing with the fallout from Covid19, stressed and struggling to run households – finding time to respond to a survey about an issue of which they may not be fully informed, is a stretch.
 Two processes – out of which there will be only one result and it may not be made by the city council you elected.

The survey isn’t the easiest to navigate. They appear to be looking for responses from people who live in specific parts of the city. When you are asked to enter your postal code, you have to know what it is – you get a thank you for taking part.
We live in a time when there are serious decisions to be made – don’t leave it up to the people you elected unless they are fully transparent and prepared to be accountable for the decisions they make.
Are these three now mute? Do they not have a view of how the city should grow?
 Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte
 Angelo Bentivegna ward 6. While members of Council are elected by the people in a specific ward the have a responsibility for the growth of the city as a single entity.
 Kelvin Galbraith, ward 1.
Based on the Statutory meeting last week Councillors Bentivegna, Stolte, and Galbraith have some explaining to do. And one might ask – where is the most experienced Councillor on this issue – other than his remarks on the failure to come up with a vision, Councillor Sharman hasn’t had much to say.
By Staff
February 23rd, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
From time to time a citizens group is formed that has a significant impact on decisions made at city hall. Plan B is one of those groups – it is small – less than five people; all retired or thought they were.
Their concerns started to take shape when they became aware of some of the plans that were being bandied about related to the re-development of the Waterfront Hotel site.
 The Plan B people have been at this for a long time – more than five years. They have not always been heard..
The group was solely focused on ensuring that any redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel :
Enhances the Brant Street gateway to Lake Ontario &
Extends the green/ open space of Spencer Smith Park
They acknowledge & respect the property owner’s right to profit from his investment, and that this will necessitate a “reasonable” amount of massing & building height. What tyey are looking for is a “Win Win Win” for all parties.
Emerging Plan B concept from Planning partnership gets close to what they wouldlike to see; it seeks to balance the Developer’s Current Concept with Plan B’s (the community’s) Concepts. The concept is premised on the following:
Achieves the Urban Design objectives for the Downtown
Achieves a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that balances the base permissions of 5.0 with the Developer’s Current Concept which represents approx. 7.5 FAR
Buildings are located east of the ‘Thin Red Line’ , representing the view corridor south of Lakeshore Road, proposed by the Downtown Mobility Hub Study.
- A new significant open space defined by the ‘Thin Red Line’ located on the west portion of the property, contiguous with the waterfront park
- Buildings that provide a clear landmark visible from the park, Brant Street, John Street, Lakeshore Road and Lake Ontario
- A potential development yield that is viable and provides some incentive for redevelopment
Note: PLAN B neither supports nor objects to tower height
There are very significant difference between what the existing rules permit and what the developer is asking for.

 The Burlington Urban Design panel, made up of professionals who have no interest in the development put forward a number of recommendation. Few got anything more than the time of day.
The Applicant’s Response to Community Input in Plan B’s Opinion
- Silent on/ Ignored most Public input & recommendations
– Waterfront Planning Study re: Key Policy Directives – June 2018
– Burlington Urban Design Advisory Committee – August 2021
– PLAN B – Thin Red Line

- The Application relies heavily on UGC/ MTSA designations downtown to justify intensification
– While the Complete Application was not submitted until December 17th grandfathering by the November 10th ROPA order is assumed
The Plan B people assume that the developer is prepared to let their case be determined by the Ontario Land Tribunal.
 The thin red line phrase came out of a meeting with city planners – The Plan B people took it and ran with it.
Citizens’ PLAN B recommends:
- The Applicant’s proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) to eliminate the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study as a prerequisite for this application be REJECTED.
The Waterfront Hotel Planning Study will be completed within the statutory time frame of processing this application
The June 2018 Key Policy Directives already reflect key Community Feedback
Collaboration, good faith negotiations needed for a “Win Win Win”
Citizens’ PLAN B also recommends:
The Applicant’s proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment (ZBA) to fit it’s proposed application should be APPROVED with Modifications.
Key community feedback from the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study, Burlington Urban Design Advisory Committee, PLAN B must be reflected in the application’s modifications
Limit building heights to yield of FAR 6.0:1 (per EPC#3).
A “good faith” compromise between Base Permission of 5.0:1 and Applicant’s aggressive ask of 7.76:1
Plan B thinks this may avert acrimonious & lengthy legal debates before the OLT & an unpredictable outcome for both parties.
The city is seeking response to a survey that closes March 1. Link to that survey is set out below.
Link to the survey is HERE
By Pepper Parr
February 23rd, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
A Statutory Meeting is required under the Planning Act to allow the public to learn what a development application is about.
During these meetings the city planning department sets out what the application is asking for and what the current Official Plan and Zoning bylaw permits.
Wednesday evening the city presented the following two slides;
 The difference between what is permitted under the current in-force Official Plan and what the developer wants is astounding.

Recommendation: Direct staff to continue to process the submitted applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for 2020 Lakeshore Road, including evaluating and incorporating any/all comments received by Committee and the public at the Statutory Public Meeting, as well as the comments received through the ongoing technical review of this application by agency partners and internal departments.
Plan B, a small citizen group gave an excellent delegation that highlighted just how much the developer is asking and how little they are prepared to give.
The application makes mention of narrowing Lakeshore Road.
They realize that they have to provide some parkland – and have suggested cash in lieu of land would be satisfactory.
This is a complex story, not all that easy to follow yet critical in terms of what the downtown core of the city will look like and what in the way of impact it will have on Spencer Smith Park.
What was disappointing was just how little members of Council had to say when there was an opportunity for them to make comments. Mayor Meed Ward spoke as did ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns and Councillor Nisan. The others appeared to be mute.
More to come on this one.
By Pepper Parr
February 22, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
The event is set up as a Statutory Public Meeting taking place during a Standing Committee this evening, Tuesday at 6:30 pm
Log into the city calendar and work your way to the Committee meetings part and select the 22nd.
That will get you into the meeting where you can watch and take part.
The Statutory Review is required by the Planning Act. The review is about an Applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law owned by Burlington 2020 Lakeshore Inc. Addresses: 2020 Lakeshore Road
There are two process taking place within the same basic time frame.
 Many wonder what the one process means to the other.
Applications were submitted by owner and deemed Complete on December 2021
The site is : 0.76 hectares; Frontage on Lakeshore Rd: 114 m, Frontage on Elizabeth St: 50 m
Proposed Mixed-Use Development is as follows:
- Residential: 557 apartments
- Hotel: 122 suites
- Retail/commercial: 4,445 m2
- Office: 4,348 m2
- Two tall buildings: 35 & 30 storeys with 5-storey podiums
- 598 parking spaces
- Proposed Floor Area Ratio: 76:1
What it works out to is set out below.
 This is what the owners of the Waterfront Hotel want to do with their space. It is your city and your park. Is this the best the city can get?
What will the site look like from different streets that leads to Lakeshore road ?

The question the Gazette is asking is set out in the graphic below..


Take part in the Statutory meeting this evening and if you don’t like what you see stand up on your hind legs and bark. Do the same thing if you like what you see. It is your city – it is your park.
By Pepper Parr
February 18th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
It is the development that will change for decades what the core of downtown Burlington is going to look like.
And while 110 people took part in a virtual presentation on what the issues are – there didn’t seem to be all that much in the way passionate interest.
There were more questions about parking during the virtual meeting than there were about what the impact would be of two 35 storey plus towers sitting on a five storey podium perched at the edge of Lakeshore Road and Brant Street at what the developer called Ground Zero for the city.
The city now wants feed back from the public. A recording of the February 15th meeting can be reached HERE
The survey can be found HERE
Closing date for public feedback is March 1st – not a lot of time. Get your views in now – they matter.
The Waterfront Study Plan people and the developer are far apart. The Study group is suggesting two 15 – 17 storey buildings and taking a 20 metre strip on the west side as park land along with another small patch on land on the east side at the southern end (lake side) of the site.

The developer has proposed two towers – one 30 storeys high and the other 35 storeys high – both sitting on a five story podium.

Parking for both would be underground exiting and entering off Elizabeth Street to the east.
While the study is for the area shown below – all the attention up to this point has been on the Waterfront Hotel site.

Spencer Smith Park defines Burlington. Few cities in Canada sit on the edge of the largest body of water in the country. It is host to some of the biggest public festivals in the province.
Will 40 storey structures take away from what the park offers the citizens of Burlington; will they diminish what is left of the small ton feel of Brant Street?
Do you think the big flashy buildings are what the city needs. A decision is going to be made – get your two cents in now when it matters.
 Children playing innocently – a man having snooze under a tree – the Spencer Smith Park we have today – will that change if there are 40 storey towers looming over everything?
|
|