 By Pepper Parr
November 20th, 2021
BURLINGTON. ON
If you haven’t made your plans for the afternoon – you might want to join Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns on the walkabout she plans in the southern part of her ward.
 Hear what your ward Councillor has to say about this development – it will replace the Waterfront Hotel. She has invited anyone to join her while she comments on the development proposals that have been grandfathered by the Minister of Municipal Affairs; which means that they will probably clear the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The Mayor has said little and is reported to have done as much as she can to get the members of Council not talk about what the Ministry has done to the city.
You owe it to your self to spend an hour on the walking tour.
Starts at 1:00 pm – gather at the foot of Brant Street at Lakeshore.
 By Pepper Parr
November 17th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Information is a little like water: it has its own way of finding the direction in which it wants to flow.
 Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing – Steve Clark We learn a bit more about what took place and how the Minister of Municipal Affairs did the dirty to the city when he announced the Official move of the Urban Growth Centre and the removal of the MTSA designation to the bus terminal and then added that he was grandfathering seven developments that were within the older Urban Growth Boundary.
That kind of takes the wind out of the Mayor’s sails.
But the woman who won public office on the promise to be transparent and accountable hasn’t been able to make use of those skill sets.
And that promise made during her first election in 2010 when she told a group of her supporters that she wanted their votes but more importantly she wanted their trust.
She got the votes – hard to see where she delivered on the trust part.
We have learned that November 10th was when the decision the Minister made became final. That would suggest that there were ongoing conversations – if they were negotiations – what did Burlington get?
Gazette readers are asking what the city is getting other than the Mayor’s spin that, as one reader put it, goes like this: “Look what I have done, oh, by the way it was too late to stop the high-rise development that will destroy the waterfront”
Ward 2 Councillor Kearns told a resident that she “didn’t receive the actual decision until late on the 11th, then needed some clarity, then the weekend, over to Monday to ensure Council had a chance to review before release.
To be fair to Kearns she did make some rather pithy comments that were part of the media release the city put out. She said:
 Ward 2 City Councillor Lisa Kearns “The Minister’s decision may help reduce the long-term development pressure on existing infrastructure and neighbourhoods. On behalf of our residents, I believe there is good reason for concern about the excessive applications already underway. This decision doesn’t fully support the thoughtful and considered conversations we have had to preserve the character of downtown and welcome responsible growth. I understood us to be working towards the same outcome; should the Minister’s decision fail to address this transition issue, it could result in intense pressure for incompatible change.”
Every member of council sat on their hands over this one. How accountable the voters will expect them to be is anyone’s guess.
 By Pepper Parr
November 17th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
We now know a little bit more about the developments that have been grandfathered by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and will proceed through the Ontario Land Tribunal process. If past appeals are any example, they will be approved at that level.
Five years from now Burlington will be a much different city.
A closer look at what has been grandfathered and what they want to build is now possible even though city hall and the Office of the Mayor haven’t had much to say.
 It is a different skyline. The degree to which it will change the small, local feel that many people have of Burlington is something that will work itself out if these two towers go up. The Waterfront Hotel site, even though not yet at the application stage has been grandfathered.
The Core Development that runs from one side of the football to the other – from Lakeshore Road on the north to Old Lakeshore Road on the south has been grandfathered.
The development planned for the eastern end of the football, one of the Carriage Gate developments has also been grandfathered.
 This is the structure that will sit right next to Joe Dogs. How that hospitality operation will operate is something that they are certainly thinking really hard about. The development that would be next to Joe Dogs on Brant street – put forward as a 30 storey building has been grandfather as has 407 Martha – a building that is very close to Rambo Creek where part of the retaining wall has been described as not all that safe.
2085 Pine, a property that has changed hands a number of times and been before council with different suggestions on just how much height there could be and at the same time preserve a heritage building at the front of the property – that, too, is at the OLT.
The land between Old Lakeshore Road and Lakeshore Road, known as the football because of its shape was at one time described by former Toronto Mayor David Crombie as a jewel we should not let get away on us.
It became a jewel that developers realized needed a bit of polishing up and then sold off as a very desirable high end property that would never have a building put up between it and the lake.
Somewhere in the last ten years the city was never able to come up with a plan that would secure that land and make it more public space.
 The CORE Development takes up all the land between Old Lakeshore Road and Lakeshore Road in the centre of the football area. The plan is to keep the popular but expensive restaurant that has been on the site for a long time.  The Carriage Gate people see this development as the eastern gateway into the city. Old Lakeshore Road is to the left with Lakeshore Road to the right. With the grandfathering in place all the planners are left with is the south side of Old Lakeshore Road: Top of bank rules limit what can be done on that land. The heritage designation Emma’s Back Porch has, will limit what can be done with that property.
Once we are out of the pandemic we can expect someone to lease Emma’s and get it back into operation. Not sure how pleasant a local it will be with all the construction that will be taking place.
 The triangle shaped property will be where Carriage Gate puts up their 25+ tower – they see it as the eastern gateway to the city. The property to the immediate left is where the CORE development will be built. To the left of that is parking across from Emma’s Back Porch which is owned by 2084 Lakeshore Holdings Ltd. They also own the small parking lot to the east of Emma’s. On the western tip of the football the property is owned by a trust – we’ve yet to learn who the beneficiary is of that trust. What does all this leave the city with? Is there nothing more in the way of options?
The pandemic has changed the way citizens can communicate with the elected leadership and that elected leadership hasn’t done all that much to find ways to hear what citizens have to say.
The Office of the Mayor has seen this as an opportunity to put her spin on what has taken place.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
 By Staff
November 16th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Update from the City of Burlington on Minister Clark’s decision on Burlington’s Downtown Growth
On Nov. 10, 2021, the City of Burlington received official notification of the boundary adjustment of the City’s Urban Growth Centre (UGC) designation from the Hon. Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Minister also confirmed the removal of the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) designation in the downtown.
This marks an important step in Burlington’s effort to stop the over-development of its historic downtown. The removal of the MTSA designation and boundary adjustment of the UGC takes effect immediately and applies to all new applications. This will help control overdevelopment moving forward.
 A 3D rendering of some of the development planned, some approved and under construction in and around the the two Lakeshore Roads. However, the Minister chose to grandfather seven applications that were submitted prior to November 10, 2021 from the UGC boundary adjustment and the City is seeking additional clarification on how to proceed.
The changes announced by the Minister were the result of City Council asking the Minister to adjust the UGC boundary and remove the MTSA designation based on Council’s vision for the downtown. As part of the process, the City was required to work with the Region of Halton to make these changes through a Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA). The ROPA process involved extensive work and collaboration between the City and Region and consultation with the public.
The immediate adjustment of the UGC boundary and the removal of the MTSA designation will complement provincial transit investments and contribute to the development of sustainable, transit-oriented complete communities in Burlington. These provincial actions also send a clear signal that the scale and intensity of recent development activity in Burlington’s historic downtown was driven by misuse and reliance on the UGC and MTSA and was not sustainable given on-the-ground realities of physical and social infrastructure.
 The football is the land between Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road where intensive development is planned. Five of the seven applications located in Burlington’s downtown are before the Ontario Lands Tribunal and the City will strongly advocate that the tribunal take into account the City’s vision for the downtown and the new changes brought in by the Provincial Government.
 This is the development Carriage Gate wants to build on the eastern end of the football properties The City will defend at every opportunity the vision that this Council has set out and worked tirelessly to have included in the Region’s official plan amendment (ROPA 48). We will encourage proponents of those applications to revaluate their projects given the updated provincial policies.
City of Burlington Council and staff will continue to work with the Hon. Jane McKenna and Minister Clark to see that the pace and scale of development in downtown Burlington is appropriate given the wishes of residents and the availability of infrastructure needed to support it.
This progress is the result of City Council and staff working over the last three years to define the vision for the downtown and see it enshrined in local, regional, and provincial planning policy; this work was done by engaging residents and local businesses who provided clear feedback to Council that the downtown is not the place for large-scale development.
Background
- On Aug. 24, 2020, Burlington City Council unanimously approved requesting the Region of Halton through its Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Regional Official Plan (MCR), to adjust the boundary of the Downtown Urban Growth Centre (UGC) to generally align with the lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station, and to remove the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) designation from the Downtown.
- In 2020, the City of Burlington received a joint letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Ministry of Transportation stating that the Region of Halton, working together with the City of Burlington, can remove the identification of a mobility hub and the MTSA designation in Downtown Burlington.
- The Interim Control By-law Land Use Study focused on assessing the role and function of the downtown bus terminal and the Burlington GO station as MTSAs, and scoped re-examination of Official Plan policies that focused on the Downtown.
- The Mobility Hubs Study started in 2017-2018 and focused on area-specific planning work for the three GO Station areas: the Aldershot GO, Burlington GO and Appleby GO Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). At that time, the City gathered feedback through visioning, public engagement and technical studies. From there, precinct plans were drafted for each study area around the Aldershot, Burlington and Appleby GO Stations.
 Mayor speaking at an event from Spencer Smith Park: How much of the waterfront area is she going to be able to salvage from the Minister’s statement? Mayor Marianne Meed Ward siad in a prepared statement that: “Burlington’s Council was elected with a clear mandate to stop overdevelopment, and we will continue to do everything within our power to do so. The adjustment of the boundaries of the UGC and the MTSA are a victory for good planning in Burlington. However, implementation issues still remain to be resolved. The Minister’s decision that the policies apply only to new applications presents a greater challenge to achieving our vision for downtown with the applications already in. But we remain undaunted in our efforts to keep advocating for the best planning outcome for our community. We thank the Minister and our MPP, Hon. Jane McKenna, for their support on this important work to date, and look forward to their continued support as we seek to achieve the community’s vision for development downtown on all applications before us.”
 Lisa Kearns: Is the Councillor for the ward that is facing just about all of the contentious development on the same page as the Mayor Councillor Lisa Kearns, Ward 2 added to the Mayor’s statement with one of her own, saying: “The Minister’s decision may help reduce the long-term development pressure on existing infrastructure and neighbourhoods. On behalf of our residents, I believe there is good reason for concern about the excessive applications already underway. This decision doesn’t fully support the thoughtful and considered conversations we have had to preserve the character of downtown and welcome responsible growth. I understood us to be working towards the same outcome; should the Minister’s decision fail to address this transition issue, it could result in intense pressure for incompatible change.”
By Pepper Parr
November 13th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
In the world of politics – getting the right people in the right room at the right time is an art.
Our Mayor may have missed some of those art classes.
 Mayor Meed Ward invited all the members of the OBCM – Ontario Big City Mayors to hold their October 15th meeting in Burlington at the Pearle Hotel and Spa.
The Gazette didn’t have a lot of information on how that meeting was put together. Neither the Mayor or her staff talk to us. We’ve not been BFF for sometime. But that is another story that will unfold in the fullness of time.
All we knew was that there was a lot for the Mayor to brag about – the locale of the Pearle and its stunning grand stairway and the wide open space overlooking the lake and the Pier would be the envy of any Mayor.
Parts of the meeting were held via Zoom.
Mayor Meed Ward has needed a one-on-one conversation with Steve Clarke, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for some time. The OBCM event was a perfect opportunity.
The Minister is reported to have said publicly on June 15th of this year that he was on for having the Urban Growth Boundary moved from the location that was agreed upon by the 2014-2018 City Council to something further north and closer to the Burlington GO station.
Meed Ward argued strenuously during the 2018 election that the boundary should have been much closer to the Burlington GO Station to begin with.
Once she was elected as Mayor the first thing she did was fire the City Manager and then began the process of revising the city’s Official Plan that had the Urban Growth Centre moved north.
 Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clarke: Mayor hasn’t been able to connect with the Minister – maybe the Minister doesn’t want to talk to her. One of the problems was that there were a number of significant developments that were banking on being part of the UGC – should that be moved they would lose part of their development argument.
All that was needed to make the City and Regional decisions real was the signature from Minister Clarke.
But that signature wasn’t forth coming.
The press conference at which the Minister is reported to have said he was on side for moving the boundary was seriously questioned by a member of the Ontario Land Tribunal who would not accept it into evidence.
One would have thought that a political operative of Meed Ward’s stature would have found a way to set up a one-on-one with Minister Clarke. The OBCM event taking place in Burlington with the group meeting at the spanking new Pearle Hotel and Spa (it is understood that some of the Mayors taking part stayed over at the Hotel) was a perfect place for a conversation.
Having Minister Clarke taking part in the meetings was a natural thing for him to do. He is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and all the biggie municipal Mayors were either attending personally or taking part via Zoom.
But Minister Steve Clarke did not make it to the city on October 15th.
One has to wonder – why a connection wasn’t made. Is Burlington too small for the Minster to pay attention to or is the Mayor just too small a fish for the Minister to make time for?
Or did the Minister realize that there were serious problems with his Ministry and the City and it was better to step around that one. His political advisers would have advised him on that one.
The public is in the dark on just what is going to happen next. Other than blowing off some steam the Mayor didn’t really say all that much. “This is a devastating and shocking decision imposed on our community, which completely disregards the vision of residents, council and staff for this area.
She might have been a little contrite and admit that she really blew this one.
She did add that “Council will be examining all of our options for a review of this OLT decision.
 Transparency was a big word when she was a candidate – it didn’t make it into her bag of tricks when she was elected Mayor. How come? Mayor Meed Ward speaks frequently about her experience as a journalist. This would be a good time for her to make herself available to media and be both transparent and accountable and lay all the facts on the table.
Mayor Meed Ward gets in front of the Cogeco cameras as well as the CHCH cameras on a regular basis. They are seen by the Mayor as friendly folk – not the kind of people who ask her tough questions.
Ahmed Hussen, Federal Minister for Housing and Diversity was able to attend Ontario Big City Mayors event.
Why not Minister Clarke?
Related news stories:
The Minister is reputed to have said something about the UGC but there doesn’t appear to be anything in writing
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
 By Pepper Parr
November 8th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Bad enough that the two witnesses from the city’s planning department were not on the same page; now we know that the city was fudging some of the material they were presenting and that they tried to argue that a media release, supposedly put out on June 15th amounted to policy.
Worse – the press release was really a transcript of what a planning staff member recalled understanding what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is reported to have said.
We don’t make this stuff up – it comes out of the written decision released by the OLT Ontario Land Tribunal last week that gave Carriage Gate approval to build a 29 story tower. The decision, which appeared to have surprised Mayor Meed Ward when she said: This is a devastating and shocking decision imposed on our community, which completely disregards the vision of residents, council and staff for this area.
This decision completely dismisses the considerable feedback from residents in opposition to this file – and their valuable suggestions for what would be appropriate. This decision ignored over 100 people who took the time to attend a community meeting, delegate to council, and write pages of letters. There was no acknowledgement of our community’s voice in this decision.
The decision highlights the inappropriate application of Provincial Planning Policies to justify overdevelopment and underscores the importance of a speedy decision from the Minister to remove the Major Transit Station Area designation from downtown and adjust the boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre to the Burlington GO Station, where this scale of development should be. We will continue to work to defend our plan and put growth where it belongs.
 Unless the city can pull a rabbit out of a hat – the building on the lefty is a done deal. The City had argued that on June 15, 2021, the Minister announced that he was moving the location of the Burlington Urban Growth Centre from its existing location to the area surrounding the Burlington GO Station. As a result, the City maintains that the Development is no longer within a UGC area.
The City originally submitted that an adjournment “is required to allow the Parties to provide supplemental witness statements in order for the Tribunal to have the opinions of the expert witnesses on the effect of the subject lands no longer being within a UGC at the time of the Tribunal’s eventual decision in this matter. Without this, the city argued, the Tribunal will not have expert opinion evidence that reflects the policy regime that must be applied to consideration of the applications.
The OLT decision said: “The position taken by counsel for the City and for the Region therefore wholly depends on the contention that a new policy regime was ushered in solely by the Minister’s June 15th oral announcement. This alleged policy pronouncement is claimed to have been captured in an informal transcript filed with the Tribunal – prepared by an unidentified person – of the Minister’s remarks made at the June 15th press conference.
“It appears conceded by the City that the ‘unofficial’ informal transcript that is attached as an exhibit to the sworn Affidavit of the City’s planning witness Mr. Plas is not a complete record of the Minister’s comments made on that occasion. An adequate explanation for this was not offered to the Tribunal.
“Despite the unusual evidentiary basis described above, there seems to be no controversy between the Parties about the main gist of the Minister’s remarks made at this press conference. However, Lakeshore’s (This is the Carriage Gate corporate name for the proposed development on the NE corner of Lakeshore Road and Pearl) counsel adamantly maintains that those verbal comments by the Minister did not and could not constitute the formal lawful introduction of new provincial planning policy.
 For marketing purposes it will be known as Beausoleil
During the time period leading up to the hearings, the Region of Halton adopted ROPA 48 (Regional Official Plan Amendment) on July 7, 2021, which, among other things, reflects the noted change in location of Burlington UGC that was apparently mentioned orally by the Minister on June 15th (although Ms. Yerxa for the Region points out that the prior process leading up to ROPA 48 was of considerable duration and reflected much work and consultation along the way, much of which is contained in the supporting Affidavit of Ms. Poad). ROPA 48 is apparently now before the Ministry for approval.
“However, beyond the remarks of counsel for the City and the Region, there was no evidence to demonstrate that the Ministry will approve it beyond a statement to that effect from Mr. Plas in his Affidavit tendered before the Tribunal. In the Tribunal’s view, this is not proper subject of opinion evidence – it is merely argument, which was repeated in more detail by counsel for the City and the Region at the Motion hearing.”
“In response, the Appellant filed an Affidavit from Mr. Smith, an experienced Planner who challenges the conclusions expressed by Mr. Plas about the effect of the press conference announcement from the Minister and also the allegation that the Minister’s oral announcement was “supportive of ROPA 48”. Again, in the Tribunal’s view, Mr. Smith’s statements are also not proper opinion evidence determinative of this particular issue.
“The Tribunal is unable to accept the contention that the oral remarks made by the Minister at the June 15th press conference, taken alone, constitute the promulgation of new Ontario planning policy by way of an ‘update’ or other ‘revision’ of the Growth Plan in terms of the location of the Burlington It is to be noted that the Minister’s remarks do not specify the precise boundary of this apparent location change, nor do they indicate the effective date of the change. In any event, the Tribunal was not convinced by the City counsel’s submission that no written statement or enactment of the change in the Burlington UGC location is required by law.
Did the City of Burlington get screwed over by the Minister of Municipal Affairs or did he just plain forget what he said he would do? “Neither Counsel for the City or the Region could cite any jurisprudence specifically on this point to support this unique argument. Moreover, in the Tribunal’s view this notion seems counter-intuitive in light of the very detailed provincial planning regime currently in force. The Tribunal specifically disagrees that the Minister’s remarks described above can be treated as a lawful, formal issuance of Provincial policy within the meaning of s. 1, 2 and 3 of the Planning Act.
“The Tribunal also agrees with Lakeshore’s counsel that for the purposes of this appeal the relevant provincial policy provisions include those set out in the current Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the current GP. The Tribunal thus rejects the contention that the current GP has somehow been changed or ‘updated’ in relation to the location of the Downtown Burlington UGC by reason either of the June 15, 2021 oral comments of the Minister or the content of the draft ROPA 48 which has not been approved by the Province.
“The Tribunal is of the opinion that the City’s proposition that a hearing should be adjourned to deal with anticipated possible future changes in provincial policy is:
(a) without foundation and without case law authority;
(b) amounts to a repudiation of long-established jurisprudence since it requires the evaluation of planning applications on the basis of alleged “emerging” policy intended to signal a new evolution of priorities for intensification in the City; and
(c) is highly unusual given that the very notion of modifying the UGC boundary in the City was not introduced until nearly 2 years after the Appellant’s applications were deemed complete by the City.
 This is the Urban Growth Boundary that Mayor Meed Ward fought hard to have changed. She thought she had – the Minister of Municipal Affairs said he would approve but had not yet signed the decision. So, legally it has not been changed and the Beausoleil development get the go ahead from the Ontario Land Tribunal  Nick Carnecelli had a stronger case and lawyers who knew what was acceptable in terms of evidence – something the city didn’t have . The Tribunal also agrees with the submission of counsel for the Appellant that:
“the press conference statement itself goes no further than suggesting the Minister “will be moving” the UGC, not that it already has been moved. This is a statement of possible future intention and nothing more. It provides no indication of how or when. It does not discuss implementation at all. There is no reference to ROPA 48 despite the statement of Mr. Plas. It refers to “long-term planning” as opposed to immediate effect”.
As a final matter, the Tribunal further disagrees with the argument of the City’s counsel that the purposes and policies underlying the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure in any way require the granting of the City’s adjournment motion in the unique circumstances of this case, and the Tribunal declines to exercise its discretion to do so.
What does all this mean? First that the city is made to look like a couple of high school students screwing things up.
Secondly, it leaves the Mayor with a problem with the OLT decision, which, try as she might, is likely to hold.
This piece of land and the site of the Waterfront Hotel will be the next battle ground. Then there is the north side of Lakeshore Road from Brant to Martha that will get the developer treatment. What impact is the decision going to have on the several development across the street in a piece of land known as the football where there are two developments working their way through the application process and at least two properties within the football that do not have any development activity ongoing.
Mayor Meed Ward had put everything on getting the Urban Growth Centre Boundary moved and she thought she had it done.
Both Planning and Legal are responsible for this one.
How many more like it are there out there?
Related news story.
City planner described as not an expert witness in OLT decision.
 By Pepper Parr
November 5th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
 Rendering of the proposed development.
We have been told they were coming and indeed they are coming.
Not all the development is taking place in the downtown core either.
Infinity Development is holding their required pre-application meeting on November 17th via Zoom.
Their proposal is for a 29 storey, mixed-use development, including 295 residential units within a tower portion and retail/commercial land uses on the ground level of a 4-storey podium. The remaining three (3) floors of the podium are proposed for above-grade parking area. A total of 320 parking spaces (and bicycle parking) are proposed in a combination of two levels of underground and podium level parking.
No comments are received by the City during the Pre-Application phase. Public comments may be directed to the applicant during this time. Once a complete application has been received the public will be notified, and comments will be received by City staff.
The planner on this development has, as in other developments it has presented in, been sparing in the amount of detail they choose to share. Listen closely and press them for details when you get the opportunity.
 The two houses on the left will come down. Not the kind of street that is safe for children. This development seems to be the cookie cutter of choice design that is being offered: Four level podium with a tower rising up to the 29th level.
This is a part of the city where development is being encouraged; it is within the Major Transit Service Area. What is missing is something in the way of public space; Waterdown is already a high traffic area – cars move along at quite a clip.
Check the ward 1 Councillor’s web site for zoom details. The Gazette will publish those details the day before the event.
 By Pepper Parr
November 4th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
They told us there would be intensification.
And there is intensification.
The view is of The Gallery a 23 storey tower under construction on the north east corner of Brant and James Streets.
Is this close enough to the sidewalk for you?
The building comes right to the property lot line.
 The four storey podium has been completed. Tower will rise to 23 storeys – the new look for downtown Burlington.
 By Staff
October 31st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Tribunal hearings are based on evidence given by people who are shown to be experts.
The hearings are dry, close to boring and one sometimes wonders if there is a purpose behind it all.
In arguing the merits of the case one of the questions that was set out was:
The numbers before each section used to identify a comment made.
The City is the City of Burlington.
Lakeshore refers to Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc., the corporate name for the Carriage Gate development at the north east corner of Lakeshore and Pearl.
 The developer wanted 29 storeys; city said it could live with 22 – developer won. The Tower in the center will be three storeys higher than the one on the right that is currently under construction. Does the Lakeshore Proposal fail to conform to the City’s Official Plan due to ‘Negative Impacts’ and Lack of ‘Compatibility’ stemming from the 29-storey tower design?
Lack of Shadow Impact
[39] Ralph Bouwmeester testified on behalf of Lakeshore with respect to the shadow impact issues raised by the City. He is a professional engineer and the Principal of R. Bouwmeester and Associates and has over 40 years of experience in urban development and municipal servicing design. Mr. Bouwmeester has provided expert testimony regarding sun/shadow position modeling in numerous proceedings before the Tribunal and various Courts in both Canada and the USA. He was duly qualified before the Tribunal in this proceeding without objection to provide opinion evidence on the same matters.
[40] Mr. Bouwmeester’s views as expressed in his WS, Reply WS and in oral testimony before the Tribunal were:
(a) New net shadows from the proposed development on the surroundings are limited and do not result in unacceptable shadows within the context of a downtown urban environment;
(b) The proposed Development meets the purpose and intent of the Shadow Impact Criteria of the City as set out in its Shadow Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (June 2020);
(c) The resultant new net shadow resulting from the Development is limited and therefore the floorplate size of the proposed 29-storey residential tower is appropriate from a shadowing perspective;
29 and 26 storeys on this block; across the street and one block west 22 storeys, another block to the west there is a development proposed that would have two towers – one at 35 and the other at 30 storeys. (d) The City’s shadow studies do not meet the requirements of the City’s Shadow Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (June 2020) (“Shadow Guidelines”). For example, these studies do not include the dates and hourly test times required by the Shadow Guidelines nor do they include the required sun/shade area calculations necessary to determine the Sun Access Factor targets stipulated in the Shadow Guidelines. The City’s shadow studies are based on test dates and times (only 3 per day) that the City required prior to the adoption of the current Shadow Guidelines and are not supportable;
(e) Despite there being a limited cumulative shadow on the townhouse garage roof deck and rooftop amenity areas adjacent to the Development, the degree of impact meets the purpose and intent of the Shadow Guidelines;
(f) There is no additional morning shadow on the roof decks and rooftop amenity areas on March 21 caused by Lakeshore’s 29-storey proposal as compared to the City-supported 22-storey alternative. There is minor additional shadowing on the roof decks and rooftop amenity areas at 12:00,1:00 and 2:00 PM over small areas for short periods;
(g) There is very little difference in the shadow impact of 22 storeys versus 29 stories on the townhouse development adjacent to the Development. In any event, the degree of impact meets the purpose and intent of the Shadow Guidelines; and
(i) Therefore, the Proposal meets the City’s goal “to promote high-quality development proposals that ensure adequate access to sunlight is maintained for the enjoyment of public and private spaces alike”.
[41] Interestingly, the City chose not call testimony from an outside engineering expert to offer opinion evidence on shadow impacts. Instead, Mr. Todd Evershed, who is currently employed by the City as an urban designer, purported to provide such evidence. Mr. Evershed is not an engineer, nor does he have any experience in providing expert analysis concerning shadowing beyond his contributions to the development of the City’s Shadow Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (June 2020). He is a Registered Professional Planner and has worked in various roles as a City employee since 2013
[42] Counsel for Lakeshore objected to the notion that Mr. Evershed could be qualified to provide opinion evidence on sun/shadow matters concerning the Development, and the City’s counsel did not seek to achieve that. Instead, he requested that Mr. Evershed offer urban design opinion evidence only, and the Tribunal qualified him solely for that purpose.
[43] As pointed out by Lakeshore’s counsel, the ‘sun/shadow’ issue initially raised by Mr. Evershed as a design issue was his contention that the proposed development would: “…result in excessive and inappropriate shadow impacts on the adjacent public realm and nearby residential properties…”.
 BeauSoleil is the marketing name given to the development. 44] However, during his testimony, Mr. Evershed’s concerns had narrowed to the question of the possible shadow impact on one block within the live-work townhouse project directly behind the Development – referred to as the “West Block”. Mr. Evershed focused on the cumulative shadow impact on elevated decks above the at-grade parking spaces for each of the live-work units.
[45] Mr. Evershed insisted that because those decks did not meet the minimum Sun Access Factor (“SAF”), the Lakeshore Proposal fails to meet the City’s Shadow Guidelines and, therefore should be rejected and redesigned to ensure that the SAF is met. Instead, the Tribunal accepts and agrees with the contrary analysis of sun/shadow matters provided by Mr. Bouwmeester as detailed in paragraph [39] above. As noted, his evidence was the only expert opinion available to the OLT.
[46] As noted in paragraph [39], Mr. Bouwmeester conducted a careful and detailed evaluation of the shadow impacts on these same private elevated decks and also completed a SAF analysis in accordance with the City’s Shadow Guidelines. While his analysis does demonstrate that these elevated decks fail to receive the minimum SAF on March 21st, this does not mean that these decks never receive sun at other times of the year. In fact, Mr. Bouwmeester demonstrated that the townhouse decks received receive considerable amounts of sun during the summer months. Moreover, he concluded that the Lakeshore Proposal meets the purpose and intent of the shadow impact criteria of the City’s Shadow Guidelines. The Tribunal reiterates that it accepts Mr. Bouwmeester’s opinion evidence on this matter, which was not successfully challenged during cross-examination.
[47] Interestingly, when questioned about the need to balance his claimed shadow problems as against other planning objectives, Mr. Evershed stated that such a need was a matter for evaluation by the City’s Planning Expert Mr. Paul Johnston. Yet, for his part, Mr. Johnston conceded during cross-examination that he no longer was of the view that the Lakeshore Proposal will cause unacceptable shadow impacts – or any negative impacts whatsoever.
[48] Based on the significant admissions of Mr. Johnston and Mr. Evershed as described above in paragraph [47], and in light of the expert opinion evidence of Mr. Bouwmeester all as described in this Part 3 (a), the Tribunal found that the City has failed to demonstrate that the Development will cause any unacceptable sun/shadow impacts.
If the city witnesses can’t agree on the facts – don’t expect favourable decisions from a Tribunal.
The city blew this part of the hearing
By Staff
October 31st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Is former Mayor Rick Goldring getting ready to jump back into the political ring again? He recently wrote an Opinion piece for the Local News (he was the founder of that online news source).
 At this point the structure on the left has been approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal. He came out pretty strongly against the Mayor Meed Ward about the Ontario Land Tribunal decision to permit the building of a 29 storey tower at Lakeshore and Pearl. But he doesn’t tell the whole story.
His opinion.
“This week, the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly the OMB — Ontario Municipal Board) ruled in favour of the developer Carriage Gate Homes for a 29-storey mixed-use condominium development on the northeast corner of Pearl and Lakeshore. The City of Burlington press release, along with the comments from
 Meed Ward with then Mayor Goldring: the two never did get along all that well. the mayor and ward councillor, had a strong tone of indignancy as result of the decision. It makes good politics to blame others and not look in the mirror to consider whether the mayor and council could have approached this differently. Now council will have a closed session meeting in early November with City of Burlington planners and lawyers to hear what options they have in an attempt to remove seven storeys from the development. (The mayor and council have already voted to accept a 22-storey building on the site.)
“I am reminded of the Nautique development application immediately to the east of the Carriage Gate site.
“Adi Development Group originally submitted an application for 28 storeys in 2014; they then reduced the height to 26 storeys and in 2016, council, with yours truly as mayor, rejected the application. Adi appealed the council decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and won the appeal in 2018. Council then asked for a review of the OMB decision to no avail.
 The ADI Group had better legal talent in their corner and they were tougher. The city missed several opportunities to put forward a stronger case. “When I look back on the process of the Nautique development application, council, led by me, made mistakes. The best way to deal with the situation politically is to fight the developer and application and that is just what we did, but that approach invariably does not (and did not) end up in a winning situation for the city.
“We would have been much better off to negotiate with the developer from the beginning. We could have saved the city time and money and we could have saved the developer time and money by reaching a compromise much earlier in the process. However, that approach is not good politics. Politically, it is better to fight and lose than compromise and look like you are acquiescing to developers.
“Based on previous development applications that resulted in 17-storey buildings (360 on Pearl and the Berkeley), the right approach with Adi back in 2014 was to push to compromise at 17 storeys (between the 28 that Adi wanted and the four to eight allowed in the Official Plan). This would have been defensible at the OMB even if Adi did not agree.
 This small bus terminal on John Street that the Transit people wanted to demolish at one point has had a massive impact on the kind of development taking place in the downtown core. “Fast forward to 2021, the current council will most likely decide to keep fighting the Carriage Gate 29-storey development when they already have approved 22 storeys, and for what purpose? To look good politically with an election coming next year? After all, looking good is much more important than making thoughtful decisions.”
What Goldring didn’t comment on was the way that OMB hearing went.
The ADI Group took their case to the OMB because the city failed to make a decision within the required time frame. How the city missed that deadline was never explained at the time.
Between the time that ADI filed their appeal and when the appeal was actually heard the ADI Group bought the small property to the north of the site they had acquired.
 The dark shaded area was the area that ADI owned and made an application to build on. They later bought the house in the area to the north (marked as a 4 storey) and added it to their plans – making it a new development. The city had a chance to insist that ADI file a new application – but they let that opportunity get away. And that purchase made it a totally different application – which had not been presented to the city.
The city could have advised the OMB member of that fact – but they chose not to do so and they were out-maneuvered by a lawyer who saw a loophole and made it work for her client.
That loophole was the transit station, smaller than some washrooms in the larger monster homes that got defined as a Mobility Hub (that’s what they were called at the time). The words Mobility Hub were replaced with MTSA (Major Transit Station Area).
The blame for the Nautique rests on the Goldring Council. It looks as if Goldring wants to place a layer of blame on Mayor Meed Ward for the Carriage Gate property at the corner of Lakeshore and Pearl – to be known as BeauSoleil.
Cute isn’t it.
By Staff
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Yesterday, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) released its decision on Lakeshore Inc.’s proposal at 2069-2079 Lakeshore Rd.
The City strongly disagrees with and is shocked by the ruling, which allows for a 29-storey building at that location.
 It’s tall – but not THE tallest development in the works. There is a developer with a 32 storey idea for Brant Street. It’s This decision is not at all reflective of the planned context for the Downtown as expressed in the new Official Plan. It not only ignores the citizens of Burlington and Halton Region, and their Councils, it has ignored the stated intent of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to change the planning context by adjusting the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) boundary.
City Planning and Legal staff will review the decision in more detail to determine if a review of the decision by the Tribunal or a Court should be pursued, including their findings on the City’s motion regarding the impact of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC).
At a special meeting of City Council on Nov. 3, staff will present these potential options and next steps in-camera.
Burlington’s revised new Official Plan (OP) was approved by Halton Region on Nov. 30, 2020. The new OP includes stronger protections for green space, heritage, jobs, the rural community, established low-density neighbourhoods and a special focus on preserving the character of the downtown. The modifications presented in the final Notice of Decision address the issues of non-conformity, changes to Provincial Plans and policies, and Official Plan Amendments and the need to balance Regional and Provincial conformity requirements. In addition, the modifications capture endorsed policy modifications related to two areas identified by Council for re-examination and refinement. The policies of the Official Plan with the recommended modifications establish a comprehensive policy framework to a planning horizon of 2031.
 Things are getting crowded downtown. A number of developments in the talking and planning stages are not shown. At the hearing, the City argued that Lakeshore Inc.’s proposal for 29-storeys was not appropriate for that location for a number of reasons, including the fact that the proposal far exceeded the height limits of 17-storeys allowed in that area, the City’s vision and planned context for the downtown as expressed in the new Official Plan, and the proposed building’s height and mass were not compatible with or provided appropriate transition to the surrounding area. In its decision, however, the OLT states that the development should be allowed as because provincial policy in the Growth Plan directs new residential growth to the Urban Growth Centre in a significant or ‘optimized’ manner.
The decision underscores the importance of the future boundary adjustment of the UGC to the Burlington GO station and the need for the new downtown policies in the new OP to be determined and brought into force. The OLT stated “The Tribunal finds that there is no evidence of negative impact or any other justification for the modifications as advanced by the City to support a 22-storey tower instead of the 29-storey tower under the Lakeshore Proposal. Moreover, there is also no basis for the resultant substantial reduction in the number of residential units stemming from the City’s proposed modifications. The height reduction alone would eliminate between 63 and 77 residential units. Reducing the tower floorplate to 690 m2 as proposed … would eliminate a further 64 to 80 residential units.”
The City further argued that it is on track to meet or exceed provincial growth targets and regardless, the number of residential units should not result in a development that is incompatible with the existing area.
This decision is not indicative of the best planning outcome for Burlington residents or City of Burlington planning goals.
Burlington is a City where people, nature and businesses thrive. As residents continue to rediscover many of their favourite spaces and activities in the city, City services may look different as we work to stop the spread of COVID-19. The City’s commitment to providing the community with essential services remains a priority.
The 29 storey development will be marketed under the name BeauSoleil Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns had this to say in a prepared statement they rel;eased jointly:
“This is a devastating and shocking decision imposed on our community, which completely disregards the vision of residents, council and staff for this area. And so, Council will be examining all of our options for a review of this OLT decision.
This decision completely dismisses the considerable feedback from residents in opposition to this file – and their valuable suggestions for what would be appropriate. This decision ignored over 100 people who took the time to attend a community meeting, delegate to council, and write pages of letters. There was no acknowledgement of our community’s voice in this decision.
 We once knew it as the Pearle Street Cafe – those were the days. The decision highlights the inappropriate application of Provincial Planning Policies to justify over development and underscores the importance of a speedy decision from the Minister to remove the Major Transit Station Area designation from downtown and adjust the boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre to the Burlington GO Station, where this scale of development should be. We will continue to work to defend our plan and put growth where it belongs.”
By Pepper Parr
October 26th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
This is one of those chicken and egg situations – which came first ?
We’d like to revise that just a little bit and ask – which should come first?
The public was recently treated to a pre-application presentation by Bousfields, the planning consultants hired by Vrancorp to re-develop the Waterfront Hotel site.
 The twin towers would change more than the skyline of the city. The designs that were made public were stunning – but much of the public reaction was less than enthusiastic – what stunned them was the idea of putting two towers on Lakeshore Road, one that would be the highest in the city.
Nice buildings but not in Spencer Smith Park, was the predominant comment.
The two towers were proposed for what the planners called the iconic ground zero location – the intersection of Brant and Lakeshore Road where a 35 storey and a 30 story tower were to replace the nine storey hotel.
The site has been the focus point for a lot of planning – some of it going back more than a decade.
An agreement had been put in place to have a study done on how best to develop the hotel site and have it compliment Spencer Smith Park and the Promenade.
 The area to be covered in the Waterfront Study that started back in 2005. At this point there isn’t a completion date – there is a report that is scheduled to go to Council in 1Q of 2022 Vrancor, the corporation that owns the hotel, is reported to have put up the $150,000 to have the study done. They are understandably upset. They paid for the study but the study was not completed. The city doesn’t have a planner assigned to the study – the most recent word is that the planning department will be getting something to council in 2022.
This may be one of those times when the horses are out of the barn and it’s too late to close the door.
In June 2018 Council went along with a revised Work Plan for the study that was to be completed by Q1 of 2019, (This was before Meed Ward became Mayor.)
The re-thinking of what could be done with the site goes back to 2005 with a follow up report in 2006.
There was a subsequent site-specific policy requiring that a planning study process be completed prior to any redevelopment of the subject site.
 Residents at a workshop setting out their ideas with planner Thomas Walker. The 2018 report called for a high quality of urban design reflecting the landmark nature of this site, that “shall be contingent upon the completion of a master plan to the satisfaction of City Council.”
Public meeting to consider what the waterfront area should include.
In 2015 Council approved the terms of reference for the Waterfront Hotel Lands Planning Study.
In 2017 the Waterfront Hotel Planning Study was publicly launched, beginning with a pair of visioning workshops in May.
In November of 2018 the site’s significance was affirmed at the Planning and Development Committee meeting, evidenced by a number of delegations that presented a varied set of interests and development concepts.
 A series of drawings that got whittled down to two Preferred Concept – and that as far as the study of the Waterfront Hotel site has gone. At this point, 2018, the public had a series of drawings that resulted in two preferred concepts for development.
A group known as Plan B inserted itself into the process with their position that a thin red line be drawn beyond which there would be no development west of the hotel site.
Despite extensive engagement opportunities, a clear consensus on direction had not yet been achieved. Staff then built upon the consultation work done through three community workshops (a total of six sessions); what came out of the Planning and Development Committee held on November 28, 2017, and significant contributions from the Vrancor Group and the Plan B Citizen Group; they created key policy directions to move forward.
The key policy directions were intended to align with the vision statement, accommodate an iconic landmark building, and reinforce the site’s unique location as a major gateway to the waterfront.
 One of two renderings of what the site might look like. The entrance to the development would be from John Street not Brant
 Early concept didn’t have the height that was shown in the pre-application presentation. The key policy directions have been organized around the study’s three frameworks and guiding design principles of Land Use and Built Form, Public Realm, and Mobility and Access, as follows: Land use and built form and Public Realm are important and it is vital that everyone share the same understanding as to just what this means.
Land Use and Built Form
1) Create building frontages along Lakeshore Road and Elizabeth Street with building placement that establishes a defining street wall and frames the street zone.
2) Provide active uses at grade along Lakeshore Road and Elizabeth Street.
3) Achieve active and animated edges adjacent to Spencer Smith Park, with a requirement for retail and service commercial uses at grade:
a. Built form next to the south property line shall activate and animate this edge, respect the existing grade, and be scaled to the waterfront trail with higher levels stepping back as necessary.
b. Built form next to the west property line shall activate and animate this edge, respect the existing grade, and be scaled to Spencer Smith Park with higher levels stepping back as necessary.
4) Require a minimum of two uses within buildings and where feasible, encourage three uses.
5) Establish an iconic landmark building on the site subject to the following:
a. A new public, pedestrian space is provided at the foot of Brant Street where public views to the Lake and Pier are enhanced;
b. The iconic landmark building must contain a destination use or function;
c. The iconic landmark building shall enhance the City of Burlington’s image/identity.
6) Require design excellence in all matters of architecture, landscape architecture, sustainable and urban design and require that all public and private development proposals on or adjacent to the site be evaluated/reviewed by the Burlington Urban Design Advisory Panel.
 An unobstructed view of the Pier from Brant Street was objective number 1 for almost everyone. Public Realm
7) Protect public view corridors to Lake Ontario from Brant and Elizabeth Streets, and where possible John Street.
8) Enhance the Brant Street view corridor to frame views to the Brant Street Pier, and require a significant building setback from the west property line.
9) Create new and enhanced publicly accessible green/open space, which would include new north-south pedestrian connections between Lakeshore Road and Spencer Smith Park (mid-block and along the site’s edges).
10) Minimize changes to the existing grade along the southern edge of the site and enhance the interface with Spencer Smith Park.
11) Integrate a public washroom within the future redevelopment; with an entrance that is accessible, highly visible and within close proximity to Spencer Smith Park.
12) Identify opportunities for the placement of public art on and adjacent to the site.
Staff was to continue with background work and in early 2019, re-start the process with a refreshed look and feel building on the above policy directions. This will include a revised work plan and new public engagement plan which leverages the city’s newest communication and engagement software and tools.
Changes to the existing land use designation and permitted building height are not included in the new Official Plan – as it was in the then current Official Plan – not the one that the new Council adopted in 2019.
The process would involve a site-specific amendment to the Official Plan at such time as the study is completed by the City and approved by City Council.
What muddies up a clear understanding was the existence then of a downtown mobility hub, that problem was resolved; then a change in the Urban Growth Centre boundary.
The ICBL – Interim Control By Law was imposed and then the world was hit with a pandemic brought about by the Covid19 virus.
We are now at the point where a sense or normality seems to be returning.
Add to that a frenetic increase in the development applications that required the city to hire more than a dozen new planners.
Then along comes the planner for the hotel site owner saying they were tired of waiting and did a pre-application presentation that shocked many.
That pre-application is the beginning of a process that has a ticking clock.
 The towers are closer than many realize – closer to the street than the hotel on the site. So back to that first question: which should come first – the completion of the Waterfront Study or the accepting of a development application.
There is an important connection between this Waterfront Study and the City’s new Official Plan, the Downtown Mobility Hub Area Specific Plan, the City’s Transportation Plan, Cycling Master Plan, Community Trails Strategy, the Transit Plan and the Tall Building and Downtown Streetscape Guidelines, all of which are necessary to ensure that redevelopment of the subject property meets the City’s urban design and growth management goals, as well as enhances the adjacent public space and waterfront.
People began asking – what about the Waterfront Hotel Study and wondering how a pre-application presentation could be done before the study was complete.
There is a lot riding on what is to be built on the hotel site; people are getting anxious.
Will the downtown core begin to look like the Toronto waterfront where a lot of the land south of the Gardner Expressway is studded with towers that limit the view of Lake Ontario?
Not much is being heard from the politicians – they have taken the view that they can’t say much at this point without being accused of being biased.
The point at which they feel they can comment is when planning staff produce their report that either recommends that a development proceed, or that the development not proceed or that they should continue working with the developer.
The stickler at this point is this: the city has 120 days to produce their report to council – something that is close to impossible for a development of this size.
Once the 120 point has been met the developer has the right to go to the Ontario Land Tribunal to ask for permission to proceed with the development.
Burlington has not done very well at the tribunal level, partly many feel because of the direction that comes out of Burlington’s legal department.
With all those agencies commenting the project begins to create some momentum that it might not be possible to hold in check.
The Gazette has made the telling of this story a mission.
The people of Burlington are going to have to make it a mission to ensure that Council hears what they think and feel.
In the next 13 months we are going to go through a provincial election and a municipal election. The strategy for those who care about where growth takes place and the kind of growth that takes place should be a mission as well.
Related news stories:
The pre-application presentation
Is there a different approach to how the site can be used? A land swap perhaps?
By Pepper Parr
October 25th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Each member of Council finds their own way to meet with constituents.
 When she is on a roll – Kearns is a dangerous lady with a microphone. Lisa Kearns (ward 2) has the most active ward in the city, although the folks in Aldershot would differ with her on that.
She has broken the meeting mold that most members of Council are using and is now meeting with her constituents both virtually and live. She held her second hybrid meeting last week and found herself spending most of the two hours explaining what was happening on the development side of things.
It is hectic and it is complex.
Council decided recently to proceed with the hiring of about 15 additional planners who will be needed to cope with the development applications that have kept the planning department stretched to the limit.
 Councillor Kearns suggested she might take constituents on a walking tour of the developments in her ward. Kearns put together a map of where the development is taking place in her ward and the status of a number of those applications.
 Brant Street is on the right hand side and Prospect is on the left side. Prospect curves around the development. A pre-application from Camarro Developments for the proposed development at Brant and Prospect had already been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal – it has been there for some time.
It took a number of questions to get the people giving the pre application presentation to say just how tall the building is going to be.
The plan is for 293 units with 275 parking spaces in the four underground parking levels. 61 – 3 bedroom; 100 – 2 bedroom, and 132 – 1 bedroom.
There will be retail at grade level. It wasn’t clear just what would be in the 7 level podium.
During their presentation last week we got some detail on what is going to be a 31 storey structure with a seven level podium with 25 storey’s on top of the podium – which sets a new record for height in the city.
 By Pepper Parr
October 20, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
This Background piece is on the long side. It is the first time we have seen such a comprehensive engagement plan with so much detail and really relevant information. While we are surprised we also want to thank the Communications people for being this candid.
Burlington is in the next phase of city-building as it approaches full build-out of the urban area. The undertaking of area-specific plans (ASPs) for Burlington’s Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) represents the City’s continuing implementation of its vision for appropriate intensification and the protection of established neighbourhoods by focusing future population growth to key areas, and in particular, a focus around higher order transit.
 Way back in the beginning the GO stations were called Mobility Hubs and at that time the bus terminal in the downtown core was included a Hub. That mistake made it possible for a developer to put up a 26 storey tower which opened things up for other developers. This is a big big deal – it involves something in the order of 20,000 people and or jobs in what will be a small village of its own. It will take decades to get through it all and it may well change in some form going forward.
The city has put together an Engagement Plan – it runs 13 pages long – with a lot of surprising information.
Area Specific Plans for the properties within each MTSA have to be created.
This work started out as a Mobility Hub study which was placed on hold in Q1 2019 to allow for a shift in focus to emerging planning priorities, including the Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review, the scoped re-examination of the adopted Official Plan and the Interim Control Bylaw Land Use Study.
There are a number of key differences that resulted in significant changes to the scope and considerations of the work that had to be done including the completion of all required technical studies, further public and stakeholder engagement and the completion of three (3) area-specific plans, as well as the associated implementing Official Plan and Zoning By-Law amendments and other implementation strategies which may be required to get everything before Council.
 Citizens will show up for a meeting if you make it interesting enough and promote it effectively. We will have to wait until we are out of Covid19 rules for events like this to take place The Engagement Plan highlights the points in the process at which engagement will take place, who will be engaged, and the level of engagement. The plan also clearly defines which aspects of the process the City and public can influence throughout the discussion.
Decision Statement
At the beginning of an engagement process, it is helpful to know, “what is the decision to be made?” A decision statement clearly identifies:
• what decision needs to be made;
• who is the decision maker; and
• when the decision is required.
The decision statement for the MTSA ASP project is as follows:
“By June 2022, Burlington City Council will vote to adopt amendments to the Burlington Official Plan, 2020 to incorporate Protected Major Transit Station Area (MTSAs) area-specific plans to guide development and investment around the Burlington, Appleby and Aldershot GO Station Areas.
“Amendments adopted by Burlington City Council will then be forwarded to the Region of Halton for approval.”
Summary of Stakeholders
A stakeholder is anyone who has an interest or concern about a specific topic. To identify the stakeholders for the MTSA ASP Project, a mapping process will be used to confirm all the people who are affected by this work, those who have influence or power over the work and those that have an interest in its outcome, based on the stakeholders previously identified through the Mobility Hubs Project. It is expected that various individuals and groups will be identified across the following categories:
• Residents and resident groups (including newcomers, young families and young people) • Community organizations; special interest, advocacy, and activism groups
• Government and public service providers (internal and external) • City Advisory Committees and arms-length city agencies
• Indigenous Communities • Development industry
• Businesses and business groups • Major facilities1 within or adjacent to study areas
• Private and non-profit community service providers • Elected officials
• Media
Once the stakeholders and interested or affected individuals and groups have been confirmed, the engagement milestones in this plan will be refined to reflect the tactics and level of engagement required for each party throughout the MTSA ASP Project.
Objectives of Engagement
The following objectives provide a clear understanding of what the public engagement will strive to achieve through the community discussion about the MTSA ASP Project:
• Provide relevant information about the project, decision-making process, and how the public can provide input and feedback;
• Work with City communications and engagement staff, as well as consultants, to provide a coordinated approach to engagement, communication and evaluation of the MTSA ASPs and their implementing policies.
• Provide multiple channels for people to provide meaningful input virtually and, if possible, in-person at appropriate decision points;
 The Getting Involved web site has loads of information and is the place documents are stored for quick retrieval. It takes some practice to get the hang of it all – but it works. • Create an ongoing record of what is said during engagement opportunities and make it available to the public throughout the process, so they can track the progress of the project, including reports back to the community that highlight how feedback was or was not incorporated into the final recommendations to Council;
• Gather meaningful input from members of the community whose voices are historically underrepresented in conversations about city issues;
• Establish a project page on getinvolvedburlington.ca as the main online platform for up-to-date information about the project and upcoming engagement opportunities;
• Use clear, plain language in the delivery of the Engagement Plan to inform the public about what can and cannot be influenced through the MTSA ASP Project.
Project Stages and Engagement Milestones
At a Special Meeting of Council on June 8, 2021, City Council [modified/endorsed] the work plan for the MTSA ASP Project. The key project stages and associated engagement milestones are presented below. For each project stage, the engagement plan identifies where public input will take place, who will be involved in the engagement and what level of engagement will occur.
The strategies that will be used for public involvement in the MTSA ASP Project reflect the feedback provided to the City in the May 17, 2021 Council Workshop. Relevant feedback from related projects has also been considered, including the new Burlington Official Plan, the Scoped Re-Examination of the Downtown and the Interim Control By-Law Land Use Study. These strategies will be further refined by the MTSA ASP Project Steering Committee.
Policies and Factors That Cannot be Influenced
In every public engagement process, it is important to be aware of the things that cannot be influenced: either because they are beyond the City’s control (for example things that are required by regional or provincial policy or law), or because they are outside the scope of the project as set out in the Council-approved work plan. In discussing the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) Area-Specific Planning (ASP) Project, the following aspects are considered ‘givens’ and will not be included in engagement activities:
1. Planning policy at the local municipal level is informed by legislation, policies and plans such as the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan, Halton Region Official Plan, Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan and others.
2. City Council can adopt proposed amendments to the Burlington Official Plan, but Halton Region is the designated approval authority. Halton Region may modify City-proposed amendments prior to approval and, if appealed, the approved amendments may be subject to further change through the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, (Now named the Ontario Land Tribunal) except for PMTSA policies and zoning regulations protected from appeal under the Planning Act.
3. The proposed Area-Specific Plans and associated implementing mechanisms will be prepared for the Burlington Official Plan (2020), not the Burlington Official Plan (1997).
4. This study is focused only on the Downtown Burlington Urban Growth Centre/Burlington GO MTSA, Aldershot GO MTSA and Appleby GO MTSA. MTSA boundaries and the corresponding minimum growth targets are being set by Region of Halton through its Municipal Comprehensive Review. Draft Halton Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 48 proposes updates to the Regional Structure and includes formal boundaries for each of the MTSAs within Halton Region. Once approved by the Province, these boundaries and targets cannot be appealed.
 5. Urban Growth Centres (UGCs) are strategic growth areas that are planned for greater population and job growth and higher rates of development than other areas in the City and Region. Provincial policies set out minimum density targets for these areas, which are implemented through the Regional Official Plan, and then through the Burlington Official Plan. Draft ROPA 48 includes an adjusted boundary for the Burlington Urban Growth Centre (UGC). If approved by the Province, the adjusted UGC boundary will center around the Burlington GO Station Area.
6. In 2017, a new policy framework for “Protected Major Transit Station Areas” (PMTSAs) was established in the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990. PMTSAs are a municipal tool used to support Higher Order Transit infrastructure around Major Transit Station Areas by establishing minimum density targets and transit-supportive land uses which are protected from appeal. In accordance with Planning Act section 16(16), once identified in an upper-tier municipal official plan and approved by the Province, PMTSA policies cannot be appealed.
Similarly, once implementing policies and zoning have been enacted at the lower-tier municipal level, the prescribed policies cannot be appealed.
PMTSAs may also require Inclusionary Zoning to support affordable housing objectives. Specifically, official plan policies may authorize Inclusionary Zoning by authorizing the inclusion of affordable housing units within buildings or projects containing other residential units, and by providing for the affordable housing units to be maintained as affordable housing units over time.
7. This project will refine and build upon the draft precinct plans developed through the former Mobility Hubs Study in 2018. However, as these plans were released as preliminary and were neither endorsed nor approved by City Council, they are subject to change based on further public engagement and the completion of technical studies.
8. Certain aspects of this project will be informed by the outcome of various technical studies, many of which are required by legislation and policy. These technical studies are undertaken in accordance with established criteria and completed by qualified experts.
9. The Burlington MTSAs are complex, previously developed areas with multiple landowners. The City does not have control over the speed of change related to development. Property owners decide when and if they will develop or redevelop their property.
10. The implementing Official Plan Amendments must be adopted by City Council by June 2022.
11. The implementing Zoning By-Law Amendments must be approved by City Council by December 2022.
 Kwab Ako-Adjei, Director, Corporate Communications & Engagement at City of Burlington, has set out a demanding criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the Engagement Plan. Burlingtonians haven’t seen an approach like this before. How the City Will Collect and Respond to Feedback
Throughout the engagement process, City staff will diligently collect and record all input provided by stakeholders. All input will be recorded by theme into response tables, showing in detail how the comments were considered and how they did or did not shape the study process, the Area Specific Plan and their associated implementing Official Plan amendments recommended to Council, and why.
Evaluating the Engagement Process
Throughout the MTSA ASP Project, City staff will capture interim feedback on the engagement process through measures such as feedback/satisfaction surveys. This will allow for ongoing and incremental evaluation of engagement efforts and will support an iterative process where feedback may influence the engagement process throughout the project.
To assist in measuring how the public participation contributed to the final project decision to be made, the following will be used to evaluate the overall public participation process.
1. Once the project is complete, measure the degree to which community members felt they:
a. Understood the project’s process and its limitations
b. Understood how the feedback they provided influenced the outcome of the City Council approval.
2. Evaluate each form of engagement. How did each of the engagement approaches used help to achieve the engagement objectives?
3. Analyze how the feedback received about the forms of engagement informed new or alternative approaches to the overall public participation process as the project moved forward.
By Staff
October 21sr, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Another Brant Street development – this one at Brant and Prospect – 789-795 Brant Street
Applicant is
Camarro Developments Inc.
Described as having a seven level podium with a tower that will have 307 units – but no mention of the actual height. The paucity of information has the ward Councillor upset. The proposed development concept for redevelopment of the Subject Lands currently provides for a mixed-use development consisting of one residential tower containing 307 residential units, ground floor retail at the base of the tower. The application includes three ground-level townhome units integrated into the building. The proposed development will have a mix of 1-bedroom plus den, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom units.
 No mention of how high the building will go other than noting that the proposed development includes a podium with a height of 7 storeys facing Brant Street. The townhome built form, with frontage along Prospect Street, will reflect the building height of the neighbouring apartment development to the east.
The Preapplication presentation will take place this evening at 7:00 pm
Oct. 21, 2021, 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. (Virtual Meeting)
By Pepper Parr
October 20th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
To get some sense as to where your ship is going – you want to know something about the person at the wheel and the decisions they make.
Same rule applies to the Mayor of Burlington.
There have been some very good decisions. The decision to have the Urban Growth Centre moved north was a good decision.
 A smart lawyer and a planning department that didn’t understand just what the concept of Mobility Hubs (now called MTSA’s) was all about. The Mayor was dead on about the bus station that was declared a Major Transit Service Area – as soon as she had all the information she saw the obvious.
The disturbing part of that was that the council that served from 2010 to 2018 neither knew or weren’t told by the planning department that the designation given that bus station was an error. Instead they left it in place and the result is the 26 storey Nautique that is now under construction.
Someone in Planning should be wearing that one.
Meed Ward understood the mood of the electorate and chose limiting development and making sure that the development that was coming was the right kind in the right place.
She basically chased the developers out of the downtown core.
Admittedly there are a number (about four with several pieces of land within the football that have not been dealt with) of development along Lakeshore Road and within the football that are a problem.
Mayor Meed Ward does not appear to be ready to take a position on the re-development of the Waterfront Hotel site. Is this one of those “right things in the right place”? And of course there is the Waterfront Hotel development that could take the growth of the city as we know it today in a much different direction.
Perhaps it is time to think in terms of how Burlington could adapt to the change and make it work for them. We don’t see the city planning department getting in front of issues and being proactive.
The decisions in front of the Mayor now that are a concern are:
The Holiday market, which is now a done deal that got through Council under the shadiest of circumstances;
The park within the Molinaro development at Brant & Ghent;
The Waterfront Hotel site and the redevelopment of that property; and
her enthusiasm for the Holiday market scheduled for December 9th to 12. The Mayor buys into the claim that 1000 people will take part. What that market will do to the merchants in the downtown core who are struggling to stay above water is something they Mayor doesn’t seem prepared to take into account.
Very recently the Molinaro Group took part in a Statutory meeting in which they revealed their plans for a half acre park that would be created at the east end of the development at Brant and Ghent.
 Traffic for the towers on either side of Brant would exit and enter via Ghent. The half acre park is shown on the far right. Title to the land would be registered with the Condominium Corporation . The plan was to create the park, then turn it over to the condominium corporation that would eventually be set up to represent the interests of the condominium unit owners.
The idea that the unit owners will go along with their owning and maintaining a park that would be open to the public is a real stretch.
Anyone who has served on a condominium board would tell you that this is one of the craziest things they have ever heard of.
 This is described as a half acre part which was described as bringing some of Spencer Smith Park north The Mayor seems to think that the city would get another park at no cost and residents of a condominium will cover the costs of keeping it operational.
 Renderings on what a park could look like. Will the information about the park for which unit buyers will have to be clearly set out in the sales literature? Will it be clearly set out in the condominium agreement – those things run to several hundred pages which only the lawyers read.
The Mayor does not appear to have taken a position on the proposed redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel site. One has to ask: Where is the claim that this Mayor wants the right development in the right place ?
There was a time when Meed Ward was all about Truth to Power – now that she has the power Truth seems to have been mislaid. Growing from a really ballsy ward councillor who brought about some significant changes to the way the city operates, we appear to have a Mayor who has lost the wind she used to have in her sails.
She has pulled together a large part of her re-election team and she is in campaign mode.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman – considering his options? And at this point there doesn’t appear to be anyone willing to run against her – except for Councillor Sharman who is probably considering his option.
Go for it Paul!
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
October 19th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
From time to time there are news stories that grow to something more than a one or two day event.
We have covered a few that were significant – and important.
The legal problems surrounding the pier: when a crane toppled and steel that bent much more than was expected was found to be below the required standard.
 It was a Pier that was built twice – at double the cost The end result was the tearing apart of much of the first version of the Pier and starting all over at double the projected cost.
Another important event was the dumping of un-inspected land fill on the Burlington airport lands without the required permits.
We followed that story for three years, stayed strong during the libel suit that was filed against the Gazette and Vanessa Warren and Monte Dennis.
 Tonnes of landfill from unknown sources was dumped on the air park lands. It is still there ruining at least one property for which there was never any compensation. The libel suit was dropped but the land fill is still on the site – and the city is the poorer by half a million in legal fees.
Then there is decision on the part of Vrancor, owners of the Waterfront Hotel, who are expected to take the first required step to demolish the hotel and replace the 9 storey building with a 35 story tower and a 30 story tower that would sit atop a four storey tower.
There are those who like the idea; there are those who think it is a mistake. The Plan B group certainly think it is a mistake.
The design of the towers is striking – it would be nice to live in it – but the Gazette does not believe those towers should be built on the Waterfront Hotel site.
During the pre-application presentation both the Mayor and the ward Councillor were given the right to speak. Neither made comments for which they will be remembered.
When first running for City Councillor Marianne Meed Ward was leading the Save our Waterfront Committee, demanding that the city not permit high rise towers anywhere near the lake.
 The waterfront is once again at risk Ten years later and all the Mayor had to say during the pre-application presentation was that the city had yet to receive an application. The first rule of stopping a development is to do everything possible to prevent it getting momentum.
If the Mayor is opposed to this development – and it this point we don’t know if she is or if she isn’t – saying nothing is not what the citizens of Burlington elected her for.
She was noisy noisy about Saving the Waterfront in 2010; she was noisy noisy when it came to pushing to get the Urban Growth Centre moved north and away from the Downtown Core in 2018.
She was close to mute when she had a chance to say something about two towers that would loom over Lakeshore Road if they are built.
The Gazette is of the view that few people fully understand what is taking place. There were less than 100 citizens participating in the virtual pre-application presentation.
In the two pictures set out below we try to give people an idea of what a 35 storey tower looks like when compared to what already exists on Lakeshore Road.
 The tower on the left is expected to be on the Brant Street side of the development. It is 39 storeys high, the Hotel is 9 storeys high which would make the development more than four times as high as the current structure. When set against what is currently the highest building in the city the difference is also very significant.
 The Waterfront hotel – stands 9 storeys high.  Bridgewater condominium, currently the tallest structure in the city.  The tower on the right would be next to the Bridgewater development and at 30 storeys plus a four level podium come in at 35 storeys – one third higher than the Bridgewater condominium.
By Pepper Parr
October 18th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Following the proceedings at an Ontario Land Tribunal hearing is not for the faint of heart.
It seems to take forever to get to the point where a hearing actually takes place.
Actually getting to a hearing for development applications in Burlington is complicated by the fact that there are at times more than a dozen developers appealing a city decision or appealing for relief from the OLT because the city has not made a decision before the clock ran out.
Among the issues before the OLT at this time are the Interim Control By Law and the newest Official Plan that has been approved by City Council and Regional Council and awaits the signature of the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs after which it becomes the law of the land.
 Controversial from the very beginning, the long term care residence got caught up in the creation of an Interim Control Bylaw The ICBL was holding up all kinds of development including the AMICA project that will rise on the Northshore Road and the ramp to the QEW.
At the OLT Case Management Conference last Thursday the Commissioner agreed with the lawyers (there were 20+ of them on the call) that the ICBL could be lifted except for several properties along Fairview between Brant and Drury Lane.
 Some of the most valuable land in the city with some of the loosest zoning as well.
 By Staff
October 18th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
We start with the city of Burlington within which there is the village of Aldershot, within which there is now Aldershot Corners. The Corners has five precincts.
There is a Preliminary Vision for the Aldershot GO Major Transit Station Area, and Aldershot Corners – a community within a village.
Located minutes from Hamilton at the western edge of Burlington, Aldershot Corners is a visitor’s first impression of Burlington when travelling east from Hamilton and Niagara on the Lakeshore West GO line.
The area is nestled within the Aldershot Village Business Improvement Area and focused at the corners of Plains Road, Waterdown Road and Cooke Boulevard. Part of the Treaty 3 lands, Indigenous People were stewards of the land for thousands of years before settlers arrived. Post-Colonially, this area was a major hub for brick manufacturing, and also has a rich agricultural past rooted in fruit production.
Aldershot Corners will continue to evolve as an urban area with a distinct sense of neighbourhood character, supported by a mix of residential, commercial and employment uses.
 The colour coding sets out the precincts – detail elsewhere in this article explains what is planned for each of the precincts. Taller buildings will be concentrated along the rail line and will decrease in height and intensity closer to Plains Road and the existing residential neighborhoods.
Aldershot Corners will be a vibrant, livable community with urban shopping and dining opportunities serving those living and working close by.
New multi-modal urban streets and active transportation facilities will better connect the existing community, providing enhanced mobility and improved access to the GO Station, leisure and recreation opportunities in urban parks and open spaces, as well the many other amenities Aldershot already offers.
The planners created a number of precincts, which are boundaries within which specified levels of development are permitted.
There are five within the Aldershot Corners part of the Aldershot part of the city.
 Mid Rise Residential.
Compact residential communities, with a variety of low-rise and mid-rise building forms up to 11 storeys closer to main streets. This Precinct will provide housing forms at a lower scale and intensity including family oriented and ground oriented housing to support the creation of a wide range of housing options, including affordable housing.
Opportunities for commercial activities at street level on strategic streets may be permitted. Policies will guide appropriate transitions from low rise residential development to more intensive mixed uses. Policies will guide appropriate transitions from the maximum height (11 storeys) to adjacent low-rise neighbourhood, which may include angular planes, setbacks and/or stepbacks.
 Aldershot Main Street
This Precinct will advance the Plains Road Village Vision and establish a unique community destination with a focus on a continuous retail frontage and main-street pedestrian experience along the frequent transit corridors (Waterdown Road and Plains Road E.) Policies will introduce a requirement for buildings to have a “lower building” design to create a pedestrian scaled environment at the street level. Policies will guide appropriate transition from the 11 storey maximum height to existing low-rise neighbourhoods, which may include angular planes, setbacks and/or stepbacks. Precinct lands that are adjacent to existing low rise neighbourhoods, will have a maximum height of 6 storeys. To ensure functional retail and commercial spaces are created, a wide range of approaches will be considered, including but not limited to establishing minimum floor height for the ground floor of buildings, and considering a minimum retail unit size. Opportunities for affordable housing will be considered in the Aldershot Main Precinct.
 Cooke Commons
Serves as a unique retail and dining destination creating a comfortable and vibrant pedestrian environment with active uses at the street level and increased emphasis on pedestrian and multi-modal movement. A flexible street is being considered to provide opportunity for a community gathering space and potential to close for special events.
Mixed-use buildings throughout the Precinct contribute towards the creation of lively, vibrant and people-oriented places. Along the west side of the street, heights range up to 19 storeys maximum adjacent to the GO Central Precinct and up to 11 storeys maximum generally along Cooke Boulevard. On the east side, there will be up to 11 storeys maximum generally along Cooke Boulevard which gradually steps down to 6 storeys with appropriate transitions, which may include angular planes, setbacks and/or stepbacks, to the adjacent low-rise residential neighbourhood. Policies will introduce a requirement for buildings to include a “lower building” design to create a pedestrian scaled environment at the street level. Direction to support the function of these areas to accommodate loading and services and support a wide range of retail use will be investigated and imbedded in policy.
Opportunities for affordable housing will be considered in the Cooke Commons Precinct.
 Emery Commons
This precinct will accommodate a concentration of residential, retail, employment and commercial uses.
Opportunity exists for a higher concentration of high density residential due to its proximity to an existing public park, a potential new major public park and the GO Central precinct. Mixed-use buildings, of varying heights to a maximum of 19 storeys, contribute towards the creation of lively, vibrant and people-oriented places. Opportunities for affordable housing will be considered in the Emery Commons Precinct.
 Aldershot GO Central
The preeminent destination for Major Office, affordable housing and urban format retail in this MTSA focusing the tallest buildings (maximum 30 stories) close to the GO station. Where Aldershot GO Central abuts Waterdown Road and Masonry Court policies will require pedestrian orientation development, including an emphasis enhanced public realm and enhanced spaces for waiting for transit. There is particular emphasis on the need to design a functional, safe and accessible transit plaza. Polices will ensure that the MTSA will accommodate a proportional mix of residential and employment opportunities and ensure that the Aldershot GO Central precinct will be planned to accommodate major office employment.
 This map provides additional detail on what is planned for the different parts of what is being called Aldershot Corners. What is it that is driving these changes?
KEY CHANGES – A number of things have changed since the Draft Precinct Plans were presented to the public and Burlington City Council in 2018. The following highlights the key changes that have been made or are being considered and the drivers for these changes.
Aldershot GO MTSA –
MTSA Designation and Boundary – Identified in Provincial Policy, the Regional Official Plan must first delineate and assign density targets to Major Transit Station Areas. Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 48 delineated the boundary for the Aldershot GO MTSA which identified the removal of existing parks (Hidden Valley Park, Grove Park and Aldershot Park), areas north of the rail line, and established neighbourhoods from the 2018 Aldershot GO Mobility Hub boundary.
Employment – Regional direction through Regional Official Plan Amendment 48 is to include employment within MTSAs. While Aldershot GO MTSA does not have an employment only precinct, Major Office employment type uses will be required in the Aldershot GO Precinct and it will be outlined through policy. Other employment types, such as retail, institutional and personal services is broadly encouraged throughout a number of the mixed-use precincts. Specific targets for Major Office will be established.
 Comments made by the developer suggested there would be some retail – a Starbucks Coffee shop – but no mention of a supermarket – something the ward Councillor is anxious to see. Retail – The Aldershot MTSA will provide two unique pedestrian focused retail experiences. The Aldershot Main Street Precinct provides ground floor retail with a main-street pedestrian experience. Policies will be considered for ground floor heights and minimum retail unit sizes to ensure functional spaces are provided. The Cooke Commons Precinct will serve as a unique retail and dining destination leading to the GO Station, with a focus on creating a comfortable and vibrant pedestrian environment with active uses at the street level and increased emphasis on pedestrian and multi-modal movement. In addition to those unique areas the opportunity to require, or in some cases encourage retail in every other precinct to support the day to day needs of existing and future residents.
 The only decent park is LaSalle Park; a 15 minute hike that will be stressed once all the residential development is completed. Great park with splash pads and a wading pool. Upgrades will be needed at some point. Public Parks and Linear Parks – As noted in the Provincial Policy Statement publicly accessible built and natural settings including parklands are important ways to promote healthy, active communities. Potential locations for parks are identified with a green tree symbol. The City is considering other opportunities for wider corridors along streets to act as linear parks to provide valuable open space/park space and facilitate connections. A linear park along Masonry Court connecting Hidden Valley Park with Grove Park will connect residents, employees and visitors to existing green spaces. A new linear park extending along Cooke Boulevard from Plains Road East to new development north of Masonry Court will focus on providing opportunities to linger and to support safe, comfortable pedestrian access to the station. Enhanced connections, linear parks, new parks and other connections are required throughout the MTSA in order to facilitate safe and more direct pedestrian and active transportation routes to and from the GO station.
Public Service – As noted in the Provincial Policy Statement, public services such as healthcare, education, emergency and protective services, cultural activities and civic administration are necessary to sustain healthy, liveable and safe communities. Key precincts will provide community spaces, alongside new residential and retail development in key locations. In addition to that new focus in key precincts the “PS” icon remains in key locations where the consideration of the incorporation of public service facilities is critical. Public services will be located strategically throughout the MTSA and policies will be developed to ensure that these services are located strategically to support population and employment growth in coordination will be coordinated with future development.
Integrated Mobility – In 2019, the City launched its Integrated Mobility Plan (IMP). This plan establishes a vision of safe, accessible, sustainable, balanced and livable mobility for the City of Burlington. The goals of this plan represent a shift from a focus on cars to more choice in transportation options; with a target of 20+% of trips in urban areas to shift towards transportation choices other than personal vehicles. A Transportation Assessment is being undertaken to identify the local street network for each MTSA (see technical studies below) which will integrate the vision and goals of the city-wide IMP.
 Newly built part of Station West – not much in the way of a complete street or parkland for that matter. Complete Streets (formerly referred to as Green Streets in the 2018 Draft Precinct Plans) – The City’s new Official Plan identifies the need for complete streets strategy for all future street and road projects (new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing and rehabilitation). The OP also states that MTSA primary and secondary connectors (Plains Road East and Waterdown Road) shall be complete streets. With a long-term view, the City is proposing that all existing and proposed streets in the MTSA allow for inclusion of some complete street elements over time which could include space for pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and streetscaping in addition to travel lanes for cars.
Active Transportation – The City is committed to implementing active transportation corridors to improve connections and transportation choice. Planned active transportation corridors have been updated to be consistent with the 2021 Cycling Master Plan and the 2015 Community Trails Strategy. Active transportation corridors and connections proposed through consultation are also shown in the MTSA.
Climate Change & Sustainability – The City’s Climate Action Plan establishes a net carbon neutral goal by 2050 for community emissions. Work continues to identify ways for the City of Burlington to address the impacts of climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the transit and active transportation focus of the Aldershot GO MTSA consideration will be given to other ways future development of this MTSA could address climate change including encourage building energy efficiency, urban design policies to address heat and tree cover, and opportunities to consider district energy.
 Public Art at the intersection of Waterdown and Plains Road Frequent Transit Corridors – Plains Road E. and Waterdown Road are identified as Frequent Transit Corridors in the City’s new Official Plan. Pedestrian-oriented development is desired along these corridors to support the frequent transit service. Policies will be identified to encourage pedestrian-oriented development along these corridors including consideration of lower heights at street level, urban design and public realm requirements. Urban design and public realm can also improve the experience for those waiting for transit along these corridors.
Technical Studies Underway – The following technical studies are currently being undertaken and may result in the need for further revision of the Precincts.
- Land Use Compatibility – There are some major facilities in and around the Aldershot MTSA which may require separation from sensitive land uses like residences, day care centres and education and health facilities. Work is being completed to confirm the potential for land use compatibility issues within the MTSA and to develop a framework for technical assessments to be completed as part of future development proposals. This work may result in changes to the precincts or area specific policies in the Plan to guide land use change and minimize the potential for land use compatibility issues over time.
- Transportation Assessment – The current Aldershot GO MTSA shows the planned South Service Road and Masonry Court as shown in the new Official Plan as well as the proposed new streets included in the 2018 Mobility Hub. Traffic congestion has been regularly raised as a concern by the public and a transportation assessment is being undertaken to determine the potential impact of adding the new people and jobs to this area. In keeping with the vision of the IMP, it is anticipated that the Transportation Assessment results will focus on non-auto infrastructure and ways to shift people to other transportation choices. One of the key outcomes of the Transportation Assessment will be to confirm the need and location for any new local streets to support safe, efficient movement throughout the area.
- Inclusionary Zoning – As part of the City’s Housing Strategy, an assessment of options to implement Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) is being undertaken. IZ is a tool to integrate affordable housing into future development. IZ can only be applied to MTSAs identified as protected by the Province and Regional Official Plan Amendment 48 which requires the City to establish affordable housing targets for its Major Transit Station Areas. Should IZ be recommended for Aldershot GO, there will be a need for the appropriate guidance on how the tool will be applied.
- Environmental & Hazard Lands –Studies are underway to identify areas that may be prone to flooding. Completed Flood studies for Aldershot are currently being reviewed by Conservation Halton. Identified areas may need to be protected through policies within some of the Aldershot GO MTSA Precincts. A Provincially Significant Wetland has been identified to the northeast of the MTSA and any potential policy requirements are being assessed through updates to an Environmental Impact Study being undertaken as part of the background technical work.
Heights and Transition – The maximum heights in the Aldershot GO Precincts generally remain as presented in 2018. There have been some minor changes including changing lands just east of Cooke Boulevard from Emery/Cooke Commons Precinct with a maximum height of 19 storeys to a new Cooke Common Precinct with a maximum height of 11 storeys. Policies will be included to guide transition from the maximum height, typically closer to the main streets, to lower rise buildings adjacent to existing low-rise neighbourhoods.
There will be an in depth look at the Plans for the Burlington GO station area on October 19th and a similar event for the area around the Appleby GO station on October 26th. On November 4th there will be a review of the plans for all three MTSA’s.
All will be virtual events.
There is a WORKBOOK for those who want to pass their views and opinions along to the planners. The link to the WORKBOOK is HERE
By Staff
October 18th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington has embarked on a huge city building project.
When completed the city will have three distinct neighbourhoods; the eastern part of the city will have a new neighbourhood centered on the Aldershot GO station.
 This is the western boundary of the Station West Development built by the ADI Group. A significant part of the community building has already taken place in Aldershot. The Station West development by the Adi Group is well underway with three more towers to be built on the south west corner of the property that edges onto Masonry Road.
The other two new neighbourhoods will be centered on the Burlington and Appleby GO stations.
The city Planning Department is now working to get feedback from the people who will be impacted by these very significant changes.
A public meeting was held to explain what is planned. To get feedback from the public the Planners have devised a WORKBOOK that they say will take 30 to 45 minutes to complete.
Completing the WORKBOOK is voluntary and the information people provide is confidential (even to city staff).
The Planners recommend you complete the workbook on a laptop, tablet or PC to view the images in a larger format and keep a copy of the Preliminary Preferred Precinct Plan open in another tab or browser window to assist you in answering the questions and as a point of reference.
The link to the WORKBOOK is HERE. It is a little complicated. Just scroll through the pages, click on the images and then return to the page. There is enough instruction to get you through it.
The workbook is available in other languages. To request, e-mail getinvolved@burlington.ca. You may also use the “Select Language” translate button found on the project page to translate both the page and workbook.
An MTSA (Major Transit Service Area) is the area within 500 to 800-metres of a higher order transit station (these are the three GO stations) that are expected to be about a 10-minute walk from the GO station.
These are seen as the three most critical locations within the urban area expected to accommodate the majority of the City’s forecasted growth to 2031 and beyond.
Through the preparation of the new Official Plan, new policies were developed to guide development and change in the Downtown and Uptown (at Appleby Line and Upper Middle Road). The MTSAs are now the remaining priority locations for which detailed planning must be completed to establish the vision for growth, to guide development, investments in transit, infrastructure and public service facilities, including parks, and to support significant future population and employment growth.
To some this project may feel familiar. From 2017 to 2019 the City worked on developing area-specific plans (ASPs) for the three GO Station areas, then called the Mobility Hubs Study. The MTSA ASP project will build upon, and advance, the work done through the Mobility Hubs Study.
The objective of this project is to plan to accommodate new residents and jobs by setting a vision for three unique, complete communities that are centered around the City’s three GO Stations along the Lakeshore West rail line. These communities will be environmentally friendly, infrastructure-efficient, walkable, bikeable, and will support local and regional transit with a diverse mix of employment, housing, recreation, and shopping features.
What have we heard so far?
Engagement was a key element of the previous Mobility Hub Study work. From the feedback received through 2017 and 2018, a number of key themes emerged to provide guidance in planning for these areas:
Increase, Improve and Support…
Public spaces by supporting existing and new open spaces, parks and other community spaces that are safe, usable, inclusive and interactive, and incorporate public art, landscape features etc. to enhance placemaking.
Community amenities by encouraging an increased scale and mix of commercial/retail uses at grade, including grocery stores, coffee shops, community and recreational space etc.
Mobility by designing a well-connected, safe and accessible public realm with active animated streets and robust cycling and pedestrian networks, focused on direct connections to and from GO Stations.
Housing options by planning for a diverse range of different and affordable housing choices to cater to all ages and abilities.
Private Spaces by encouraging sustainable design and variety of architectural styles to create distinct buildings and enhance neighbourhood character, and by reinforcing midrise corridors.
Public engagement by providing residents with enough time to engage and increase resident engagement and clearly explaining the required growth targets for Burlington.
Parkland by planning for park and public spaces that consider the needs of the entire area including developing fair approaches to meet that objective.
Traffic congestion by supporting the public transportation network and investing in additional facilities for walking and cycling.
 Solid Gold site as it exists today. Building height and transition concerns by clearly explaining planning rationale for where height is being located, ensuring and explaining how height will be regulated, and by reducing losses of sunlight and privacy through appropriate building height transitions.
 Speaking of height limitations – this rendering represents what the owners of Solid Gold want to build on a site that currently has a single story structure. Protect…
Established residential neighbourhoods by ensuring built form, height and transition support and respect existing character, and providing clear policies for heritage protection.
The planners learned that:
Beyond the broad themes highlighted above, a number of key themes specific to the Aldershot GO MTSA also emerged, including the consideration of:
– opportunities for new bike paths, including through Aldershot Park;
– opportunities for amenities to support residents and employees;
– opportunities for complete streets, including Cooke Boulevard;
– ways to manage the impacts of increased traffic along Plains Road;
– opportunities to incorporate mid-rise development along Plains Road and Waterdown Road; and
– excluding the low-density residential properties located on Clearview Avenue and a portion of St. Matthew’s Avenue.
A little more detail on what might go where Now the planners need your feedback. The input you provide may inform:
– Refinements to the vision (i.e. land uses, building heights, urban design considerations etc.);
– Precinct changes (i.e. policy directions, boundaries, built form directions, etc.);
– The preparation of the area-specific plans or the development of policy.
There are more specific details about all of the work that has informed the preliminary preferred precinct plan, including technical studies, can be found at getinvolvedburlington.ca/mtsa.
|
|
