Official Plan REVIEWopr « Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community

Will new data convince at least three council members to change their vote on the Water Street land sale?

October 14, 2013

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON. James Ziegler, a 24 year resident of St. Paul Street was one of four people who delegated at a city council committee meeting speaking in favour of the city retaining the land it owns along the edge of the lake between Market and St. Paul Streets.

Ziegler is a detail person, he tends to look at the information put in front of him and interact with it rather than react to it.

After delegating and listening to what he thought were very short-sighted views he sent Councillor Sharman (Ward 5) a note which we set out below along with Sharman`s replies.

I’m writing with regard to Water Street properties and the recent committee meeting on this matter. I’m disappointed the committee’s motion on this matter and intend to provide additional comments and new information to support the merits of a Water Street walkway. Considering the nature of your questions it appears you may have a rather fixed view point and the valuation of this land. By your questions you appeared to be less interesting in considering an alternate point view and more seeking to elicit comments that would support a predetermined position. I believe there was a deficiency in objective facts on the matter and trust that you will listen to these with an open mind.

You and your colleagues have chosen a short-sighted solution disregarding the need of future generations in Burlington for an expedient answer. I believe you have been bullied by the threat litigation and very narrow minded comments from the landowners. This does not represent the value of a potential park to the general community.

Should the council choose to sell this land, they are acting against several layers of adopted policy and I believe there are grounds for a class action lawsuit on the matter. A course of action I will participate in.

I was appalled by some of the comments of the landowners and some committee members. These statements demonstrated a sour attitude to the general population and lack of faith in the people in our community.

James Ziegler presented a graphic that illustrated where a paved pathway could be built and the proximity of a pathway to the three houses that abut property currently owned by the city. The property consists of three parcels: road allowances on each end and the old Water Street road in the centre. The city has voted, in principle, to sell the land in the middle. Reason for doing so appears to be financial and some legal history that the city does not want to talk about.

This is a sad reflection of the community I live in. Councillor Mead Ward was the sole voice thinking of the value to the public at large about this matter. The paternalistic and condescending comments form Mr. Dennison and Mr. Taylor were a very poor display of public governance. In particular Mr. Dennison pacing the floor behind the chairs as Councillor Ward spoke to her motion could not have demonstrated any more clearly how he was fixated with his position and not willing to listen to any contrary idea. I don’t frequent the proceedings of council but was expecting better. (To be fair to Councillor Dennison, he frequently gets up and paces behind his chair – shouldn’t be seen as a reflection on what is being said or who is speaking.)

There were other citizens in the room for the committee meeting on Oct. 2 who did not rise to speak however they spoke to me afterwards and expressed their displeasure in the tone and attitude of the committee members.

Regarding the merits of a connected pathway, people on a run, walk or bike ride are far less likely to go out to a dead-end requiring them to turn around and follow back to the original line of travel. How many times on a run or walk have you chosen to back track on your route? Likely never or only when circumstances such as a closed path forced you to.

The cavalier comments regarding safety and potential malevolent behavior of some irresponsible people, made by the members and landowners were exaggerations intended to manipulate the argument based on fear. No evidence was presented to support these claims. Yet they appeared to be a significant factor in the decision. Applying the same criteria and comments made by the members most parks or large portions of parks in Burlington and in the Province should be closed to the public. There is no logic or facts to support these arguments. The police that I have talked to on this matter do not see this as a significant security problem. In fact the opposite is more likely true, a short walkway is safer and easier to manage than a dead-end. I have also talked to planners and landscape architects on this matter. The committee decision flies against progressive good community planning.

On the mater of parking for the area, this was a red herring, It completely missed the point, It is a walking pathway. I will present the council a map showing the populations served by the Water Street walkway, within a 1 km range. To suggest we (several thousand people, many in apartments and without cars) have ample opportunity to drive to Spencer Smith park or to crowd into the 50 usable feet of lake edge at Nelson Park to see the lake is akin to the Marie-Antoinette comment, “let them eat cake” People, the general population, need local access to the lake within walking distance of their homes.

I believe you and your colleges have grossly undervalued the significance of adding over 400 lineal feet of public access to the lake, compared to the existing 55 lineal feet of accessible frontage at Nelson park. You and others referred to this as excessive to put two parks between 3 houses. This is misleading to make a measure of scale by counting the three houses. I’m sure you will agree the three houses are much larger than the average size house and lot size in the Burlington core. A better measure would be to look at the real dimensions.

Please reflect on the real motive why you voted against the Water Street walkway and take another look at the matter. As I said at the committee, consider this generation and the next three generations that can enjoy the Water Street walkway. Consider what kind of city you are contributing to. The Vision in this regard should be thought of in terms of many decades not the short term fiscal issues. At the very least leave the land available to a future council with a greater vision for the public welfare. This I use in the true sense of the word, faring well in mind body and spirit.

James Ziegler

Sharman, the Councillor for Ward 5 responded with: Mr. Zeigler: Thank you for your email. I appreciate your thoughtful and considered argument. I am curious to hear how you feel about Ms. Meed Ward’s position on not acquiring the properties on the Beachway for park, and perhaps even selling vacant lots to private owners? The fact is that there are inconsistencies in all of the arguments, that is normal because the devil is in the details.

Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman is usually very direct, tends to want to see data that is verifiable and expects to get his way.

I understand the higher level motives behind your argument, and in principle I agree. In my experience, in theory everything is practical, in practice it is not. Water Street needs to be resolved now, punting the decision to a future time is simply not helpful. We have parks we don’t maintain. And while I would love to have a path along the waterfront, the properties with riparian rights in the area of Water Street will not allow for further extension of such a pathway.

Councillor Sharman with Councilor Blair Lancaster. Sharman has dug himself into an ideological argument that he probably cannot get out of. Lancaster liked the sound of leasing the land and might be convinced to change her vote.

Each opportunity is evaluated on its own merits. The Water Street properties do not need to kept by the City just to satisfy a higher level ideology. The City policy is clear about acquisition of waterfront property when it is practical and logical to do so. Your view and that of Ms. Meed Ward versus the views of 5 of my colleagues and I are different. It happens.

Sharman is an avid cyclist. Were he to cycle through the pathway Ziegler proposes he would in all likelihood pause along the path and marvel at the view and tell himself – this is why I am a city Councillor of this city.

Besides, I am concerned that the location is so obscure that very few people will actually benefit, apart from the malcontent youth. The proposal is to have two parkettes and to maintain the existing park 200 yards away. That will work quite fine. The City does not need to spend a pile of money to satisfy just a few people. We have bigger matters to address.

Paul

Ziegler probably took in a deep breath after the Sharman response but soldiered on and replied with:

Dear Councillor Sharman: Thank you for your reply. I’ve forwarded your comments to my neighbours. I don’t consider this a matter of ideology, for myself and my neighbours and our families it is a very practical matter. This in not in the realm of conceptual notions. It would be an aspect of many people’s daily lives.

I hope we will be able to convince you that this walkway will be a significant contribution with the potential to be enjoyed by many. I see that you have some challenges to appreciate the importance of creating a 400 ft. walkway. It will be linked to the walk along Lakeshore and the fact that adjacent lands will not be available makes it all the more important to create portions that are accessible.

You may not be a frequent walker or runner so you may not appreciate the value of a linked pathway. I hope my friends and neighbours will help to change your opinion.

James Ziegler.

Later in the weekend Ziegler passed along several of the graphic illustrations he plans to use during his delegation on Tuesday evening.

There are an estimated 4500 people within a 100 metre radius of the pathway James Ziegler proposes be created along the edge of the lake between Market and St. Paul Street.

He then takes on the view that there aren’t that many people in the immediate area who would use the pathway parkette that is proposed and provides a graph to make his point.

Ziegler and his neighbours realize that they face a steep uphill battle. Meed Ward is close to despondent – she just doesn’t see a 4-3 in favour of keeping the land or leasing it. She would need three more votes – the Mayor is a possible, Lancaster is a possible as well. Craven would rather die than vote with Meed Ward and both Taylor and Dennison see the revenue that a sale would being and they want those dollars for infrastructure work.

Several council members went on about the amount of park space on the eastern side of the city. The Water street property is one of the few areas where parkland can be created. The western side of the city has much more park space. Will these arguments make a difference?

THEY WON! There will be a community in the Beachway Park and there might well be new single family homes as well.

September 12, 2013

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON. The residents in the Beachway Park have won their battle to keep their homes. At the Community Services Committee of Council, during a mammoth session with more than 20 delegations, Council was given information that some of them just did not have.

Information that Council members should have dug out more than a year ago was brought to the surface by some of the most impressive delegations this reporter has heard in the last three years.

City hall staff were prepared for an overflow crowd and had set up speakers in an adjoining room. While the Council chamber was packed – there was room for everyone.

Community meetings, lobbying, challenging city hall positions eventually paid off. Here residents talk about the Beachway community as they wanted to see it continue.
On a very sad note, the woman in the orange and green sweater, Charlotte O’Hara Griffin, a long time city staffer who was involved in the Beachway project, died earlier in the week. She would have smiled at the results.

A couple of the delegations were at the podium for extended periods of time while complex matters of property titles, willing buyers and willing sellers and zoning were given a thorough going over.

What was clear is that a determined, focused and persistent electorate can bring about changes in early drafts of city policy.

Laura Durant, on the right, and her husband Glenn Gillespie, center, talking to a meeting facilitator who was prepared to evict them from a meeting. These two were a consistent and persistent part of the community effort to see a change in the minds of city council.

It was a full evening and there is a lot to tell. Four points stick out: (1) the draft of a motion Councillor Dennison clearly plans to present, details below; (2) the excellent comments lawyer Katherine Henshell made when she demolished the myth of a willing seller and a willing buyer situation that council members and staff at both city hall have bandied about; (3) the comment Real Estate agent Betty McMahon made when she said the value of property in the Beachway will jump 50% when the zoning mess is cleared up – and finally, this is true: (4) Councillor Craven, whose behaviour was less than sterling was seen being escorted to his car by the security staff. Who was he afraid of?

In the dying minutes of a four and a half hour meeting Dennison read the following: Recognize the continued existence of the residential community as adding value to the park experience and Update the Official Plan and zoning to reflect low-density residential.

Authorize the Director of Parks and recreation to work with the Halton Region and Conservation staff to complete a concept plan, environmental management plan, and detailed design for the Beachway Park component of the Burlington Beach Regional Waterfront Park that focuses on land already in public hands; build a plan based on existing publicly owned lands, with the exception of former residential sites in between private homes on either side of Lakeshore Road. Offer these sites for sale.

Authorize the Director of Parks and Recreation to send correspondence to Halton Region requesting that Halton`s Regional Council support the city of Burlington`s “Vision” for Beachway Park and authorize regional staff to work with the City of Burlington and Conservation Halton on an implementation plan focusing on lands already in public hands.

Dennison told the audience that he had three other Council members who would support his motion when it is formally presented. Councillor Meed Ward and Councillor Taylor will be onside. It was not immediately evident that the Mayor was one of the three but expect him to jump on this wagon very quickly.

On this issue a plan, that was never really a policy but was always thought to be what the city would eventually do, was beaten back. The will of Council responded to the wishes of the people – backed up by some solid data and even sounder common sense.

The Council Committee will resume their deliberations Thursday afternoon at 1:00 pm. They could lose the will that was evident last night and have a change of heart – which would set this city up for a battle royale at city council September 23^rd.

It was a good night for the city of Burlington. We will report in more detail on this story once council completes its committee session. We understand Councillor Craven got home safely.

Mayor decides to try on transparency for size – it looked pretty good on him. He just might do that again.

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON. April 8, 2013 It was a rambunctious meeting. City Council was preparing to vote on a decision made in committee to approve the Ghent Avenue development that will have 58 townhouses going into a space that formerly had 8 houses on it. More than 100 well-developed trees would be cut down

It was controversial when it was discussed in the community; it was controversial when it was discussed at council committee and it was no less controversial last night – it still passed – but not before council went into one of its longest closed sessions.

Several of the houses that were bought up for the development that has 8 such homes being replaced by a townhouse project with 58 residences.

Council knew this was not going to be a popular decision. At the committee level it had asked for a legal opinion on the chances of this matter being appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). If Council decided to go against the Staff recommendation the city was certain the developer would take the matter to the OMB. If Council approved the development the city felt the residents might appeal to the OMB.

Rambo Creek, which runs along the eastern edge of the properties assembled, was a point of considerable discussion as to how flooding would be controlled – the city was never quite on top of that issue either.

Pages: 1 2

Indian Point neighbourhood gets first of several close looks by planning department as city creeps toward a new Official Plan.

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON. April 3, 2013 – The first hint that there were going to be neighbourhood character studies was when the Planning department held a very small workshop at the Performing Arts Centre where they gave three groups of people the same very large map and asked them to define the neighbourhoods on the map.

Each of the groups came up with vaguely similar boundaries but there really wasn’t much in the way of a clear expression of just what a neighbourhood was. Little wonder: according to Alan Gummo, formerly with the planning department and now retired, the word neighbourhood doesn’t appear in the Official Plan, a document the city was setting out to review as required by provincial legislation.

The city’s Planner had decided the 2013 review would be much deeper than past reviews, doing so for a number of reasons. Bruce Krushelnicki now had Provincial guidelines he had to adhere to and he had a much more robust Strategic Plan to adhere to as well. That document was crystal clear in its viewpoint – there were to be “vibrant neighbourhoods” and while that concept has been used to slip through some pretty dodgy spending, there was no getting away from the fact that it was something that had to be dealt with.

If there are to be vibrant neighbourhoods the planners needed to know just where those neighbourhoods were located.

Fifteen acres, 30 homes, three streets are all part of the Indian Point enclave felt to be the oldest neighbourhood outside the Burlington core.

Krushelnicki explained to the residents from Indian Point Tuesday evening, that Burlington was a core city that just added neighbourhoods as it evolved. Indian Point was probably the very first neighbourhood that got described as an “enclave” with 30 properties that were made distinct by large lots bounded by a creek on the north and Lake Ontario on the south.

Aldershot evolved. Roseland came into being, Millcroft, the Orchard are a few of the others that followed. The most recent is Alton Village that came about when the 407 was built which created a piece of land that was no longer north of the rural boundary. Other than some housing to be included in the Tremaine Road/Dundas development in the eastern part of the city and the Eagle Heights development in the west, the city is pretty well-built out and as Krushelnicki put it “we now have to better manage what we have.”

Anne McIlroy, standing, talks to Indian Point residents about their views and vision for the community that is part of an Official Plan review character study.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Tear down city hall – and the Arts Centre while you’re at it? Who said Burlington was called Borington?

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON. March 4, 2013 This stuff is as dry as toast and watching paint dry is more exciting BUT, it is the stuff that is going to result in the foundation your city gets built on.

In Burlington, the Capital Budget is a ten-year rolling document. They plan ten years out and advance the decisions each year. This year there are so many things in a state of flux that the city manager advised Council he will want to re-state the Capital Budget very soon. The intention is to align the Capital Budget with the Strategic Plan. Burlington now has a thoroughly thought out Strategic Plan that came out of more than five days of meetings spread out over a three-month time frame. It was what council and staffs were able to do at the time – the city might be ready for a review of that plan – perhaps in the next term of council.

So- what is it that’s on the table from a Capital spending point of view for the city in 2013?

Well the Tyandaga Golf course is not seen as a revenue generator for the city and the land could, some think, be put to better use. The city manager isn’t prepared to stake his reputation on these numbers but he thinks the club needs 23,000 new people every year to replace those that don’t return. He adds to that, the view of many golfers – that the club just doesn’t cut it as a fine place to play the game.

Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven argues that the place could be managed better and they could think in terms of recreational uses during the winter months – like allowing cross-country skiing and maybe even an outdoor skating rink. So – what does one do with that land? Just asking was what we thought we heard the city manager saying.

Will we see additions made to city hall or will the site be sold to a developer – or perhaps the building could be torn down and turned into a parking lot?

City Hall is getting a very close look. The city currently rents space in the Simms building directly across the street from city hall and that lease is up in 2016. Legal and Finance are in the Simms building and it is not uncommon to see staff walking across Elgin Street with their arms full of documents. Some are advocating for putting additional space on top of what already exists at city hall, while others think selling the building and putting up a brand new city hall is the better direction to go in.

When the suggestion about doing something with the city hall was put out, Ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven immediately suggested that Aldershot would be an ideal place for a stunning building. Has he put a feeler out to the Paletta’s?

The sense was that if a new city hall were to be built it should be in the downtown core but no one identified what the boundaries of that core would be. There is the space in the parking lot four between John and Elizabeth Streets that the city has been hankering to do something with for some time.

Here’s a WOW for you. Tear down the parking lot, put up a condo – then tear down city hall and build the parking lot on Brant at Elgin. Put commercial space at the ground level. Where would city hall go? Over on parking lot # 4 om John Street. – and while you’re at it put the Burlington Arts Centre in the same building as well. The capital budget meeting at which ideas like this got tossed around was quite the meeting. Is Burlington ready for this kind of growth?

Now try this idea on for size. One of the city’s general managers asked: Why do I park my car in a building that is close to overlooking the lake. The parking lot on Locust Street immediately south of the Performing Arts Centre is on pretty prime property. What if that parking lot structure were torn down (yes it is fairly new) and the land sold to a developer for another condo much like the others spread out along Lakeshore Road? Great views of the pier and Spencer Smith Park from that location.

Then tear down the city hall building and put the parking lot in that location. What would the net cost be? Councillor Dennison pointed out that what the city has spent in rent could have paid for an addition to city hall. The city needs more space for its staff who are currently in two buildings on opposite sides of Elgin Street.

Whatever is built on that lot would be a multi storey building – think maybe 10 to 12 stories and could house the Burlington Art Centre collection on two – maybe three floors. The ground floor would have all kinds of open space with the different guilds working away at their crafts that the public could look in on. The world-class collection of Canadian ceramics could be on display and visible to the public. They are currently in cardboard cartons in a storage vault.

The land the Burlington Art Centre is located on – Lakeshore Road across from Spencer’s on the Lake would be sold and have condo sites on it. That BAC lot is very, very deep – something exceptional could be built on that property.

The Burlington Art Centre sits on some prime lakefront property. The land is said to be worth $6 million and the Centre needs more space for its ceramics collection. Maybe there is a better place for the BAC? Perhaps in a new city hall built on parking lot #4 on John Street?

The BAC needs more than $4 million in upgrades to get their structure and HVAC up to scratch. Some thought there was merit in selling the current BAC property, said to be worth $6 million for the land alone, and moving the Art Centre to a building that will go up on that parking lot everyone has eyes on but no one wants to invest in.

There were some pretty heavy ideas floating around. It got better. The city manager has noticed that the Hydro property on Brant near Upper Middle Road is a large piece of land that, to use the language of planners, is under-utilized. It is much bigger than Hydro will ever use – there are ideas floating about as to how that property might be put to better use.

The city is about to take a closer look at what it wants to do with the Beachway part of the city. The first steps in that process are finding an entrepreneur who wants to put something commercial in the old Pump House. One young lady delegated to a council committee meeting and said she wanted to talk to the city about using the space to rent bicycles and paddle boats to people during the summer season. If she adds a patio where Councillor Dennison could enjoy a glass of wine she’s got his vote.

The sign is the brightest thing about the shopping plaza.

The Skyway Arena in the east end has just a single ice pad which isn’t seen as very efficient. When this came up during the capital budget discussions the city manager asked how much tolerance the city had for risk and would Council give any thought to considering the idea of trying to make something out of a possible combination of the arena property, the library that is currently using rented space on Fairview and attempting to work out something with the owner of the Lakeshore Plaza that is in dismal shape?

No sooner were the words out of the mouth of the city manager and Councillor Sharman piped in with: “Consider it done and that resulted in a staff direction on which council can expect there to be a lot of push back from the residents of the community.

The Lakeshore Plaza is a bit of a dump with almost as many “For Rent” signs as there are actual occupants. The Swiss Chalet is closed. The theatre and bowling alley haven’t been used for years and the place has that sad, run down look about it.

A too small to be economically viable – the Skyway Arena is getting a close look from the ‘bean counters’ at city hall. The city manager thinks there are some development opportunities. The local community wants to be at the table if there are any deals made. Could get interesting.

The Skyway Arena sits at the back of the plaza property – which is what got the city manager to thinking – what if the city made its property available to a developer and asked anyone interested to come up with some ideas.

Combining the Arena space and the Lakeshore Plaza properties would create a very enticing development opportunity. The Skyway rink is currently a single pad which the city finds very expensive to maintain. Two pads are much more economical.

Were a developer to come up with some housing ideas that would accommodate families – the city could create a community out there that would anchor the east end of the city, create a new community that would have access to the arena, that could be enlarged – add to that the immediate access to Burloak Park – and there would appear to be a win-win situation for everyone.

Save the Skyway arena didn’t lose any time getting the word out and making sure city hall knew who they were. Is their Ward Council member aware of the group?

During the discussion Councillor Taylor, whose turf is in the north-west part of the city, piped in and suggested to his fellow council members that the community needed to be included in all this grand plan thinking. That point seemed to have gotten lost.

It didn’t take long for the residents of the community to stand up on their hind legs and begin to bark. Before you could say “Bob’s your uncle”, a group had a web site up with a headline saying “Because Burlington City Hall doesn’t listen to its residents” .

So, while the capital budget itself is a pretty dry document consisting of how much gets spend on roads and then which roads, and then how many buses does the city buy and what size of bus – some of these decisions are for something that is going to happen eight years out. Difficult to get people excited about what is going to get done that far out into the future.

What all this is leading to is a much more entrepreneurial look at the way the city develops its capital spending. Those longer term spending decisions determine the shape of the community we get to live in.

Way back in 1985 city council approved a development on Lakeshore Road that is only now at the early stage of actual construction. That decision approved a structure that will reach 22 storey’s into the sky line – something few people in this city fully appreciate. Will it loom over everything or will it add to the skyline. When the debates were taking place back in 1985 it was seen as a “landmark” building – will the community see it that way when it opens?

In her last delegation to city council the late Jane Irwin reminded them that many called the place BORINGTON. That just might be about to change.

Inspire the audience please – but don’t talk the Mayor into a new dream; he’s still working out the last one.

REVISED

We erroneously reported that the $50,000 cost of the Mayor’s One Dream event was paid for bu Emshih Developments. The event was paid for by 12 organizations of which one was Emshih Developments whp donated $5000. The Molinaro Group, another developer with projects before the city also donated $5000.

Our apologies to the Mayor for the mistake we made.

By Pepper Parr

BURLINGTON, ON February 27, 2013 We are back into Inspire mode with the Mayor announcing there will be a series of speakers during 2013.

This next speaker Dr. Pamela Blais to speak to us about Perverse Cities: Hidden Subsidies, Wonky Policy and Urban Sprawl.

Blais is a city planner and principal of Toronto-based Metropole Consultants. Her professional focus is in creating better cities by integrating planning, economic and environmental thinking in the analysis of urban issues, urban design and the development of innovative policy. She is particularly interested in understanding key forces that drive urban development patterns, and how to shape urban form so as to maximize its ability to effectively meet current and future trends. Her approach to urban development issues aims to be strategic and integrated.

Will we hear some really good ideas from Pamela Blais at the Mayor’s Inspire event? In the past a number of his council members have been notably absent from these events.

In her twenty year career as an urban planning consultant, her work has included reurbanisation strategies and research; long-term regional growth planning; municipal economic development strategies; innovative land use policies for industrial areas; urban regeneration strategies; sustainable urban form, community design and infrastructure; and research on the impact of technology on urban form.

Blais has a Master of Science degree in Planning from the University of Toronto, and a Ph.D. in urban economic geography from the London School of Economics. She is a Registered Professional Planner, and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners.

Those are pretty good credentials. Blais will be the eighth speaker in what is a very impressive series – the mayor is to be congratulated on this initiative. By sponsoring these events he has upped the quality of debate and discussion in this city – something that was badly needed.

There is a concern however. When the Mayor Goldring brought in Lance Secretan that encounter resulted in what was at first called a Defining the Dream initiative that then got renamed to: One Dream – which appears to have died – at last we’ve not heard anything since the Mayor announced he would be getting back to the community late in January.

The initiative appears to have died after some $50,000 was spent pulling together some 30 people who weren’t able to get past square one.

All that full day event saw was our MPP, Jane McKenna going after the editor of the Burlington Post for the way she handled news items. Had former Mayor Walter Mulkewich not been in the room and managed to get a grip on the way things were going the meeting might well have melted down.

The Mayor put out a bit of a report and said there would be more in January – so far not a word. We now learn that more than $57, 500 was spent on this event – with a portion of that amount coming from two developers ($5,000 each) with major interests in the city. Not a healthy place for any politician to be – especially the mayor, who by the way had not publicly announced where the funding came from.

Hopefully we will hear a solid presentation on some of the follies that get attached to development charges and approaches municipalities take to taxing their residents. Hopefully Blais will inspire the audience and get the Mayor and his council thinking about new approaches to how we manage the growth of a city that is at a crucial point in its growth. Please – no more cock-a-mammy ideas Your Worship.

A planning tool that forgets people are part of the planning process. Section 37 – a missed opportunity.

By Pepper Parr

BURLINTON, ON May 28, 2011 – Burlington is one of a few cities that makes use of Section 37 of the Planning Act. Ottawa, Toronto and Markham use the provision which can be a very useful planning tool. In Burlington we are fortunate to have a planner who wrote the definitive text on the Ontario Municipal Board and a man who has served as a member of that Board. The significance of this is that most matters that go to the OMB are related to planning matters and to have a planner who knows the ins and outs of the OMB as well as the intent of the Board gives Burlington an intellectual advantage.

The way Section 37 of the Planning Act is implemented just might get a re-working in Burlington if Council members follow up on their comments.

Section 37 of the Planning Act relates to situations where an Official Plan calls for a certain type of development. It could be single detached housing, row housing organized as a condominium or a high rise, inevitably the issue become one of density. How many units can you put in a piece of property ? The municipality’s Official Plan (OP) will set out what the density can be and the zoning on the piece of property will set out what kind of building can be built on the site.

There are occasions where a developer will approach a municipality with a proposal that exceeds what is set out in the OP, but after discussions with the Planning Department, agreement is reached that the proposal is “good planning” and meets both the immediate and long term needs of the city.

We had two instances of just that happening in Burlington very recently and both created significant opposition within their communities. One was a condominium development south of the Queensway and the other was the apartment/condominium development at Brock and Elgin. In both instances the city approved an amendment to the Official Plan to permit the development

Burlington is faced with a provincial requirement that we grow our population. The province tells us that is what we have to do and that is what we do. The provincial Places to Grow legislation requires Burlington to grow its population by 20,000 people over the next 20 years – that’s 1,000 new housing units every year.

Because the city no longer has very much “green space” to build large projects on they have to resort to intensification.

Developers see opportunities to take land that is being under utilized and they begin to assemble properties until they have an area large enough for the plans they have in mind.

In the Queensway area this resulted in a developer purchasing six properties that consisted of half an acre each. These lots were created at the end of WW II and known as Veterans Land Act properties. Once the land was assembled the developer asked for permission to build a 74 unit complex on the property and the local community was up in arms. That development eventually got cut back to 58 units but is still a significant bit of intensification – going from six homes to 58 on the same pieces of land.

In the Brock Elgin area the developer did an assembly and came to the city with a proposal to increase the density permitted in the Official Plan from 7 to 14 storeys. The community was aghast and argued against the development at two public meetings and a third meeting at a Council Committee and finally at a Council meeting. They were beaten back at every meeting.

In this instance the developer made a Section 37 proposal in which the city determines how much the value of the land the development is being built on is going to increase due to the development.

Note that the unit of measure here is the increase in ‘value of the land’ not the revenue and potential profit the developer expects to see. The city gets an appraisal of what the land was worth before the development and what the land will be worth after the development and then asks the developer to contribute half of the increase in value back to the city as community benefits.

In the Brock Elgin development the increase in the value of the land was deemed to be $1 million and the developer agreed to pay for community improvements worth $500,000.

This is seen as a way for a city to share in the gain that a developer earns when asking for and getting an amendment to an Official Plan. Sounds fair and is seen as a sound planning practice.

Where people in Burlington get really wound up is how the community benefits are determined. The Planning department does all that thinking – with not a peep from the community. Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward thinks this is wrong and fought vigorously to have the community involved in determining what the benefits should be.

She came close to getting her Council colleagues to look at what was being proposed then, to the surprise of just about everyone, they learned that if Council wanted to make any changes to the community benefits the matter had to be sent back to Committee.

Several Councillors believed that the amendment to the Official Plan and the applicable by law could be approved and the specific make up of the community benefits looked at later – wasn’t possible. The two had to be approved at the same time.

Section 37 of the Planning Act is a very sound and accepted planning tool. What Burlington hasn’t done is bring the community in on the process and get their input before deciding what to do.

Councillors Sharman and Taylor have said they want to see the community benefits issue handled much differently. We will be watching.

Will new data convince at least three council members to change their vote on the Water Street land sale?

Share this:

THEY WON! There will be a community in the Beachway Park and there might well be new single family homes as well.

Share this:

Mayor decides to try on transparency for size – it looked pretty good on him. He just might do that again.

Share this:

Indian Point neighbourhood gets first of several close looks by planning department as city creeps toward a new Official Plan.

Share this:

Tear down city hall – and the Arts Centre while you’re at it? Who said Burlington was called Borington?

Share this:

Inspire the audience please – but don’t talk the Mayor into a new dream; he’s still working out the last one.

Share this:

A planning tool that forgets people are part of the planning process. Section 37 – a missed opportunity.

Share this: