 By Pepper Parr
February 16th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
Something like this is probably coming your way.
It is labelled the 2022 Preferred Concept for the Waterfront Hotel site that was put before about 110 people that took part in a virtual presentation Wednesday evening,
 Proposed 2022 Preferred Concept – half the height of what the developer is asking for and a lot more park space. It is considerably different than the plan the developer has before the city Community Planning department; basically half the height and much more park space..
There are two towers in the concept but they are between 15 and 17 stories each rather than the 30 and 35 storeys the developer has before the Community Planning department.
The two towers rest on a 3 storey podium instead of the five storey podium the developer is asking for.
The biggest difference is a 20 metre wide piece of land on the west side of the site that runs from Lakeshore Road to the southern end of the property. It was described as a needed addition to Spencer Smith Park which was described as closes to full capacity on many occasions.
There was some additional park space to the lower right of the 2022 Preferred concept.
Evan Sugden, the Bousfields Inc., planning consultant hired by the developer was taken aback when he saw the concept and asked where the justification was for taking land to be used as park space. He wanted to know where the report was that set out the need for additional park space.
All developments are required to provide park space, either in land or cash in lieu.
 The developer wanted two soaring towers that would be 40 storeys including the podium. While well attended the virtual meeting ran out of steam at the one hour point of a meeting that was scheduled for an hour and a half.
All members of council were reported to be in attendance but other than the Mayor none had anything to say.
The Mayor did take a shot at having a straw poll done on the spot – that didn’t work out – the consultants running the event said i would not be appropriate at this point to hold a straw poll.
Next step? The city wants opinions and feed back from the public. They are fully aware that this development is going to go to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a decision and they want to build the strongest case possible.
The city wants feedback from the public no later than March 1st. For those who did not take part in the virtual meeting – the presentation was recorded and will be available on the GetInvolved section of the city web site.
 By Pepper Parr
February 9th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The City of Burlington Planning department is working feverishly on an application development to build two towers – one 35 and the other 30 storeys that will sit atop a five story podium.
This application has to be presented to council not later than April 15th or it can be taken to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a non-decision appeal.
Municipalities have 120 days to respond with a decision on a development application.
At the same time the City of Burlington is resuming work on the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study. When the study is completed, it will provide guidance in the redevelopment of this site.
Located next to two of Burlington’s most significant landmarks, Spencer Smith Park and the Brant Street Pier, the City is asking for input to make sure the new development reflects a high quality of urban design that enhances the community’s access to the waterfront and the downtown.
The fact that there is a development application for land in the centre of that waterfront study area would suggest that the die has already been cast.
Within the same general time frame, February 22nd, there is a Statutory Public meeting on the development application which will have the Planning department setting out the issues and the developer explaining what they plan to do.
Virtual Public Open House – Feb. 15
Residents are invited to join a virtual public open house to talk about the study process and hear from City staff and the consultant team, The Planning Partnership, who will present the preferred concept plan for the site. There will be a Q & A period following the presentation. The open house is on:
Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2022
7 to 8:30 p.m.
Zoom or dial +1 647 374 4685 by telephone and enter meeting ID 813 0521 1078
Residents also have the opportunity to learn more about the planning study on the City’s online engagement platform, Get Involved Burlington.
The Waterfront Hotel Planning Study is separate from the development application process. This sentence fails to add that there is an application for development approval before the Planning department now.
2020 Lakeshore Rd. Statutory Public Meeting – Feb. 22
The City will hold a Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act to consider the City staff report concerning the development application for 2020 Lakeshore Rd. City staff will be recommending that Council direct staff to continue to review and process the application. Due to COVID-19, this Statutory Public Meeting will be held virtually.
This meeting will take place on:
Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2022
6:30 p.m.
Virtual Meeting that will be on the city web site
To view the meeting details, the Meeting Notice [PDF] or to register to delegate, visit burlington.ca/2020lakeshore.
 This is the developers architectural rendering of what they would like to build. Planning Study Background
In 2017 and 2018, the City began the planning study to guide the redevelopment of the waterfront site at Lakeshore Road and the foot of Brant Street, including the Waterfront Hotel at 2020 Lakeshore Rd. City staff gathered feedback through visioning workshops, public and stakeholder engagement.
In mid-2018, the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study was placed on hold due to other Council directed priorities such as the New Official Plan process.
On Jan. 11, 2022, City staff presented Council with a study update through staff report.
Why the study can resume
The City is able to resume the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study at this time because:
• the re-examination of the New Official Plan Project, including Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown, has been completed,
• approval of the new Official Plan (under appeal), as well as
• the Minster of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s approval, with modifications, of the Regional Official Plan Amendment 48.
City staff, with support from the project consultant, will pick up the work where it left off in 2018, and complete the study. The work is estimated to take four months and will use community input to-date to help develop a final preferred concept.
The City has this work remaining:
• Phase 4: Report and Recommendation of Preferred Land Use Concept, Q1 2022
This phase of the study involves the selection of a preferred concept and the preparation of a Planning Justification Report.
• Phase 5: Official Plan Policies, Zoning and Urban Design Guidelines, Q2 2022
The fifth phase of the study includes the development of draft site-specific official plan policies, zoning regulations and urban design and implementation guidelines. This phase will also include a public open house, presentation to Committee and final delivery of the implementing Official Plan Amendment and
 Determining what should be built on the waterfront hotel property has gone through a number of concepts. The Waterfront study restart will pick up where things were back in 2019 when it was paused.  Marianne Meed Ward – moments before she was sworn in as Mayor. Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward made the following comments:
“We know the Waterfront Hotel is a key site in our city, right next to our cherished downtown waterfront park. We know we have to get it right, and the time is now, with the Waterfront Hotel study starting up again, and an active application for redevelopment filed. We also need to ensure the public has every opportunity to share their feedback. That’s why Councillor Kearns and I worked together on a motion to direct staff to complete the study and the application review within the required statutory time frames — so we can record a decision as a community on this site, and not risk an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for non-decision within the deadline. The best way you can shape the future of what happens here is to participate in both the study, as well as the development application review. ”
Ward 2 City Councillor Lisa Kearns spoke a little more forcefully: “We have heard loud and clear that residents place an extraordinary value on Burlington’s Waterfront. Development concerning the Waterfront Hotel site is extremely important to Ward 2 residents and to residents across our city. The outcome of an active development proposal is paramount to the future of our Waterfront and Spencer Smith Park, not to mention our downtown businesses and residents alike.
 Lisa Kearns – ward 2 Councillor “I encourage everyone to get engaged with the study information, subscribe to the Get Involved page for updates and attend the meetings on the Hotel Study on Feb. 15. and the Statutory Public Meeting on Feb. 22. The City will make a decision on this planning file to ensure that the decision is made at the local level. Let’s come together to give our feedback and make sure the new development results in a property that supports the community’s waterfront and downtown experience.”
Related news stories:
Is there a better way to develop this critical part of the city?
If you haven’t heard of Plan B – check them out.
The Plan B web site:
 By Pepper Parr
February 9th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
“A terrific turnout” said ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns, who took a small group on a downtown development tour last Saturday.
“We embraced the chilly weather and learned about various developments in different stages, the planning process and Council’s vision for development.
“It was an interactive afternoon and one more way to connect with my office about our community. Thank you to everyone that came out, stay tuned for the next one in April.”
Well now, there was a lot more to the tour than the Councillor is revealing.
In the photograph below, the Councillor is in front of the Waterfront Hotel, a site that will be demolished and replaced by two towers that will be more than 30 storeys high – both sitting on a five storey podium.
 Lisa Kearns on the site of a planned two tower development. It is the most controversial development the city has had to cope with and if it proceeds the way the developers want – the quaint Burlington downtown you now know will be history.
The site Lisa Kearns is standing on will have what you see below.
 Rendering of what the intersection of Brant and Lakeshore will look like if the development proceeds.  Developers’ rendering of the two towers they want to build at the intersection of Brant and Lakeshore road – the site of the Waterfront Hotel
 By Staff
February 5th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
A number of years ago the Planning Department decided they wanted input from outside professionals who were not in any way involved in a development project.
Recognized professional architects were invited to apply to serve on the panel. The current panel membership is made up of:
Members of BUD
| present |
absent / regrets |
| Ken Coit (Chair) |
ü |
|
| Jana Kelemen (Vice Chair) |
|
regrets |
| Alexandru Taranu |
|
regrets |
| Jackie VanderVelde |
ü |
|
| Jessica Hawes |
ü |
|
| LeAnn Seely |
ü |
|
| Matt Reid |
ü |
|
| Michael Barker |
|
regrets |
| Nigel Tai |
|
regrets |
 Cynthia Zahoruak The impetus for this approach came from Cynthia Zahoruak, a respected Burlington based architect.
The Community Planning Department asked the Burlington Urban Design Advisory Panel (BUD) for advice on the following key issues:
 1. Response to Context
Please comment on the integration of the proposed development with its surroundings including: streetscaping on Lakeshore Road and Elizabeth Street and interface with Spencer Smith Park to the west and south.
2. Public Realm – Access & Connectivity to the Public Park & Lake
Please comment on the proposed atrium at the foot of John Street, with consideration for bird-friendly design, the preservation of public views from John Street to Lake Ontario, and the objective of maintaining and enhancing public access to the waterfront.
3. Architectural Design and Design Excellence
Please comment on the design of the proposed buildings, with consideration for the landmark location of the site and the need to achieve compatibility with surrounding context, as well as the proposed arrangement of uses and location of building entrances.
4. Location & Amount of Outdoor Amenity Spaces
Please comment on the proposed amenity areas (rooftop and at grade) with attention to opportunities for publicly accessible spaces.
Design Team Presentation
The developers Design Team provided an overview of the history and context of the site. It was noted that the site is a premier site at the foot of Brant Street, a core street in Downtown Burlington. A landmark vision that functions as a landmark destination for the city and downtown core is therefore proposed. The history of the site as an entertainment destination and its contribution to hotel enjoyment of the waterfront is intended to be reflected in this project.
The proposed building consists of a podium with ground floor commercial and hotel and office space above, and two towers with residential uses. The hotel will be located on one side of the podium, while office space will be on the other. A bridge connecting the two sides of the podium will contain amenities for the hotel and residential uses. All parking will be underground.
The project architect walked the Panel through various views of the proposal. It was noted that the site is intended to respect the existing landscape of the park and the steep topography between Lakeshore Road and the waterfront. The proposal is intended to provide visual and physical connections from the street to the lake.
With respect to building design, the design is meant to be iconic and reflect water waves. Terraces are used to create a gentle curve along the tower façade and provide residents with views of the city and lake. Complementary materials, textures and colours connect the tower and the podium.
A plaza and an atrium that the public can walk through or stay in to enjoy waterfront views is proposed. The connection from Lakeshore Road to the Waterfront Trail continues through to the landscape with patio opportunities for coffee, restaurants and to create a gathering space for people to enjoy the location.
Panel Questions:
The Panel asked the following questions of clarification:
• Is the tower floor plate largest at the 6th floor, and smaller as they rise?
o Yes. There are no bulges proposed in the towers.
• What are some of the environmental features of the building and site design?
o Green roofs accessible to each use are proposed to reduce heat loss. Local materials will also be used to help with LEED certification. The new energy code will be adhered to. Glass in various opacities will be used to reduce heat loss. Bird friendly design will be used at the podium level with optional fretting throughout the tower above.
o The lower area of the podium will have more solid materials (e.g. brick, stone).
• Are the towers predominately glass?
o Yes.
• What are the setbacks on the east, south and west sides of the podium from the property lines?
o North: 7 m; west (waterfront and Spencer Smith Park): 2 m; south (to property line): 4.9 m; and, east (Elizabeth Street): 2 m
• What is the intended programming for the atrium?
o The atrium will be a covered space that the public can freely access and move through from the Lakeshore Road side of the building to the plaza and waterfront on the southside and vice versa. It is also intended to be a gathering place to get to other uses within the building (e.g. offices, hotel).
Panel Advice:
Question #1: Response to Context – Please comment on the integration of the proposed development with its surroundings including: streetscaping on Lakeshore Road and Elizabeth Street and interface with Spencer Smith Park to the west and south.
The Panel commented that taller heights and densities with a broad mix of uses are warranted at this site given its prominent location. However, the Panel felt that overall, the proposed building is too large for its context, and that the height, massing, proportions and scales of the podium and towers should be reevaluated in the context of their comments below. Additionally, more transparency overall in the ground floor plane, with more open semi-private spaces, should be provided.
 The Panel felt that the height and length of the podium is too large for this context. Lakeshore Road & John Street
The Panel felt that the height and length of the podium is too large for this context. The podium height could be reduced in consideration of the surrounding context. For example, it was noted that existing buildings on the north side of Lakeshore Road range in height from 1- to 2½- storeys and include heritage buildings that should be considered. Although the large setback of the proposed building helps to mitigate this juxtaposition, a reduction in height would further help with integration. To break up the length of the podium, it is recommended that the atrium be replaced with an open-air area and that more articulation be incorporated.
The Lakeshore Road streetscape was noted as being well done with the triple row of trees, extensive setback and opportunities for patios. However, the Panel was concerned that the atrium would cast shadows onto Lakeshore Road and obstruct views from John Street. Although glass material is proposed for the atrium, glass does not always appear transparent. Replacing the atrium with an open-air corridor was recommended.
 The breezeway leads to the view of the lake from the John at Lakeshore Road entrance. Lastly, it was noted that proportion and scale of the towers appear inconsistent between drawings in the submission package, causing the Panel to caution the overall tower massing and orientation. It was noted that a proportional balance needs to be struck between the narrow and broader sides of the towers, and that appropriate tower placements should be provided to mitigate their built form impacts such as shadowing on Brant Street.
Transitions to Spencer Smith Park and Waterfront Trail
The Panel highlighted that appropriate transitions to Spencer Smith Park and the Waterfront Trail are currently lacking. The existing path along the west side of the property, as well as Brant Street and the Waterfront Trail were noted as being busy pedestrian corridors. There is an opportunity for the west side of the site to provide a stronger connection to these areas.
Specifically, the Panel recommended that the building setback adjacent to this west interface be increased, the façade treatment better articulated, and open space landscaped to create more of a public realm and transition to the existing open space. Also, instead of a podium-tower condition on this side, the tower could be brought all the way down to the ground plane as an iconic vertical element (no podium) to provide interest and the podium could be replaced with landscaping.
It was noted that the west tower appears to have significant shadow impacts on Brant Street, and that the view down Brant appears to terminate at the towers. Relocating the west tower can also help address these issues.
There is also an opportunity to provide 180-degree views from the central area (between the podium) by extending it south of the podium.
Lastly, underground parking should be designed to protect the context of the park by allowing for mature trees.
Transitions to Elizabeth Street
On the Elizabeth Street side, the Panel noted that Elizabeth Street is a prominent frontage for the Bridgewater development to the west of the site. The Panel flagged that the height, location and orientation of towers should be carefully reviewed for their shadow impacts on Elizabeth Street.
The Panel agreed that locating back of house activities for the subject site off Elizabeth makes sense but cautioned that it should be carefully treated to support what is being achieved at Bridgewater. Elizabeth Street itself could be specially treated to signal to vehicles that it is a pedestrian area.
Question #2: Public Realm Access & Connectivity to the Public Park & Lake – Please comment on the proposed atrium at the foot of John Street, with consideration for bird-friendly design, the preservation of public views from John Street to Lake Ontario, and the objective of maintaining and enhancing public access to the waterfront.
The atrium is appreciated but does not provide a true visual corridor between John Street and the waterfront because of its glass reflections and pinched width.
Furthermore, for this connection to succeed as a physical public connection, it is important that it feels like a public space. It currently does not feel that way because the size of the podium and atrium is the same as the front elevation. An open-air connection is recommended instead.
Since there is value to having cooler, covered spaces, if an atrium is desired, it could be designed to provide more vertical articulation in the podium and give the podium an appearance of two separate buildings.
The Panel appreciates the detailed submission package, as well as the proposed streetscape design along Lakeshore Road and setback of underground parking to allow for the preservation and growth of mature street trees.
Question #3: Architectural Design and Design Excellence – Please comment on the design of the proposed buildings, with consideration for the landmark location of the site and the need to achieve compatibility with surrounding context, as well as the proposed arrangement of uses and location of building entrances.
The Panel commented that the buildings are beautifully designed and achieves the goal for an iconic design. It works well with the shape and curve of the pier. However, the massing of the building should be reviewed from multiple angles. The towers appear bulky from certain angles.
 The design appealed to the architects on the Burlington Urban Design Advisory panel The Panel was also concerned about the sustainability of the building. Considering climate change, buildings made of mostly glass are no longer a sustainable option. Impacts of the building over its lifespan in terms of carbon neutrality and sustainability should be closely reviewed. Also, with the site being close to the water, having sustainable stormwater management features is important.
Lastly, there is an opportunity to take advantage of the location of the site being within the cultural centre of Burlington by incorporating public art, designed with public input. Ideas include unique vertical elements such as colorful large-scale windows or a mural up one side of the building and an object at scale at the foot of John Street that brings a connection back to the lake and history of the site.
Question #4: Location & Amount of Outdoor Amenity Spaces – Please comment on the proposed amenity areas (rooftop and at grade) with attention to opportunities for publicly accessible spaces.
The Panel commented that much of the outdoor space between the podium is devoted to access ramps and stairs down to the park. Consider increasing the upper/lower plaza space and provide an elevator down to park level instead. The proposal introduces a lot of new residential units, which will need to be balanced with a lot of amenity space and different uses.
The Panel also recommended providing a porous interface with the park, rather than having a harsh boundary between public and private space, through measures such as incorporating some semi-private spaces and a variety of outdoor amenity spaces. More accesses through podium to the park should also be considered.
The Panel reiterated that focus should be placed on the edges of the building and the public realm to ensure that the design reflects its unique and special location. Also, the Panel reiterated that while a tall landmark building is warranted at this location, the proposed podium and towers are too tall and should be reduced to ensure that the building is compatible and fits in with its surroundings, including both the existing and planned context.
Application: Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Presentations:
City Staff: Thomas Douglas, Community Planning
Design Team: David Falletta, Bousfields Inc.; Anh Le Quang, Lilia Koleva Neuf Architectes LLP;
Mario Patitucci, Adesso Design Inc.
.
By Pepper Parr
February 4th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The City is resuming work on the Waterfront Hotel Site Planning Study.
When the study is completed, it will provide guidance in the redevelopment of this site.
The white dotted line is the boundary of the site – the dark blue in the centre is the site of the hotel property Located next to two of Burlington’s most significant landmarks, Spencer Smith Park and the Brant Street Pier, the City is asking for input to make sure the new development reflects a high quality of urban design that enhances the community’s access to the waterfront and the downtown.
Virtual Public Open House – Feb. 15
Residents are invited to join a virtual public open house to talk about the study process and hear from City staff and the city consultant team, The Planning Partnership, who will present the preferred concept plan for the site. There will be a Q & A period following the presentation.
The open house is on Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2022 7:00 to 8:30 p.m.
Zoom or dial +1 647 374 4685 by telephone and enter meeting ID 813 0521 1078
Residents also have the opportunity to learn more about the planning study on the City’s online engagement platform,
The Waterfront Hotel Planning Study is separate from the development application process.
And that is where this gets messy – very messy.
The Planning department is working furiously to have a report to Council before April 17 with either
A recommendation to approve the development
A recommendation to approve the development with changes
A recommendation to not approve the development.
The information given to the public last September was for two towers; one 30 storeys and the other 35 storey – both sitting on a five story podium. The very painful truth with this development is that far too few people know very much about it.
The public first got wind of it when a pre-application community consultation took place.
 Graphics and raw data on this project have been very difficult to come by – the Gazette had to threaten legal action to get a copy of what was a public report. The entrance to the site was to be from John Street, one block east of Brant. The light blue space in the very centre of this graphic will be a breezeway leading from Lakeshore to the steep steps that will lead into Spencer Smith Park. The light green will be amenity space for the tower residents. The tan coloured space will be open and where the public can gather The new hotel is shown in darker blue. The residential towers are in pink. The Gazette has not been able to have conversations with the developer’s planners. The Gazette has been reporting on this situation for some time – all the way back to 2015 when the city was putting together some ideas as to just what could happen with the Waterfront Hotel site when it was eventually re-developed.
 Centre – former city Councillor John Taylor in conversation with Linda Davies, owner of the leading condo real estate sales broker on the right and Dee Dee Davies at one of the public meetings in 2018
The city put together a process that had the developer agreeing to pay the full cost of a review that would include significant public input.
And those meetings took place – there were four of them out of which came a number of concepts – but no consensus – and then for reasons which look pretty weak, the city put a pause on the waterfront study.
The developer didn’t pause.
As early as August, the Burlington Urban Design group was meeting and providing comment on the development.
They engaged planning consults and architects and met with people in the Planning department to advance their development application.
Members of Council knew what was taking place – but the public didn’t.
Members of Council are still saying very little – they have all taken the position that they cannot make statements until they have a Planning Staff report in front of them.
So here we are with two very different streams of activity taking place at the same time about the same piece of land
The developer pushing their application – and the city reviving a study that should have been completed years ago.
Close on the heals of the study re-start is a Statutory Public meeting required under the Planning Act that is to take place on February 22nd at 6:30 p.m. It too will be a virtual meeting.
In a media release from City Hall on Thursday we learned that Planning Staff will be recommending that Council direct staff to continue to review and process the application.
Planning Study Background
In 2017 and 2018 (the Gazette interviewed a member of the Planning staff in 2015 on this study proposal) the City began looking at a planning study to guide the redevelopment of the waterfront site at Lakeshore Road and the foot of Brant Street, including the Waterfront Hotel at 2020 Lakeshore Road., City staff gathered feedback through visioning workshops, public and stakeholder engagement.
In mid-2018, the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study was placed on hold due to other priorities in the Community Planning Department.
 A number of design concepts have come forward – no consensus yet. Why the study can resume
In its media release the City said it is able to resume the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study at this time because:
• the re-examination of the New Official Plan Project, including Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown, has been completed,
• approval of the new Official Plan (under appeal), as well as
• the Minster of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s approval, with modifications, of the Regional Official Plan Amendment 48.
City staff, with support from the project consultant, will pick up the work where it left off in 2018, and complete the study. The work is estimated to take four months and will use community input to-date to help develop a final preferred concept.
 The City has this work remaining:
Phase 4: Report and Recommendation of Preferred Land Use Concept, Q1 2022
This phase of the study involves the selection of a preferred concept and the preparation of a Planning Justification Report.
• Phase 5: Official Plan Policies, Zoning and Urban Design Guidelines, Q2 2022
The fifth phase of the study includes the development of draft site-specific official plan policies, zoning regulations and implementation guidelines. This phase will also include a public open house, presentation to Committee and final delivery of the implementing Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment.
It all gets messier and tighter in terms of time frames.
When a developer takes an application to the city – the Planning department has 120 days to make a recommendation to council. That recommendation can be to not proceed or to proceed with changes or to give it a rubber stamp and tell the developer to bring in the cranes and start building.
The developers submitted their plan on December 17th, the Planning department told Council they didn’t think the application was complete. There was a lot of scurrying around and the city was able to say that the application was indeed complete. Close to 30 days of very valuable staff work was lost. The city will tell you that there was no time lost – don’t believe them.
 Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns brought forward a motion at Council directing Staff to complete their work and make a presentation to Council before April 17th, 2022. She wanted to be as certain as possible that the city did not find itself before the Ontario Land Tribunal for failing to deliver a report within that 120 requirement.
 Nothing was to be built west of the line Plan B drew. Included in all this are the brave efforts of Plan B – a small group of citizens who objected strongly to the concept designs that were being shown. They had a concept that would keep development within a “thin red line”.
The city’s Mayor said: “We know the Waterfront Hotel is a key site in our city, right next to our cherished downtown waterfront park. We know we have to get it right, and the time is now, with the Waterfront Hotel study starting up again, and an active application for redevelopment filed.
“We also need to ensure the public has every opportunity to share their feedback. That’s why Councillor Kearns and I worked together on a motion to direct staff to complete the study and the application review within the required statutory time frames — so we can record a decision as a community on this site, and not risk an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for non-decision within the deadline.
“The best way you can shape the future of what happens here is to participate in both the study, as well as the development application review. We welcome your input and look forward to those discussions.”
Ward 2 City Councillor Lisa Kearns said: “We have heard loud and clear that residents place an extraordinary value on Burlington’s Waterfront. Development concerning the Waterfront Hotel site is extremely important to Ward 2 residents and to residents across our city. The outcome of an active development proposal is paramount to the future of our Waterfront and Spencer Smith Park, not to mention our downtown businesses and residents alike.
The development plans as they stand now will result in a Burlington few significantly than what is in place now.
Renderings that show the development relative to Spencer Smith Park and the Pier.  On the left is the view of the lake from Lakeshore Road at Brant. On the right the view from the same spot looking north up John Street. 
What is at stake here is the heart of the city – Ground Zero – the intersection of Lakeshore Road and Brant Street and the look and feel of the downtown core for decades.
How different city Councils let things get to the point we are at now boggles the imagination.
Related news stories:
Plan B was trying to get some traction within the Planning department and with the public.
The time line of a very sad story.
Are there other options.
 By Pepper Parr
January 27th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
During the Mayor’s State of the City address early this morning we learned that the Waterfront Hotel property study that started back in 2015 and was put on a pause in 2018 – is now back on and will begin on February 15th.
This is what the intersection of Brant and Lakeshore Road might look like – south east corner The Mayor did add that while the study is back in place – there is an application with the Planning department. That application MUST be before council in April with a recommendation to
Approve
Approve with modification
Reject.
Quite how the city managed to do next to nothing with the study – which was paid for by the developer, is something no one has ever explained.
The consequences may be terrible.
The new Burlington skyline?
 By Staff
January 26th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
Marcello Alaimo, operator of Exquisite Living released some comment on the draft of the Housing Task Force that is expected to release the report and its 58 recommendation at the end of the month.
The task force that was asked to find ways to make Ontario housing more affordable wants to do away with rules that entrench single-family homes as the main option in many residential neighbourhoods, according to a draft report.
The nine-member Housing Affordability Task Force, chaired by Scotiabank CEO Jake Lawrence, wants to “create a more permissive land use, planning, and approvals systems” and throw out rules that stifle change or growth — including ones that protect the “character” of neighbourhoods across the province.
The wide-ranging 31-page draft report, which is making the rounds in municipal planning circles and could look much different when it’s officially released Jan. 31, makes 58 recommendations.
 Zoned commercial, spitting distance to the QEW, minutes from downtown – owner wants to rezone and make it residential. It includes discussions on speeding up approval processes, waiving development charges for infill projects, allowing vacant commercial property owners to transition to residential units, and letting urban boundaries expand “efficiently and effectively.”
It also calls for all municipalities — and building code regulations — not to make it just easier for homeowners to add secondary suites, garden homes, and laneway houses to their properties, but also to increase height, size and density along “all major and minor arterials and transit corridors” in the form of condo and apartment towers.
© Kate Porter/CBC One of the task force’s recommendations is to create rules that would bypass community opposition to adding density in existing neighbourhoods. 4-storey complexes in all neighbourhoods.
But perhaps the most controversial recommendation is the one to virtually do away with so-called exclusionary zoning, which allows only a single-family detached home to be built on a property.
 Built by the ADI Group – this four storey could be placed anywhere in the city if the Housing Task Force makes it through the legislature. Instead, the task force recommends that in municipalities with a population of more than 100,000, the province should “allow any type of residential housing up to four storeys and four units on a single residential lot,” subject to urban design guidance that’s yet to be defined.
According to the report, Ontario lags behind many other G7 countries when it comes to the number of dwellings per capita. And housing advocates have long argued that more modest-projects — duplexes, triplexes, tiny homes and townhouses — are needed in established neighbourhoods, especially if the environmental and infrastructure costs of sprawl are to be avoided.
But neighbourhood infill and intensification is often a hard political sell.
“While everyone might agree that we have a housing crisis, that we have a climate emergency, nobody wants to see their neighbourhoods change,” said Coun. Glen Gower, who co-chairs Ottawa’s planning committee. “So that’s really the challenge that we’re dealing with in Ottawa and in Ontario.”
After last week’s housing summit with Ontario’s big city mayors, reporters repeatedly asked Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark if he supported doing away with zoning for single-detached homes, as other jurisdictions like Edmonton and major New Zealand cities have done.
Clark said he’d heard the idea but did not give a direct answer one way or the other.
© CBC Coun. Glen Gower is the co-chair of Ottawa council’s planning committee. He welcomes the discussion about housing affordability in the task force report, but concedes that allowing four-storey, four-unit dwellings in every neighbourhood could be a hard sell.
Reduce construction barriers, approval requirements
Many of the recommendations revolve around making it easier and faster for builders to construct homes.
According to the draft report, not only would a streamlined process allow dwellings to get on the market faster, but reducing approval times would also save developers money which, in theory, could be passed onto residents.
The report cites an Ontario Association of Architects study from 2018 showing that costs for a 100-unit condo building increase by $193,000 for every month the project is delayed.
That’s why, for example, the task force is recommending that any “underutilized or redundant commercial properties” be allowed to be converted to residential units without municipal approvals.
The draft report also calls for quasi-automatic approval for projects up to 10 units that conform to existing official plans and zoning, and goes so far to recommend that municipalities “disallow public consultations” for these applications.
The report speaks to reducing what the task force characterizes as “NIMBY” factors in planning decisions, recommending the province set Ontario-wide standards for specifics like setbacks, shadow rules and front doors, while excluding details like exterior colour and building materials from the approval process.
The task force would even eliminate minimum parking requirements for new projects.
Politicians say more than just supply needed
The report touches on a number of subjects it believes unnecessarily delay the building of new homes, including how plans approved by city councils can be appealed.
It recommends the province restore the right of developers to appeal official plans — a power that was removed by the previous Liberal government.
And in an effort to eliminate what it calls “nuisance” appeals, the task force recommends that the fee a third party — such as a community group — pays to appeal projects to the Ontario Land Tribunal should be increased from the current $400 to $10,000.
© CBC NDP housing critic Jessica Bell supports doing away with exclusionary zoning, but says many more measures, including building more affordable homes, are needed.
That doesn’t sit well with NDP MPP Jessica Bell, the party’s housing critic. who said “My initial take is that any attempt to make the land tribunal even more difficult for residents to access is concerning,” said Bell, adding the NDP is asking stakeholders and community members for feedback.
The tribunal can overturn a municipal council’s “democratically decided law,” she said, “and I would be pretty concerned if it costs $10,000 for a third party to go to the land tribunal and bring up some valid evidence.”
While she was pleased to see the task force address zoning reform to encourage the construction of town homes, duplexes and triplexes in existing neighbourhoods — the so-called “missing middle” between single-family homes and condo towers — Bell said increasing supply is not enough to improve housing for all Ontarians.
 “We need government investment in affordable housing,” she said. “We need better protections for renters, and we need measures to clamp down on speculation in the housing market … We need a more holistic and comprehensive approach than what we are seeing in this draft report right now.”
(While the task force was directed by the province to focus on increasing the housing supply through private builders, it acknowledges in the report that “Ontario’s affordable housing shortfall was raised in almost every conversation” with stakeholders.)
© CBCGreen Party of Ontario Leader Mike Schreiner says he’s opposed to the task force’s recommendation to allow urban boundaries to expand.
Expanding urban boundaries another concern
From his first reading of the report, Ontario Green Party leader Mike Schreiner agreed with the zoning recommendations but said streamlined processes need to be balanced with maintaining public consultations and heritage designations. “One of my concerns with my very quick read of the draft report is that it talks about expanding urban boundaries … and I’m opposed to that,” he told CBC.
 Everything to the left of the red line along Hwy 407 and Dundas are part of the rural boundary. “We simply can’t keep paving over the farmland that feeds us, the wetlands that clean our drinking water [and] protect us from flooding, especially when we already have about 88,000 acres within existing urban boundaries in southern Ontario available for development,” he said.
Schreiner said he’s also “deeply concerned” that the report discusses aligning housing development with the province’s plan for Highway 413 in the GTA. “I simply don’t think we can spend over $10 billion to build a highway that will supercharge climate pollution, supercharge sprawl, making life less affordable for people and paving over 2,000 acres of farmland
 By Pepper Parr
January 20th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
This report sets out the very awkward situation in which the Planning department finds itself.
If you love your city and you care about what it is going to look like in five years, read on. The report is lengthy.
The city has had a Waterfront Planning Study in the works since 2015. At one point the Planning Department advised that they did not have a planner assigned to the file.
Most people thought progress was being made – turns out everyone was wrong. Nothing (at best very little) was being done.
 The boundary for the Waterfront Study area was clear. The study was paid for by the developer who got tired of waiting and decided to move on with his long term plans While city planners were asleep at the switch the owner of the property wasn’t.
 Darko Vranich, has significant property interests in Hamilton and Burlington which include the adult entertainment site Solid Gold in Aldershot and that small motel immediately east of Bridgewater and doors away from Emma’s Back Porch. The Waterfront Hotel is owned by Darko Vranich, who owns Burlington 2020 Lakeshore Road Inc., the site of the hotel he wants to demolish and put up a two tower development – one at 35 storeys, the other at 30 storeys – both would sit atop a five level podium.
Back in April 28, 2021, the consulting firm, Bousfields (leading the development application team), met with staff in the Planning Department to determine the requirements for a complete development application.
The developer wanted to amend the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate the owner’s proposal to redevelop the site with a mixed-use development that does not conform to in-effect Official Plan policies or Zoning By-law regulations.
That meeting should have triggered some action on completing the Waterfront Study – apparently it didn’t.
The city provided the developer and their representatives with a preconsultation package (by email – May 5, 2021).
The preconsultation package outlines the following;
Types of applications required (Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment);
Application fees required;
Requirement to hold a Pre-Application Public Consultation Meeting prior to submitting an application;
Required Information for Complete Application.
In accordance with the requirements set out in the preconsultation package, the applicant consulted the Burlington Urban Design (BUD) Panel regarding their proposed development on August 19, 2021. At a meeting less than a week ago the Director of Community Planning, Mark Simeone, was not aware that a meeting with BUD had taken place.
Another example of senior city staff not being fully briefed on everything which was now in play. Staff were fully aware of the scale, size and scope of what the developer had in mind. The public didn’t have a clue until a virtual Pre-Application Consultation Meeting was held via via Zoom September 8, 2021.
Lisa Kearns, the Ward Councillor and Mayor Meed Ward attended and took part – the news was not new to them.
 Years before the pre-consultation meeting at which the public got to see what the developer had in mind, a group of citizens believed there was a better way to develop the Waterfront Hotel site and they formed Plan B and created the idea of a thin red line beyond which there would be no development.
The city, in the meantime, had hired a group to hold public meetings at which different concepts were developed. The Plan B people were never really sure if they were being heard by the city planners. When the graphic below became public it was pretty close to what the Plan B people were prepared to settle for. Was it close enough to the three concepts the city made public? And, by the way, what are the current concepts the city planners have for the site? Nothing anywhere that sets out the city’s position.
You can bet real money that the developer knows what they want – at this point all we have is what they presented last September – and that wasn’t a pretty sight.
 The green area is what Plan B wants left open allowing a clear view to the lake from Brant Street.
On October 22, 2021, City staff received a submission package from the applicant requesting amendments to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the proposed development at 2020 Lakeshore Road.
On October 26, 2021 the City received the application fees set out in the preconsultation package. City staff confirmed receipt of these materials and fees as of October 26 and initiated a completeness review to determine whether the required information and material, as identified in the preconsultation package, had been provided.
The Planning Department, at first, took the position that the development application was not complete but sometime after the January 13 council meeting at which the development application was deemed incomplete the matter was on the January 18th council meeting as an Urgent Business matter. At that time the application was deemed to be complete.
Sometime on the Friday between the 13th and the 18th meetings new information from someone (either the city planning staff or the consultant for the developer or the city’s outside legal counsel) was provided resulted in the application being deemed complete.
The development application that was deemed incomplete did not have the the following required information:
1. Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment;
2. Park Concept Plan;
3. Angular Plane Study.
Staff notified the applicant that their application had been deemed incomplete.
Subsequently the applicant submitted a request to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) for a motion date to determine if the application was in fact in complete. The OLT never did schedule a date for such a motion to be heard.
On December 17, 2021, the applicant provided the following additional materials to the City in relation to their applications:
1. Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment;
2. Park Concept Plan;
3. Angular Plane Study.
Sometime before January 18th, City staff reviewed the additional materials provided and determined that with the receipt of additional materials described the development application was deemed to be complete December 17, 2021.
The clock was now ticking – starting December 17th, 2021 the city had 120 days to produce a Staff report on the development.
The immediate impact was the loss of about 30 days that could have been used to review the development application to be in a position to complete a review of a very big and a very complex file dumped on a department that was understaffed and had very recently added 15+ planners to staff who had to work in an office environment dictated by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Sometime in February, 2022 the city will hold a required statutory public meeting at Council Committee to consider the development applications. It is expected that the statutory meeting will be virtual, which will crimp the number of delegations made at Council.
Sometime in April, 2022 a Staff recommendation report will be sent to Committee followed by a special Council meeting.
The city has three options:
Approve the application
Approve the application with required changes
Refuse the application setting out the reasons for the refusal
If refused the developer will take the case to the Ontario Land Tribunal
That is not the whole story.
 The night Marianne Meed Ward was elected Mayor of Burlington. When Marianne Meed Ward ran for Mayor in 2018 she told the citizens of Burlington that she wanted the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) to be moved north – to where the Burlington GO station was located.
It took a lot of energy and political guts to take that position but as Mayor, Marianne Meed Ward pushed and pushed and pushed.
And the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing eventually agreed and the UGC boundary was moved north with the southern boundary pushed north from Lakeshore Road to about Prospect.
Unfortunately, in the same decision, the Minister grandfathered a number of development sites and said they would fall under the rules of the old UGC – which ran right to the lake. Right where the Waterfront Hotel development is to take place.
The decision didn’t help.
Council passed a motion last week that included an amendment.
Deem, in accordance with sections 22.1, 22(5) and 34(10.2) of the Planning Act, that applications submitted by Burlington 2020 Lakeshore Inc. to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for lands at 2020 Lakeshore Road as made and complete on December 17, 2021, as the required information and materials were provided on that date; and
Direct the Director of Community Planning to notify Burlington 2020 Lakeshore Inc. that the required information and material have been provided for the applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for lands at 2020 Lakeshore Road, in accordance with sections 22(6.1) and 34(10.4) of the Planning Act.
The amendment:
Direct the Director of Community Planning to complete the processing of the application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for lands at 2020 Lakeshore Road within the statutory time frames, and bring forward a recommendation to Council and the Community to provide input and a decision before the statutory review period expires.
So what now?
There is a very senior planner on the file and an all hands on deck attitude is infusing staff – many who are working remotely. Not the best situation to create the sense of team needed to get the very best out of people who have been pushed to the limit for more than 20 months.
To add to the troubled situation, Heather MacDonald, the chief planner as well as an Executive Director with the city, advised the city manager that she was going to retire. This apparently was not a surprise to the city manager.
Members of Council are limited on what they can say about a development that has yet to be put before Council with a Staff recommendation. As a result there hasn’t been as much as a peep from any of them.
 What was Councillor Galbraith opposed to? We do know that Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith was not very excited about what took place in those Closed sessions. He didn’t vote for the decision to direct Burlington’s legal counsel to proceed that came out of the Closed session. Because it was a Closed session the public will never know what Galbraith was opposed to.
Way back in 2010 Marianne Meed Ward ran for Council as the ward 2 candidate running on a platform to Save the Waterfront. Burlington may be about to see shovels in the ground by the end of the year putting a dagger in the heart of what Meed Ward set out to do
The Plan B group that wanted the western edge of any development on the hotel site to be limited by what they called a “thin red line.
At one point the Planning department appeared to be onside – no one is sure at this point if the thin red line concept will be applied.
What we do know is that the Planning department is working hard at completing their report that will go to city council and that sometime before it goes to Council there will be a required Statutory meeting at which the developer can tell their story (they are not required to take part) and citizens can delegate on what they don’t like.
It will be quite a meeting.
 Lovely design with great architectural features – but is this what the citizens of the city want in the downtown core?
 Is this the new look of the city skyline? Is this what the entrance to Spencer Smith Park going to look like?
By Pepper Parr
January 17th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
Council has been holding a number of Closed session meetings – all kinds of litigation taking place.
What perplexes a number of people is the way the City Clerk words the motions that are used to make holding a Closed session legal. That is shown in the agenda as: “Confidential update on a litigation matter”; a polite question would be – which litigation matter? – the public has no idea which matter they are talking about.
Providing the address of the property isn’t giving away any secrets and the public at least knows something is taking place.
All the public learns is that: Pursuant to section 239(2)(e) of the Municipal Act, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board.
 This is what you have now ….. Of current concern are the plans for the redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel site, 2020 Lakeshore Road. This is a very contentious development – quite why the members of city council go along with the city legal Counsel and the Clerk holding their cards so close to their chest, at the same time telling the world that they have the best community engagement record in the country, is what is referred to as talking out of both sides of your mouth. This of course gets done with the blessing of the city manager who appears to like things that way.
The practice is for Council to come out of Closed session and announce a Staff Direction which goes something like this: the Executive Director of Legal Services is directed to do what was agreed upon in the closed session.
Sometimes, rarely, Council will then go into Open session and there will be discussion about what took place in the Closed session.
 …this is what the developer has in mind. They have submitted their development application – city planners say it isn’t complete. As a reporter, I’ve always wondered why the Chairs of the Standing Committees don’t have the courage to stand up and report to the public what took place.
Last week, after lengthy Closed session (it started at 1:00 pm and ended at 6:35 pm) Council reverted to an Open session and for a moment it looked as if they were going to say something publicly about what had taken place. Mayor Meed Ward certainly expected something would be made public and something to the effect that the motion was written to allow something to be said.
Councillor Galbraith and the Committee Clerk didn’t have the same understanding – the Mayor said she would let it go to the Council meeting later in the month.
So we will hear what is happening to the development application for 2020 Lakeshore Road, the Waterfront Hotel Development site, that has been sent to the Planning department, at the next council meeting.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the amount of time the city has to respond to the development application. If they don’t do so within the required time-frame the matter goes to the Ontario Land Tribunal – and we all know what happens there.
.
By Paul Sharman
January 14th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
The following response to residents of Burlington who have emailed City Council members regarding the potential increase in urban boundaries in Milton and Halton Hills.
Thank you for your email regarding release of land for housing in the new Region Official Plan leading to 2051. I respect and understand your concerns. I and my Burlington Council colleagues have received hundreds of emails from Halton residents in response to the campaign initiated concerned residents. I am only addressing this subject from the perspective of Burlington in this response.
 Nothing in the Region will be able to open up – maybe next week. Both Region and City members of Council are committed to maintain rural Burlington as it is. There are no plans to allow housing in our rural lands other than as is currently permitted. Release of land is proposed by the Region in Milton and the Halton Hills only, not Burlington.
Official Plans (OP) have extensive analysis and regulations to ensure existing protection remains in place. You will find OP details for Burlington here https://www.burlington.ca/en/services-for-you/Official-Plan.asp
This is a challenging issue for us all. There are a number of factors that have to be considered:
The first is that the Region of Halton is obliged to craft a plan that satisfies the province’s 1.1m population requirement by 2051.
The second is that the Region must provide substantiation that the plan will satisfy market demand. Scenarios 3a and 3b, which have been considered, provided for significantly greater % of apartment units and very few ground oriented homes than other scenarios and could not satisfy the market test. Indeed, the recent preferred scenario is barely representative of anticipated demand. Keep in mind that Canadian dream is to live in a house with a garage and a yard, as you will understand. The preferred solution is a compromise.
 Hwy 407 and Dundas Street are the northern boundaries for development in Burlington. The Alton community would never have come into being were it not for the building of the 407 highway. That decision opened up land that was part of rural Burlington. Alton Village is bounded by the 407, Walkers Line on the west and Appleby Line on the east with Dundas making up the southern boundary. The third is that because Burlington is essentially built out, we receive all residual population growth that cannot be accommodated in Oakville, Milton and Halton Hills in what ever scenario is selected. In scenario 3a and 3b, that would mean in excess of 80,000 new residents moving into Burlington by 2051, like it or not.
Because Burlington is essentially already built out, under scenario 3b, Burlington will have no other choice but to to accommodate about 90% of new residents in 200/300 mid to high rise apartment buildings.
That would happen in 5 strategic growth areas of Appleby GO, Burlington GO, Aldershot GO, Up Town (Upper Middle Road and Appleby Line) and Downtown Burlington. We do not know what the distribution of those apartment buildings will be yet, but it certainly means significant densification of all five locations. It creates a tenuous outlook for all five, including downtown, by the standards of most Burlington residents.
The preferred scenario; 1) satisfies Provincial tests to accommodate foreseeable market demand, providing homes for a small number of families who wish to live in a home with a backyard and a garage. That means the Province will likely approve the plan, but not 3a or 3b; 2) increases the number of people who will live in newly constructed apartments representing about 60% across the Region, but more like 90% in the City of Burlington, which is essentially what you are advocating for. Reducing the Burlington allocation to 70,200 population lowers the number of apartment buildings by 25 to 37.5 buildings, providing a bit of a breather to the community. Please take a moment to visualize what the Burlington skyline, living conditions and congestion is likely to become, even under the preferred scenario.
 Keep in mind, this plan follows the 2018 election when the people of Burlington spoke out clearly that they do not wish to see “over intensification” of their hometown. It is not what anyone wanted.
In any event, the City will experience increasing numbers of apartments not only between now and 2051 but even more for years too come. The same will be true for the other Halton municipalities. The preferred scenario simply delays inevitable further densification of Halton.
I will be pleased to discuss this with you if that will help.
 By Don Fletcher
January 13th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
An earlier version of this article included illustration that were out-dated. The illustrations have been revised.
We are pleased to learn from this update that Phase 4 of this study has restarted, and to understand somewhat why the study was placed on hold in mid-2018. Given that we’ve suffered through a pandemic over the last few years, it’s understandable why it wasn’t resumed earlier.
 A study on the best way to develop this area began in 2015. The delay in completing the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study as originally planned is still potentially problematic. In Section 3.3 of Bousfields’ Planning & Urban Design Rationale that was part of the Burlington 2020 Lakeshore Inc.’s development application submitted on October 26th, 2021, their rationale for requesting the removal of Policy 5.5.9.2(l) of the in-force Burlington OP, as amended, was that this study had an “indeterminate deadline” with a further characterization that it “has never been completed, indefinitely sterilizes the subject site from redevelopment and from achieving its highest and best use potential”. It is not clear to us whether the property owner ultimately plans to ignore the guidance of the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study, but it is clear that completing it on a highly accelerated basis must be a top priority.
Citizens’ PLAN B remains committed to the extension of Spencer Smith Park and the enhancement of the Brant Street gateway to Lake Ontario, through the application of the ‘Thin Red Line’ design principle related to the Waterfront Hotel Redevelopment. Yes, we understand the changing context of the NE corner of Brant Street & Lakeshore Road with respect to the origins of the ‘Thin Red Line’, but it still has great utility in its’ application to achieve what most residents want in the redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel property and remains a simple concept that resonates with everyone.
A citizens group – Plan B – introduced the concept of a thin red line. Will it be enough and will it ever be adhered to? We understand that City staff with support of project consultant, The Planning Partnership, will resume the work plan where it left off in 2018. This update references Section 3 of Report PB-23-18, which contains 16 key policy directions, as one of those milestones that can be built upon.
PLAN B fully supports PB-23-18.
Application of the ‘Thin Red Line’ will help fulfill Public Realm policy directions 5a, 7, 8 and 9, which in our opinion are not achieved in the current development application.
One deliverable that was not mentioned in this report but should also serve to expedite completion of the project is Emerging Preferred Concept #3. I have attached a Planning Partnership Jan/ Feb 2018 Overview/ Snapshot of its’ evolution for your reference, with some of the rationale for selecting EPC #3 noted there re-iterated below:
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 of 7.5 FAR
Buildings 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 & Lake Ontario
A potential development yield that is viable and provides some incentives for redevelopment.
 Panel 1 is what the developer originally proposed, panel 2 is what is permitted on the site, panel 3 is one of the alternatives that didn’t include any resident input panel 4 is the last iteration of concepts being considered in the planning study. This was the last iteration of conceptual designs that we were party to, and while we fundamentally supported it, we through Ramsay Planning Inc. submitted a few minor improvement suggestions. We are unaware of Vrancor’s feedback.
We acknowledge and respect the current property owner’s right to profit from his investment, and that this will necessitate a “reasonable” amount of massing and building height. We also believe passionately that the impact of this development will be felt by many future generations of Burlington residents & visitors, and collectively we must get it right. Citizens’ PLAN B is completely open to work with all stakeholders to help make this a “win-win” scenario.
Follow Plan B at: www.planbwaterfrontredevelopment.ca
Related news stories:
What about a land swap?
Plan B has been pressing city council for years
By Pepper Parr
January 10th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Council is going to hear a report this week on the The Waterfront Hotel Planning Study that was undertaken to comprehensively plan the waterfront site at 2020 Lakeshore Road and guide the landowner in its redevelopment.
Given that the site has been referred to as Ground Zero for Burlington an in-depth study made a lot of sense.
The Waterfront Hotel Planning Study will inform an implementing Official Plan Amendment. Once approved, that amendment will form part of the City’s Official Plan and provide a strategic framework to guide the redevelopment of the subject property.
 Notice the space between the southern part of the dotted red line and the edge of the lake. Who owns that property? Is it part of the hotel land or is it controlled by Conservation Halton? That’s an important question. The Study began in early 2017 and included three public meetings/community workshops (a total of six sessions) and two community surveys. In November 2017, an update on the status and progress of the study was presented to Council at the Planning and Development Committee Meeting. This community and stakeholder engagement phase first explored eight design ideas, which were then refined to three preliminary design concepts, and then two emerging concepts.
As a result of additional community and stakeholder input in early 2018, a staff report was brought to the Planning and Development Committee in June 2018. At that time, a set of key policy directions to guide the development of a final concept were endorsed by City Council. These key policy directions were organized around the design principles of Land Use and Built Form, Public Realm, and Mobility and Access.
In mid-2018 the Study was placed on hold due to other various priorities in the Community Planning Department such as the New Official Plan process and for staff to re-visit the Study workplan while considering the set of key policy directions endorsed by Council in June 2018.
While all the futzing and putzing was going on the developer beavered away at doing the design work and taking part in a pre-consultation meeting required to submit a development application.
The design is world class – the architects have made excellent use of the different views that will be available. That application was submitted, but deemed to be incomplete by the planning department.
So what is the point of returning to the Study – the developer has wind in his sails and is on his way.
The Staff report makes mention of “height not to exceed three (3) storeys within 20 metres of Brant Street and Lakeshore Road and eleven (11) storeys adjacent to John Street and beyond 20 metres of Brant Street and Lakeshore Road” while the developer presents a plan for two towers that are very close to the southern edge of Lakeshore Road and soar 35 storeys high. The second tower is just 30 stories high. Both sit on a five storey podium.
The design of the buildings is superb, these are very smart looking buildings that would be a delight to live in. The plan puts them in the wrong place. One wag described the development as “out of proportion; out of place and should be outa here”
 The northern edge of the site is very close to the edge of Lakeshore Road. The five storey podium will loom over the street – with no view to the lake. The entrance to the east end of Spencer Smith Park will be through an opening in the podium. The surrounding context of the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study Area including changes to the northeast corner made through the scoped re-examination of the New Official Plan Project, will be considered in the development of the preferred concept for the Subject Property.
This will also include a review of the key policy directions endorsed by Council in June 2018, including the amended key policy direction #8 which was modified by Council to include the following language in bold text:
 Enhance the Brant Street view corridor to frame views to the Brant Street Pier, and require a significant building setback from the west property line and define and consider a building setback from the thin red line and maximize the new and enhanced publicly accessible green/open space.
That “thin red line” concept came from the Plan B, a group of citizens that believe something much better can be done with the hotel site.
It was a solid idea but the city planners found a way to get rid of the idea. At the January 23, 2018 Planning and Development Committee a council motion was carried to modify the block shown at the northeast corner of Brant Street and Lakeshore Road located in the proposed Cannery Precinct (22-storeys) to the Downtown Core Precinct with a maximum building height of 17-storeys including community benefits.
As a result of Council’s modification, the basis for the expanded public realm at the corner and enhanced setback limit was eliminated.
On April 26, 2018 City Council adopted a new Burlington Official Plan. On December 4, 2018, the Region of Halton issued a Notice of Non-Conformity to the City, which had the effect of extending the Region’s review process until such time as the Region determined that the non-conformity was rectified. While collaborating extensively with Regional staff on the issues of non-conformity the City undertook the scoped re-examination of the adopted Official Plan. This process took place while the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study was on hold.
Through the scoped re-examination of the New Official Plan Project in 2019-2020, the adopted Official Plan policies for the Downtown were studied. As part of that work the north-east corner of Brant Street and Lakeshore Road was revisited and was included within the Brant Main Street Precinct. The purpose of this precinct was to serve as a unique retail destination within the Downtown and city-wide.
The precinct provides a wide range of policies to guide development within the precinct. Specifically, related to built form, this precinct requires height not to exceed three (3) storeys within 20 metres of Brant Street and Lakeshore Road and eleven (11) storeys adjacent to John Street and beyond 20 metres of Brant Street and Lakeshore Road. In November 2020 the Region of Halton approved Burlington’s New Official Plan, which is currently under appeal.
The Subject Property was not included in the scoped re-examination of the New Official Plan Project and the new Official Plan did not change the existing land use designation and permitted building height for the Waterfront Hotel property located at 2020 Lakeshore Road.
 Former city Councillor John Taylor in discussion with Linda Davies and Dee Dee Davies during one of the six public sessions that were held shortly after this Council was elected. The Gazette was asked to leave the room, at the instructions of the Mayor, when the conversation between the stakeholders was taking place. Next Steps
With the re-examination of the New Official Plan (Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown) Project completed, approval of the new Official Plan (under appeal), as well as the Minster of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s approval, with modifications, of the Regional Official Plan Amendment 48 it is the appropriate time to resume the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study.
City staff with support from the project consultant, The Planning Partnership, the group that is leading the consultation process will resume the workplan where it left off in 2018 to complete the study. The work is anticipated to take 16-17 weeks and will be completed within the original project budget. The resumption of the study will build upon and advance the previous work and community input to-date to develop a final preferred concept.
There is a much better solution on what can be done with the hotel site.
A small group is working at building public support for a different look at the waterfront hotel site that includes possible land swaps and building a new city hall on the property; something that would be four or five storeys high and include a purpose built Art Gallery.
Burlington can do better than the application before the Planning department. There are limits on what developers should be able to do.
This is a story that is going to be around for some time. It is your city.
Related news stories:
More on Plan B
Some ideas on what is possible
 By Pepper Parr
January 4th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The three things the city wants to focus on in 2022
Fractious council
Losing the football
Waterfront Hotel
With nothing but virtual Council meetings for just about two years now it is difficult to read just what is taking place.
 Councillor Kearns is missing the Standing Committee Clerk and the City Manager are included If you know the players a little you can pick up some of the discord – and there is certainly discord but this council works very hard to ensure that very little of it gets seen by the public.
The hope that many Burlingtonians had, including this reporter and the Gazette, when Marianne Meed Ward bent her head forward as the Chain of Office was placed around her neck is not today what it was that December evening in 2018. The hope hasn’t entirely disappeared but there is discord and differences.
Council is split into two factions: The Mayor who will be supported by Rory Nisan until the day he is no longer in office and Kelvin Galbraith who likes the way the Mayor accepts his – let’s build stuff approach to being a ward Councillor.
One the other side, Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns, Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte and Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman are usually on the same page – and it is seldom the same page as the Mayor.
The factions are not cast in stone with Nisan being the exception.
 The swing vote – didn’t see that coming in 2018 The swing vote is ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna (who’d thought this is how things would work out) who has taken to developing his own view on those matters he understands. And while he is frequently with the Mayor – not as much as he used to be.
Five of the seven members of Council have now been in office for three years and are gearing up for re-election. With one exception the expectation is that all seven will seek re-election. And no – I am not prepared to say who the exception is at this point.
The important things is the the newbies have found most of their footing – they have developed a good working relationships with their constituents; feel comfortable with most of the issues and are tiring of the way the Mayor treats them. Lisa Kearns thought she would like to serve on the Police Services Board and chose to put her name forward. The Mayor did not support Kearns – and the seat went to a Council member from Oakville.
Traditionally members of a Council support each other when they have something they want to do outside of Council. Meed Ward may have had some very good reasons for supporting someone else for the Police Services Board but common courtesy called for her to talk to Kearns and explain her position. Kearns was apparently blind-sided by the Mayor.
 Without a doubt the quickest and the fastest mind on Council; a workhorse as well – does her homework Kearns, by the way, would have been an excellent Police Serve Board member – she does her homework (better than anyone else on Council) she would have kept the Board members on their toes.
 Councillor Stolte looking for some clarity. When Councillor Stolte isn’t asking for additional clarification on a matter she struggles to get around the interference the Mayor pushes in front of her.
If Stolte has an event going on and invites the Mayor – it becomes the Mayor’s event.
The differences in approach and philosophy became glaringly obvious when the Mayor could not find a way to get the tax increase number she felt she needed going into an election in October.
Her thinking had merit – it deserves an explanation and some analysis and in the fullness of time we will get that to you.
Meed Ward had a well thought out position – the other council members just didn’t buy it. This Council came very close to being in a position where they were not able to agree on a budget which would have put the creating of a budget in the hands of staff – which City Manager Tim Commisso advised would “not be a pretty picture”.
There are times when the Mayor bends over backwards to get her colleagues to “collaborate” with her. The city does not have someone serving as Deputy Mayor because the members of Council could not agree on just what the job would entail.
When the Burlington Land Partnership was set up every member of Council wanted to be on it – wasn’t something the city manager wanted so no one sits on the BLP – which by the way is a significant venture that the general public knows very little about.
 Transparency became her middle name – she draped it around her like a flag In 2010 there were three new members on Council. Meed Ward, newly elected had a lot of time in as probably the leading delegate as a citizen knew the ropes. Paul Sharman had a lot of senior executive experience in the private sector and knew his way around process and financial reports. The only really new ember in 2010 was Blair Lancaster. There wasn’t nearly as much learning on the job for the newbies.
And Rick Goldring who had become Mayor had a good feel for what the job was about – which is not the same thing as being able to actually do the job.
 Normally wears a winning smile. Meed Ward is now in a similar situation. She is Mayor but has yet to create the set of skills needed to make it happen. Politics is the art of the possible with grey being the dominant colour – black or white doesn’t work. Meed Ward doesn’t do grey.
Listening intently and being able to read the wind as well as the tea leaves in a cup are vital. It is an art with an understanding of the little bit of science that matters.
What a Councillor is made of should be evident by the end of the third year of the term – and with Meed Ward it is evident but it isn’t all that useful.
 Expensive but well worth the price – great legal counsel solved a problem for the ADI Group – shovels are in the ground and the cranes are hauling concrete. There have been some major wins. The Mayor managed to get rid of the Planner in place when she was elected. She did get the Urban Growth Centre moved north and proved that the a bus terminal that is the size of the average kitchen is not an MTSA – despite what sharp legal counsel was able to convince an OMB hearing that it was. That was a big win for the ADI Group
Meed Ward seems adrift when it comes to solving the football, almost missing in action on the redevelopment plans for the Waterfront Hotel.
She gave Black Lives Matter the coverage it needs and then got totally silly with her drive to put Rainbow Crosswalks in every ward while learning to live with a budget that needed some time in a Weight Watchers class.
In 2018 the Gazette said Meed Ward was the best of the three people running for the job. We expected her to grow into the job – that hasn’t happened and unless she has a horse shoe in her purse that can be put to good use, or knows how to pull a rabbit out of the hat, she is in trouble.
 Rick Goldring seldom wore his chain of Office outside Council Chambers So much so that Rick Goldring is understood to be looking at his chances of once again wearing the Chain of Office.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman is usually very direct, tends to want to see data that is verifiable and expects to get his way. Are there other candidates that might want to reach for that brass ring? There are – but they are nowhere near ready to show their hand.
As for the members of Council Meed Ward will have the support of at least two – one of which may not win his seat come October 2020.
The problem with the football and the strange situation with the Waterfront re-development project will follow.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
|
| By Staff
January 4th, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
WE are about to get a first look at what has come out of the meetings that were to determine what the development at the GO stations could look like.
A 250 page report has been released and will be debated at the January 11th Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee Meeting.
Council will consider ‘in-principle’ endorsement of the Recommend Preferred Precinct Plans for Burlington’s Major Transportation Areas.
 The time line that is currently in place Council’s endorsement is a critical check point in the project that will enable staff to move forward to the next stage of the project which involves the creation of area-specific plans and supporting Official Plan Amendments for each of the MTSAs.
The Interim Report prepared by Dillon Consulting provides:
- The project background and context
- The policy and legislative context for MTSAs
- The work underpinning the MTSA ASP Project and the Preliminary Preferred Precinct Plans including key growth assumptions and complete community elements
- A discussion about how public engagement informed the Preliminary Preferred Precinct Plans
- A summary of the technical work required to support the project and a status update on each
- An outline of the changes made to the Preliminary Preferred Precinct Plans resulting in the Recommended Preferred Precinct Plans and the underlying policy directions to support them and the future area specific planning process
- Next steps and conclusions
The staff-prepared Fall 2021 Feedback Report outlines each of the tactics undertaken during October and November to engage with the public around the Preliminary Preferred Precinct Plans and includes the methodologies used, the results of the engagement or feedback received as well as some of the lessons learned.
 The steps that have to be taken to arrive ast an Area Specif Plan. There will be one for each of the GO Station MTSA’s Further changes to the Recommended Preferred Precinct Plans are expected and will be required as a result of technical studies underway, as well as other inputs including Council and stakeholder feedback and further project work.
The very unfortunate part of the process is the severe limitations COVID19 will put on genuine public participation and serious delegation.
The number of delegations that have been heard has been reduced significantly.
 Alison Enns watching a group of participants on a walking tour. Also – the opportunity to read a 250 page report a week before it is debated at council isn’t being fair to the public that is going to live with whatever is decided upon for decades.
The Gazette will read the document and report on its contents and provide some analysis.
This is difficult for staff as well. They have worked very hard on this project; they know how significant the final decision will be and everyone on the team would love to hear some sound community response. |
|
|
|
By Pepper Parr
January 1st, 2022
BURLINGTON, ON
Sticky bit of news came out the last few weeks of last year. It will probably be the top story between now and the municipal election this October.
The hotel is set back from the street, does not loom over the road, gives a clear line of site to the Pier On a site referred to by the planner for the developer as Burlington’s Ground Zero, there are plans to demolish the existing Waterfront Hotel and build two towers: one 35 storeys, the other 30 storeys.
What makes it sticky is some of the politics. The city has created a new Official Plan that still has a few steps to go before it is THE Official Plan.
There were changes in where growth was to take place in the plan. More than 40 organizations have filed appeals against different parts of the Official Plan – which is not all that unusual.
The podium will butt up against the street and have the two towers on top What was unusual is the grandfathering of a development application that city council has said is not complete.
For the average Burlingtonian all this politicking doesn’t get much attention – however the eventual results will have a very significant impact on Spencer Smith Park which is seen as the jewel in the crown that is the city’s waterfront.
A small group of people formed Plan B – which sets out what the downtown lake edge and the core of the city could look like – if only there were real citizen input.
Plan B really wants your help.
They are arguing that it is your city and you deserve the right to have input on decisions made.
On the political side the provincial Minister of Housing announced that the incomplete application to redevelop the Waterfront Hotel site would be grandfathered, that it will come under the old Urban Growth centre.
 From this – the site as it is today…
... to this. The planning proposal currently before the city. You may have heard that the application for the Waterfront Hotel redevelopment was submitted to Steve Clark, Ontario Minister Of Municipal Affairs & Housing, on November 10th, effectively eliminating two intensification arguments (MTSA & UGC designations) used by developers trying to justify increasingly high condo developments downtown.
That’s all true… but did you know that the City in a 7-0 unanimous vote of Council supported the Planning Department’s recommendation to deem the application incomplete.
It seemed logical to the PLAN B group that this application should be re-submitted when it was complete.
For those who care about how the downtown core of the city is developed and what happens to Spencer Smith Park the Plan B people ask you to “Stay tuned, because things have just gotten a lot more interesting!”
Follow what they are up to on their Facebook page. Click HERE
Related news stories:
There are other options
By Ryan O’Dowd: Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
December 29th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The worst of the pandemic was over, for the time being, or so we thought – July was a month of a cultural boom for Burlington.
A dark cloud hung over Canada Day as the national zeitgeist remained contemplative over Canadian identity and its relationship to residential schools and a broader problematic history with Indigenous peoples.
Nevertheless, Burlington pressed onwards. The Sound of Music put on a virtual show featuring some of our top local talent. It wasn’t the same as spending a weekend at a rapturous, muddy Spencer Smith Park enjoying the spectacle but the event was a solid effort to entertain Burlington in a safe, socially distanced way.
 The Mayor and a city Councillor were featured in an online reading rendition of Dangerous Liaisons. By the end of the previous month, online entertainment in Burlington consisted of City Staff and the Mayor starring in productions of Dangerous Liaisons and The Odd Couple. This reporter is sure they did a fine job but is equally as sure they were happy to see the professional entertainers back. The Sound of Music featured Indigenous speakers but as a Gazette contributor pointed out they didn’t showcase any Indigenous artists, a missed opportunity, all things considered.
 Citizens Group continues with a long drawn out protest over plans for an enlargement of the Nelson quarry. Education-based events came out of the Performing Arts Centre, which hosted a mid-July Musical Theatre Week. The Burlington Public Library added items to their lending program to encourage outdoor fun, including bikes, games, and hobby items (such as bird watching kits and archery sets).
The library was a great source of entertainment throughout the pandemic, seeing a 103% increase in eCheckouts of books (they also expanded their collection) after closing their doors. Brant Museum re-opened featuring a space exhibit. Elsewhere, the community was beginning to be able to organize again, a bedrock of a functional democracy.
CORE Burlington (Conserving our Rural Ecosystems) hosted their first event since the start of the pandemic to oppose Nelson Aggregate’s Mount Nemo quarry expansion application.
The City of Burlington invested $25,200 into the 2021 Neighbourhood Community Matching Fund recipients. The community investment went towards three community projects, focused on enhancing infrastructure amenities within parks, gardens, and buildings on public lands or on lands that are accessible to the public. The winners were Grow for Change Urban Farm Community Therapeutic Programs, The Orchard Community Garden Project, and Community Garden in Roseland.
City Council prepared to break for the summer but still had their share of business. They began work on the 2022 budget, more on this in the final quarter – an early figure included a city tax increase of 5.57%.
 On July 6th Laura Boyd, Executive Director of Human Resources, gave a presentation to staff on the problems the City is facing to attract needed staff, and to keep the staff they had. Despite heading into summer break the City remained in a declared State of Emergency which put the day-to-day running of the city in the hands of the Emergency Control Group (ECG). As a result, Council gave the city manager delegated authority to spend $250,000 without referring to the council before getting the cheque signed in case of an urgent matter, he just had to tell them how many times he spent $250,000.
On July 12th the City had to pony up $165,000 to get parking sensors in downtown Burlington that were accurate, this was a fix to a problem in the completion of a project allotted $525,000 in 2017. Gazette readers wondered if we needed sensors tabulating the number of cars in a parking lot and expressed frustration over the growing costs. The City of Burlington announced the appointment of Maciej Jurczyk as the City Auditor starting August 16, who, arriving at a tumultuous financial time, would surely have his work cut out for him.
 The Rainbow Crosswalks were a story that destined to have a long run. Expect them to be an election issue at the end of the year we are going into. Elsewhere, the Gazette continued to follow the rainbow crosswalks story, aside from the vote on location (right in front of the Halton Catholic School Board office), another story was brewing. The Gazette reported belief from observers that Marianne Meed Ward threw three of her council colleagues under the bus when they voted against the Mayor to have six additional rainbow crosswalks done as soon as possible, rather than the more fiscally prudent approach of adding one each year. The Mayor wanted to again raid reserve funds to pay for the additional six – Kearns, Stolte, and Sharman had no problem with the crosswalks – just not all at the same time. The Mayor tweeted out thanks to her councillors other than Kearns, Stolte, and Sharman, which some took as a suggestion they didn’t support the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, which was not the case.
As for regional growth plans, big problems for the city were on the horizon. That sentence is quite literal as big developments in downtown Burlington, begun under the former Major Transit Station Area and Urban Growth Center designations, looked impossible to stop. The Gazette congratulated the Mayor and Council on their achievement in shifting these designations to keep high-rises out of downtown Burlington but some of them were poised to be grandfathered in while the City’s Official Plan stalled. After all the fights, including some successful ones the City waged with the Region, downtown Burlington was fated to be forever changed. The City won but lost.
Halton Regional Police Services announced their use of the Brave App, designed to connect people at risk of overdose with the help they need: an ally they can talk to, a human supporter to help them stay safe, and digital monitoring technology to help them when they’re in danger. The app connects them with a community of overdose responders, and/or professional emergency first responders. The use of the app was in response to what they called an overdose crisis in the community.
 Local wheelchair basket player Melanie Hawtin joined the Canadian Team representing Canada at the Tokyo 2021 Paralympics. On July 20th , a local wheelchair basket player, Melanie Hawtin, was announced to join the Canadian Team representing Canada at the Tokyo 2021 Paralympics.
Rumblings of a federal election call began early in August. In preparation, the Green Party announced their candidate, a young man named Christian Cullis, on August 10th. On August 12th the Gazette began investigating rumours of a Burlington People’s Party candidate, who was revealed to be Michael Bator shortly thereafter.
On August 15th the Gazette reported on some conveniently timed Burlington investment announcements by MP and Cabinet Minister Karina Gould who used the Rock Garden in Hamilton to announce that the federal government had come up with $579, 000 from the Great Lakes Action Plan V – Great Lakes Sustainability Fund for the RBG’s Wetland Rehabilitation Program and the City of Burlington’s Grindstone Creek Erosion Control Planning. The RBG would be receiving $425,000 for their program, while the City will be receiving $154,000.
Ahead of the election call Gazette field reporters surveyed Burlingtonians about their feelings on the election, most felt it was unnecessary, irresponsible, even a dereliction of duty by the federal government in some cases.
Others shrugged it off, believing whoever was in power would make a similar gambit if they liked their chances to re-election. Nevertheless, the election was called on August 15th, that it was called at all would remain a defining election issue.
The Gazette began profiling the players, starting with every major party candidate in Burlington and spoke to those candidates who were interested. In August the Gazette profiled Gould, who championed the $10 a day child care program as the cause dearest to her (upon re-election she would be named Minister of Families, Children, and Social Development). NDP candidate, Nick Page, and the Green Party’s Cullis, shared similar visions of a more equitable society and saw emerging from the pandemic as the opportune moment to consider some foundational changes.
Page and Cullis were so closely aligned that when the NDP candidate pitched proportional representation his pitch was that the Green Party would have a bigger voice in influencing climate change. It was an example that had our editor run a piece with the question “huh?” in the headline. The Gazette’s fruitless efforts to speak to Conservative candidate, Emily Brown, were well documented. They had to be after the first piece on Brown sent readers into a tizzy.
 Emily Brown, federal Conservative candidate for Burlington is ranked as a sharp shooter – missed the bulls-eye during the election. Brown neglected to engage with the media herself so the Gazette dug into what information was available, at the heart of her platform was protecting gun owner’s rights. It was an issue Brown was extremely passionate about, she is an accomplished shooter and held several positions within local shooting groups. For whatever reason Brown supporters didn’t like this, a self-identified, core tenant of her campaign being highlighted, they objected greatly to any Brown article without any factual objections.
 NDP sign defaced during the federal election. Early in the campaign, Oakville/North Burlington NDP candidate Lenaee Dupuis had a lawn sign vandalized with the words “No Commies” spray-painted on it, which would prove to set a regrettable tone for the campaign. The race was afoot and would continue into September.
With City Hall off for the summer municipal affairs in Burlington went mostly quiet, but regional development disputes continued to pile up. Mayor Meed Ward had thus far succeeded – there are new Urban Growth Centre boundaries in place and once the Official Plan gets completely approved – it was in the hands of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs –all it had to do was get through the 40 some odd organizations appealing – to become the law of the land. But business at Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) moves glacially. The 40+ people and organizations appealing the adopted but not in force Official Plan wanted to see time frames and firm commitments from the City of Burlington and Region of Halton in order to bring the appeals to a conclusion.
Instead, proceedings got kicked further down the road when the city and region failed to provide a consolidated list of issues by the assigned deadline. The future of development in Burlington hung in the balance and it seemed like the OLT met every couple of months just to schedule their next meeting and break for lunch.
In other city news, staff would be required to be vaccinated. On August 24th an application was made for a holiday market on the Elgin promenade, with no word on who made the application, this story would develop as the year went on.
 The walkway at Crawford Lake was a popular destination once people were able to get out. For most of Burlington not too deeply entrenched in the mire of politicking, August was another promising month. Hassaan Basit, President, and CEO of Conservation Halton said that from January until August, their parks saw around 850,000 visitors, which is a 30 to 40 percent increase from last year. People were getting out in droves, more people were being vaccinated, more businesses were open, the comparatively rosy COVID-19 outlook in July continued in August, as opposed to the taking one step forward and two back we’d grown accustomed to.
The Gift of Giving Back operated an event different from what it was best known for. From its inaugural 2007 event up until 2019 the Gift of Giving Back would pack gymnasiums full of food bins with the help of community sports teams and students.
COVID-19 put a halt to their traditional food collection method in 2020, but they still found ways to contribute.
The Royal Botanical Gardens hosted an Enchanted Garden Tour, a full kilometer long, leading through the Rock Gardens and hosting six different stations for kids to learn about this year’s theme, the monarch butterfly. Kids clad in fairy wings as colourful as the monarch butterflies themselves were giddy on the tour. Burlington Artscape showed off local artists who lent their time to create paintings on leaf canvases sold in support of the Joseph Brant Hospital Foundation.
 Respecting the social distancing rules was easier said than done at the August outdoor patio jazz event at the Performing Arts Centre The Performing Art Center put on sold-out jazz shows on patios, not a computer screen, patios sat with real live people in the flesh. Live shows were put on by Bling International at the pier. The live music events were in recognition and celebration of Black, African, Caribbean, Canadian appreciation month.
The federal election dominated much of September. The Gazette interviewed candidates across Burlington’s three constituencies and by the time ballots were cast most major party candidates had participated. Emerging issues among all candidates included COVID-19 recovery and vaccine passports, housing, cost of living, climate change, reconciliation with Indigenous communities, and that the election itself was taking place at all.
Environmental debates took place, which Conservative candidates in Burlington and Oakville/North Burlington opted to avoid causing latecomer Oakville/North Burlington Green Party candidate, Bruno Sousa, to slam their absences as “infuriating.”
As election night approached, Gazette reporters took to the streets to get a sense of the biggest issues on the public’s mind, there was much overlap with the candidates there. The majority of those surveyed still didn’t want an election to take place, but it had shrunk to a slight majority with nearly half of respondents split between being in favour of the election happening or not counting it among their priorities issue-wise. The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights arrived in Burlington just before the election. In a note to their members, they said they were there so “voters can learn the truth about the Liberal party. The mainstream media will never give voters an honest overview of a future under more Liberal government.” It’s the kind of fringe language that might’ve done more harm than good but at this juncture, this kind of discourse had been a reality of the campaign.
 Burlington MP Karina Gould wearing her campaign colours campaigned harder than she had ever campaigned before – and won – again. Same with van Koeverden, v and Pam Damoff. It was a clean sweep for the Liberals in the Burlington, Oakville and Milton ridings.   The ballots were cast, Gould, van Koeverden, and Damoff retained their seats in the Burlington ridings. Nationally the country ended up with a Liberal minority government.
What lingered was the hostility of it all. Several candidates called the campaign the nastiest they’d seen. The Gazette editor posted a similar reflection regarding bitterness in the election comment sections when the dust settled.
During this same month, Burlington’s Community Leaders had to release a statement speaking out against harmful messages, harassment, and misinformation targeted against our medical and healthcare professionals. It is behaviour as deplorable as it is misguided, front line workers do not make policy, and reflected the hostility that defined an ugly election season.
In less vitriolic election coverage news, three-quarters of a million students took part in a mock election, 5,478 schools across Canada participated and votes were cast in all 338 federal ridings. A good step in getting students acclimatized to the voting process.
If actually built – these two towers would be at what the developer called “ground zero” for Burlington. Towers were to be 35 and 30 storeys. On September 8th a virtual Pre-Application meeting took place for two towers: a 30 storey and a 24 story on Lakeshore Road between Brant and Elizabeth Street. During the presentation, given by people representing the developer, David Faletta attempted to convince viewers that the old Urban Growth Centre boundary would apply.
The City approved the Holiday Market proposal to run between December 9th and 12th with little in the way of public input and mixed reaction from downtown retailers. What’s more, they seemed to have signed off on the market as an annual event.
Creeping towards normalcy, Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns held her first in-person ward meeting since the beginning of the pandemic – eight people attended. An additional 35 took part virtually.
September saw quintessential Burlington events like the Terry Fox Run at Spencer Smith Park. Team Casey’s Terry Fox Event followed suit, in honour of the late Casey Cosgrove, a man described as remarkable and an inspiring community champion, who too suffered from cancer. They played a baseball game wearing t-shirts with the following quote: “This disease will not take away my disability and wish to inspire,” Casey, 2017.
 Rib-Fest returned with a drive-thru BBQ event at Burlington Centre, a Food Truck festival took place at Spencer Smith Park, the month was full of activities.
On September 30th Burlington hosted the Every Child Matters Truth and Reconciliation Day gathering at Spencer Smith Park. Organized by Amber Ruthart, a local Indigenous music studio owner, the event was informative, moving, and a celebration of Indigenous culture with song and dance.
“I hope that education continues and is not just a trend. Also, we hope to be doing more indigenous awareness social events in the future here in Burlington,” said Ruthart.
Speaking to the Gazette, Ruthart reiterated the need for reconciliation to be a constant consideration and not a trend. Event organizer Ruthart, said her native name translated into “loud voice,” her message was loud and clear.
By Pepper Parr
December 26th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Trying for a quieter day,
Two stories – both development related, for Burlington is in full development mode. With 40+ development applications either with, or on their way to, the Planning department and about the same number of appeals of the adopted but not yet legal Official Plan before the Ontario Land Tribunal – the year ahead is going to be 10 months of arm wrestling before there is a municipal election – and who knows who the winners will be at that level.
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns sent out a piece she put up on her Facebook page with a link to the Plan B Facebook page.
The Councillor feels restricted on just how supportive she can be about what the Plan B people would like to see done with the Waterfront Hotel site that is the object of a development proposal for a two tower development that will set a new height level for the downtown core – a 35 and a 30 storey tower.
Named 2020 Lakeshore, the site is owned by Vrancor the owners of Solid Gold, an adult entertainment location in Aldershot, and the former Ascot Motel to the immediate east of the Bridgewater development.
The development application submitted to the Planning Department has been described as incomplete.
 The downtown core of the city would undergo a radical change if these two towers were built. Burlington as people know it today would disappear. What Kearns has managed to do is give the Plan B some much needed exposure. If what they have in mind is to gain any traction they need a lot more in the way of public support for something radically different than the two towers to be built.
 How hard can a ward Councillor fight to prevent a development. They are limited in what they can say about a development that has not yet been presented to Council In her Facebook page Kearns writes:
Are you passionate about Burlington’s Waterfront?
Can you lend your expertise & energy to a community group?
Here’s an opportunity to join a local growing movement to Add Your Voice To Help Save Burlington’s Heritage Waterfront.
Check out PLAN B. Waterfront Hotel Redevelopment
 PLAN B is a group of engaged Burlington volunteers solely focused on ensuring that any redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel enhances the Brant Street gateway to Lake Ontario and extends Spencer Smith Park. She includes a link to the Plan B Facebook page.
Related news stories:
Why Plan B is critical to saving what Burlington is
Citizens wanted input at the beginning – not after the planners have made their decision.
There are options and opportunities to be creative and serve the citizens and not the vested interests.
By Staff
November 30th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
With the provincial election more ta six months away – the political parties are getting serious and beginning to jockey for position.
 Ontario Premier Doug Ford – has always been business focused. The Liberals to say announced they would scrap the Ministerial Zoning Orders to Progressive Conservative government has used to permit development that municipalities may not want.
The Liberal media release, released this morning said: “Under the cover of a pandemic, Doug Ford has been abusing his powers and recklessly using MZOs to push through a list of rewards for his rich buddies over environmentally-sensitive land.
“Today, Ontario Liberals are releasing their plan to eliminate MZOs and bring in strict rules to ban Doug Ford’s abuses of power.
“Doug Ford has weaponized MZOs and is abusing his power to attack our environment and reward the well-connected few,” stated Ontario Liberal Leader, Steven Del Duca. “Ontario Liberals will scrap MZOs and bring in strict rules to protect our environment while responsibly building communities.”
 Ontario Liberal Leader, Steven Del Duca. does not have a seat in the provincial legislature. He was Minister of Transportation in the last Liberal government. Ontario Liberals would only allow fast-tracking of critical provincial projects, like affordable housing, employment lands/projects, and not-for-profit nursing homes to provide better care for our loved ones in communities across Ontario, or expansions to protected greenspace. Ontario Liberals would also add transparency measures, like required consultations and judicial reviews, to make sure projects respect environmental protections and aren’t being recklessly forced on communities like Doug Ford is doing now. The government would no longer be able to steamroll local communities to force through rewards for well-connected friends.
In just over three years, Doug Ford has issued 57 MZOs — more than triple the number that the last Liberal government issued over 15 years, and he expanded his powers three times. Ontario Liberals would give that power back to communities, making sure they are consulted on any critical projects the government advances.
“We desperately need to build more housing in Ontario,” added Del Duca. “Today’s announcement is about building more affordable housing, not-for-profit nursing homes, and creating jobs without attacking our environment. It’s about sustainable growth to build a better future for all of us.”
November 24th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Some time ago a new online newspaper was created. Former ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven was a contributor. When we dug a little we learned that Rick Goldring was the person behind the creation of what is known as the Burlington News.
The following lengthy article on the Waterfront Hotel, is certainly detailed and both interesting and relevant to those who follow local politics.
There is no byline on the article.
Expect Rick Goldring to run for the office of Mayor in 2022. At this point, it certainly looks like he is positioning himself for a run against Mayor Meed Ward.
It has been confirmed: an application has been received by the City of Burlington proposing the redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel, a 30- and 35-storey development to replace the existing hotel.
This application will now be considered following the usual planning process and is just one of the seven developments that remain to be considered using the city’s in-force Official Plan and policies in place prior to the approval of Regional Official Plan Amendment 48 (ROPA 48).
 Its days are numbered – what replaces the hotel is the issue. There are a number of options. The Waterfront Hotel Study began in earnest several years ago, spanned two different mayors and has yet to be completed.
A little background to provide some context: in 2005 and 2006, the city approached the landowner to consider redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel site (municipally known as 2020 Lakeshore Road). This was in response to a series of reports in 2005 and 2006 that considered the redevelopment of these lands and the important role they play in the downtown and the waterfront. City staff and the landowner at that time explored the advancement of a joint planning study process. A beginning of a planning review framework for the redevelopment of the site was developed and approved by council in fall 2006.
On February 23, 2015, council approved the terms of reference for the Waterfront Hotel Lands Planning Study, which is a comprehensive land-use and urban design study focused on the subject site and surrounding lands, including Spencer Smith Park. The Waterfront Hotel Planning Study was publicly launched, beginning with a pair of visioning workshops, in May 2017.
The boundary for the study and the boundary of the hotel property. The subject site’s significance was affirmed at the Planning and Development Committee meeting of November 28, 2017, evidenced by several delegations that presented a varied set of interests and development concepts. Since that time, staff, with support from the project consultants from the Planning Partnership that were hired by the City of Burlington, has undertaken additional consultation with stakeholders. This additional consultation was done in response to council’s direction to continue a dialogue with the developer/landowner Vrancor Group and local citizens group Plan B. Additionally, input has been collected from the public at large through a second online survey regarding the emerging redevelopment concepts.
Two committees were set up to administer the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study. A steering committee was formed to oversee the consulting team to ensure steady progress and to discuss any questions that might arise. A stakeholder advisory committee consisting of other key city departments was established, including the mayor, Ward 2 councillor, the landowner, representatives from Halton Region, the Burlington Downtown Business Association, and two citizen representatives.
City staff built upon the consultation work done through the three community workshops that included (a total of six sessions) the Planning and Development Committee meeting held on November 28, 2017, to consider all of the work that had been completed and the significant contributions from the Vrancor and the Plan B citizen group.
Despite extensive engagement opportunities, a clear consensus on direction had not yet been achieved.
The work completed to date through the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study has been funded 100% by the landowner, controlled and administered by the City of Burlington.
All of this occurred prior to the last municipal election and understandably the staff report in June 2018 resulted in staff being directed to continue some background work over the upcoming months and in early 2019, re-start the process during the new term of council.
Following the election and with a new mayor and council in place, the Waterfront Hotel Study ground to a halt.
John Taylor, centre, ward 3 Councillor at the time talks to Linda Davies (right) owner of the leading condo sales operation in the city. Deedee Davies is on the left. Since the election in October 2018, the redevelopment study faced delay after delay as our new mayor and council implemented an Interim Control By- Law, including the Waterfront Hotel study area, and focused their attention on re-examining the Official Plan, in particular, the downtown policies.
Despite imposing an Interim Control By-Law (ICBL) that temporarily froze any development in the Waterfront Hotel study area, the lands were not included as part of that study. Council was also clear the Waterfront Hotel Study would not be within the scope of work happening as part of the re-examination of the adopted Official Plan.
Why council chose not to consider the Waterfront Hotel as part of either study has never been made clear, nor has council explained why they chose not to restart the Waterfront Hotel Study to further engage residents and build on the work already completed.
The hotel xxx One possible explanation for excluding the Waterfront Hotel from the re-examination of the adopted Official Plan is found in a staff report from 2019, where they advise the mayor and council, stating: “Given the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place with the owner of this property in order to complete a study to respond to an existing Official Plan policy, it would not be appropriate to include this site within the scope of work proposed and would impact the ability to deliver the project by March 2020.”
A staff report was due back to the Planning and Development Committee in Q2 2020 with an augmented work plan, including details on timelines, a new public engagement plan, and any additional budget required to support the work. However, that report was further delayed to Q4 2020.
Council’s delay of almost two years after the pause for the 2018 election resulted in a letter, dated Sept. 28, 2020, from the legal representatives of the Waterfront Hotel. The mayor and council were advised that further delays were no longer acceptable, and they intended to complete the study independently and seek approvals of their redevelopment plans.
The following are excerpts from that letter: “However, our client has concerns with the proposed implementation of this intensification potential. In particular, the ongoing delay in planning for the Property is of serious concern and can no longer be accepted by our client. The Property has not been included within the scope of review related to the new official plan, despite our client having invested approximately two hundred and fifty thousand dollars over five years ago to assist the City in determining the appropriate form of redevelopment for the Property. It would appear that this study is now further delayed with a report on a proposed revise action plan suggested for Q4 2020.” ([Lawyer] David Bronskill.) “This is unacceptable to our client. We can no longer wait for the City and our client’s intention is to proceed to finalize the study on its own and submit an application to secure approvals for the Property in an expedited fashion.” (David Bronskill.)
2020 gave way to 2021 and the Waterfront Hotel Study remained in limbo until Sep 8, 2021, when the owners moved the process forward and hosted a pre-application meeting to share their vision of the redevelopment of the existing hotel.
 The public was stunned when it learned that there would be two towers: 30 and 35 stories The city has not specified an exact date, however, applications have been submitted to the city proposing a development of two towers, 30 and 35 storeys. These applications were submitted prior to Nov. 10, 2021, and prior to the approval of Regional Official Plan Amendment 48.
November 10, 2021, is a relevant date as it was the date that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Steve Clark, officially approved Regional Official Plan Amendment 48 (ROPA 48), establishing the cut-off date for applications to be considered using the existing policies and for new applications moving forward. Not an unusual decision, Burlington council established a cut-off date for development applications when they approved the Interim Control By-Law.
The mayor and council have now advised they are expecting a staff report in Q1 of 2022 that should provide the work plan, including details on timelines, a new public engagement plan, and any additional budget required to support the work. Essentially the same report that was expected and delayed since Q2 of 2020, almost two years ago.
After the progress and extensive public engagement in 2017–18, the study was paused during the election in 2018 and never restarted and won’t be until sometime in 2022.
When restarted, the study is now complicated as the focus within the study area (the Waterfront Hotel) has a proposed development working its way through the planning process.
To further complicate the study and consideration of the proposal, 2022 is a municipal election year, when traditionally, decisions of this magnitude or even less contentious decisions are delayed, kicked down the road.
This mayor and council are no different, however, they should be careful not to forfeit the city’s right to make planning decisions by not meeting their regulatory obligations on what is arguably the city’s most important and significant waterfront property. That has happened far too often — count the appeals at the Ontario Land Tribunal that are funded by Burlington taxpayers because of council’s failure to make a decision.
The conversation regarding the Waterfront Hotel Study has changed and will include the applications for a 30- and 35-storey development. Has council’s three-year delay to restart the Waterfront Hotel Study resulted in a missed opportunity for the city and residents to influence the outcome?
Editor’s comment: You can thank me later, Rick, for the boost to your readership
By Ryan O’Dowd: Local Initiative Journalism Reporter
November 22, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
About 50 people gathered in downtown Burlington to join Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns, on a walkabout through new development sites on a chilly Saturday afternoon. The story she had to tell was dismal.
Early in the event Kearns outlined what the tour was and wasn’t. It certainly wasn’t: an optimistic growth story but rather that of a city trying to keep its vision of a downtown intact.
 “I want to be clear” said Kearns, “about what this is and what this isn’t. I want you to be able to visualize and have a contextual sense of what these developments mean for you, the way that you will live here, and what you would rather see or like to see. What I cannot do is completely stop them.”
Much of Saturday’s walking tour consisted of Kearns contextualizing city decisions. She discussed the Urban Growth Center (UGC) designation in the downtown core, saying it did its job to direct investments and infrastructure to downtown, but is no longer needed.
The city worked for some time to move the UGC north to the Burlington GO station area and have the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) designation removed from the bus terminal on John Street.
The Hon. Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing agreed and on November 10th issued a statement saying the UGC boundary would be moved . Kearns stated the city couldn’t request the change in UGC boundaries until they had an approved Official Plan. The altered boundary came disastrously late for many of city council’s ambitions to limit high rise development.
Kearns suggested council would have only been able to get the altered UGC designation moved at their first opportunity by approving the official plan tabled in 2018, one the newly elected council could not align themselves with. (Editor: we’re not at all sure that statement is correct.)
The authority to approve a boundary change rested with the Minister; when he agreed to the change he also grandfathered seven developments; five of which were in the downtown core.
The walk around was a tour of what many saw as the damage to a dream and a close to total evisceration of an Official Plan.
Kearns stressed she was there to explain the framework in which the city has to operate with the Ontario Land Tribunal(OLT), which continuously make decisions the city doesn’t want, making it difficult for the municipal administration to usher in their planning vision.
 Kearns at the site of the ADI development. It was the first to break through above the 25 storey level. “The MTSA designation given to the bus terminal on John Street was the same as that given at Union Station and Pearson Airport. I don’t know about you guys but the John Street terminal is not Union Station. It’s warm and it has a toilet but it is not Union Station.
“What that did was allow a 26-storey tower using the argument that with the John Street bus terminal being an MTSA a 26 storey tower was appropriate. So of course 26-storeys made sense. Well, what happens is when you have 26-storeys there, every single application that follows will say, ‘well look this is absolutely applicable’,” said Kearns.
Kearns made it clear the city is not averse to growth, they know it needs to happen, but they are looking for something more compact and sensible than what the OLT has been permitting.
 Ground zero – Lakeshore and Brant – entrance to Spencer Smith Park and the location of a development that will have two towers: one at 30 and the other at 35 storeys Stopping at 2069-2079 Lakeshore Rd. and 383-385 Pearl St., Kearns said a recent OLT decision is emblematic of the direction development is taking.
“We lost big time at the tribunal,” said Kearns.
The city wanted to develop a 17-storey building on the land but begrudgingly settled for a cutoff of 22-storeys only for the OLT to decide on a 29-storey building. The OLT refused to recognize the city’s plans and threw out years of work and background information.
“That’s it. So everything people said, if anybody from here remembers a very cold blustery December day at the art gallery where everyone put up their hands to say they were against the development, all of that is forgotten. And the only thing that’s heard is the lawyers and the technical experts on the day with the rules in place on the day.”
It was the kind of sobering refrain heard during the chilly walkaround of a changing city. At one point some in the crowd asked: how someone got appointed to the OLT, Kearns joked “I’m sure they won’t be asking me anytime soon.” The citizen mumbled, “there’s a lot of us here.” And there were lots of them, some fifty all told. But Kearns’ walkabout felt less like a rallying call than an autopsy of Burlington’s existing downtown core.
There were few calls to action, no signs of optimism, just an exacerbated, if passionate, Kearns telling Burlington she and the rest of City Council did everything they could.
The city is continuing to spend tax dollars looking through its options with external lawyers for reconsideration or a judicial review
“It matters to the community that we’re getting at least close to what the council can stomach, and closer to the Official Plan which is the vision for downtown, then what the Tribunal is handing us. We think it is very disheartening. I will say I will put it more than anybody else. I think it is very very disheartening that the adjudicators did not recognize the work that we have done on the Official Plan. So while the bus station was a major deciding factor to the 26-storey building next to it, they suddenly didn’t look at that anymore. But then they were like, ‘oh, let’s just use no plan.’ So it’s really difficult to try to play cat and mouse and keep catching up to whatever reasons are being used to undermine our local planning,“ said Kearns.
Congestion concerns and Lakeshore Road access were raised by some in attendance, there were scarce murmurs of the developments potentially buoying downtown retailers but overall the crowd shared Kearns concern. Kearns didn’t field many questions, she said she couldn’t due to time constraints. However, one wonders if after the described dealings with the tribunal if the councilor and the city writ large aren’t left with more questions than answers themselves.
 Kearns walkabout stopped at ten development locations in the downtown core, they are as follows:
2020 Lakeshore Rd. Which is in the pre-application phase. It will use a proposed two tall buildings(35-storeys and 30-storeys, as well as a 5-storey podium). It will be used for retail, commercial, and residential space.
Core Development-2093, 2097, 2102 Old Lakeshore td., 2096, 2100 Lakeshore Rd. The application is under appeal. The application is for a 27-storey building consisting of commercial and residential space.
2107 Old Lakeshore Rd. & 2119 Lakeshore Rd. Old Lakeshore Rd. and 2119 Lakeshore Rd. The application is under appeal. The space will be used for a 27-storey building including retail, commercial, and residential space.
2069-2079 Lakeshore Rd. and 383-385 Pearl St. reached an OLT decision. The 29-storey building will host commercial, retail, and residential space.
374 Martha St. The building is under construction. It will be a 26-storey condominium with residential and commercial space.
2085 Pine St. The application is under appeal. It will be an 11-storey building consisting of commercial space, office units, and residential space.
407 Martha St. The application is under appeal. It will be used for an 11-storey residential building.
2082, 2086 and 2090 James St. The location is subject to Site Plan Approval. It will host a 13-storey residential apartment.
409 Brant St. A formal Site Plan Application is being awaited. It will be an 18-storey residential building.
421 Brant St. The unit is under construction. It will be a 23-storey residential, office, and retail building.
|
|
