 By Pepper Parr
May 4, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 2 of a multi-part series
 The park is close to massive in scale – at least for Burlington. City View Park is probably smaller. It will be a collection of destinations – most of which the public knows nothing. The Beachway Park Master Plan is essentially five different parks all rolled into one. It begins at the western edge of Spencer Smith Park and ends at the canal.
Its development has been controversial. That part of Burlington was once a thriving, albeit a bit of a down at the heels community
 1032 Lakeshore Rd. ; a cottage demolished in 1994  1174 Lakeshore Rd.; a cottage demolished in 1992.  Beachway house located at what was once 1066 Lakeshore. It too has been demolished. There have been Master Plans for the Beachway as far back as the early 70’s. The current plan is looking at a different reality: the population of the Region is going to increase significantly and the Region wants and needs additional park space – not necessarily for the people of Burlington.
The squabble over the thirty some odd homes that are still in the Beachway park – and these are no longer cottages that look like they need a little work – will work itself out. Expect it to cost the Region quite a bit more than they budgeted for property acquisition.
In part 1 of this series we took a closer look at the first part of the Beachway Park – the Living Shoreline which begins at about where the Joseph Brant Museum stands.
 The Strand part of the planned Beachway Park will be where most of the aquatic activity takes place. It is also the point at which Lakeshore as it exists now will end and shift to the north. To the west is what will be called The Strand. It will be the part of the park where most of the aquatic activity takes place.
It is also the part of the park that will pay homage to the native life that was prevalent when Joseph Brant was given the property and for many years before that.
Several of the War of 1812 battles took place just off the shore line. That part of Burlington reeks with history and the intention appears to be to capture as much of that history as possible and display it in this part of the park.
There will be three parking lots – one will hold 67 cars, the next 78 cars and the third 106 cars. None of these parking lots will be in places where there was housing.
This will be the main swimming area, there will be ramps for non-motorized boats. The Catamaran Club will be in this area; the Pump House is within this area, and there will be a rental building in the area. The water sewage treatment plant will be on the other side of Lakeshore Road screened by large cedar trees.
The Pavilion, which hopefully gets a major upgrade, will also be in this part of the park.
It is as this point in the park that the Lakeshore Road in place now, takes a close to 90 degree turn to the right and begins to align with the QEW.
 The blue squares indicate properties the park planners have said they must have if they are to complete the planned development. It is these homeowners who are most threatened. This is where what were some of what were described during the public meeting as “priority houses” are located.
The area will be populated with play areas, exercise areas, space for Food Trucks, the large outdoor fireplace that has the potential to become a significant focal point will be in The Strand. The fireplace will be fed by a gas line.
 Some parts of |Lakeshore will have parking space – others will not have any room for cars. Shuttle buses will be used to move people from parking lots to different parts of the park. Shown here are two proposed road alignments – one with parking, one without.  The intention appears to be to keep some of the quiet trail areas – maintaining this feature will depend on how much pedestrian traffic there is. The Waterfront Trail will continue through this area. There will be spaces that are created for parking and spaces that have nothing but trees and other vegetation
Moving west there is Wind Beach which will extend right up to the canal and include much better use of the canal area – park benches and perhaps some lighting.
There will be a number of interpretive centres and a Dune Boardwalk.
 The Wind Beach – a part of the Beachway that the public doesn’t get to very much – will undergo the most significant change and incorporate the canal area The Waterfront Trail will extend and curve to Eastport Drive, go under Eastport and on to the federal pier area. This part of the lakefront does not see much in the way of traffic now – that will change.
Lakeshore Road which will no longer come through the middle of the park – but will have been shifted to the north and closer to the QEW – opening up what was the road to recreational uses.
All of the homes in this part of the Beachway will have to be taken out for this to happen. What is currently known as Lakeshore Court looks as if it is going to disappear.
Is the battle over what is going to happen to the 29 homes over? Three have been sold in the past year – two were Estate sales.
Will most of them still be there ten years from now?
Is there a time line for the development of the park?
Is there an approved budget?
Related article:
Part 1 of a multi-part series.
 By Pepper Parr
April 29, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The creation of the strategic Plan for the next three years began Tuesday morning at the LaSalle Pavilion. Council and senior city staff met as a Committee of the Whole and while these occasions are public meetings – there wasn’t a member of the pure public in the room.
The Gazette was the only media in the room as well. There were two representatives from community Development Halton taking part in the presentation of a social profile of Burlington.
 What became clear quite early is that the development of the Strategic Plan and the completion of the Official Plan are being done hand in hand – each is going to inform the other.
Who lives in Burlington; who is going to live in Burlington and where will they want to live? These were the prime questions put before the meeting of about 40 people.
Community Development Halton put together a very detailed profile of who we are and what we are worth. This data was set out as the base upon which both the Official Plan and the Strategic Plan are going to be created.
None of this is going to happen in 90 days – the public may not see a completed Strategic Plan until sometime in October.
There will be more public involvement in the 2015 Strategic Plan than there was in the 2011 Plan. The city created a workbook that was made available to anyone who asked. At one point there were just 35 completed but that number “zoomed up to 90.
Knowing what is probably going to be needed in the way of housing tells the planners what kind of development they want to encourage – and developments do get encouraged.
 Burlington population growth has flat lined, Milton is sky rocketing and Oakville is pulling ahead. These projections have significant political and economic implications – the Region may well decide that more of the population coming into the Region should land in Burlington. A presentation of 24 slides told the story – the first was a look at the historic population of the municipalities in the Region
There was a time said Mayor Goldring when Burlington was bigger than Oakville however since then Burlington’s growth has basically flat lined while Milton has grown very rapidly.
 Our portion of the Region’s population is shrinking while that of Milton has skyrocketed. When the 2016 census data is available the Region is required to look at where people live and re-balance the political representation at the Region. Burlington’s political clout will be based on the number of Regional Councillors. Right now every member of city council is also a regional Councillor. The make up of out city council could undergo a significant change.clout The way population was shared within the Region was interesting.
The change in where people lived is shown in #3. Some communities remained stable while others experienced significant growth. The red dot in the upper half is the creation of the community of Alton.
A large part of the discussion around population was the provincial requirement that population grow in the Region. The province requires Halton to grow and the Region determines where that population was going to go in each municipality.
Each municipality then determines where it is going to put the population growth in its municipality.
One point that got made several times was that Burlington’s growth would be done by intensification and that the older traditional communities would not undergo any intensification.
Mayor Goldring talks about the city being built out – Ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward says the city has hundreds of acres of land. One would expect they would both have access to the same data – apparently not.
Every conversation about population growth refers to the seniors and how that demographic is growing. The Molinaro Paradign project that will have five towers next to the GO station on Fairview is not going to house than many seniors – but the mental focus is still on the seniors.
 Burlington clearly has the largest percentage of seniors and at the same time we have some of the highest rents and the lowest vacancies. The need for some deep understanding of the demographics of the community became obvious. Here is what we know: The senior population increased by 17% to 29,720 between 2006 and 2011. The seniors represent 16.9 % of the population seniors over 80 have increased by 21% More than 62% of older seniors are female and 1 in 4 seniors live alone.
What kind of money do these people have? The median income for seniors is $33,280 and the median income for everyone is $40,180
In 2010, 64% of female seniors had incomes of less than $35,000; of the male population that percentage was 38.
The number of children living at home had some surprises – the definition of children for this exercise included people more than 25 years of age.
 There were more female seniors with incomes of less than $35,000 than there were male seniors. Income was defined as that which is shown on tax returns. With older children living with their parents the number of people in a household by themselves was close to astonishing.
 The number of people over 25 living with their parents is a little on the alarming side. The discussion on this data centered around whether or not this was going to continue or if it is a short term situation.
Some of the growth in Burlington is going to come through immigration. The Community Development Halton Development identified the sources of that immigration – it amounts to less than 2000 people
 Immigration into the Region by country of birth. The total is in the 2000 range which the bulk coming from the United States How is income distributed in Burlington? Everyone has always said Burlington is a wealthy city – the data supports that belief.
On the flip side of the very wealthy is identifying the poor; 9.5% of the population in Burlington is poor.
 It would be useful to understand why the number of low income children has remained close to static even though population has grown. The number of low income children has been pretty consistent the past seven years – why? That question did not come up. We seem to have accepted that we just have them.
The prevalence of low income people is also interesting. It shot up during the recession in 2009 but never really came down to pre-recession levels.
 The numbers beside the dots indicates the level of growth. That big red dot reflects the growth in Alton. Where does that low income population live? In Burlington we can’t say below the tracks – there are tracks all over the place – but there are clearly identified pockets of low income families
 There is a link between the working poor and the amount of affordable housing in the city. That link is not fully understood by the community.  Rents are experiencing excellent growth – great if you are a landlord. Many of the new developments are being marketed as condominiums that are bought by investors and rented.  Apartment vacancy rates are very tight throughout the Region and is Hamilton as well. Burlington’s working poor as a percentage of the population compared with other jurisdictions – Burlington is low on that scale – at 4.2% – which is 3,500 persons.
Owning an apartment building is a solid investment in the Region. Rents have experienced a solid climb – well in excess of inflation. The difference between Burlington and Hamilton explains why people will drive to get to Burlington every work day.
The vacancy rate is very tight throughout the Region and in Hamilton as well. A 3% vacancy rate is seen as a healthy, balanced market.
 The number of people who commute TO Burlington from Hamilton is very high. A deeper understanding of the dynamics behind these commutes is probably needed. The number of trips made by people in Burlington to their jobs outside Burlington and the number of people who drive to Burlington to work is really interesting.
What isn’t clear is the why of those trips. Do people drive to Burlington from Hamilton because rents are cheaper in Hamilton.
Do people drive from Burlington to other places because that is where the jobs are?
 The traffic out of the city is due in some degree to employment opportunities. The city has yet to find the formula that will attract employers and reduce the commutes out of the city.
The belief is that people who work outside the city are less likely to be engaged with activities in the city – which was put out as part of the reason voter turnout is so low – it has been a consistent mid thirty percent range.
And yet the percentage of people who volunteer is very high in Halton – at the 50% level. The population is relatively generous – a smidgen lower than the Ontario average and lower than Oakville
Understanding the shifts that take place in population: immigrants coming into the country; seniors moving out of large homes into smaller townhouses or condos; young people renting their first apartment and the working poor looking for affordable housing is the work of demographers – Burlington doesn’t have one.
Windsor, a city with a population of 600,000 has six demographers on staff which prompted planner Bruce Krushelnicki to extrapolate that and come to the conclusion that Burlington should have two – Krushelnicki would settle for one.
A solid understanding of what Burlington has in the way of population, how that population is likely to shift and what future population might be are the building blocks on which the Official Plan and the Strategic Plan will be built.
That process has now begun – by the end of the year city council and the public will have had the time needed to ensure that everyone at least understands what those plans are – getting them to agree is another matter.
 By Pepper Parr
April 28th, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The public is slowly getting some input on what is done in the way of development at air parks. This will be good news to the people of Burlington. The city has taken the Burlington Air Park to court twice – and is in the process of seeking additional legal relief from a company that has done almost everything it can to not comply with the city’s bylaws
 The only indication that there is an Air Park on Appleby Line is this one sign – everything else is hidden behind the large berm – put in place without site plan approval Transport Canada has what is called the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) which recently asked for submissions on a proposed amendment to regulations and procedures related to Responsible Aerodrome Development.
A submission was made recently by Nancy Shea Nicol, City Solicitor & Director of Legal Services The Corporation of the City of Burlington and Mark Meneray, Commissioner of Legislative & Planning Services and Corporate Counsel for the Regional Municipality of Halton.
They were responding to the Notice of Proposed Amendment regarding Responsible Aerodrome Development and started by noting that comments will only be received until April 17th, 2015, which meant there has been insufficient time to prepare submissions for endorsement by our municipal councils.
It isn’t just the public that gets pushed to respond to changes that different levels of government make.
 The air park property. The diagonal runway has been upgraded since this picture was taken The Proposed Amendment provides that Transport Canada is seeking feedback from stakeholders on will require mandatory that public consultation processes be undertaken in respect of new aerodrome developments and existing certified and non-certified aerodromes when proposed development results in changes to the existing level of service or operations or usage.
Transport Canada is seeking input in setting the parameters of the following:
1. The circumstances under which the requirement to consult are applicable.
2. The mechanics of the consultation process including all steps to be taken.
3. The duration of the consultation process.
4. The defined dispute resolution process.
Before getting into the nitty gritty of their response the first thing Shea-Nicol and Meneray had to say was that the scope of the regulatory proposal itself is too narrow in terms of its applicability for the following reasons:
 Vince Rossi, president of the Burlington Executive Air Park and believed to be the sole shareholder of the private company, met with north Burlington residents. He took all the comments made “under advisement”.. Recent amendments to the Aeronautics Act gave the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations with respect to mandatory consultations that must be carried out before the development of an aerodrome is developed or before an expansion of or change to the operations of an existing aerodrome. The amendments also gave the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations prohibiting the development or expansion of aerodromes or any change to the operation of them. It is our respectful submission that while the regulatory proposal speaks to stakeholder consultation, which we support in principle, it is silent on the circumstances under which the Governor in Council may exercise the power to prohibit the development or expansion of aerodromes or any change to the operation.
We are of the opinion, that in the absence of regulations governing when prohibition of development or expansion may occur, the duty to undertake a public consultation is somewhat “orphaned” in the larger regulatory context.
 The only meeting with north Burlington residents that Vince Rossi attended took pl;ace in a barn at the end of one of the Air Park runways. Circled are Rossi and ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster Under the recent amendments to the Aeronautics Act the Minister has the authority to make orders prohibiting the development or expansion of an aerodrome or any changes to its operation where the Minister is of the opinion that the proposed development, expansion or change is likely to adversely affect aviation safety or is not in the public interest. We would expect that the results of the mandatory consultation process should inform the Minister as to when a proposed development or change to an existing aerodrome might not be in the public interest. Again, the regulatory proposal is silent on how this power is to be exercised, and under what conditions.
Further to the above noted points, it is unclear as to what exactly the regulatory framework is, and in particular how it will apply to registered and non-registered aerodromes. It is fine to provide provisions for consultation with the public, but if that consultation is not linked to any power to prohibit or invoke Ministerial orders regulating aerodrome development or operations, it may be that the public consultation is more “window dressing” than substance.
All this before they get into their response to the Notice of proposed amendments.
The intention of all this is to create a process that allows for public input and consultation. The city and the Region want to make sure that the dice are not loaded in favour of an air park operator. You can be the ranch that the Air Park will be submitting their views which will be considerably different than those of the city.
 There were plans to build a heli-port dangerously close to a public road What follows is as dry as toast – and critical to the development of rural Burlington. There was a point at which the air park wanted to build a helicopter pad that was dangerously close to a public road and almost in the front yard of a neighboring property owner. The Burlington Air Park had taken the position that they were a federally regulated operation and did not have to comply with municipal bylaws.
Justice Murphy put an end to that argument and said the Air Park was indeed required to abide by municipal bylaws and an appeal court agreed.
Nevertheless the Air Park has still not submitted the site alteration plan required – the city has once again gone to court and asking a judge to compel them to comply.
That is what makes this change in public participation process so very necessary.
1. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSULT
We support in principle the requirement for public consultation as is proposed as it addresses what has in the past, been a serious gap in public information and/or consultation with the local community when there is development or expansion or changes to existing aerodrome operations. This has been and continues to be a source of conflict between aerodrome operators and the communities in which they reside.
While applicability to new aerodrome development is relatively straightforward in the regulatory proposal, it is far less clear when dealing with existing aerodrome development. From the perspective of the public at large, it is very unclear as to when proposed modifications result in changes to existing levels of service or operation, or result or could reasonably result in changes to existing usage. For example, the change of the size of an aerodrome should be subject to public consultation, even if it does not change its immediate usage. The vagueness of these proposals raise questions such as:
1. Who and how is the threshold determined?
2. Is it NAV CANADA and/or Transport Canada who makes the threshold determination or the proponent?
3. Is there an opportunity to influence this determination through a preliminary consultation with stakeholders and the public on this point?
The regulatory proposal indicates that the local public, land-use authorities and nearby registered and certified aerodromes must be notified of a proposed aerodrome development where public consultation “is deemed to be a requirement”. Again, it is unclear who makes this determination – either the proponent, Transport Canada, or NAV CANADA?
2. MECHANICS OF THE CONSULTATION PROCESS
We could not determine what the prescribed notification radius is and therefore are unclear as to how broadly a proponent is required to consult. We suggest the notification radius may be too restrictive in respect of non-built up areas. Furthermore, the terms “built up” and “protected area” are undefined and integral to determining the notification area. Calculating the applicable radius, assuming there is one, is even less clear in applying it to existing aerodrome development.
 It was the dumpling of land fill without the proper papers that brought the illegal activity to the attention of city hall. The environmental impacts of any development or proposed expansion of service is of particular concern to local communities.
It is curious that the public notification requires an attestation that the installation will adhere to local building and fire codes. Does Transport Canada concede that aerodromes are required to comply with local building code and fire code requirements? This language is repeated in the Community Comment Section and the concerns expressed here apply equally.
The same comment as above applies to the requirement that the proponent attest that local land-use authorities, “as applicable”, are engaged in the consultation process. This is ambiguous at best and should be clarified in order to ensure that local land use authorities are engaged in any consultation process.
The requirement that the proponent will respond to “all reasonable and relevant concerns” is ambiguous. Are we to assume that it is up to the proponent to determine which public concerns are “reasonable and relevant”? It is unrealistic to expect that the public or other government agencies will be able to assess “valid and substantiated safety” issues, “environmental considerations including the impact on environmentally sensitive or protected lands or aircraft noise within a 30 day response period as addressed below.
Equally of concern, environmental concerns that “are not scientifically sound” will not be considered reasonable or relevant. The process places the onus on the public to raise these concerns and establish their validity, rather than placing the onus on the proponent to have done this work in advance, assessed all of the impacts, and then present the proposal and scientific work to substantiate that the proposed development will not have a negative impact on the surrounding community.
The example list provided indicates that questions respecting whether locally established bylaws or other legislation, procedures or processes are applicable or should be amended in some manner will not be considered as a reasonable or relevant example of concern. This exclusion is too broad and could be used as a catch-all to deny reasonable and relevant concerns that may relate to or refer to bylaws, legislation or procedures. In addition, this seems contrary to the public consultation intent of the regulation and also seems to come to the incorrect conclusion that a bylaw, legislation or procedure or process cannot be applicable.to an aerodrome development.
Public comments including those that are determined to be unreasonable or irrelevant should be made publically available in order to ensure the transparency of the process.
Attempts to resolve concerns informally is positive, however the timelines for having these discussions is too short as discussed below. As well, it would appear that informal resolution will take place with individuals on a concern by concern basis, and not in a public or coordinated fashion. This could result in a “divide and conquer” strategy being used by the proponent to _address concerns raised by the public.
3. . DURATION OF THE CONSULTATION PROCESS
The timelines for public consultation are far too condensed. The regulatory proposal indicates that the proponent must ensure the public notification provides for at least 30 days for written public comment. Proponents will apply the 30 days as the maximum time required for comment. As regulators, Transport Canada has to appreciate that neither the public nor local municipal authorities have the resources (expert staff, funding) to be able to provide written comments on detailed aeronautic proposals within a 30 day window.
 Glenn Grenier, lawyer for the Air Park, a pilot and a resident of the city got a little more than the time of day from a city council that decided they didn’t have all that much time for him. For the consultation to be meaningful, sufficient time must be provided in order for the community to get the resources in place in order to properly understand the scale of the proposed development, and its impacts on the community. These resources are professional/expert in nature and will be costly to the community. Furthermore, most municipal councils only meet once per month and lead times required to get a report onto an agenda can be upwards of 30 days. Accordingly, in order to respond, municipal councils will require at least a 120 day notification period which to provide written comments in respect of a development proposal.
The window for holding the Community Information and Comment Session requires should be longer than the prescribed 14 – 20 days from the mailing of the notice or the publication in the local community newspaper. We would recommend that this window be set at a minimum of 60 days. This could take place within the 120 day period discussed above.
The 111 days for the concluding the public consultation process is too short. After the 120 day window for public comment and 30 days for proponent’s responses, there is only a 21 day opportunity for reply. This should be extended to 30 days. These timelines suggests that the consultation process should be at least 180 days.
 Air park dumped more than 30 feet of landfill without a Site Plan. Owner of the adjacent property stands on her property line and wonders why anyone can build a “small mountain” next to her property without getting approval. She is also terrified about what the hill is doing to the value of her property and what the leaching out of the landfill is going to do to her well water. The Notice recognizes that proponents in more populated or sensitive areas should expect greater engagement in the consultation process that may extend the process beyond 111 days. An extended time frame should be recognized for more populated and sensitive areas in order to ensure the proponent engages the public appropriately in these circumstances.
4. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS.
The formal intention by Transport Canada into a dispute between the public and the proponent is a positive process. We are concerned however that the general public will not have the resources to deal on an equal and balanced playing field with the representatives of the proponent and Transport Canada.
The Transport Canada process for dispute resolution is simply mentioned as a ‘process’ in the Notice. The details of how dispute resolution will be managed by Transport Canada could be outlined in greater detail so participating parties have a reasonable expectation of what will be required should they enter into dispute resolution.
 Second from the right is current Minister of Transport – second from the left is Vince Rossi at what is believed to have been an Air Park social event. The Minister has not met with the residents who are impacted by the air park. The resolution window of 30 – 60 days is positive, however Transport Canada should ensure these timelines can be met.
The views of the city and the region are just one part of the comment process. Let’s see how close the regulations come to giving he citizens of the city of Burlington the opportunity to have real input on what gets built in their city.
This has been a five year grind and it isn’t over yet – but the trend line has changed and the arrogance with which legal counsel approached the city is now a thing of the past.
 By Pepper Parr
April 25, 2105
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir is an active community participant – he is also a bit of a burr under the saddle of the Councillor for his ward Rick Craven.
Muir is not the kind of guy that backs down easily – and he is the kind of guy who does his homework
When he delegates before city Council – which he does frequently – his questions are pointed and often sharp.
 Plains Road, east of Waterdown – residents believe the properties are being assembled with plans are for a 6 storey structure. He recently wrote a staff member in the planning department about a development that no one was actually sure was going to take place – the only information the public had was a sign on the property saying units were for sale.
Muir asked the planning department for some details on any plans the city might have received about a potential redevelopment on 40-58 Plains Road East.
The staff member said:
I have attended several meetings with the owners of 40, 46 & 50 Plains Road East. Formal preconsultation meetings were held in December 2012 and July 2014 to discuss a 6 storey apartment building on these three sites. An Official Plan amendment (OPA) and rezoning would be required to allow any redevelopment of these properties for an apartment building. I have not attended any discussions or held any preconsultation meetings involving 58 Plains Road East.
The City of Burlington has not received an application for OPA or rezoning of these properties. We have not approved any apartment building on these properties. However the City cannot legally prevent property owners from advertising their intentions or from collecting names of potential purchasers for residential units which are not approved or built.
 Waterdown Road is in the process of being widened, the local convenience store was expropriated and there are plans for some very significant developments – the residents would like to be informed. Muir now knew more than most people in his community. What galled Muir the most was that there had been a community meeting to talk about the thinking being done for the stretch of Plains Road between Cook and Filmandale and there was no mention of the meeting about any development proposals or pre-consultation meetings.
Muir commented in his response to the planner saying:
“It is not right, and highly regrettable, that this information was not disclosed to the public as part of the official process and meeting. That it was largely by accident that I discovered this failure to disclose key information relevant to the purposes of the meeting just makes the situation more intolerable.
The disclosure of such information should be city policy, period. I just don’t understand what the thinking or objective is in non-disclosure. What kind of organization lets this happen?
Awareness of this information would clearly affect the knowledge and thinking of the public regarding the issues and questions being posed to them by the city at the meetings, and in the process. Therefore, the issues, comments, and concerns they provide in response are similarly affected.
Therefore, the turnout numbers of the public are influenced downward, and the comments you have received, and may receive further, are not fully informed, and are therefore biased, because this information is missing.
I think you need to do the meeting again, with the public fully informed as to what has been, and is, going on in regard to the missing information, and how that might relate to the OP and by-law issues that are under review.
“This is not the first time in my experience in Ward 1” said Muir “that the city has failed to disclose this kind of particularly relevant and material information to the public in formal meetings. The resulting bias in response received from the public is always the same.”
“And it always leads people to lose trust in the process, and in the integrity of the city’s ethic and code of conduct. This is so simple to avoid – always do the right, honest thing.”
 A vacant lot across the road from properties that are beleived to be part of an assembly sits next to Solid Gold, an “adult entertainment” business. Many would like to see that establishment turned into something more acceptable to the community. The lead speaker at the meeting on March 24th was the city planner. He had to know about the possible development. He didn’t say a word.
The ward Councillor, Rick Craven also spoke to the crowd of about 80 people – he didn’t say a word either – you can bet the mortgage that Councillor Craven knew about the project and assume that he had had a number of conversations with the developer.
Let us add one more piece of information. The Gazette received the following from a reader whose credibility is as strong as it gets. That person wrote: Regarding Greg Woodruff’s article, I think the Plains Road project has been in the works for a while. Through one of our daughter’s friends, we learned that properties on Fairwood Place E. – up to Birchwood – were being assembled about a year ago. If true, the development proposal will extend well beyond the Plains Road corridor – right into the neighbourhood.
Expect to hear more from the people of Aldershot about this one.
 By Greg Woodruff
April 21, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
On March 24th city staff held a meeting to discuss possible zoning changes to a large section of Plains Road. The area discussed was on the South side of Plains Road positioned East of Waterdown Road. Later residents discovered a developer is already advertising to sell 75 condo units at 40-58 Plains Road East in violation of current zoning character provisions.
Though it was casually mentioned the city had been “approached” by a developer; no indication was given that a specific plan was in motion.
 The public meeting was an information gathering occasion for the city planner who said he was there to listen to the community and what they wanted. He did make mention of an project that was not formal yet – the residents think the project is well along the development path. The graphic above shows the portion of Plains Rod that was under review and its proximity to the Aldershot GO station and the suggestion that the pink area could be developed as a “mobility hub” This leaves the distinct impression that this meeting was in bad faith. It seems like the purpose of the meeting was only to say the public was “consulted” on an issue staff already had a plan to change. I realize that staff may not have been in a position to mention this specific development. At minimum the staff could have indicated that if the zoning was changed they would expect to see condo buildings in the “range of 70 plus units”. Why they did not could be anything from simple lack of communication to an outright attempt to misslead the public.
I think traditionally the public has considered staff as neutral parties implementing zoning regulations and changes in a balanced way. To some it seems like staff have now been co-opted into provincial employees with “intensification” as the decisive factor in decision making. If staff failed to mention this development or the like because someone judged that residents would have a negative reaction; then they are no longer operating in a neutral way. This is unfair not only to residents and developers, but also to the staff themselves.
Some basic questions now need answering:
1) What exactly is the current function and purpose of staff in regard to planning and development?
2) Was the city made aware of this 75 unit proposal from the developer?
3) Was there any conversation among or direction to staff about hiding the nature of probable developments if the zoning was changed?
4) Did any staff indicate that they would work for the developer to get the zoning changed?
Recommendations:
1) All communication between staff and this developer on this matter needs to be made public.
2) Staff are “trading” zoning violations for attributes to buildings. “Horse trading” zoning violations needs to be made into a transparent public process.
In this area we have less trees, less businesses and more congestion.
I reject outright the suggestion that the liveability of our community needs to be sacrificed for the provincial “intensification” mandate. Intensification is designed to spur positive changes in our community; not serve as a rationalization for negative ones.
Greg Woodruff runs the Citizens for Responsible Development. He was a candidate for the office of Chair of the Region of Halton. There is more about that organization here.
The Gazette reported on that March meeting.
 By Pepper Parr
April 21, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Those condominiums that First Capital Corporation wanted to build on the edge of the Appleby Village Mall will not be going up any time soon.
 The view of the proposed development from Pinedale. Was it sewer problems that held this development back? Councillor Paul Sharman advised Council last night that the Regional government will not have the services in place for the time frame the developer seems to have wanted.
Sharman faced two close to hostile audiences when the proposal was first put forward by First Capital – close to 300 people crowded into a public meeting to voice their opinion – “not here thank you” was the sentiment expressed by most.
 The two towers would have been in the upper right. It was their height that had the residents up in arms. There was a second meeting that didn’t go much better.
Sharman appeared to take some satisfaction in in delivering the news.
Expect this project to come back to the table at some point in the future; a combination of the developer wanting to wring as much profit out of their property as possible and the city’s need to intensify will see this one again.
The city will also like the look of the development charges and the tax revenue.
By Pepper Parr
April 20, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The Air Park issue is back on the table – on the hot plate actually with the heat being turned up.
In a very brief media release handed out during a city council meeting Monday evening the city said: The issue at the Air Park is of continuing concern to the residents of Burlington and there is a high degree of interest in this matter. For the purposes of informing the public the City Solicitor recommends that limited solicitor-client privilege be waives with respect to the following matters after final Council approval of this report as follows”:
Council waive solicitor client privilege with respect the advice/opinions contained in L-9-15 and its attachments strictly with respect to conveying to the public that:
 Barbara Sheldon look at 32 feet of landfill less than 50 feet from her kitchen window. All dumped without any permits because an airport is federally regulated. The city is now back in Court asking a Judge to compel the Air Park to file a site Alteration site |Plan does that mean some of the fill might get removed? Burlington city council takes the position that it has full legal Authority to enforce the provisions of its Site Alteration By-law as against Burlington Air Park Inc. and the Burlington Air Park Inc., has been given 30 days from March 20, 2015 to comply with the by-law.
This news is released April 20th – suggesting that lawyer Ian Blue will be at the County Courthouse tomorrow morning with a brief asking the Judge to order the Air Park to submit a Site Alteration plan.
The city media release goes on to say: “That in all other respects, solicitor-client privilege is maintained over all other legal advice/opinions contained in L-9-15 and its appendices.”
In other words – they aren’t going to tell us anything else.
So much for the city’s intention to communicate with the public.
City Manager James Ridge, who smiles frequently and suggests he wants to be nice added a few words to the release when asked just what it meant.
“We are asking a court to compel the Air Park to comply with the site by-law
They could have said that in one sentence and do away with all the baffle gab.
This certainly ups the ante – the Air Park has found reason after reason; excuse after excuse to not file the proper documents – they’ve been doing this for years.
The city and the Air Park sued each other over whether or not the city had the right to require a Site Alteration Plan. They lost the case. Justice Murphy said they were requires to submit a plan.
The Air Park appealed that decision – they lost the appeal.
They hired a consulting form with a good reputation for quality work – and that firm did meet with staff in the planning department – but a complete |Site Alteration plan never quite made it to the planners.
 Getting a single picture with most of the players in it is unusual. On the far left is outside counsel Ian Blue who won two court cases for the city and has been brought in to stick handle the most recent legal issue. To the rear of Blue is Blake Hurley who is with the city legal department. Scott |Stewart chats with rural Burlington residents Robert Goulet, Ken Woodruff and Montre Dennis. Vanessa Warren looks over their shoulders. Warren, Dennis and Pepper Parr, publisher of the Burlington Gazette have been sued by the Air Park. That case has yet to get to court. A month or so ago the city brought Ian Blue the lawyer who handled the two court cases, back in and sought his advice. That advice is now evident.
The city wants to hope that they appear once again in front of Justice Murphy.
In a media release put out several hours after city council adjourned a time line reflecting just how long this has been going on.
Timeline
• July 4, 2013 – The City of Burlington moved forward with a legal strategy to address concerns regarding noise and fill activities related to construction at the Burlington Airpark on Bell School Line.
• July 18, 2013 – The Burlington Airpark serves the City of Burlington with an application to take the city to court and seeks a court order to declare the city’s site alteration by-law does not apply to the airport’s operations and construction of aerodrome facilities.
• July 29, 2013 – The City of Burlington and the Burlington Airpark reach a settlement to stop fill operations at the airpark until a decision is made by the courts about whether the city has jurisdiction to regulate fill operations through its site alteration by-law.
• Nov. 13, 2013 – A Milton Superior Court rules the City of Burlington’s site alteration by-law applies to the Burlington Airpark.
• June 11, 2014 – The Court of Appeal for Ontario upholds the decision of the Milton Superior Court that the City of Burlington’s site alteration by-law applies to the Burlington Airpark.
Added to the time line was the following:
“The City of Burlington site alteration by-law 64-2014 regulates the placing, dumping, cutting and removal of fill or the alteration of grades or drainage on a piece of land. Individuals undertaking this type of work are first required to submit an application to the city for a site alteration permit.
“The Burlington Airpark Inc. has not submitted an application for a site alteration permit for the areas of the Airpark property where substantial quantities of fill were deposited between 2009 to 2014.”
“The Burlington Airpark continues to be of great interest to the residents of Burlington,” said Mayor Rick Goldring. “The requirements set out in Burlington’s site alteration by-law are necessary to help regulate impacts to the environment and drainage patterns.”
 Dump trucks taking tonnes of landfill onto the Air Park property to level out part of the 200 acre site. They did so without any permits. The requirement for a site plan isn’t the only issue. The drilling of test holes to determine what if any toxicity exists at or near the water table as a result of the fill that has been dumped on the 200 acre plus site has yet to be resolved and something more than statement released from the provincial ministry that is involved in this mess on how it is going to inform the public.
The federal government is responsible for the regulations that determine what level of adherence the airport has to respect in terms of municipal bylaws.
The noose is getting tighter.
 By Pepper Parr
April 15, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Dave Conrath is no slouch.
He has served as the Dean of a Faculty at Stanford University; he also served as the dean of a Faculty at the University of Waterloo.
Retired from the academic world now, he currently serves as a member of the Board at Royal Botanical Gardens, he sits on the Board of Burlington’s Economic Development Corporation and serves as a volunteer on the Burlington Waterfront Committee.
 It went for more than half a million dollars – gives new meaning to the words: “location, location, location”. Conrath has very strong views on what he thinks the city and the city and the Region are doing to the people who live on the Beachway. “This is spurious action” on the part of the Region” he said. To refer to a plan that has been sitting around for more than forty years and drag it out and treat it as a policy that has to be followed now is just plain wrong, he added.
“These people need to lawyer up” and get the help they need to ensure they are treated fairly.
Conrath lives in one of the lakeshore condos – is a big fan of the downtown core. During our interview with Conrath, Brian Dean, president of the Burlington Downtown Business Association happened along and joined us for a few minutes. Conrath began to talk about just what it is to live downtown. Dean was so impressed that he asked for a testimonial.
 A close up view of the 30 homes that the Region wants to demolish to develop the park. The residents in the Beachway are discouraged, dispirited and depressed. They don’t feel they are listened to; they turn in a petition with more than 3000 signatures of people who walk through the Beachway on the old railway bed who want to see the homes remain – the petition gets the “receive and file” treatment at a council meeting.
They are told again and again that they will not be expropriated – that if their property changes hands it will be on a willing buyer/willing seller basis.
There is only one buyer – the Region and except for a few who see the chance to get a great price for their homes – there are few sellers.
Three homes have sold in the past three years – two of them were Estate sales. The other sale was to the Region by a person who worked for the Region. One can imagine the dynamic in play when that sale was made.
 This is the park the region has designed – views are mixed on whether or not this is the best way to develop the Beachway. This plan calls for the removal of all the homes. A couple of hundred people have seen the plan. The Region has to either expropriate these people or move on says Conrath. They can’t continue to diminish these people this way, he added
There are some people in the expropriation field who will tell you that the home owners have rights that are recognized under the Expropriation Act.
Expect to see some professionals coming forward to advise the Beachway community.
 By Staff
April 10, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Ward 3 Councillor John Taylor responded very strongly to some information that had been circulated during the Easter weekend by unknown person(s) regarding the Mount Nemo Heritage Conservation Landscape District.
 Ward 3 Councillor John Taylor responds to an anonymous document he feels is both incorrect and misleading.
“I have received, but never before responded, to unsigned correspondence for obvious reasons. In this case, however, I will respond to the allegations (as will City staff) due to the importance of this topic to rural residents.
“The City is conducting the Mount Nemo Heritage Conservation District Study in accordance with Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The study scope includes a broad review of a variety of elements that contribute to the landscape character, including but not limited to, the natural environment.
 The area covers basically all of the western half of the Escarpment. “At this stage of the study staff and the consultants are reviewing the needs and justification for an Heritage Conservation District as well as alternative planning tools that may achieve similar conservation objectives through other means. The consultants final study report along with draft staff recommendations will be presented to rural residents before a decision is made by City Council on whether or how to proceed further. Timing is uncertain but there will be at least a month separation between the two meetings and neither of the meetings will be held in July or August.
The document that was circulated:
The Facts of a HERITAGE DESIGNATION for all Mount Nemo Residents:
What Can a Heritage Designation do?
Myth: It will not affect your property value.
Fact: It will lower your property value. The City recently sent out a letter to Mount Nemo residents offering a 25% rebate for the 2015 tax yea r to entice you to convert to heritage because of the financial losses suffered under a heritage status.
Myth: It will stop the quarry from expanding.
Fact: City-contracted heritage consultants confirmed it will NOT stop any federally or provincially mandated development such as a quarry expansion.
Myth:This is not a ‘real’ heritage designation. It only affects the natural environment.
Fact: This is a very real heritage designation that will restrict what you do with your house and you r property such as the colour, style, size, location, landscaping, etc. And it will also affect on-going maintenance and renovations. This was confirmed by the heritage consultants.
Ask yourself these questions:
• Would you have purchased your home with a heritage designation attached to it?
• City Councillors are offering a 25% rebate on your 2015 property taxes if you convert to heritage. Your home is going to be worth 25% less forever, why is the City not offering a 25% property tax rebate forever?
The seven members of City Council will be voting on this initiative soon and they do not live in this area -not even John Taylor. It is important that you voice your opinion NOW on this matter and send them an email or a letter. Please see below for contact information.
Proposed heritage area: From Dundas Street up to Britannia Road and from Milborough Line over to Walkers Line. And they are considering expanding these boundaries?
Taylor responds to each issue raised in the anonymous document:
 This quarry is close to being shut down – they have taken out just about all the aggregate they can. An application to expand the quarry was denied. Many feel that there will never be another quarry on Mt. Nemo. The question now is – what do we do with that big hole in the ground?
Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program
The City letter referred to was addressed to property owners on the Heritage Registry who do not qualify for a 25% property tax rebate because these individual properties are not designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The rebates are allowed under Section 365.2 of the Municipal Act. The program is designed to assist designated heritage property owners with the conservation, protection and restoration of their properties and not to compensate for any perceived loss in property values. The current rebate rate of 25% of the City and Education portion of the property tax was 20% in 2014 and will rise to 40% by 2018 and continues as long as the property is designated and annual registration is done.
Please also note that the tax rebate program does not apply to heritage districts registered under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as would be the case for any Mount Nemo Heritage Landscape District. There are no current plans to introduce the rebate program to heritage districts.
 Those people who live in rural Burlington are passionate about the quality of life they live – that’s why they chose a rural setting. They do not make any kind of change easy. Property Values
Several studies completed in both Canada and the United States have indicated that the establishment of a Heritage Conservation District typically has either a neutral or slightly positive effect on property values. Niagara on the Lake and Downtown Perth are two examples of Heritage Conservation Districts that have been positively received and resulted in sensitive development.
Private Property Controls
A Heritage Landscape District includes a variety of elements that contribute to landscape character that includes but is not limited to landscape character. There are big differences in details captured for individual heritage properties designated under Part IV and Part V collections of properties captured with a heritage district. There are also big differences between Heritage Districts in urban areas such as a historic downtown versus rural areas focusing on cultural heritage landscapes.
If the City proceeds with the development of an HCD Plan, the focus for policy and guidelines would be on the effect of proposed development on the cultural heritage landscape as defined through the HCD Study process, focusing on elements such as vegetation, building setbacks, height and massing. The purpose of this study is not to explore the specific stylistic elements of individual buildings (i.e. colour, window patterns, etc.). An HCD designation can require a heritage permit for major exterior repairs or additions, alterations to the landscape and tree removals, but does not affect building interiors or general maintenance. What ultimately requires a heritage permit is determined through the HCD Study/Plan process.
Protection from Unwanted Development, Quarry Expansion & Provincial Highways
In the last ten years the City has invested significant financial and staff resources to twice prevent the Niagara to GTA Highway going through the rural escarpment area of Burlington as well as successfully defending the City’s position opposing an expansion of the Nelson Aggregate Quarry. A Heritage Conservation Landscape District under the Ontario Heritage Act, while not an absolute protection, adds specific additional policy protection to be considered within any application review or appeal process beyond the generalizations of City and Regional
Official Plans and Provincial Policy Statements.
This would be achieved by a Heritage Conservation Plan that contains policies and guidelines sympathetic to the defined character of the landscape.
In conclusion I feel that we must complete the study as planned and then make an informed decision on whether to proceed to a plan, take a different direction, or abandon the issue.
 By Pepper Parr
April 7, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir has been a consistent critique of many city council decisions and an advocate for his community – Aldershot.
Greg Woodruff, a generation or two behind Muir, has also been a critic and an advocate for Aldershot.
 Both had comments on some of the ideas that were floated by the Planning department at a recent community meeting in the community.
The proposed revision” revision said Muir in a note to one of the city planners, “has long been, historically, one of the biggest fears of Aldershot people – policy and wording revisions that can lead to wholesale block-busting and creeping destruction of a prime section of Aldershot character, heritage and history.
While this is technical, Muir sites a section of the Official Plan policy:
Part III. 2.2.3. h) Notwithstanding the policies of Part III, Subsection 2.2.2 d) of this Plan, the lands designated “Residential Medium Density” on the south side of Plains Road, between Cooke Boulevard and Filmandale Road, shall be subject to site-specific zoning regulations designed to protect the existing character of this portion of Plains Road and provide compatibility with the abutting neighbourhood to the south. Any exterior alteration or addition to the property shall maintain the residential appearance and character of the property.
 Recently completed retirement home improves the look of the intersection but brings nothing to the community in terms of a place to go – no public amenities “Changing this wording, and supporting zoning bylaws, so as to remove the requirements for site-specific zoning requirements – “shall” – to protect the existing character, provide compatibility with the abutting neighborhood to the south, and maintain the residential appearance and character of the property, is a sure recipe for just such a future. This is what a majority Aldershot residents have consistently expressed objections to. I live on Townsend Ave., immediately south of these lands.
“If these protections were desirable, warranted, and defensible in the present OP” asks Muir, “then what has changed that makes such protections not so in the present. These lands are certainly not realistically needed to meet any other superseding goals that I can think of. All I can see is that such revisions reward speculation and profiteering.”
“Such wholesale changes I cannot support. Notwithstanding that not all of the properties are equal, how does one choose which to protect and will that be defensible, among many judgemental factors? This is a very slippery slope.
“I think that in short order, given other redevelopments that are already underway on Plains Rd in general, this is exactly what appears will happen following such revisions. I already see signs of this, such as development/real estate companies speculating in properties in the subject section. I don’t want to see a replication of that recent redevelopment form in the subject area.
 Planters along Plains Road have given what used to be a provincial highway a much more suburban look. Hasn’t slowed traffic down enough for most people – except for those who drive through the community. “It will destroy what is left of the low density residential, with some employment or commercial uses mixed in, and with green spaces and mostly attractive streetscapes. It will be replaced by concrete, brick and asphalt right to the street.
This is not an Aldershot Village Vision, but rather a Nightmare looming. This seems to me a critical juncture in the process.
Greg Woodruff, who ran against Gary Carr for the office of Regional Chair – more to have a platform that to win the office asks the politicians to “Stop saving the greenbelt and start saving us.”
Woodruff says he is “in favour of development and smart growth – that is not what is under way in Burlington. We are embarked in the stupidest type of growth seen yet. Let’s review the last several years in Aldershot.
Does the street look slightly nicer with newer buildings – yes.
Trees – less.
Businesses that are open at 7:00 pm – less.
Places for people to work and shop – less.
Dependency on cars – more.
Congestion – more.
 Councillor Craven described the sign that was set up at the western end of his ward as “beautiful”. The result is a kind of “bimbo” street that looks slightly nicer, but is devoid of actual value to residents. This trend is growing and accelerating across Burlington.
In the past developers chewed up cheap farmland and converted it into housing. Now that farm land is off limits they are just doing the same with commercial space. The city has just identified areas that can be redeveloped at the most profit – not areas where intensification makes any sense.
Previously the suburbs spread everything out and made the car king. Now we are moving to large swaths of apartment blocks completely devoid of any local services and placed around roads that were never designed to service so many. This is a far worse situation.
 Greg Woodruff describes much of the development as giving a “kind of “bimbo” look – slightly nicer, but devoid of actual value to residents. This trend is growing and accelerating across Burlington. City planners seem to have settled on religious devotion to a single formula imposed by their provincial masters; more density is better. Seemingly now freed from servicing the wishes of actual residents and backed up with “saving the green belt”; the agenda is to slow boil residents like frogs in water.
Chipping away local greenery tree by tree. Blocking out the sun building by building. Increasing congestion day by day. This is the only future offered to existing residents – endless and perpetual construction, greying and densification. Welcome to the intensification zone.
A better end game is to end up with a much greener and localized city than we started with; that is the point of density. We want larger parks, more restaurants and things to walk to – you can’t make things greener by chopping down trees or get more businesses by putting houses where stores were. Yet that seems what city planners are pitching.
Population density doesn’t solve problems in your community if your community is merrily downgraded into endless apartment blocks. Sorry “Saving the green belt” cannot justify ever worsening living conditions for the rest of us.
Here is how we start turning the current direction around. “Smart growth” is when the increased density brings amenities into the community for the benefit of all – including existing residents.
1) Modify the zoning rules so that when redevelopment occurs the zoning stipulates that amenities come in with the development. In most areas this means high quality commercial space. 45% maximum lot coverage, 45% high quality parking, 10% green. Must have commercial venting and transport truck accesses.
2) A percentage of development fees must go into a fund for new park land – local to the area of development. This will enforce localized services and new localized greenery as redevelopment occurs.
 The only way to secure the “green belt” is to make sure that most people would prefer to live inside the “intensification zone”. This requires a focus on improving the liveability of the areas under intensification. Every development which brings in people without an obvious improvement to the community is negative.
“Dispense will the endless rationalizations presented by the city” suggests Woodruff. “If a development results in less trees, less shops, more people and more congestion – then the city is developing your area into a grey high density mess.”
The Planning department is in the process of testing ideas and listening to the residents in different communities. The Mayor is gearing up for a talk on intensification – his stab at helping people understand what is taking place.
If what Muir and Woodruff have to say is any indication on how the intensification debate is going to go – we are in for some feisty debate.
Neither of these man could be referred to as uninformed slouches.
By Pepper Parr
March 23, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
It is going to be a tough meeting.
The city will give the public a peek at what they have in mind for the Beachway Park at a meeting on April 7th at the Art Gallery of Burlington – start time is 6:30 pm
 This is the location of the 30 homes the Regional government would like to at some point buy and demolish and turn into a park. The challenge the city faces in designing a park for the Beachway part of the city is – how long are the houses going to be in place?
How does a landscape designer put together a plan without knowing if a piece of land is going to be available or not?
The landscape planner on the Beachway file did most of the work for the City View Park on Dundas at Kerns Road. It is a very well designed park – Burlingtonians don’t get to use it all that much because of its location and will get to see almost none of it during the Pan Am Games this summer – it is being used for soccer practice by teams and there is no public admittance.
The challenge for the planner is – how does she put together a design that covers the park when 26 homes are still on the property?
 These Beachway home owners got to see drawings with houses on the maps – some of the design maps apparently don’t have houses shown. They assume a clean slate. The thinking that is reported to dominate the people doing the design is that the homes are not going to be there for all that long. There is a view that the Region should just get on with it and buy all the homes now and complete the destruction of that community.
The fight to keep the homes as part of a vibrant community was lost when Burlington wasn’t able to convince their municipal colleagues on Regional council that there was real merit to maintaining the homes the way the city of Toronto did with the Islands.
It was a long hard battle to keep a community on the Toronto Islands but the residents eventually won and today it is a quaint, safe livable community.
Burlington appears to have missed out on the opportunity to preserve something that is a part of both its history and its heritage.
 At previous public meetings the discussion was about what the community could look like – the discussion this time around does not include a community – just a park. At least one of the maps that will be shown will not have any of the houses on it – that will be used to show what the park could look like if all the houses were gone.
There are, we understand, plans to make the canal a bigger feature in the design.
The Regional government has consistently taken the position that there is a willing buyer – willing seller situation – any buyers that might have been out there are going to give up on the idea of living in that community once they see the plans.
That leaves those people who own homes sitting there like apples in a barrel waiting for someone to spear them and eat them.
The Region had “guestimated” that they would have to spend something between $300,000 and $400,000 to acquire each property.
 Sold for $600,000 + with the seller staying in the house under a two year lease. The most recent sale went through at more than $600,000. With the region prepared to pay what some say are more realistic prices and the plan for the park available to the public – it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that current owners will take what money there is on the table and call it quits.
There will be a couple of hold outs – that’s when expropriation will be used.
Expropriation has already been thoroughly discussed at the Staff level – it’s a tool that in this instance has political ramifications.
That isn’t going to make any difference to Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven. He no longer talks to the Gazette so we can’t tell you what he has to say.
 Laura Gillespie points out the part of the Beachway that affects her the most – the spot where her house is located. He is on record as not being a fan of keeping the homes in the park. Expect him to speak about the plan in glowing terms and as being the best thing for the city and the Region. That it is seen as a disaster for the people who live there and are his constituents does not seem to matter to the Councillor.
The Beachway has always had a bit of a down market cast to it. Many of the homes that were in place when the rail line went through were summer cottages that had been upgraded – usually not to the building code.
It had a sense of community to it but it also had a reputation. Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster once told her colleagues that in her day “nice girls did not go to the Beachway’. We are not sure if that was before or after Ms Lancaster was made Miss Canada.
 Demolished in 1994  Demolished in 1990. The Region bought up the leases and tore down every last one of the houses that were on the lake side of the railway tracks. There are some ideas floating about that could make the Beachway more of a destination but Burlington requires more in the way of leadership vision for anything different or unique. Ideas need champions, people prepared to educate and lead a public.
Burlington doesn’t have enough of that around the council table. These things take time.
By Pepper Parr
March 18, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Part 1 of a 2 part feature.
It was a gathering of the true believers – they met at McMaster University’s DeGroote campus in Burlington to listen to environmental advocate lawyer David Donnelly, Oakville Mayor Rob Burton, Suzuki guy and female planner who focused on what they see as a threat to Ontario’s Greenbelt.
It was defined as an occasion to celebrate and a time to hunker down and make sure that the gains made are not taken away as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) holds a series of Town Hall meetings across the province.
It is a delight to listen to Oakville Mayor Rob Burton talk about how that town managed to “green” its Council and to listen to David Donnelly proselytize about the environment.
 Vanessa Warren, founder of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition, ran as a candidate in the last Burlington municipal election. Vanessa Warren, founder of the Burlington based Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition (RBGC) bounced about the room introducing people and keeping things going.
Warren first crossed Burton’s path when she was delegating to Halton Regional Council on the Burlington Air Park problems. At that time Burton explained to Warren that she had more clout with the Air Park issue than Regional Council.
Several months later, Warren was sued for libelling the Air Park ownership and hired David Donnelly to defend her. Full disclosure: The Gazette is a party to the libel law suit – but we are not being defended by Donnelly. The evening was almost a family get together.
The purpose of the meeting was to get the community ready for the provincial Town Hall meetings that are looking at the way the province and its municipalities do land use planning.
The Smart Growth for Communities Act – Bill 73 is the focus point – does the bill give the environmentalists what they are looking for and can the developers live with it.
Rob Burton, in a style that is all his own explained how to make a city council green.
 Oakville Mayor Rob Burton “Back in 2006” said Burton, “we thought if we could elect one green councillor we were on our way to saving the planet. They elected Allan Elgar.
About 18 months into his term of office Allan said to his green cohorts – one man isn’t enough. Come the 2010 election they got three greens on the Oakville city council.
Eighteen months into that mandate the group came to the realization that three wouldn’t do it – so in the 2014 term they elected seven greens.
Rob Burton feels he is on his way and is ready to plunge into the MMAH Town Hall meetings.
Burton explained what Oakville and to some degree the Region has done to protect its environment. What he didn’t tell the audience was how Oakville pressured the provincial government to keep a gas plant out of the municipality – the fallout from the way that was done cost former Premier Dalton McGuinty the government he had then and continues to plague current Premier Kathleen Wynne.
Burton, talking to an attentive crowd – 125 people with more than half from outside the Region, said that while there is a provincial policy and a Regional policy” we in Oakville have carved out Natural Heritage sites (NHS) that fit in with and compliment the Regional and provincial policies.
Councillors Taylor and Meed Ward were on hand from Burlington.
Halton Region Natural Heritage System (NHS) covers 48,000 hectares in the greenbelt, farmlands and urban areas
The Halton NHS goes beyond provincial designations by adding new key features for permanent protection of significant woodlands; they have created buffers and linkage corridors to connect the key natural heritage features.
 There are development corporations that would love to put residential housing on the Escarpment – not on say the environmentalists. Burlington is currently working on a vision for Mt Nemo plateau and undertaking a Heritage Conservation District Study. Nemo 7G/PERL formed a seven-generation, (150 years) vision for the plateau. Mt. Nemo has been identified as one of the best examples of high diversity and functioning ecosystems in the GTA-Hamilton area.
From October 2013 to January 2014, the government undertook province-wide consultations on the land use planning and appeal system, and development charges system to ensure both systems are predictable, transparent, cost effective and responsive to the changing needs of our communities. The government is responding to comments received through the consultations and has announced proposed legislative amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act.
If passed, Bill 73 – the proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act would give residents more say in how their communities grow, set out clearer rules for land use planning, give municipalities more independence to make local decisions and make it easier to resolve disputes.
For example, residents would be better involved at the beginning of the planning process and have a say in the future of their communities. Municipalities would need to set out in their official plans how and when the public would be consulted, and would also need to explain how public input affected their planning decisions.
The bill would also: give municipalities more opportunities to fund growth-related infrastructure, like transit; make the development charges, section 37 density bonusing and parkland dedication systems more predictable, transparent and accountable; and support higher density development to create jobs and grow the economy.
The province will be setting up working groups of stakeholders to review further more complex development charges issues, and to take a considered look at some land use planning elements, and propose solutions.
Both Burton and Donnelly point to significant successes and believe the tide is turning and the tipping point is at hand.
 This little guy was a significant part of the end of quarrying in rural Burlington. They point to the October 11, 2012: Joint Board decision that dismissed Nelson Aggregate Co.’s applications for a proposed 26 M tonne quarry on 82 ha site. That decision focused on impacts to Jefferson Salamander and its habitat in the context of the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP)
In September 17, 2014 the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) voted in favour of an outright ban on new quarries in the NEP; that vote went 7 Commissioners in favour, 5 Commissioners against
The 2015 Greenbelt Plan Review is something environmentalists have been waiting for – the Town Hall meetings are just one part of the process. Many people take considerable comfort from the appointment of former Toronto Mayor David Crombie being appointed chair.
This process is something to be watched.
Part 2 of a 2 part feature.
By James Smith
March 7, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Sometimes, little noticed somewhat boring announcements by government are the ones that pack the biggest punch. Yesterday’s announcement by Minister Ted McMeekin that Ontario intends change to how we’ll plan, build, and pay for developing cities in Ontario is one such announcement.
The way Ontario is built and developed is about to change; I think this will be a very welcome. First let me declare my bias, I’m a Founding Member of BFast (Burlington for Accessible Sustainable Transit), and as a design consultant I often work on projects for both public and private developers. I feel the changes announced by Minister McMeekin yesterday may mean modestly more work for me and my clients.
If these changes live up to the billing, changes to Smart Growth, land use planning and development charges have the potential to be a seismic shift on how cities are built for years to come and this affects us all. The coming changes will radically impact how we go about urban growth in Ontario on a scale as large as the introduction, ten years ago, of The Green Belt. If the legislation lives up to the press release, the Province will put teeth into its Smart Growth policy and Municipalities will need to pull their weight.
So far Smart Growth is a policy many municipalities, including Burlington, give just lip service. Professional planners and drafters of Official Plans write elegant documents, but City and Town Councils frequently ignore their more lofty goals. With this legislation Minister McMeekin is saying Municipalities will be held to account, and will need to live up to the Goals of Smart Growth. Long overdue.
 This change is about the kind of building projects we’ll see built in Ontario and how we will pay for the stuff we build. I suspect that members of Burlington and other City councils who subscribe to the failed dogma of Libertarianism won’t like this legislation one bit. To them I say: “suck it up princess, the free ride is over”. Specifically these Planning Act Changes propose to:
• Ensure residents are better consulted at the beginning of the planning process for new developments.
• Encourage residents to provide feedback on the future of their communities.
• Help municipalities resolve potential planning disputes earlier, reducing involvement of the Ontario Municipal Board in local disputes.
• Extend the review of new municipal official plans to 10 years, instead of the current five-year cycle
• Providing municipalities with more control and stability over their planning documents. Once a municipality establishes a new official plan, it would be frozen and therefore not subject to new appeals for two years unless changes are initiated by the municipality. A community planning permit system once established by a municipality would not be subject to any appeals of private applications for five years.
• Clearly defining what constitutes a minor variance (a small change from a zoning bylaw).
Better consultation with residents early in the development process and getting their feedback are welcome, long overdue changes. The challenge will be to break down the walls of NIBYism; no small task. For at least seventy years North America has embraced suburban sprawl funded by, more sprawl.
Leigh Gallagher, in her book The End Of The Suburbs outlines how North Americans have the car-centric suburban landscape in their DNA and is our expectation of where we live. Both Gallagher and Smart Growth talk about breaking this unsustainable cycle. The proposed changes to the Act will have to help with this understanding of what Smart Growth means, so residents will need to understand this shift when proposals are brought forward. As, or more importantly, the development industry will have to change their business model too.
 Six houses identical to this one were torn down on land that was part of the Veterans Land program – the lots were assembled and the infill shown below built. Boilerplate infill projects will no longer be acceptable. Projects will more and more have to reflect an individual neighbourhood’s character and residents taste and long-term expectations for their community. Budgets for new projects will therefor need to change as removing the hated OMB from most planning disputes will mean more money being spent on public meetings and Architects’ fees and less time on Lawyers’ fees. In my experience, anytime more thought goes into a design and less time is spent on legal wrangling makes for a better project.
 Fifty eight units were built on land that previously had six homes on it. Tough to find a back yard in this infill project. The ten year cycle for Official Plans has potential positive benefits as it will reduce the time Cities and Towns spend on Official Plans and free up those staff resources. No only is limiting the involvement of the OMB of great news, these changes will mean fewer Municipalities, will do their city planning by Official Plan Amendments. Burlington specifically has for at least 25 years engaged in planning by Official Plan Amendments rather than relying on either the Regional or City’s Official Plan. Councils often are blinded by developments that have actually cost the Municipality money in the long run as the Official Plan Amendments often is at odds with the official plan, these changes will force the Development industry to do better planning, spend more on Designers and less on Lawyers.
Development Charges are set to be changed in the following fashion:
• Help municipalities recover costs for transit services and waste diversion.
• Create clear reporting requirements for capital projects municipalities financed though development charges, as well as section 37 of the Planning Act related to density bonusing and parkland dedication.
• Municipalities would be required to follow reporting requirements that reflect best practices and detail to the community how money from development charges is spent.
• The government would create better reporting requirements for municipalities collecting money under section 37 of the Planning Act related to density bonusing, and related to parkland dedications, which details how the funds are spent.
• Development charges would be payable at the time the first building permit was issued for a building so that developers could be certain of the cost.
• Municipalities would be required to better integrate how development charges fit with long-term planning, including local asset management plans.
• The government will help municipalities identify and share their best practices on using development charges to address local planning and financial objectives.
• There would be more stringent reporting and greater oversight of any funds or municipal charges on new developments that fall outside what is allowed in current legislation
Development Charges can be a useful tool to reflect the real capital costs of any building project on a municipality. Planner Pamela Blais in Perverse Cities clearly outlines that the real cost to the municipal taxpayer of urban sprawl is not presently accounted for in many North American jurisdictions. Development Charges attempt to make a project pay for the real cost of the capital costs a new project represents.
While Transit and Waste diversion were not specifically accounted for in the previous Act they can be funded under more general categories. Specifically calling these items out is a good step. The challenge will be to use Development Charges to limit Greenfield, or make it pay for the burden it puts on a Municipality while simultaneously not acting as a brake on positive and creative infill development.
So there needs to be the ability for Municipalities to bracket Development Charges accordingly.
By Pepper Parr
March 5, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Ontario is proposing reforms to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act that would give residents a greater say in how their communities grow and would provide more opportunities to fund community services like transit and recycling.
 City planner Bruce Bruce Krushelnicki will undoubtedly applaud the proposal the have Official Plan Reviews done every ten years instead of the current five. The proposed Planning Act changes, if passed, would:
Ensure residents are better consulted at the beginning of the planning process for new developments.
Encourage residents to provide feedback on the future of their communities.
Help municipalities resolve potential planning disputes earlier, reducing involvement of the Ontario Municipal Board in local disputes.
Extend the review of new municipal official plans to 10 years, instead of the current five-year cycle.
 If passed the Bfast people (Burlington for Accessible Transit) will burst with Joy! – and probably have to have Pacemakers installed to still their beating hearts.
Burlington has always had a confusing relationship with transit – most people don’t use it – and council doesn’t like spending for a service that isn’t used all that much
Changes to the Development Charges Act, if passed, would:
Help municipalities recover costs for transit services and waste diversion.
Create clear reporting requirements for capital projects municipalities financed though development charges, as well as section 37 of the Planning Act related to density bonusing and parkland dedication.
Working groups of stakeholders will review and consider further more complex land use planning and development charges issues, and propose solutions.
The proposed amendments are based on input from across Ontario including more than 20 public workshops and stakeholder meetings held from October 2013 to January 2014.
More than 1,200 submissions on the land use planning and appeal system, and the development charges system were received during the reviews.
Approximately 200 of Ontario’s 444 municipalities use development charges.
 Province appears to want more public input on transit decisions – might mean crating a new transit Advisory Committee. We scrapped the one we had. The announcement from the provincial government this morning are proposals that will have to be debated and it will take some time for them to work their way into the way business is done in the province. If passed they have the potential to make significant changes in the way transit development gets done and the rile the public can play.
The question left hanging for Burlington on this one is: Will we have our Official Plan revised and voted on before the province makes these proposals law?
Ten years between Official Plan reviews must have resulted in huge sighs of relief in the city’s planning department.
By Pepper Parr
February 28, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Revised
For some reason the Burlington Beachway seems to be making the news
 The community used to straddle the railway line that ran beside the lake – it once had more than 200 homes. Today there are just 30 left and they aren’t at all interested in selling or moving.
Councillor Meed Ward was interviewed on Cogeco Community television and mention was made of the very unsatisfied residents who felt they were not going to ever see the true equity in their homes.
That led Cogeco reporter Krista Sharpe to getting out into the community with her camera and asking questions.
Sharpe met Helen Skinner who has very strong opinions on what the Region and the City are doing to the Beachway community and has never been at a loss for words.
Form your own opinion – listen to Cogeco.
The Region budgeted as much as $400,000 to buy |Beachway homes – this one was sold for $600,000 with the owner given the right to remain in the building for two years. What the public hasn’t been told all that much about is the work going on within the Burlington Parks and Recreation department – they are the people doing at least the early part of the design work of the proposed park.
The Beachway issue is: what kind of a community does the public want? The public is vaguely aware that the Region is prepared to buy the homes and if what Craven has to say is true they are actively “courting”‘ those home owners – you could say they are picking them off one by one. What the general public really isn’t clued into is what will eventually happen to the Beachway if the Regional policy gets carried out.
Councillor Craven says the home owners are not being pushed out and that they have been kept fully informed – that’s not the view one gets from council candidate Katherine Henshell who says that because of the zoning and the prospect of homes being tied up in red tape – residents can’t find willing buyers – and that depresses the value of their homes.
Henshell argues that the only buyer is the Region
That might be the case but the Region estimated the houses could be bought for about $300,000 each – the most recent sale was for $600,000.
The Beachway situation has always been complex – do the views of Craven, Skinner and Henshell impact what you think?
By Pepper Parr
February 17, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Two oddities: the word neighbourhood does not appear in the current Official Plan and Shoreacres Blvd is not within the boundaries of the Shoreacres Community Study.
What isn’t at all odd is that the people who live in the community want some say over the rate at which their community undergoes a change.
The Community and Corporate Services Standing Committee was reviewing a report from the Director of Planning on the the option of a Character Area Study for Shoreacres as part of the Official Plan Review.
 Neighborhood character studies have taken on a bit or a social cachet in Burlington. Two years ago there were two of the things launched; one at Indian Point, which went nowhere and the residents want to get out of what they started.
A second community character study was launched in Roseland where small developer/contractors were roaming the streets looking for property they could purchase and divide into two lots or build what have come to be called monster homes.
In the spring of 2014, the demolition and rebuild of a dwelling in the Shoreacres Community led to a grassroots community discussion about a growing trend of redevelopment and its related impacts in the area. This community discussion took place through informal gatherings, petitions and conversations with media.
The Director of Planning was instructed to report back to Development and Infrastructure Committee in Fall 2014 on whether to conduct the study based on the following:
scope and timing of the study and the impact on the completion of the Official Plan Review Process
additional resource requirements
preliminary policy directions, zoning and design guidelines.
 Selling the dream. The house proposed is seen as so out of design and proportion from the house behind the hoarding by the residents – they fear the character o their neighbourhood will be changed too quickly, The planners organized a preliminary community meeting to consult with residents regarding the primary issues facing the neighbourhood. Staff concluded that the built form and housing stock in a section of Shoreacres is relatively homogeneous. While redevelopment has been occurring in the larger neighbourhood that comprises Shoreacres (generally described as south of New Street, west of Walkers Line and east of Appleby Line), there is a particular area within Shoreacres that has similar characteristics that distinguish it from other areas of Shoreacres.
This area can generally be described as those properties located south of Spruce Street and north of Lakeshore Road, on both sides of Goodram Drive on the west and on both sides of Juniper Avenue on the east. Common features within this area are, most notably, the predominance of bungalows and absence of two-storey dwellings, low pitch rooflines, mature trees, the absence of sidewalks on some streets and the usage of siding as a common cladding material.
 This resident seeks consent from neighbours to sever their property Staff, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, established an initial boundary for this area comprising approximately 185 homes and mailed out meeting notices and questionnaires to these addresses.
A community meeting to discuss recent development in the Shoreacres Community took place last July – 65 people attended, which some residents pointed out later amounted to one third of the residents in the study area – more than the percentage that voted in the municipal election.
Staff took the residents through the basics of planning and gave them an update on the Character Area Study for Roseland and Indian Point.
The primary issues that were raised at the meeting and through questionnaires, phone calls and emails can be summarized into the following topics:
a) There is inadequate public notification for demolitions, rebuilds and minor variance applications
b) There is inadequate protection of existing mature trees on both public and private property
c) The size of the study area as shown on the meeting invitation is too scoped
d) The architectural style of new homes (modern architecture, flat roofs) is incompatible with the existing neighbourhood
e) Redevelopment has adverse impacts on the privacy of adjacent property owners
f) The permitted building height (10 m for peaked roof residential dwellings) is incompatible with existing dwellings
g) The permitted number of storeys (2 storeys maximum) is incompatible with existing dwellings
h) The applicable Zoning By-law provisions for corner lots are inappropriate for the neighbourhood
At the community meeting, staff provided several responses regarding the above concerns as summarized:
a) Public notification requirements for development applications are established in the Ontario Building Code and the Planning Act and, for Ontario municipalities, there are no legal notice requirements that accompany the issuance of site plan approval, demolition permits and/or building permits. The public notification requirements for minor variance applications are set out in the Planning Act and implemented by the City. Specifically, a sign is posted on the subject property and notice is mailed to all property owners within 60 m of the subject application.
While the various act set out what is required there is no reason why the planning department can’t do more than the acts call for
b) The City of Burlington does not have a private tree by-law that can protect trees on private property. The City recently considered the implementation of a Private Tree By-law in July of 2013, but did not proceed with this initiative. The protection of trees on public property is managed through the site plan process and the protection of boundary vegetation is protected through the Forestry Act and reviewed during the site plan process.
c) The study area shown on the meeting invitation is a preliminary study boundary and is still subject to change.
d) Architectural style cannot be regulated through the Planning and Building Department, but the Urban Design Guidelines for Low Density Residential Zones and the site plan process allow for review of architectural elevations and an opportunity to influence architectural style with the objective of ensuring compatible development.
e) (e-h) The concerns relating to privacy impacts, building height, number of storeys and corner lot zoning provisions all relate to the existing Zoning By-law requirements that apply to this area. During the meeting, staff noted that a zoning review could be conducted by City staff to determine whether or not changes to the Zoning By-law would assist in managing some of the changes being experienced by the neighbourhood. Based on the comments that have been received to date, staff is of the opinion that a zoning review, including additional public consultation, in this area is warranted.
 Another large, spacious corner lot. Mayor asked what the average size of these houses was – between 1200 and 2200 sq. ft. but Faccenda said the neighbourhood was not yet ready for significant development. Albert Faccenda said a neighborhood will look like what the people who live there want it to look like. People sell their property and get the best price they can and developers build on the property they bought. We build what the market wants he said. He added that the present bylaw would allow 7 to 8 thousand sq. ft. homes; that sent a shudder through the council chamber.
Councillor Meed Ward asked what Faccenda wanted to see changed – the lot coverage could be more generous he replied. A bungalow get 35% lot coverage; a 1 1/2 storey can have up to 30% coverage and a two storey gets 25%
Strategy/Process
The city is currently conducting a Character Area Study for Roseland and Indian Point as part of the Official Plan Review. Significant insight has been gained as a result of the consulting team’s work and staff is recommending a study for the Shoreacres neighbourhood with narrower scope.
Subject to Council approval of the Terms of Reference, the scope of the Shoreacres Study would identify the compatibility impacts of recent development within the neighbourhood, and determine what, if any, measures should be taken to modify policy, zoning and development application process (e.g. minor variance or site plan applications).
The proposed study will be lead independently of the Official Plan Review. Any Official Plan policy amendments that may arise from this study would be conducted as a City- initiated Official Plan Amendment. This project could be instructive to the upcoming Zoning By-law Review, particularly for residential neighbourhoods south of the Queen Elizabeth Way
The Shoreacres community, as defined in the reports is certainly very distinct. |Mary Alice St. James said there were more than 40 corner lots in the area which gives developer/contractors opportunities to put much larger houses into the community and fundamentally changing the look and feel of the streets.
The community is one of the most desirable and priciest in the city. Ken Crew, who delegated, said he and his wife needed ten years to put together the money needed to buy a house.
They like their community just the way it is and while they say they are not opposed to development they don’t want to see all that much in the way of change. The developer/contractors love the area – they can sell almost anything they build at a very pretty price.
The question really comes down to – how much say do the people in a community get to say about what is permitted in the way of new construction.
The houses are not small; the lots are not small, however most are not large enough to be divided.
At what point do the homes in place now become outdated and no longer meet the needs of new families?
Is the character of a neighbouhood something municipal bureaucrats should be protecting or should the market determine what can be built and sold for a profit?
Director of Planning Bruce Krushelnicki is very sympathetic to the interests of the residents of the community. His planner Rosa Bustamante thinks it is more of a zoning exercise – the residents see their community being chewed up by economic interests.
Aldershot has much the same kind of housing on the water side of Plains Road west of King Road.
 This is the community the residents want to conserve – their hope is that a neighbourhood character study will result in zoning or bylaws that keep that exists. Niagara on the Lake has zoning and bylaws that determine what the look and feel of the streets in the commercial core of that city will look like – and they keep a very tight rein on what gets done. That community is a destination and is good business.
Does a small neighbourhood deserve the same kind of attention? The third of the community that showed up for the meeting, in the middle of July when many people were on vacation.
What do the residents of the community want? There were just two delegations. Ken Crew, a long time resident who was joined by his neighbour Ron Fleming
“To our neighbourhood, your approval of a City-funded and timely Character Study is of incredible importance he said.
“We have followed with great interest and support the development of the Character Study for Roseland and Indian Point. However, we are not Roseland or Indian Point. Our values and needs, while sharing some commonality with the Roseland study, are specific and unique to our mature neighbourhood.
The vast majority of the homes are smaller bungalows, with some 1 ½ storey homes and more recently a few bungalofts. There is also a very strong sense of community within this group of taxpaying homeowners.
“More recently however, our area, like others in Burlington, is under constant attack from developers with no ties to the local area or its residents, who are simply buying up the existing mature homes, demolishing them, and replacing them with the largest monster homes the city will allow under the current bylaws and regulations – or buying up corner lots and severing them for multiple large or monster homes. Their sole interest is profit, not the residents.
“A prime example is the new home recently erected on Oak Crescent, approximately 3 times the size of all other homes in the area, dwarfing its neighbours, with wrap-around large balconies, ruining the privacy of all homes surrounding it. It totally destroys neighbourhood character and streetscape and has reduced the existing tree canopy.
 Residents in the community don’t see how this new home fits in with the bungalows in place now. And that porta potty has to go. “The footprint of the original corner house was changed and flipped 90 degrees in the opposite direction, while all of the plans and changes were done without the existing residents being aware of the changes, and without having any opportunity to provide input or discussion on this new monster home.
As well as being highly passionate about the character of the area we live in, we are also quite aware that change in our neighbourhood is inevitable, and in fact we have no serious opposition to change. We are very open to the proper, controlled, and measured changes that can be done without compromising the values we hold so dear. We know the City needs an effective and enforceable set of rules to control development and we want to work with, not against city planners to develop the appropriate set of rules to retain our unique community character. That is why this study is so critical.
“Burlington is a great place to live as recent studies have shown, and we are proud to be citizens of this excellent community. BUT, if City management does not recognize the rapidly increasing levels of citizen concern and involvement, particularly in the housing sector – whether it is the demand for Character Studies, the plans to build 28 story buildings in the wrong areas, or building large developments in areas where we already have major unresolved problems, like sewage and drainage, then we run the risk of allowing the destruction of some of the very core principles and characteristics that so many resident taxpayers find so vital to their continued happiness and desire to stay here as long term residents. The uniqueness of these neighbourhoods is a large part of what makes Burlington such a great place to live.”
 Another corner lot – this one on Lakeshore Road. The owner wants you to call them. “Time is of the essence. We have little time left to save this truly unique neighbourhood. Our earlier attempts to obtain an interim by-law to restrict monster homes in our area were unsuccessful, so we recognize this timely Character Study is our only option. “
Albert Faccenda a developer/contractor who has built eight homes in the community said there is no market for bungalows in Shoreacres; that he built one and lost his shirt. The Faccenda statements were in direct contract to what everyone else was saying. Faccenda finds that to be the case on most of the occasions he speaks. He told the residents of Roseland that their 100 foot lots were ’dinosaurs’ or more correctly, properties he would like to purchase and redevelop. He told Indian |Point residents that the Character Study being done in that neighbourhood was going to devalue their property.
Mary Alice St. James, an elementary school principal and a community resident gave a polished presentation extemporaneously – and made all the points that had to be made. She stressed that people want to move into the community and she doesn’t believe they want to move in and build homes that are out of character with what is already in place. “They wanted our neighbourhood” she said. “The situation we are faced with now is not nice” she added.
Councillor Craven said that while he appreciated the St. James passion “it is exactly what we saw at Indian Point but “once people got into the issues they got a better sense as to what could be done and at Indian Point they decided they didn’t want this study to go any further.”
 On one of the coldest winter days – the people in the community still get out with their dogs for what is a brisk walk. Craven said he thought “this issue may become less clear than you think it is now” referring to the Shoreacres residents.
Councillor Sharman was curious to see the outcome and added that he “was not comfortable with the way we are going about this”.
But they are going to “go about it”. The decision to proceed with the study will be made at a city council meeting before the end of the month.
Right now this Council has to determine just what the 2015 budget is going to look like.
 By Pepper Parr
February 6, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The call won’t be from a telemarketer – it will be from Forum Research calling you on behalf of the city to “confirm the city’s future direction”. Most people will be surprised to learn there actually is a direction. The Official plan is a year or more away from completion – there are solid reasons for the delay.
For the next two weeks, 750 households across Burlington will receive calls from a research firm on behalf of the City of Burlington as the city prepares to update its strategic plan: Burlington, Our Future.
 Is this skyline likely to change at all during the term of office for this Council? Forum Research will speak with the residents of 750 households as part of a community survey. Residents will be asked about city services, how involved they feel in city decisions, and how they prefer to hear from the city.
The phone interviews will finish by Feb. 19. This information will help City Council as it updates the city’s strategic plan for 2015-18.
 “I encourage everyone from across Burlington to help shape our future through the strategic planning process,” said Mayor Rick Goldring. “There will be many ways to get involved, including joining the Insight Burlington panel, weighing in on Let’s Talk Burlington or getting a group together to complete a strategic plan workbook. Watch for details about these opportunities on the city’s website
In 2011, City Council approved the strategic plan, Burlington Our Future. The plan includes the vision “where people, nature and business thrive” as well as three strategic directions: vibrant neighbourhoods, prosperity and excellence in government.
For more information, or to get on the contact list for updates or involvement opportunities related to the city’s 2015-18 strategic plan, email ourfuture@burlington.ca or call 905-335-7600, ext. 7378.
By Pepper Parr
January 20th, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
It was pretty clear after less than five minutes that the four people short of capacity in city hall’s council chamber that Burlington wasn’t going for the ADI development proposal to put a 28 storey tower on the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road.
The standing room only crowd heard one of the shortest Planning department presentations the Gazette has heard in some time. Planner Rosa Bustamante covered the basics of the project and that was it.
 The scale and scope of a 28 storey structure on the corner of Martha and Lakeshore has astounded most people. Could it actually happen? Possible The event then moved into a Public Meeting at which delegations were heard. While the room was packed there were not all that many delegations.
Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman chaired the meeting; one got the sense that he thought it was being televised – he was certainly pumped.
There were no decisions to be made. It was a meeting to receive a report on the project from the Planners that outlined the basics – then the Public meeting which was required under the Planning Act.
Staff will now do a detailed report on the project and present it to Council – there may and there may not be a recommendation from Staff when they report.
Every member of Council was opposed to the project – but there were degrees of opposition. The project was described as “highly audacious” and “Over the top”
Councillor Craven said he was “not on for the proposal that is before us” leaving one to wonder what he was on for. The ADI Group is reported to have purchased land adjacent to the Aldershot Go station which is a part of Burlington that council wants to ssee developed as part of one of the mobility hubs that planners are working on.
Waterdown Road is undergoing a total rebuild from two lanes to five between Plains Road and Hwy 403 – this will be a major development and it looks at this point as if the ADI Group is going to be the major developer. Aldershot is ward 1 territory and Councillor Craven rules the roost over there. So he will become adjustable when it comes to deciding what should happen at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore in ward 2.
It was clear what the majority of Council thought, it was clear what the residents thought. The ADI Group planner saw it all quite differently.
His view was that provincial policy called for intensification and that the Big Move GO train project was put in place to move people around and that Burlington was one of the few growth centres left in the GTA – and while he didn’t actually say “’like it or not” this is what the province wants the ADI Group complies with the provincial policy.
 The red markers indicate where the ADI project would be built – two blocks west, on the waterfront the city has approved a 22 storey structure. As for Burlington’s Official Plan and its zoning bylaws – those things are in place – but they have been amended in the past and they can be amended – if not by City Council then by an application to the Ontario Municipal Board.
There was one number that got put on the table that puts the size and scope of the project into perspective.
The provincial target calls for 185 people per hectare of property. Burlington has set their target at 200 people per hectare which is what would go on the property if the four storey’s that the current zoning allows were built.
The ADI project would put 1661 people on that property. It is certainly audacious, over the top and outrageous but as Councillor noted “it is questionable that this Council will have any impact” on the final decision.
By Pepper Parr
July 21, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The Skyway Plaza, an east end commercial location that is as close to a suburban slum as Burlington is going to see, has suddenly become headline news – especially in ward 5, where Councillor Paul Sharman senses he might be facing a tough opponent in the October municipal election.
 Forlorn looking Skyway Plaza – looking for someone to save the place – but the owners seems content to leave it as it is. Has the Council member made the site an election issue? There is a basement bowling alley that hasn’t been used in years. There was once a Swiss Chalet; the Shoppers Drug Mart has a very faded sign and you’ll not have a problem getting a parking spot. To the rear of the plaza, there is a single pad arena that could use an upgrade.
Councillor Sharman has been doing everything he can for the past three years to get something going, but has gotten absolutely no traction with the absentee owner of the property. At one Standing Committee meeting, then city manager, Jeff Fielding suggested that the city could pool the property it has to the rear of the plaza and come up with a major development opportunity. What would it take to get to that point, asked Sharman? A staff direction would get us started, replied Fielding. But that wasn’t enough.
Sharman has made phone calls – dropped into offices in Toronto – nothing.
When Council went into a Workshop setting a week or so ago to look at ideas and opportunities to put some oomph into the commercial side of the city’s finances – Sharman was all over the idea of doing something with the best opportunity he has of raising his profile during an election year.
During that Workshop July 7th, mention was made of Community Improvement Programs (CIP). There wasn’t much more than a mention of CIP’s during the Workshop, but that mention was enough to get Sharman moving.
At the city council meeting of the 14th, Councillor Sharman put forward what Councillor Taylor called a Walk On motion, that few saw before it was actually presented. Sharman didn’t inform his colleagues – other than the mayor – but he did manage to get a majority of council to allow the motion.
Sharman explained in a telephone conversation. that getting the memo on the motion he had planned to put forward was left in the hands of the Clerk. Apparently planner Bruce Kruchelnicki was drafting at least a part of the document and was to send it along to the Clerk – who apparently failed to get it out to the other members of Council.
That comes pretty close to saying the dog ate my homework excuse – limp and lame if you ask me.
Much of the debate on the Sharman motion was at times contentious, if not nasty, but they managed to agree on a Staff Direction that went as follows:
DIRECTION REGARDING LAKESIDE PLAZA
Direct the Director of Planning and Building and request the Executive Director of the Burlington Economic Development Corporation as follows:
- Prepare a series of re-development options for the site based on intensive mixed use re-development and approach the owners of the property with the redevelopment plans; and
- Investigate and report on the authority available to permit the use of incentives for re-developing the site, and
- Provide an estimate of the resources needed to prepare and implement a Community Improvement Plan. (SD-23-14)
A Recorded Vote was requested by Councillor Dennison on the above recommendation, resulting in the following:
IN FAVOUR: Councilors Craven, Dennison, Sharman, Lancaster and Mayor Goldring
No one in Halton has done a CIP in more than 20 years; no one seemed to know all that much about the things – until Councillor Meed Ward informed Council that the downtown development group knew all about the things and that all they had to do was ask Special Business Area Coordinator Jody Wellings, who has been looking for ways to make a CIP work for the downtown core and Aldershot, but no one has actually asked Ms Wellings to do anything – yet.
Back in the 70’s and 80’s the provincial government made some money available for CIP type projects – but that tap got turned off and it isn’t likely to get turned on again.
However Wellings knows her stuff and she will get more than a chance to set out some of the potential at a meeting planned for tomorrow. Unusual for a team to get put together quite that fast. Is the force behind all this the Sharman Staff Direction or is it the EDC exercising some of the muscle it is supposed to have?
What was evident during the debate was the total lack of process – matters like this get brought to a Standing Committee, where input from staff enhances the debate. But that wasn’t the route Councillor Sharman wanted to take – he has an election he wants to win, and he needs an issue that puts more space between him and what looks like a strong contender.
 The city owned area, with a very large play field area is right behind the plaza – this is what the city hopes to attract developers to – possible? With discussion about spending money for community improvement elsewhere in Burlington on the table, Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven mentioned that Aldershot likes the look of those Community Improvement Projects as well.
The reformed Economic Development Corporation (EDC) looks as if it is going to become the financial saviour of the city. During the workshop on the 7th – several references were made on how the EDC could work with the city and the role it would play in getting the Skyway Plaza situation fixed. Executive Director Frank McKeown was in the audience, but he wasn’t taking notes.
The EDC board met for the first time on the 15th – the day after Council approved the Staff Direction requesting that it jump into bed with the city on this one. Sharman is a city representative on the EDC board.
 The elephant in the room is the massive shopping centre planned for the other side of the Burlington/ Oakville border – blocks away from Skyway. Why all the fuss and bother over a Council Workshop and a Staff Direction? Burlington now knows that it cannot expect to pull in the kind of revenue it used to on development charges – it now has to expand the tax base on the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) sector and it has reformed the EDC to make that happen.
The end run that Sharman did at Council before it rose for the summer looked like corporate shenanigans – not a good sign.
The expropriation done at Plains Road left at lot to be desired in terms of the way a property owner was treated. More on that on another day.
 By Pepper Parr
March 25, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON
There was a lot of energy lost, a lot of huffing and puffing as well as a lot of sometimes silly back and forth taking place yesterday at city council.
The Official Plan review is producing document after document which some members of council are finding it hard to keep up with.
The Planning department had distributed copies of two very significant reports; one was the final Phase 2 of the Employment Lands study and the other was a Commercial Strategy Study, it came in two parts, Phase 2 and Phase 3 reports.
Consultants were on hand to take council through the documents and we will report on what they had to say in a follow up report. Several members of Council commented that “these were weighty documents” and they needed time to fully understand and appreciate what was in the documents – and the contents were significant.
The team developing the documents that the public gets to see as part of the Official Plan Review has not produced very much on their progress – they have been busy getting the documents ready for distribution.
 During the phase the planners are in they hope – and they do have their fingers crossed, to achieve the following. Expect some slippage on the schedule – which is not necessarily a bad thing.
- “Full Launch” of engagement strategy
- Implement approved workplan
- Engage on the collective vision for the city and potential directions
- Gain deeper understanding of issues, questions and opportunities
- Identify and assess emerging directions to inform policy development
 Ward 3 Councillor John Taylor is all smiles here as he waves three reports that were given to council yesterday; he wasn’t all smiles when he fumed at the overload and the time he wasn’t being given to read and absorb the content. Other council members said they too needed more time. Several council members were overwhelmed with the content and wanted more time to review the contents. The problem is that the OPR team is running up against problems with the calendar.
Council members want more time to review the documents; they also want to meet in what they call a Workshop setting where they can ask the consultants all kinds of questions and do what in the recent past has proven to be some very solid interaction where members of council learn and fully understand what is in the consultant’s reports.
- The Official Plan Review team has a huge task on their hands and they have to juggle a number of research projects at the same time and manage to find time for real public engagement. The above sets out the projects that all have to be eventually pulled together to create what will become the city’s official plan for the next five years.
Traditionally, staff transmits documents to council that are then in the public domain. The Planning department then prepares its report on the consultant’s document and then that report – the one written by the planners – is debated at a council Standing Committee meeting.
This Council wants to change that approach. They want to hold a workshop at which they discuss the consultant’s report with the consultants in an open session. The Planning staff would take part in the workshop.
Then, after getting a sense of where the members of city council are going with their thinking – planning staff would write their reports that would include recommendations that council would debate and accept or reject.
The calendar and the time schedule that the OPR team have to work with is going to make this very tight. And, there are some professional concerns. The city has a well-paid and very qualified staff (those words came from the city planner – not me) and they have to be given the time to discuss and debate as planners what will work and what will not work for Burlington. The consultants are people we hire, explained Bruce Krushelnicki and we accept or reject what they suggest.
There is a tremendous amount of work to be done and some very hard thinking as well. These two reports are critical to how the city approaches its economic development. And without a significant change in its economic development Burlington as a city has some very real problems.
While the city figures out how it wants to handle the reports the people over at Paletta, who own the biggest chunk of those employment lands know what they want to do. In a letter sent to the city WHEN they said:
Paletta International Corporation (“PIC”), the owner of approximately 120 hectares of land located west of Burloak Drive between Upper Middle Road and Mainway, known as Bronte Creek Meadows (“BCM”). BCM has a long history which is known to many Councilors and Staff.
In their letter PIC disagreed sharply with the direction the consultants reports were going and said that BCM is not “part of a strategic concentration of employment lands”.
PCI said at that time, December 21, 201, that they were continuing to review some of the more technical aspects of the Draft Study but that “even at this early stage it is clear that the draft report is premised on a fatally flawed assumption; namely, that BCM is part of a strategic concentration of employment lands. In fact, BCM has no strategic locational advantages for employment purposes. It has no access to rail, no visibility to 400 series highways and relatively poor access to 400 series highways.
The document went on to say that PCI “has cooperated with the City in marketing the site for employment purposes for many years with no success.
As such, PIC does not support the conclusions of the Draft report in respect of BCM and will oppose any attempt to impose a secondary plan for employment uses on these lands. A secondary plan would be a waste of resources as the lands are not attractive for employment uses. A secondary plan will not change that essential fact.
Also included in the information given to council was a second letter from Paletta dated March 24th, 2014 in which they said they had serious problems with the “methodology and conclusions” used by the consultants. Clearly, Paletta had read the reports and figured out very quickly where there interests were being pinched. Why is it that the Paletta people can read faster than those on city council?
|
|
