A look back at what the planners and a citizen's group thought should be done with the Waterfront Hotel site

By Pepper Parr

July 27th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

It is worth going back and reviewing where things were before the current city council was elected and recalling what the issues and objectives were when a study was to be done on how the Waterfront Hotel site was to be developed.

At the time, June 2018,  “a clear consensus on direction had not yet been achieved.” An election was about to take place which put a lot of work on hold.

The Planning department wanted some direction from Council and asked for a Staff Direction.

The Gazette reported at the time that:

The Waterfront Hotel planning study will guide the property owner in the redevelopment of this site. Located next to two of Burlington’s most significant landmarks, Spencer Smith Park and the Brant Street Pier, input from residents is needed to ensure the new development reflects a high quality of urban design that enhances the community’s access to the waterfront and the downtown.

The planning staff had asked council to “endorse the key policy directions”. Those directions are set out below:

Extensive engagement was done through three community workshops (a total of six sessions), the Planning and Development Committee held on November 28, 2017, and significant contributions from the Vrancor Group and the Plan B Citizen Group were relied upon to create key policy directions to move forward.

Waterfront concept 1

Concept 1 from the city planning department: – the buildings are much closer to Lakeshore and the height will disturb a lot of people.

The key policy directions for the Waterfront Hotel site are 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.

Waterfront – Concept 2

Concept 2 from the city planning department shifts everything to the right creating a much more open approach to The Pier.

The city produced two concepts, neither of which gained all that much traction.  A small group who live in the downtown core didn’t like the way the city was handling public participation – they came up with ideas of their own that have shifted some of the thinking being done by the planners.  PLAN B, the name of the citizen’s group,  took a much different approach suggesting that a red Line starting at the NE corner of Brant and Lakeshore become  the demarcation from which there are no building West/ Southwest of the red line.

The objective of the citizen group thinking was to create a clear generous view from Brant and Lakeshore out to the lake.

Don Fletcher, spokesperson for the group,  explained the concerns that included:

the adopted OP for downtown and the intensification designations will impact the application and approval of the Waterfront Hotel redevelopment

The participation that Fletcher saw at the Citizen Action Labs sessions caused the Plan B people additional concern about the process and that both City Concepts 1 & 2 seem designed to meet same intensification goals as former Adopted OP – LPAT defensible.

– Tall buildings permitted in Lakeshore Mixed Use Concept 1 at both NE corner w/Brant & NW corner w/Locust transition poorly to neighbouring precincts, but yield higher density

– Podium setback in Lakeshore Mixed Use Concept 2 of only 3m is to compensate for lower density of mid rise building

Fletcher believes that the electorate voted on Oct. 22nd, 2018 for fundamental change to intensification levels and the enforce-ability of the Official Plan.

He concludes that key OP policies should:

– Preserve connections & views to the waterfront
– House mid- to low-rise buildings downtown with taller ones toward Fairview
– Maintain small town character and preserve heritage
– Reflect the community’s vision for the area

Fletcher argued that many attendees at Citizen Action Labs viewed Concepts 1 & 2 as different versions of same over-development and added that a different result from the 2018 Adopted OP demands a different approach.

Citizens’ PLAN B proposes that the city continue to refine recommended Concept (1+2)

Create an alternate What-if Concept to support growth downtown, without Mobility Hub/ MTSA and Urban Growth Center designations and accelerate Land Use Study and publish the report.

Some of what Fletcher wanted has come to pass – the bus terminal is just that – not a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) and the Urban Growth Centre boundary has been moved north.

Policy Directions

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

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.

At one point what was called an “Emerging Concept” was on the table. Wow – that s one whack of development.

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.

13) Vehicle access shall be from Elizabeth Street.

14) Vehicle access from Brant Street will be closed and converted to a pedestrian orientated gateway to the waterfront.

15) All required on-site parking shall be provided underground (parking structures shall not be visible from the public streets and park).

Council is going to be consumed with coming up with a budget that the taxpayers don’t choke on. As they get into 2022 their focus will become more political and their energy will go into getting elected.

Will any attention be paid to getting a decision in place on just what is to happen to the Waterfront Hotel site before Councillors go into re-election mode?

The Ontario Land Tribunal might have something to say on that.

Return to the Front page

Is a height of 35 stories for the Waterfront Hotel site redevelopment on the table?

By Pepper Parr

July 26th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Revisions have been made to this story since it was first published.

There appear to be two Facebook based news outlets – both with the name Burlington News.

There also appears to be some significant hearings taking place at what we used to know as Local Planning Act Tribunal now called the OLT – Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Burlington News logo has a green logo and is the site we have drawn material from. It is popular.  WE have not been able to identify the owners of this site.

The Burlington News with the red logo has been around a long time – no one knows who is behind that one but there are members of Council who follow what they publish.

There is yet another web site that was set up by former Mayor Rick Goldring.  Former Councillor Craven writes for this site along with former city general manager Kim Phillips.

During an OLT  meeting that was focused on the Carnacelli development on the corner of Pearl and Lakeshore Road the argument was over the 29 storeys the developer wanted and the 17 storeys most people believed the city could live with.

The Waterfront Hotel stands at six storeys – plans have been in the works for more than a decade to replace it with a series of structures that would be closer to the water’s edge and more to the east.

During that meeting in July, David Bronskill, speaking for the Waterfront Hotel owners is reported to have said the following:

“… our client has concerns with the proposed implementation of this intensification potential. In particular, the ongoing delay in planning for the Property is of serious concern and can no longer be accepted by our client. The Property has not been included within the scope of review related to the new official plan, despite our client having invested approximately two hundred and fifty thousand dollars over five years ago to assist the City in determining the appropriate form of redevelopment for the Property. It would appear that this study is now further delayed with a report on a proposed revise action plan suggested for Q4 2020.”

“During a discussion about height in the downtown, a pending application for the redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel was revealed. The acknowledgment of a proposed 35 storey development on the Waterfront Hotel site was surprising as there is no information available on the City’s web site, and the lack of transparency regarding the possible future of our waterfront is astounding.

“This proposal will not be a surprise to City staff, the Mayor or Council as they would have known about a pending application as far back as Sept. 2020 when a letter from the landowners representative, David Bronskill advised them of their client’s concerns regarding the City’s delay and their intentions to seek approval of their proposal were made clear.

Bronskill said: “This is unacceptable to our client. We can no longer wait for the City and our client’s intention is to proceed to finalize the study on its own and submit an application to secure approvals for the Property in an expedited fashion.”

“As the city learned with the Interim Control By law, (ICBL) planning and development does not stop and wait for the Mayor and Council. It continues and is considered within the approved policy framework that is in force at the time of the submission of the applications.

” It is not clear if this application has been submitted yet or if it will be in the next few weeks however, there is clearly very little, if any, transparency regarding the status of the Waterfront Hotel redevelopment.”

What would a 35 storey building on the edge of the Lake look like?  The Bridgewater condominium is 22 storeys high.

To give you a sense of the height we took a photograph of the Harbour Commission building in Hamilton that is six storeys with a 17 storey building beside it.

Hamilton Harbour Commission on the left – six storeys; apartment building to the right – 17 storeys. The proposal for the waterfront is 35 storeys -twice the height of the apartment building.

What is being talked about is 35 storeys where the current Waterfront Hotel is located.

What the Burlington Local News does not tell is the working arrangement that has been in place for close to a decade, one that had the developer putting up a significant amount of money to pay for a study on how any replacement of the Waterfront would relate to the Naval Promenade.

The lawyers do what they are paid to do at OLT hearings – what is surprising is that the Waterfront Hotel re-development is not before the Planning department yet – there is no word on just where the study is – but legal counsel for the developer has gotten their number on the table.

Related news stories:

Plan B

Is Plan B getting the attention it deserves?

 

Return to the Front page

Two members of Council issue a Joint Statement and then put it on their Facebook pages

By Staff

July 21st, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Sometime after we were advised of the Facebook posting the Office of the Mayor issued a document

It is a different way of communicating.

Mayor Meed Ward and Councillor Lisa Kearns released a Joint Statement today on the Holland Park development proposed for Fairview and Drury Lane.

Basically they said there wasn’t all that much they can do about a development that has literally nothing in the way of caps on the height.

There is a drawing of what the developers are proposing set out below.

Our question is:  Was posting the Joint Statement on Facebook pages an attempt to slip something past the public?

The proposal is for seven buildings with heights ranging from 29 to 37 storeys. .

Related news stories:

It is going to be the biggest residential development the city has ever seen – with no height controls.

Return to the Front page

Is Joe Dogs at risk? Probably

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

July 4th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Well – there goes that neighbourhood!

Joe Dogs is at risk,  the best that can be hoped for if the 26 story development is approved on the site literally next door, there will be an opportunity to quaff a cool one while watching the construction take place yards away.

The Renimmob Properties Limited, a corporation new to the Burlington development scene, has either purchased or obtained options on the property.  Approval of the development will be the beginning of a whole new look to the area.

The deep thinkers in the Planning Department have scoped out what they think that part of the city should look like.

site aerial

What we all know at the No Frills Plaza is expected to undergo a major change in terms of what is on the site and the uses to which it is put.

John Street, which is actually a lane north of Caroline, would be extended through the plaza property and reach Victoria Street.

Front and rear renderingsRambo Creek runs through the back end (east side of the plaza property) – the plans call for the creation of a walking trail with park benches and the shifting of the No Frills supermarket closer to Brant Street with large scale (17 storey) housing and underground parking.

If and when it is completed it will be a neighbourhood unto itself with a storied pub part of it.  All Joe Dogs has to do is issue patrons hard hats and hope everyone survives.

A couple of blocks to the north is the the Molinaro proposed development that will take up three corners of the Brant – Ghent intersection.

Both the Molinaro and the Renimmob developments are well north of what is seen as the downtown core. What they will do is create a much more vibrant community along Brant and meet the growth targets the province requires.

Even further north there are the properties that surround the GO station with the right to put up structures of almost any height – those proposed properties comply with the existing Official Plan and zoning in the area.

The graphic below shows what is in the works and what exists in that mid part of Brant street.

surrounding development
There is more to this story – tune in for part two on Monday.

Return to the Front page

Tough questions being asked about an incomplete development on John Street: Carriage Gate in the spotlight again

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

July 2nd, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns reports that her “office regularly receives ongoing concerns and questions about the progress on this property.”

She is referring to the property bounded by John, Caroline, Elizabeth and Maria that currently has a 24-story condominium. The original development plan was to include an above ground parking garage and a medical office at the north end along Caroline.

Medica One or the Carriage Gate project - pick the name you like best - will go up at the top of John Street and consist of a medical offices building, an above ground garage and an apartment/condo complex. It will bring significant change to the intersection and drive redevelopment of the plaza to the immediate north, A transit hub a couple of blocks to the south then makes a lot of sense.

The tower on the left has been constructed and is occupied. Some of the underground work for the garage is completed. The medical building is reported to be part of an application for additional height.

“I agree with residents that this matter has gone on much too long” reported Kearns in her most recent Newsletter.

“Since the onset of my term as Ward 2 Councillor, I continue to advocate on behalf of the community to have this project move forward. In response to many inquiries, see the following chart recently received from the City’s Legal Department. As soon as my office is in receipt of information of progress on this site, we will be sure to share with residents.”

This development was problematic from the day it got to the city Planning department. The council at the time had concerns about the development being completed and put in a clause that would ding the developer for $300,000 if the developer failed to deliver on schedule.

Carriage Gate - three buidingsMuch of this was well before Kearns began to care a hoot about what happened in the ward.

In the data the Councillor refers to there is a chart with questions and answers reported to have come from the legal department.
Never seen responses like this from the Office of the Solicitor for the Corporation of Burlington.

carriage gate data

In a September 2017 news story the Gazette reported:

“… John Street construction site is to include a public garage and a medical centre – they will follow the construction of the condominium. Medica One or the Carriage Gate project – pick the name you like best – will go up at the top of John Street and consist of a medical offices building, an above ground garage and an apartment/condo complex. It will bring significant change to the intersection and drive redevelopment of the plaza to the immediate north, A transit hub a couple of blocks to the south then makes a lot of sense.

The city expected all three projects to rise at the same time – and were worried enough about the construction actually taking place that they had the developer commit to coughing up $300,000 if the project doesn’t proceed by March of 2020.

City hall does appear to fully appreciate the market forces the developer has to contend with.  The utility poles will disappear – all the cable will be underground. Getting that decision in place was no simple matter.

Berkeley - Maria entrance

A portion of Mario was closed during construction of the Berkley. Not many developers get that kind of leeway.

.

Carriage Gate, the developer, has had their share of grief with both the city and Burlington Hydro over the existence of utility poles on John Street. A hydro line had to be pulled in from Lakeshore Road to the site – an expensive job. There was much discussion over whether or not all the hydro wires would be underground.

The developer was prepared to pay for the cost of burying the cable in front of their project but wasn’t prepared to pay for the cost of burying the cable for every foot of the distance from Lakeshore Road.

And they didn’t like the price for doing the work that Burlington Hydro had put on the table.

It’s getting resolved – with the developer trying hard to keep the lawyers out of the room.

When completed John Street will take on a much different look. Other developers have already begun to acquire and assemble property on the street.

As construction continues the planners are looking for ways to improve the look of the rest of the street and bring more activity to the area.

Not much has changed.

Related news stories:

Is eight going to become 18?

 

Return to the Front page

Housing is more than a profit center - it is homes that determine the quality of life reputation of the community

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

June 18th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

OPINION

It was a solid exchange of views between the Chief Executive Officer of the West End Home Builders Association and members of Burlington’s city council.

Meed Ward - tight head shot

Mayor Meed Ward

Lisa Kearns

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns

Mike Collins–Williams was opposed to the shifting of the Urban Growth Centre boundaries to well north of the downtown core up to the Burlington GO station where there are plans for significant development.

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward had gotten what she wanted and took exception to Collins–Williams suggesting that downtown had been sterilized when the boundary was moved.

Councillor Nisan termed the use of the word sterilize as disgusting, inappropriate and “inflammatory”.

421 Brant

The construction cranes are in place – the building will rise floor by floor in the months ahead.

nautique-elevation-from-city-july-2016

Construction is underway.

It didn’t get any better for Collins-Williams when Councillor Kearns asked him to explain what it was that the home builders association wanted that city policies were not giving them.  She followed this up by asking: “What might we be missing that the policies in place do not address?”

The debate was part of a Statutory meeting taking place at Regional Council last Wednesday.

The debate at the Region was never the kind of debate that took place at Burlington city hall between 2010 and 2018.  The stark differences between the interests of the developers and the intentions of the current council was laid bare.  It was the driving issue in the 2018 election and the voters liked what Meed Ward was offering better than what either Rick Goldring or Mike Wallace had put on the table.

Someone paid a third party advertiser to do what they could to influence the views of the voters – it didn’t work.

The debate heard on Wednesday was never heard in Burlington’s Council chambers in previous Statutory meeting occasions.

When the then Golding council approved the Carriage Gate development that would put a 26 storey tower opposite city hall the then city manager is reported to have gotten up to shake hands with the developer.

Football

If the developers get their way there won’t be much park space for the public in that football shaped property.  There are three developments working their way through the planning process.

The development opportunities on Brant Street south of  Caroline are exceptional, as are those in the football between Lakeshore and Old Lakeshore Road where there are a number of developments working their way through the planning process (clogged up at LPAT hearings at the moment) that will result in a significantly different Burlington if they get built.

Development in Burlington is focused on profit, not on the creation of community. The building of high rise condominiums changes the scale, scope and streetscape, which determines how people relate to the community.

There is little in the way of input from the people who are going to live with the buildings. The condominium going up opposite city hall is built right out to the property line and soars straight up for 26 floors.

Some developers do create designs that embrace the street. The Molinaro group has a development that puts two towers on either side of Brant Street at Ghent, that have slight curves,  which leave the impression the buildings are communicating with each other.  If built they will become the gateway out of the downtown core to a different Burlington that will rise beside the Go station.

Appreciation for architecture rests in the eye of the beholder and what the public is seeing now is quite different than what was built along Lakeshore decades ago.

During the required Statutory meetings the developers set out what they want to do and explain that they are meeting all the required rules.

Collins Williams

Mike Collins-Williams represented the interests of the developers during the required Statutory meeting on the changes being made to the Regional Official Plan.

What doesn’t take place is a dialogue between the architect and the public on what the public would like to see built on the streets they will live, work and play on.

Usually the first time a citizen sees a building is when they look at a glossy brochure.

Architects are hired by developers to create a pleasing looking building that meets the aspirations (and at times the egos) of the developer and doesn’t cost a fortune to build.

Developers are not in the housing business, they are in the profit-making business – and in a capitalistic society that is the way the game is played and accepted.

Selling housing isn’t the same as selling soap.

The homes that are built determine to a large degree the kind of society we have. Human beings need space; the developers refer to that space as amenities.

This isn’t a Burlington problem – it is one that plagues the country. However there is no reason a change cannot at least begin in Ontario. And if Mayor Meed Ward can pull that off – good on her.

 

Related news story

Lobbyist states the case for sticking with old Urban Growth plan

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.

Return to the Front page

Builders Association wants the move of the UGC boundary squashed or revised to include the downtown core

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

June 17th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Regional Council met Wednesday morning and on their agenda was a Statutory meeting required under the Municipal Act to permit the public to respond to changes in the Regional Official Plan.

There were a number of delegations. The one from the West End Home Builders Association (WEHBA) formerly the Hamilton Halton Home Builders’ Association) which represents approximately 300 member companies across Hamilton and Halton Region with the industry employing over 22,700 people, paying $1.4 billion in wages, and contributed over $2.6 billion in investment value within the local economy in 2019, was delivered by Michael Collin-Williams.

As a key partner to Halton Region in the delivery of new housing supply and the building of complete communities, WE HBA wishes to ensure we can effectively work together towards a range of housing choices at prices and rents people can afford in Halton Region.

ROPA 48 and the Future of Halton Region’s Growth
Our region is growing rapidly – The Greater Golden Horseshoe is anticipated to grow from approximately 10 million people today to just under 15 million by 2051 – to put this into context, that is the equivalent of the entire population of Greater Montreal moving here over the next 30 years.

Halton Region is forecast to take on its fair share and to grow by 485,000 residents and 220,000 jobs by 2051.

In its current form, ROPA 48 presents risks to Halton Region’s ability to effectively and efficiently promote housing development and construction in accordance with the Housing Supply Action Plan.

Through consultation on Halton’s IGMS, City of Burlington staff recommended Growth Concept 3A/B as being most closely aligned to the City’s goals.

Aerial COB - frm Region

Development lobby wants to squash the permitted change to the Urban Growth Centre.

Therefore, Halton Region should not approve ROPA 48 without modification to the proposed relocation of Burlington’s Urban Growth Centre given the change to the Downtown Burlington UGC runs contrary to this very ambitious growth scenario through higher levels of intensification.

Downtown Burlington & ROPA 48:
The Burlington Downtown UGC was established as one of 25 UGCs in the initial growth plan in 2006 to direct both growth and investment to downtown Burlington.

Each review of the Growth Plan through both Liberal and Conservative governments maintained the Downtown Burlington UGC to establish long-term planning certainty.

Currently, ROPA 48 proposes to change the boundary of the Downtown Urban Growth Centre to exclude almost all of Downtown Burlington, including the existing regional public service facilities, commercial, recreational, cultural and entertainment facilities.

Gallery under construction

The first downtown condo to have shovels in the ground is opposite City Hall.

The WE HBA is disappointed by the announcement yesterday that the provincial government will permit the removal and relocation of the Downtown Urban Growth Centre.

While we absolutely support intensification and growth of the Burlington GO Lands that are designated as MTSAs – we believe that the downtown and the GO station areas represent different markets and should both have planning frameworks that support growth and intensification.

Complete Communities and the Flip of the Downtown Urban Growth Centre
WE HBA maintains that directing growth away from Downtown Burlington—an emerging complete community—does a disservice to the City and Halton Region.

With Halton Region proposing aggressive intensification targets, WE HBA believes the Region should be capitalizing on significant investments that have been made in Downtown Burlington by both the public and private sectors.

The WE HBA believes that redirecting growth away from downtown Burlington loses sight of the progress that has been made in revitalizing downtown Burlington.

Further to this, WE HBA notes that the land by the Burlington GO Station serves a different purpose in the City than downtown Burlington.

The WE HBA recognizes BOTH populations and locations are important components of the Burlington community, and supports a greater focus on planning towards creating a complete community for residents surrounding the GO Station.

For this reason, WE HBA recommends ROPA 48 be amended to either:

not relocate the Downtown Burlington Urban Growth Centre OR as a compromise to expand the boundary of the existing Downtown Urban Growth Centre to include BOTH Downtown Burlington and the Burlington GO Station lands.

Our association respects that this is a long and multi-layered process and is strongly supportive of the Region of Halton continuing to work with stakeholders to advance ROPA 48 through the process to achieve conformity with the Growth Plan by July 1, 2022.

Lastly – we support the conformity deadline of July 1, 2022.

There were questions of the delegate – you can just imagine how his comments went over with Burlington Mayor Meed Ward who pointed out that there would still be growth in the downtown core but that it would not be the kind of over development the city has seen in the past five years.

Meed Ward added that there is never any affordable housing in the developments in the downtown core and that the provincial policy focuses on new growth at the MTSA’s.

The Mayor pointed out that the relocation of the UGC was community inspired and that its focus is on where development should take place in each of the precincts.

Meed Ward hands out frnt city hall

Mayor Meed Ward in front of city hall

Meed Ward said the existing UGC was misused to justify over development; going forward downtown growth will be managed more reasonably in keeping with the vision determined by the public.

It was back and forth between Collins-Williams who countered that “long term plans should not sterilize opportunities on where people want to live, work and play”.

Meed Ward had pointed out that Burlington is very close now to reaching the required 200 home/jobs target for 2031 (which is the minimum target) and that development beyond that point will be determined by good planning principles, adding that Provincial Policy calls for development to be directed toward the MTSA’s.

Collins-Williams said the city should not be jamming development growth  into a couple of areas and that political changes which have impacted how some of the changes have been brought about.

He added the need to lower political temperature and build complete communities.

Collins Williams

Mike Collins-Williams, Chief Executive Officer, West End Home Builders Association.

Meed Ward responded that if Collins-Williams meant by being political meant listening to community input in a democratic fashion then democracy is alive and well in Burlington.

The Mayor is scheduled to meet with the builders association in a few weeks where this conversation will no doubt be continued.

In responding to the Burlington Mayor Colin Williams said moving the Urban Growth centre would “limit and sterilize” grow in the downtown core.

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns asked Collins-Williams to help her to understand his definition of the downtown core. “What might we be missing that the policies in place do not address?”

Collins-Williams remarked that the province had never before changed an UGC boundary to which Kearns responded “we have had the history lesson before  – my question to you was more forward looking and asked again “what did we miss that your association members are looking for in the way of complete communities”.

Collins-Williams said seniors wanted to be able to downsize and still remain in the community – the downtown condo market met that need but if the UGC was moved north there would be an imbalance.

Kearns - trhe like

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns puts Chief Executive of Builder Association through an impressive jujitsu exercise.

More back and forth before Kearns said “I don’t see anything compelling in your responses – the supply and demand claim being out of balance does not hold water.”

And with that Kearns dismissed Collins – Williams bringing to a close the Kearns  Collins -Williams verbal jujitsu exercise.

He wasn’t out of the hit set yet.  His sterilized downtown remark had Councillor Nisan speak on a Point of Order saying the words were “disgusting”, “inappropriate” and  “inflammatory”

 

 

Return to the Front page

There will be growth - just where is being determined

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

June 16th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The Regional government is working on an amendment to its Official Plan.

Burlington’s Official Plan has to be approved by the Region – so what the Region approves is what we are permitted to and expected to do.

Planning is about growth.

From Lakeshore and Martha

A proposed Carriage Gate development at the east end of the football – a stone’s throw from the ADI Nautique that is now under construction.

For the people of Burlington growth is what they don’t want to see in the downtown core.

The province has mandated that future growth is to be focused around the three GO stations where some significant growth has taken place.

The Aldershot GO station has a large new community that will be home to some 2500 people when it is complete. It is more than halfway completed at this point with more to come.

Paradigm from the west Nov 2017

The Paradigm from the east side

Burlington has the  Molinaro development that is entering into stage 2. Nothing in the Appleby GO – yet.

Longer term – out to 2051 here is what the numbers look like as the planners at the regional and municipal levels work through what the province has mandated.

Regional growth to 2051

About 350,000 + people will pour into the Region between now and 2051 – planners are currently working out what each municipality will have to absorb.

Return to the Front page

What do you think 350 condominiums will do to the Burlington skyline.

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

June 9th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

City Council met on Monday and Tuesday spending a lot of time debating population growth and the rate at which the population would rise in the Region.

The province sets a rate of growth and determines where they would like to see that growth take place.

A population allocation is given to each of the Regions that in turn determine what the growth will be in each municipality.

Burlington has no greenfields left to be  developed.

Nothing is permitted north of Hwy 407 and Dundas except for small pockets in the settlements of Kilbride, Lowville and the Mt Nemo settlement area.

The growth in Burlington is going to be concentrated around the three GO stations: Burlington, Aldershot and Appleby.

The long term growth is long term – none of this will be taking place in the foreseeable future.

Changes planned today become communities in the next decade.  In Burlington that future growth is up in the form of high rise development.

sharman with sign

Councillor Paul Sharman often takes numbers and turns them into something people can understand. The population growth for Burlington in the next three decades calls for 350 twenty storey towers.

Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman has a way of grabbing a number and putting it in a context that makes the impact pretty clear.

Director of Planning Heather MacDonald was explaining that the growth number for Burlington between now and 2031 was 21,000 people or jobs. The growth number for 2031 to 2050 was 80,000 people or jobs.  “Is that right?” asked Sharman.  MacDonald agreed with him – Sharman then went on to put that number into a visual thought.

The two visuals below represent 14 towers that will probably make it through the planning process.

Lakeside village plaza proposal

This development has been in process for years now – it will rise again and become real.

What we are looking at then, said Sharman, is 350 twenty storey condominiums between now and 2050; 82 between now and 2031 and 265 between 2031 and 2050.

With numbers like that we are looking at a much different Burlington that the one we have today, which is the point Sharman wanted to make.

CLV Fairview Jan 21

This development, recently named Holland Park is looking at a planned 7 tower project. The unique part of the site is that there is no limit to the height the developer can go.

Return to the Front page

Is there a better park location in store for the residents of Station West in Aldershot?

News 100 greenBy Pepper Parr

May 19th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

When Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith was doing his virtual community meeting earlier this week he made mention of a change that had been made to the Station West development the ADI Group has underway. Word is that the town houses are basically sold out.

ADI Masonry Court south boundary

Part of the Station West complex. The residents are going to want to organize a community group to ensure that their interests are fully protected. Not something the ward councillor will do for them

Next phase will be the condominiums that will be built at the northwest corner of the development where Waterdown Road intersections with Masonry Road.

Sometime in April the ADI people asked the community where they would like the park to be and put up a graphic showing what they had in mind.

Many were stunned by what was being offered.

option-1-3-towers

The small patch of land at the bottom of three high rise condos (in the 29 to 34 storey range) was the original park location.

According to Galbraith ADI has seen the error of their ways and decided to place a park to the north of the condo towers closer to the pond.

During a short tour of the property with camera in hand we photographed the pond and the piece of property the park would be located on. It could work – it is certainly better than what was offered back in April.

Site for the 3 conos

North of Masonry Road at the Waterdown intersection – three condo site.

park new area

What is understood to be the park space to the west of the town houses.

Pond - park with colour boundaries

Storm water pond to the left and what is believed to be the new space for the park.

Waiting for some response from the ADI people.

Return to the Front page

Ward Councillor sees a North Burlington solution differently than Regional Planners

News 100 green

By Pepper Parr

May 18th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

In one of the four public meetings, albeit as virtual events, the Regional government has done a superb job of engaging the public as they explained what the issues were and listened to what the public had in the way of responses and solutions.

Regional planning staff were open and transparent and offered to take calls during office hours to answer questions for those who wanted more detail.

rural - urban - NA

North Aldershot is treated as a separate area with different development rules.

The land in the North Aldershot area was described as not the best place for urban development. The topography and the creek systems made urban development problematic and suggested that there were other locations in the Region that were better options for urban development.

Tom Muir is an Aldershot resident who has followed plans to develop in the North Aldershot community.

He wanted to know why the “Minutes of Settlement” that were signed in the 1990’s  were not being discussed.

Minutes of Settlement are an agreement between a government and a developer setting out what is permitted in the way of development for a specific location. The Minutes are very detailed.

Regional Staff seemed to feel that those minutes could be set aside. That will be something that will get worked out going forward.

Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith took a different view on development potential saying “I completely understand the Region’s position in that they act as an upper tier government for the four municipalities and when it comes to growth, they look to the most efficient areas in terms of servicing.

North aldershot boundary

Boundary of North Aldershot

“I think the North Aldershot area is beautiful and would make a very nice community development of low density residential housing that is in such high demand at the moment. It would be very similar topography to the Tyandaga community which includes lots of valley lands and water features and mature trees. They mentioned that it is very complicated in that the elevation difference between the 403 highway and Waterdown is 100 meters and we know that water does not run up hill naturally.”

Galbraith at King Paving

Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith standing just south of the Waterdown Road bridge over the 403.

Instead of this type of community on beautiful valley lands, the Region has opted to take another easy farm field in the north areas of Milton and Halton Hills and recommend servicing there.

“Where would you rather live as a resident? The choice is easy for me.”

Eagle Heights may very well be that community and that would be it for North Aldershot. Tom Muir asked a good question tonight but the Region did not want to speak to site-specific lands. What complicates their recommendations is that they need to recognize the approvals that Eagle Heights already has.

Eagle Heights is a development that the Paletta interests have an Ontario Municipal Board (now known as LPAT)  approval to proceed, however the Regional government has to service the area – putting in water and sewage infrastructure in place.

“This means that the region is obligated to at least service the OMB approvals. If Paletta decides to proceed with his approvals then the next North Aldershot review will be different as the boundary opening will need to be considered.”

 

Return to the Front page

Is there a solution to what gets done with North Aldershot?

News 100 greenBy Tom Muir

May 16th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Part 1 of a series.

The North Aldershot/Eagle Heights issue is not only a Regional issue, but is a city-wide and neighborhood issue as well.

rural - urban - NA

North Aldershot has planning policies that are distinct and separate from rural and urban Burlington.

North Aldershot (NA) is a separate Planning Zone (like Urban and Rural) and has its own policies with very detailed zoning. The City has had a long history of Official Planning (OP) and by-law planning policies written specifically for North Aldershot.

My experience in this dates back to 1993/94.

It is the last remaining parcel of largely undeveloped land in Burlington, and if fully serviced, the last “greenfield”. But it’s not just any greenfield. It is a distinct mixed landscape, with deeply incised creeks and watercourses, and rolling slopes from the escarpment down to the flats of Plains Road.

If you know the area, you know that it is unique and very special, even idyllic I would say. Over many years, public efforts, including the many agencies of the North Aldershot Inter-agency Review (NAIR), have recognized this distinctiveness, and expressed the goal and principles to keep it distinct, while still trying to allow some development form designed to co-exist, but not replace.

North aldershot boundary

Waterdown Road, at the bottom is the eastern border. The 403, on the left, is the southern border. The property is a total of 1365  hectares

I’m writing here because I think that special place is in grave danger from ever increasing demands for more development than was  ever contemplated.

The crux issue in the development proposals for North Aldershot and specifically Eagle Heights, is density. As you can see, the wanted unit numbers in the applications have steadily increased as time went by, right up to 2019. There is a history in development proposals over 1962 to the present.

The number of units to be built on the property kept growing as appeals were made.

October/November 1995 resulted in  plan for 501 units in the Central Sector.  The Paletta (PIC) lands included 363 units with a park block and a school block, while the former “Taylor” lands included 46 units. The remaining 92 residential units were permitted on areas owned by other landowners in the Central Sector.

December 2010, PIC and Taylor submitted revised draft plans of subdivision to permit the development of 870 residential units (815 units on the PIC lands and 55 units on the Taylor lands).

In 1993/4 the Parkway Belt West Plan policies were in effect as the decision foundation. Under the umbrella of this Plan, at that time, the (NAIR) undertook a lengthy multi-agency and citizen group  Land Use Concept exercise for NA.

area + the players

There are a number of different agencies that have their own policies that apply to the 1,365 ha that make the North Aldershot property.

This Review was concurrent with an application for 1100 units from Paletta International Corporation (PIC). This application represented two landowners; PIC and Taylor.

With the NAIR multi-party conclusions and recommendations that 232 units were acceptable, the City of Burlington chose this number to take back to the developer. The PIC appealed to the OMB.

An eight week OMB hearing took place in the spring of 1995 and another eight (8) weeks in 1996. In subsequent meetings, with no citizens present, the city planning/legal and the PIC planning/legal, negotiated a settlement to take to OMB for a Hearing.

The settlement plan was approved by the OMB in October/December 1996.

These Settlement negotiations between the parties in October/November 1995 resulted in a plan for 501 units in the Central Sector.  The PIC lands included 363 units with a park block and a school block, while the former “Taylor” lands included 46 units. The remaining 92 residential units were permitted on areas owned by other landowners in the Central Sector.

This was a very controversial settlement and the citizens, including myself, were left feeling betrayed. The basis and facts as they appear in the Minutes of Settlement are covered in a follow up report.

The OMB approved this settlement in 1996. Then the never ending applications for revisions to increase the unit count began.

On July 19, 2002, PIC and Taylor submitted Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment draft plan of subdivision applications to the City of Burlington. An application was made for residential development for a total of up to 665 (596 PIC, 69 Taylor) residential units.

The owners appealed the applications to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in October 2002 for lack of decision. This decision was appealed twice by City but both rulings went to the applicant.

In December 2010, PIC and Taylor submitted revised draft plans of subdivision to permit the development of 870 residential units (815 units on the PIC lands and 55 units on the Taylor lands).

This 2010 application revision included 4, four story apartment condominium buildings in the Paletta lands.

The 2010 proposal revision was subject to a public meeting, comment, and multi-agency staff refusal was seen as inadequate.

The present development application as of 2019 is the following, totaling 924 units.

  • The proposed development of the PIC property, a 97-hectare parcel on the north side of Flatt Road, is for 203 single-detached houses and 587 cluster houses (attached units) for a total of 790 units. The apartment buildings from 2010 are still part of this application.
  • The proposed development of a 9.6-hectare parcel on the south side of Flatt Road, is for 32 single-detached houses and 102 cluster houses for a total of 134 units.
  • The applications have been appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal by the applicants.

This history is important for people to be aware of – most people don’t know and are  confused by the changing numbers.

Also, most important, only the 1996 unit counts are approved.

None of the other amendment applications submitted has been moved into a Hearing at LPAT (OMB), either contested or negotiated settlement.

What citizens want to see is a detailed, concrete, and replicable evidence trail that leads to the decision, or staff advice, about what density is defensible and can be recommended under current science and policy regimes. Agency and public concerns and comments number in the hundreds, and we want to see them answered explicitly.

I will be following the presentations on Tuesday and reporting on the public input and the discussions that take place.

Muir making a point

Tom Muir

Tom Muir is an Aldershot resident who is persistent and at times acerbic.  More often than not he has the facts and a knowledge of the development that exceeds what many, if not most of the people in the planning department.

For Muir this has been a long battle – he isn’t at all certain that the public interest will be served when this phase is over but he is certain there will be more appeals.

 

 

 

 

 

Return to the Front page

Lakeside Plaza still has some life in it.

News 100 blueBy Staff

May 14th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Lakeside Plaza has not been sold, is not for sale but was put on hold while the owners met with both elected officials and members of the community.

The initial application proposed an overall redevelopment that included a mix of single storey, mid-rise and high-rise buildings that provided 900 new residential units, 2,700 square metres of office space and 11,955 square metres of service commercial and retail uses.

Lakeside Plaza May 14

There is too much upside for a developer to walk away from this opportunity.

A revised redevelopment plan that addresses technical and community comments is being prepared by the applicant’s project team.

Following a meeting with the community, staff, Ward Councillor and Mayor Meed Ward in December 2019, the project team commenced some additional work to update the concept plan based on the principles discussed with the group and based on additional technical studies that were ongoing at the time.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the project was put on hold. The project has recently been restarted (April 2021) following an update meeting with the owner’s representative and the consulting team.

In the next few months the project team will be revising the conceptual plans and technical studies with the goal of reconnecting with the community group and staff in late summer or early fall to present updated plans and eventually reaching out to the broader community following a re submission. Further updates will be provided as this work progresses.

Several questions have been raised about the sale of the site and a change to the consulting team. There has been no sale of the site and the consulting team remains as it was since the last update.

Related news story

Statutory meeting – developer wasn’t able to change a lot of minds – then a pandemic slowed everything down.

Return to the Front page

Long term growth plan for Burlington

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

May 12th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

In an earlier version of this article we neglected to mention that ward 1 Councillor Galbraith did take part.

The bigger picture is often the one that gets missed.

Big picture - who does what

The Planning Hierarchy – each of these policy statements and plans have to be adhered to. The Region reviews each municipal plan to ensure that everything in the hierarchy is met. It is a very complex process.

Last night the Regional government took people through a two hour discussion on what population and job growth is going to have to look like in 2051

2051 is a long time out – the future however gets determined to a large degree by decisions we make today.

Burlington certainly learned that lesson when in 2016 a bus terminal got identified first as a transportation hub and then as an MTSA (Major Transportation Service Area) that allowed a developer to put up a 26 storyey building on the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road. They are digging the hole in the ground now for what will be called the Nautique.

The Regional Planning department, which has to approve anything and everything in terms of the Official Plan for the municipalities of Burlington, Oakville, Milton and Halton Hills, is doing the required five year review of its Official Plan and figuring out how it will integrate the growth in the Region the province has called for.

The meeting last night was focused on how the Region thinks things should be approached for Burlington.

Growth concept

Regional Staff and their consultants working from data already collected developed four concepts – each of which would have a different outcome in terms of population growth, where it would take place and new ob potential. The objective is to take the best from each concept and come up with a preferred concept and present that to the public; ideally in June..

More than 80 people took part in the virtual meeting that included eight people from the Regional Planning staff and presented the current growth concepts.  There were just two elected representatives from Burlington; Mayor Meed Ward and Councillor Bentivegna. Perhaps those that chose not to take part have decided they won’t run for re-election

Former Mayor Rick Goldring and former Councillor Rick Craven took part. Is Goldring looking at the possibility of a comeback?

The meeting took on the task of getting the views of those taking part using several on-line polls and setting out what might be decided by setting out four possible concepts and explaining the impact each of those concepts would have on how the community evolved.

For Burlington, the over riding concern was development of the land north of the Hwy 407 – Dundas boundary. Urban to the south – rural to the north of that boundary.  Burlington’s identity as a city rests on two fundamental and foundations beliefs: never touch the Escarpment lands and keep your development fingers off Spencer Smith Park and the Beachway.  They are part of the city’s DNA.

population and growth for region to 2051

The planning that will get us to 2031 has for the most part been done. The focus now is what does Burlington want to build between 2031 and 2051 and where do they want to growth to be located.

circle graphic 1.1 million peoplecircle 500k jobsWhile much of the planning is a numbers game, there is room for community values and growth aspirations.

The Region is given a number by the province that has to be met.  The Region divides up the provincial number between the municipalities.

147,00 people and 69,000 jobs in next 10 years in current approved urban areas

334,000 people and 150,000 jobs between 2031 and 2051 which must be planned for now

How do we make that happen.  Later this week the Gazette will be dig into some of the data and the choices Burlington faces.  Do your homework or don’t complain when you learn five years from now that your Burlington is going to look a lot different.

Return to the Front page

Get involved and have your say on what your community should look like when your grandchildren are adults

graphic community 2By Pepper Parr

May 8th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The look and feel of the Burlington we live in today is the result of decisions made decades ago.

The Regional government is running a series of public meetings to give the public an opportunity to have their say.

Regional boundaries

What do the four municipalities in the Region want their communities to look like ?

The Provincial Growth Plan mandates that Halton plan for 1.1 million residents and 500,000 jobs by 2051. Halton is reviewing the Regional Official Plan to meet this direction and remain responsive to our community’s needs.

As part of this review, the Region has developed different Growth Concepts outlining how and where Halton could grow by the year 2051. They have also prepared Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 48, which is being considered by Regional Council. ROPA 48 provides direction on how to accommodate future growth in existing urban areas.

Conserving the environment and making room for foreigners with environmental training is part of a new Conservation Halton initiative funded by a Trillium Grant

Is this part of the Burlington you want?

• Take the short questionnaire: Visit halton.ca/ropr to provide your input.

• Attend a virtual Public Information Centre (PIC): Each PIC includes a presentation from Regional planning staff, a question and answer period, and breakout rooms for discussion. Recordings will be posted to halton.ca/ropr.

• Discuss the Growth Concepts with a Regional planner: To book a virtual meeting for yourself or a small group, please visit halton.ca/ropr or call 905-825-6000, ext. 7772.

Fairview 2 x 20 storey

Those new to the Region are going to have to live somewhere – is this the kind of development we should have?

2021 Virtual Public Information Centres (PICs)
Join one of the Region’s virtual Public Information Centres (PICs) online or by phone!

Dates
Halton Hills: Tuesday, May 4 at 7 p.m.
Milton: Thursday, May 6 at 7 p.m.
Burlington: Tuesday, May 11 at 7 p.m.
Oakville: Thursday, May 13 at 7 p.m.
North Aldershot: Monday, May 17 at 7 p.m.
Region-wide: Tuesday, June 29 at 7 p.m.

How to join
Online: Visit halton.ca/ropr on the date of the PIC to join.
By phone: Call 1-855-703-8985 (toll-free).
• Meeting ID: 970 665 2261
• Passcode: 858099 (if requested)

 

Return to the Front page

Councillor attendance at Committee of Adjustment meetings seen as less than appropriate by some

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

April 26th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Committee of Adjustment (CoA) is the place you appeal to when you need a small adjustment  to the zoning of a piece of property

The CoA is an independent body appointed by Council under authority granted by the Province of Ontario. The Committee has seven members and two alternates who are all residents of the City of Burlington.

Kearns on the Burlington & Caroline development

Item posted on Kearns Facebook page

The Committee of Adjustment is authorized by the Planning Act to consider applications for:

Minor variances from the zoning bylaw.

Extensions, enlargements or variations of existing legal non-conforming uses under the zoning bylaw.

Land division and consents – severing a new lot from an existing lot, adding land to an existing lot, easements, mortgages or leases in excess of 21 years.

Conformity to the zoning bylaw for a particular use.

There have been some boisterous CoA meetings in the past; the hearing that related to the Jack Dennison application to sever  the property he once owned on Lakeshore Road took years to be completed and in the end went to the OMB where the CoA  decision was set aside.

Dennison, who was the ward 4 Councillor at the time eventually got the decision he wanted – it raised more than eyebrows.

Members of Council are rarely involved in CoA meetings.  However in the past former Councillors Rick Craven and John Taylor have appeared.  Craven attended but did not speak to an application nor did he identify himself as a ward Councillor.  John Taylor did speak to an application.

Kearns - trhe like

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns

The current Councillor for ward 2, Lisa Kearns has appeared before the CoA twice and in a notice on her Facebook page is advising people of the meeting this week.

Maurice Desrochers, talking to residents who live near the block long development he is proposing for the St. Luke's ward.

Maurice Desrochers, talking to residents who live near the block long development he was proposing for the St. Luke’s ward.

The application she refers to is one made by Maurice Richard Desrochers, no stranger to CoA procedures. There are three separate applications,  all related to a property on the corner of Caroline and Burlington Street, a part of the city that is seen as a choice location to live where re-sale prices are well into the million dollar level.

There appear to be people either on the CoA or involved in the administration of the hearings who take exception to members of Council appearing.

The Gazette source asked not to be identified

 

 

 

Return to the Front page

Storm water management is not a simple task in Millcroft

background graphic greenBy Pepper Parr

April 7th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Fourth in a series

When Allan Taylor, the Planner hired by Millcroft Against Development (MAD)to state their case against a proposed development that would result in a shorter golf course and 98 detached homes and 130 apartment units, he referred a few times to the storm water problem.

When the community was designed much of the storm water management was handled by the wide open spaces where the water would evaporate.

Start taking out some of the land and there is less space for the water to lie while it evaporates. The infrastructure in place to handle the water was predicated on the open space remaining open.

Storm water is a pretty dull subject – until your basement is flooded.

The people living in Millcroft provided a number of pictures to give you some idea as to just how much water there is to be drained away or left to Mother Nature to handle.

Credit for the pictures goes to Millcroft Against Development (MAD).

flooding 1

 

flooding 2

 

flooding 4

 

flooding 3

 

In his report as a planner Allan Ramsay said: “The Millcroft community was designed on the basis that the golf course lands would provide a benefit in dealing with rainfall and storm water by providing open storage of stormwater. Recent storm events have identified several flooding and storm water management issues in the Millcroft community.

“The redevelopment of the fairways in the Areas A-D with housing, roads and other hard surfaces will, according to our stormwater management review, increase runoff and worsen the flooding potential. In particular, Millcroft Greens’ proposed mitigation measures such as increasing the topsoil to 300 mm and disconnecting downspouts to rear yards will not likely achieve effective stormwater management.”

Related news stories:

1st in a series

2nd in a series

3rd in a series

Return to the Front page

Where the new development will be located is getting clearer - not downtown.

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

April 6th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Another one of those weeks.

Council meets for three days in a row as Standing Committee. This is where all the grinding takes place. Recommendations come out of a Standing Committee, then they go to Council where they are voted upon and become the bylaws of the city.

It isn’t quite that smooth – but on balance as a process it works.

Planners from the Region were on hand to today to talk about the growth plans for the Region and what that is going to mean for the city.

The Region is required to grow from a population of 595,000 to 1.1 million by 2051.

Benson 2Just where they will live and where will they work were the issues driving a very in-depth, detailed study that Region Planner Curt Benson took council through this morning.

THAT is complex stuff.

One of the reports set out what the boundaries are going to be for the MTSA – Major Transit Stagnation Areas, which for Burlington are going to be located at the GO station.

There will be three MTSA’s in Burlington.  Besides the Burlington GO there will be one at Aldershot GO and Appleby GO.

The boundaries are quite a bit bigger than many people thought they were going to be.

Burlington MTSA

Aldershot MTSA

Appleby MTSA

The transit terminal on John Street is not among the MTSA’s – it will remain a bus stop, albeit a busy one, nothing more.

Urban Growth boundary Oct 20

The Urban Growth Centre got moved north – many said it couldn’t be done. The boundary is pretty clear in this illustration.

The boundary for the Urban Growth Centre shifted a little as well.

The battle to put an end to the high rise towers has basically been one.

There are concerns about three developments – the CORE development that sits inside the football between Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road and the Carnacelli development planned for the east end of the football as well as a second Carnacelli development on the north side of Lakeshore Road at Pearl.  Those are battles that fall outside the limits of the Urban Growth Boundary.

The plans to tear down the Waterfront Hotel and put high rise structures in that space has yet to come to the table.

When it does the Plan B people who live in the downtown core have a solution.

Those are battles that are sometime in the future – perhaps as much as a decade.

 

Plan B rendering

The objective was to ensure that the view south to the lake from Brant Street was unobstructed. The Waterfront Hotel would come down and new buildings would be built in what is now the Waterfront parking lot.

Return to the Front page

Planner representing the Millcroft community puts their case forward

News 100 greenBy Pepper Parr

April 5th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Third in a series

MAD – Millcroft against Development realized they had a problem on their hands and went looking for a planner who could create the case they believed they had against the development.

The proposal the developer has taken to the Planning department is to add 98 detached dwellings and one mid-rise apartment building containing 130 dwelling units.

The community knew they had a serious problem and went looking for a planner who could point to the deficiencies in the proposed development in language that would equal what the planner for Millcroft Greens was putting forward.

A sort of “planner speak” going against another “planner speak”.

Alan Ramsay

Allan Ramsay – independent planner hired by the MAD community.

Allan Ramsay was their choice; he made a delegation which set out what the proposed development would mean to the community.  Before going into private practice Ramsay worked in the city planning department; while he did not work on the Millcroft file he was fully aware of the development.  At that time, in the mid 80’s it was a big deal for Burlington.

When the issue first became public – all the homes in the community got a letter from the then golf course owners – operators inviting people to a meeting.

The Mayor and the ward Councillor were all over the issue with emails and statements equaling the production of a healthy female rabbit.  Truth of the matter is that they could only offer words and do their best at council to grill the consulting planner on what the changes would really mean.  At that level the mayor was very good – let’s not equivocate  – she was superb.

She left Glenn Wellings searching for words and saying he did not have much of the information at his finger tips – and promised to get it for Her Worship and place it on the developers web site.  As of this writing – there are none of the promised answers.

Millcroft is a community with a mission to preserve the integrity of the existing Millcroft golf course said Allan Ramsay as he began his delegation.

Millcroft current Sept 21

The development as it exists today.  A par 70 course with 5700 feet .

revised golf course layout

The revised golf course will be a par 62 3900 foot Executive Style layout.  The yellow spots are where the detached homes will be placed.

Areas A - B C

98 detached homes will be located in the gray areas.

He had just ten minutes to speak as a delegate – and chose to answer questions.  He had sent a copy of his delegation to the city planners and every member of Council.

In his response to the development application he said what we have set out below:

The proposal by Millcroft Greens Corporation (“Millcroft Greens”) seeks to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and register a plan of subdivision to allow five portions of the existing Millcroft Golf Course (“Areas A-E”) to be developed with residential uses. A total of 98 detached dwellings and one mid-rise apartment building containing 130 dwelling units are proposed.

The subject lands are currently designated “Major Parks & Open Space” (Areas A-D), and “Residential – Medium Density” (Area E) in the City’s Official Plan.

Millcroft Greens is proposing to redesignate Areas A-D to allow low-density residential uses, and redesignate Area E to allow high-density residential uses with a maximum density of 200 units/ha. All of the subject lands are currently zoned “Open Space (O1)” in the City’s Zoning By-law.

In preparing our planning opinion we have undertaken an examination of the following:

i) the application submission and supporting documentation;
ii) neighbourhood context applicable to the subject property;
iii) the policy context; and
iv) the appropriateness of the application.

The following outlines our evaluation and conclusions in relation to these matters and concludes with the opinion, as professional planners, that the applications should not be approved.

Neighbourhood Millcroft

Wide streets, good medians and space between the houses.

Neighbourhood Character – the Millcroft community was planned as a prestige residential area built around a privately operated golf course. Inherent in the community concept is the integration of residential areas with the golf course and other forms of open-space and recreation areas.(1) Some of the defining residential characteristics of the community are the large lots, spacious setbacks and separations between dwellings and an abundance of open space. The Millcroft Greens proposal will result in development that is not in keeping with the established character of the existing community. The proposal, if approved, will facilitate an undesired change in the character of the area. For example:

i) Development Standards – As illustrated below Millcroft Greens is proposing significant reductions to the zoning regulations in comparison with the R2-3 zone found on most of the abutting and adjacent properties.

table

The differences between what the current zoning permits and what the developer is asking for – this is really the nub of the argument.

Zoning Regulation R2-3 Standard on Adjacent Lands Proposed
Exception Zoning
Min. Lot Frontage 18 m 15 m
Min. Lot Area 680 m2 425 m2
Min. Front Yard (Dwelling) 7.5 m 4.5 m
Min. Side Yard (1) 1.8 m or 10% of lot frontage 1.2 m
Min. Rear Yard (2) 9.0 m 7.5 m
Min. Building Height (2) 10 m 12 m
Min. Lot Coverage (2) 25% n/a

The proposed zoning standards will result in development that is not in keeping with the character of the existing area. The new lots will be significantly smaller and narrower with much smaller front, rear and yard setbacks. Millcroft Greens is also proposing taller dwellings with no restriction of lot coverage.

ii) Separation Between Buildings – one of the defining characteristics of the Millcroft community is the spaciousness between dwellings as seen from the street. Many of the existing dwellings are separated from dwellings on the opposite side of the street by large front yards and the full width of the municipal road. The separation distance from the front door of one dwelling to the front door of the dwelling on the opposite side of the street is typically between 34 m and 44 m (2). Millcroft Greens is proposing both reduced front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks and narrow private streets. As a result the separation between dwellings on opposite side of the street will be reduced to 19.3 m. The visual difference between a separation of 19.3 m and a separation of 34 m to 44 m is dramatic.

iii) Lot Coverage – Millcroft Greens is proposing a zoning exception to the normal requirement of a maximum 25% lot coverage. For Areas A to D, Millcroft Greens is proposing that there be no maximum lot coverage. The elimination of the lot coverage regulation is required in order to accommodate larger dwellings that would not normally be permitted. This situation is indicative of the overdevelopment of the lots and is not in keeping with the character of the area.

Millcroft golf course

The green space and the golf course were why people bought into the community. The golf course was never a top tier competitive location – but it worked for those who just enjoyed the game.

Loss of Open Space –The Millcroft community was planned in the 1980s with the approvals occurring through Official Plan Amendment 117 (OPA 117). According to OPA 117 the community plan was based on the integration of residential development within the open space land of the golf course and other natural features. Specifically OPA 117 indicated:

“…It is also the intent of the Plan that, should the operation of the golf course discontinue, these lands will remain as permanent open space, since portions of these lands contain creek features which are part of the stormwater management system for the Community. The open space associated with the golf course will be an important element in the concept and therefore the marketing of the Community. It is also the policy of this Plan that the City neither intends nor will be obliged to purchase the golf course lands in order to ensure their existence as permanent open space.” (Emphasis Added)

Although OPA 117 is no longer in force and effect and it is not applicable policy it clearly demonstrates the intention of the City to maintain the open space lands in the community as a permanent feature.

The Millcroft Greens proposal represents a significant loss of open space in the community and City. The adverse impacts include the loss of tree canopy, increased runoff due to additional roads, buildings and hard surfaces and the loss of wildlife habitant and natural features.

Flooding and Stormwater Management Issues – The Millcroft community was designed on the basis that the golf course lands would provide a benefit in dealing with rainfall and storm water by providing open storage of stormwater. Recent storm events have identified several flooding and storm water management issues in the Millcroft community.

The redevelopment of the fairways in the Areas A-D with housing, roads and other hard surfaces will, according to our stormwater management review, increase runoff and worsen the flooding potential. In particular, Millcroft Greens’ proposed mitigation measures such as increasing the topsoil to 300 mm and disconnecting downspouts to rear yards will not likely achieve effective stormwater management.

On behalf of M.A.D. we request the City investigate and report on the following:

(i) What strategies have been put in place to compensate for the loss of the golf course on river flooding?

(ii) Have the proponents conducted an assessment of potential basement flooding within the areas where foundation drains are connected to storm sewers?

(iii) What is the volume (cubic meters) of storage currently available for stormwater in the golf course and what is the volume of storage proposed through the developers functional servicing report? (and later why aren’t they the same?)

(iv) Will residents be compensated in the case that basement flooding damages occur?

Reduced Right-of-Way Widths – Millcroft Greens is proposing to develop Areas A – D using private roads instead of the standard municipal road. According to their submission these private roads have right-of-ways of 10.3 m rather than the 20 m right-of-ways found on the nearby municipal roads. These reduced right-of ways provide 8.3 m of pavement width and may not accommodate on-street parking.

Although private driveways are found in many condominium developments the use of private roads having reduced right-of-ways is new to the Millcroft community.

tight development

Some of the new detached units are show in full colour. The existing structures are shown in a light grey. Looks tight

Roads Introduced Along Rear Property Lines – Millcroft Greens is proposing development along a single loaded road in Area A. In this situation the new road is located near the rear lot line of the adjoining properties on Hadfield Crt. The new street will create a “sandwich effect” for several existing properties. Homeowners in this location will now have streets running along their front and rear yards. This situation raises issues of noise, privacy and nuisance for the abutting residents and will undoubtedly impact their use and enjoyment of their back yards.

Loss of Housing Adjacent to Golf Course – The Millcroft Community is one of only three locations in the urban areas of the City that provides a unique opportunity where housing is located adjacent to a golf course. The proposed redevelopment of the golf course lands will mean that approximately 65 dwellings that currently back onto the golf course will back onto new housing or a new subdivision road. The loss of this unique housing adjacent to golf courses is not desirable and significantly reduces the supply of this unique form of housing.

Redevelopment of Additional Golf Course Lands – At this time Millcroft Greens has not indicated if it has any plans for any further redevelopment of the remaining golf course lands. However, in considering the current proposal it is important to understand how the remainder of the golf course lands could be used and/or redeveloped. In particular, an assessment is required in order to ensure that the current proposal does not preclude the continuing use or orderly redevelopment of any adjacent lands.

Functionality of the Remaining Golf Course – The proposed realignment of the golf holes to accommodate the removal of some lands from the golf course use may create issues with respect to the functionality and viability of the golf course. One issue relates to extended distance and travel required to get from one green to the next tee. In several instances the distance and travel has increased significantly. For example, the distance from the tenth green to the eleventh tee will be approximately 230 m and the distance from the fifteenth green to the sixteenth tee is approximately 471 m. Another issue involves the overall desirability of the re-aligned and much shorter golf course. These factors are directly related to the long term viability of the golf course and the need to assess its future in a comprehensive rather than ad hoc or piecemeal basis.

Maintenance Building Relocation – Redevelopment Area E necessitates the relocation of the existing golf course maintenance building located on this site. Millcroft Greens has not indicated where the maintenance building will be relocated. While we understand the maintenance building is a permitted use under the zoning by-law on all the golf course lands, the future location of the facility is an important consideration and should be evaluated when considering the redevelopment of Area E and the re-alignment of the golf course resulting from the proposed residential development. The future location of the maintenance building may have traffic, noise, dust and other impacts.

Proposed 6m Buffer – the proposed draft plans of subdivision identify 6 m buffer blocks adjacent to the rear property lines in Areas A to D. The proposed buffer blocks are also shown on the Conceptual Open Space Plans submitted by Millcroft Greens. According to the Planning Justification Report the proposed buffer blocks will be a common element in a future condominium application and will be owned by the future condominium corporation(s). The purpose of these buffer blocks is not clear nor is it readily apparent the nature of the landscaping that will be provided, how maintenance of these areas will take place, what, if any, fencing will be provided and whether or not there will be any public or private access to the blocks.

The proposed development is not compatible with the well established character of the area. Though compatibility does not necessarily mean “same”, it also does not mean out-of-step with a stable environment. The proposed zoning regulations seek significant reductions in minimum requirements for lot area, lot frontage and front, rear and side yard setbacks. As well, the proposal seeks to eliminate lot coverage requirements.

Collectively these zoning changes will result in an over development of the Subject Lands.

The Gazette and Wellings Planning Consultants are involved in a libel dispute

Related news stories

Part 1 of the series

Part 2 of the series

Return to the Front page

Planner for Millcroft Greens gets grilled by Councillors after his delegation

graphic community 5By Pepper Parr

March 28th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Part 2 of a series.

 

Statutory Meetings are part of the development approval process.

During the Statutory meeting held March 2, 58 people delegated – each had 10 minutes.

Glenn Wellings, the planning consultant for the developer  spoke and answered questions.

A transcript of his delegation and the questions answered by follows.

Wellings chose to focus on four matters in his delegation – they were:

Public vs. Private Open Space

Land Use Compatibility

Future Phases of Development

Maintenance Building Relocation

 

Glenn Wellings  (GW)

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Committee members.

Wellings

Glenn Wellings

Starting with the area of public vs private open space.  When the Millcroft community first developed, the city acquired a significant dedication of parkland and open space.  It is important for the community to understand that the golf course lands were not considered nor credited toward the contribution of public parkland and public open space.  The city instead took its full complement of park and open space lands independent of the golf course.  The golf course was private open space when it first developed over 30 years ago and it remains private open space today.  The golf course is not considered part of the city’s parkland system.

Turning to the next point, Land Use Compatibility.  Compatibility does mean identical or the same as.  Compatibility is an assessment of the co-existence and impact between land uses.  Millcroft Greens has chosen a built form that is compatible with abutting land uses.  In the case of Areas A through D, large lot single detached dwellings are proposed adjacent to large lot single detached homes.  This occurs already throughout the Millcroft community even in cases where the lot sizes are not identical.  With respect to Area E, the mid rise built form was chosen as it is situated along a major roadway, that being Dundas Street and the building could achieve a significant separation from the townhouses to the west without impact.  In the case of all development parcels, Millcroft Greens has taken the added step of proposing a six metre landscape buffer between existing and proposed land uses.

Turning to future phases of development, there has been plenty of speculation regarding additional development of the golf course lands beyond these applications.    MG decided very early on in the process that maintaining the existing golf course would be an integral part of the proposal.  Therefore, to speculate what might happen in the future is not relevant to the applications before Committee today.  To reiterate, the MG proposal before the city is to consider the development of five parcels of land with a retention of an 18 hole golf course in a reconfigured format.  There would be significant investment in the golf course redevelopment.

A final point dealing with the maintenance building relocation, due to the proposed redevelopment of Area A, the plan is to remove the current maintenance building and build a new smaller maintenance building closer to the clubhouse.  The maintenance building would be approximately 40% smaller than the existing facility.  The new building would be designed to architecturally complement the design of the existing clubhouse.  The maintenance building relocation does not require planning permission provided the current zoning by-law setbacks are complied with.  These setbacks include a minimum 15 metre setback abutting a residential zone together with a nine metre landscape buffer.

Before moving to the video presentation, a few housekeeping matters.

Wellings MAr 2 A

Glenn Wellings during his March 2nd, delegation.

First, Millcroft Greens (MG) has no concern with the staff recommendation to extend the period to process the applications.  In terms of further public consultation, MG is planning to hold a virtual drop in open house some time in later April.  Due to the continued limitations on gatherings and concerns with public safety, this will need to occur virtually.  More details are expected shortly in this regard.  And finally, MG team of consultants is available in the waiting room to answer any questions of Committee.  We have Frank Bond, the Project Manager from MG, we have Dave Leighton, the consulting engineer from Urban Tech, Ash Baron, the ecologist and arborist from Beacon Environmental, Aaron Wignall, Traffic Consultant from Crozier & Associates, and Steven Johnson our golf course expert from TGA Partners.

In addition, any responses to new questions from this afternoon and tonight’s public meeting will be provided on the MG website, www.millcroftgreens.com as on the bottom of the slide.  Thank you for listening.  I’d be pleased to answer any questions following the video.

Millcroft golf course

The development, created in the mid 1980’s with a golf course in the middle of it. It quickly became one of the most desirable communities to live in. Residents now feel threatened ny plans to add 98 home and a six story apartment.

QUESTIONS from members of Council

Meed Ward at BSCI

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward

MMW Mayor Marianne Ward :  This question is around the recommendation you did touch on it Glen but I want to elaborate a little bit, the recommendation to allow staff to work on the file and you said you were ok with that.  Of course as we are all aware, when we go past the provincially legislative time frames for rendering a decision, we expose ourselves to a potential appeal to the LPAT for non decision.  So I’d like to get a sense of your intent.  Will you be filing a non decision appeal after the 120 days if we allow this recommendation to go through.  Then I’ll have a follow up.

GW:  Good question.  The LPAT process is complicated and I think Your Worship you understand that.  Just to be clear, we are in support of the staff recommendation which would extend it beyond the 120 days and as long as we’re moving forward in a positive manner and there is no hiccups in the process and then we don’t have an intention of filing an appeal for non decision but at the same time we need to protect that right your worship and if things do go off the rails, then that option needs to be available to MG but just to be very clear I think MG has shown a cooperation and willingness to work with the public and city staff to move this forward and engage with the public so that is still the goal.  At this point in time there has been no decision to file an appeal of these applications.  Hope that clarifies.

MMW:  Thank you for that.  Caveats noted that it could come.  Second question is a follow up to that around your expectation of time lines.  So where do you think you’re at and what are your expectations in terms of when you are expecting staff to provide a recommendation report for council decision?

GW:  I was a little bit surprised by the presentation by planning staff that the report would come back in September 2021.  That’s not information that we had before today’s meeting.  Also I can say that as we will continue to work with staff, there is a lot of public agency comments we have not received, so we’re waiting for some feedback from public agencies as well as city departments.  Once we get that feedback, we’ll probably have a sit-down with staff and work through the concerns and comments.   So it’s a little bit early to start speculating on time lines other than that we’re prepared to work with staff and try to have a report to committee as early as possible.

MMW:  Ok, so just a quick follow-up on that.  The September 2021 is that a concern for you?  You said it was a surprise today.  Are you troubled by that or are you prepared to work in that projected timeline?

GW:  Tough question.  We’re certainly prepared to work within those timelines as long as we’re moving forward in a positive way.  I can’t stress that enough.  If this goes off the rails then things could change but right now where we stand and where we sit in the process we are working cooperatively to work through the issues and the process with city staff and we’ll continue to do so.  So I think I’ll reserve judgement on the September 2021 timeline right now until we get further feedback and have further dialogue with staff.

AB Councillor Angelo Bentivegna:  Thanks Glen.  Wondering if we can go back to the video that had the two fences side by side with the buffer in between.

GW:  I’m not in control of the video and based on our technical difficulties today, I’m scared about going back.

Angelo watching Roru

Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna

AB:  Ok, that’s ok.  If we can visualize the two fences and all the greenery in between, I’m getting these questions over and over again, that is going to be a condominium area that will be maintained by I’m not sure who at this particular point, and will those fences be, what will they look like?  I think we saw chain link fences.  What will that look like when people are looking at their backyards.  What are they going to be seeing?

GW:      Good question.  Right now the plan is to provide a six metre landscape buffer strip between existing and proposed development and at this point in time the six metre landscape strip is intended to be managed and maintained by the condominium corporation for each one of the parcels and that’s certainly a matter that MG is willing to discuss but the intent is to provide a fairly robust planting strip where there would be a screen between existing and proposed development.   The details still need to be worked out and certainly we’re receptive to any comments in that regard.

AB:  The biggest concern I keep hearing is that if the condominium level of service is typically being paid by one side and not the existing residents who are already there, it will affect the visual upkeep of their back.  That is their big concern.  What is the intentions of MG to make sure that doesn’t happen?

GW:  Couple of things, first of all it would be zoned for protection.  The draft zoning bylaw that’s been provided to the city does provide an open space zone within the 6 metre landscape buffer.  As far as the condominium corporation is concerned, the mandate of that corporation would be to maintain that 6 metre landscape buffer strip in perpetuity and have proper reserves to ensure that maintenance.  That’s the plan now but we’re certainly  open to any comments or alternatives that may come forward to discuss how that landscape buffer unfolds.

AB:  Second question.  Is the maintenance shed that’s going to be relocated, I understand it’s 40% of the existing, and it’s going to be where the clubhouse is and it’s going to take the look of the clubhouse.  Is that building going to be above ground or in the parking lot or grass area and is there any digging downward that needs to happen to construct that?

GW:  The precise location of the maintenance building has not been determined but you’re correct, it would be 40% smaller than existing.  The existing facility up on Dundas is pretty large and it’s much larger than what they require.  In terms of the relocation of that, it’s expected that it be in close proximity to the clubhouse off the parking lot but the precise location and the building details really aren’t known at this stage.

Rory chair July 9

Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan

Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan (RN) :  Thank you  First question relates to your response to the mayor about possibly appealing.  So you say if things go off the rails, you might appeal, and as long as they are proceeding in a positive manner, are you deciding that if you think you’re going to get approval you’ll stick around but you may appeal if you get a report you don’t like?  What does that mean?

GW:  We’re starting to get into a legal discussion and to be honest I’m not prepared to go into that today because we’re just speculating in terms of what may or may not happen.  The Planning Act is pretty clear as to when you can appeal an application or decision and at this point in time I’m not prepared to come before you and suggest that MG will give up any of those rights.  But I can tell you that MG has every intention of working with this council, with city staff and the public on further dialogue.  I had mentioned the open house that we’re planning to hold in later April so that dialogue and engagement will continue in a cooperative fashion but Councillor Nisan,  I do appreciate the question, I just can’t speculate on what may or may not happen if there is a future LPAT appeal.

RN:  So thank you for that.  I just want to make sure it’s understood that you cannot make any promises about an appeal at this stage.

GW:  No promises.

RN:  Ok.  That’s fine.  That’s your prerogative, I understand.  But it’s important for us to understand that as well.  I have a second question.  I know this one quote you had where you said you’re proposing large lot single detached homes beside other large lot single detached homes.  So point taken there, but I want to know why you’re asking for so many changes to the R3.2 regulation.  So you’re asking for a change from open space and obviously that’s a major thing to be considered by all of us, but within the R3.2 regulation you’re also asking for exemptions there and you’re asking for more exemptions than you’re willing to follow the requirements.  For example, front yard down to 4.5 metres when it’s supposed to be 6, reductions to the rear yard, the side yard, the street side yard, lot covefage, dwelling depth, building heights where you want to be able to build a flat roof 12 metre structure where we only allow 7, if I’ve got that right, two stories, so why are you asking for all those changes and why aren’t you just asking for a bunch of townhouses here?

GW:  A lot in those questions.  First of all, townhouses were not considered as I mentioned about the compatible built form and MG thought that singles adjacent to singles made the most sense in terms of Areas A through D and with respect to Area E, the mid rise building being proposed.  With respect to the zoning and the number of changes, I think Committee members need to realize your zoning by-law is extremely out of date.  It’s not current and it’s not reflective of the built form today for single family homes so there was a number of suggested changes.  I would imagine when the City does get around to updating its zoning bylaw, that it will reflect more current standards but your by-law is really out of date and that’s one of the reasons for the number of changes being requested through the draft zoning bylaw.  And we’re certainly prepared to discuss that draft zoning bylaw with City staff as well as Committee members as we move forward.

sharman with sign

Ward 6 Councillor Paul Sharman

PS Councillor Paul Sharman (PS):  Thank you for the presentation Glen.  Question about the concerns from the community about flooding.  We’ve seen a series of photographs of storm impact and water all over the golf course.  We’ve seen a number of effects on peoples’ properties.  So as you are now into the process and you have engineers looking at that, what plans are there to mitigate the risks that they have concerns about?

GW:  I’m going to have to rely on Dave Leighton (DL) to respond to that question.  So I think he needs to be brought out of the delegate room to respond to the concern of flooding.  Sorry for the awkwardness Councillor Sharman but I’m just not an expert on storm water management.

PS:  No it’s fine.  I appreciate having the experts, the professionals to talk about it.  Thanks you.

DL:  You’re correct.  The Millcroft community was designed to flood.  The golf course was designed to flood to protect the residents of Millcroft.  Our application, we cannot increase flooding.  We cannot aggravate flooding.  We have to secure a permit from Conservation Halton and approval from the City of Burlington, so we can’t make any existing condition any worse and our goal is actually to improve it.

PS:  Thank you for that.  From a technical perspective, can you talk about the kind of mechanisms available to you please.

DL:  Absolutely.  We have our hydraulic models that we received from the conservation authority that calculate flood levels.  We’ve gone out and done detailed topographic surveys so we have all the correct elevations.  Some of the mitigation methods that we’re using, those who are familiar with Appleby Creek and specifically down by the existing pond, that is used both for irrigation for the golf course and as a water hazard, there is a concrete weir on the north side of Upper Middle.  Through removing that weird, it was artificially backing the water up.  With removing the weir, and reshaping the flood plain, we are actually going to be lowering the water levels in that region of Appleby Creek between Millcroft Parkway and Upper Middle Road.  So we have certainly used all the stormwater and technical tools available to us to assess the existing flooding and what is our proposal to reshape the flood plain and ensure that we don’t aggravate or increase any flood levels upstream or we wouldn’t be able to secure any approvals from any of the agencies.

PS:  Can I ask a question for clarification.  Do I understand you to say that you’re actually improving the current condition of the Millcroft neighbourhood as a result of the actions you’re taking with the weir?

DL:  Yes, we are.  With the lowering or the removal of the weir, there’s two benefits.  One is the opportunity for ??? upstream and the lowering of the flood plain so our submitted functional servicing report does show that water levels have lowered.

Lisa Kearns

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns (LK) :   My question centres around the public engagement and the vast amount of communication that has come through all of our offices and is captured within the report before us  today.  My question for you is can you give two demonstrable examples of where you’ve taken that community feedback and have changed or modified the plans before us from per-consultation or preliminary concept to what was finally presented.  Can you demonstrate at all that that community feedback has been taken into account to make any changes?  (**hear someone in background say “that’s so funny”)

GW:  Good question.  I need to take that one under advisement.  I don’t have the answer off the top of my head but it’s something that I’ll go back and have a look at but there were a number of comments that came out of the September meeting that did inform the applications that were filed.  I just don’t have an answer at my fingertips.

LK Ok, then maybe just as a follow up question. How would you define what we should be looking out for as indicators that MG has worked with the community, worked with council, worked with staff to bring about a plan that works for all of those stakeholders?  What should we be looking for if we’re not able to identify modifications at this point in the evolution of the application?  What should we be looking for?

GW:  I think you should be looking for opportunities.  Has there been an opportunity to engage.  Has there been an outreach by MG which there certainly has been, and a dialogue with the public and I think as a councillor that’s obviously pretty important to focus in on pubic engagement and whether that informs any changes to the applications, that’s a completely different matter.  If there is some constructive comments that we feel would benefit the applications, it’s certainly something we’d take into account.

LK:  My second question is of the 800 pieces of literature we’ve received and the numerous comments that have come through your office what would be maybe the top two constructive recommendations or interest that MG would say maybe has some value to explore for further consideration?

GW:  I think we’re still looking for some constructive feedback because all we’ve heard from many people is “we don’t want it” and frankly that doesn’t help.  If there is constructive comment on how if this were to move forward and how this could move forward in the best possible way, those are the constructive comments, quite frankly we haven’t received a whole lot of and we’re open to receiving those comments and see if that can inform.  I think change is really difficult and we all understand that and appreciate that but residents as far as change is concerned, they are fine with change if it’s in someone else’s backyard and if it’s in their backyard, they tend to resist it.  Change is inevitable.

RN:  Point of Order Chair .  This is going off the rails and not on point of the application.

Chair Galbraith:  I agree.

Galbraith slight smile

Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith – Chair of the meeting

Kelven Galbraith – Chair of the meeting and Councillor for ward 1. (KG):   I’m going to jump in with a first question before we go to second time questions.  Thanks for the presentation Glen.  We’ve heard some concerns about safety of the current golf course and how the changes are going to improve on that.  Can you just elaborate a little bit on how that will happen?

GW:  I’m probably better to direct that comment to Mr. Steven Johnson. (SJ) He is our golf course expert that’s available.

SJ:  So if I heard the question right, it is what modifications have taken place in order to rectify some of the safety concerns.  One of the key things when you’re getting into the changes is when you’re modifying the golf course is basically the landing areas and the distances.  So basically, par 3s, when you change from a 4 or 5 to a par 3, you mitigate the dispersion patterns and therefore just by doing that alone, will impact and improve safety.  From the point of view of the tee boxes, locations and modifications in that regard, they will also change safety precautions because right now the centre lines will change under the new program and therefore the landing areas will move the ball away from, as best they can, into areas that will be larger landing areas away from backyards.  You’re never going to mitigate all issues.  But this plan definitely makes the proposed course much more safety factor from balls going into backyards.

KG:  So shorter course, safer course, basically.

SJ:   And also centre lines.  So shorter course, safety, that’s number one.  But also changes in centre line and tee areas into landing areas also changes and creates safety.  It’s the same as when you see any community that’s being built with a golf course, you see trees and buffers going up and sometimes you find it going up after the fact.  With this you find that you’re already able to move some of the tee decks and (a) shortening the hole but (b) changing the centre lines you also make it safer as well because of dispersion patterns.  And then when you take longer clubs out of your hands, the dispersion factor changes as well.

KG:  yes, noted.  Thank you.  Second time speaker, Councillor Bentivegna.

AB:  The question has to do with roads and the new roads that we’re putting down.  I just want a visual here.  We’re going to have a road and we have a row of homes and in behind there will be another road and another row of homes and the question is when a home is between two roads, are these roads standard width roads and because it’s private property I don’t know how it works and I can ask staff that as well but what is the width of that road in front of the homes and behind the homes and is it legislated?

GW:  These are condominium roads that are being proposed and the width of the condominium roads, the paved surface, is roughly equivalent to the paved surface of a local road without the extensive boulevards  so they would serve the same purpose and there are other condominium roads within the Millcroft community and servicing some of the development parcel so they would be similar to those roads.

AB:  So can cars park on the street on those condominium roads, in front of their homes?

GW:  The intent is on one side that there would be some on street parking.  That is the intent.  What you need is to make sure is you keep 6 metres free and clear for fire access and emergency access purposes.

AB:  Second question.  Has to do with air quality compatibility.  And I know one of the 30 plus studies you did talked about air quality.  When we do air quality, and again I’m new to all this, do they take into consideration 30 years of golf green spraying?  And obviously those chemicals are no longer in use anywhere else other than in golf courses, we know that.  Is that taken into consideration when they do those tests?

GW:  Shorter answer is I don’t know.  We’ll have to take that one back.  We don’t have our air quality expert here today but we’ll certainly take that one back and put a response on the MG website and share it with city staff.

MMW:  Follow up question.  I wanted to ask you a question about the distinction you made in your presentation between public open space and privately owned open space and try to understand a little better sort of what you were getting at there.  The lands of course are privately owned, nobody disputes that, but they are zoned, the vision for them in terms of the use in the city’s OP are for open space, in both the OP and the zoning, so regardless of ownership tenure, the vision is to keep that open green space.  So can you just talk to me about what difference it makes, what you were trying to get at in your presentation, what difference it makes that it’s not publicly owned at this point, still zoned as green space?

GW:  I was simply trying to make the distinction that these were not taken as public open space and parklands through the consideration of the Millcroft community when it first developed.  They were not accounted for or considered as parkland or public open space.  So it was just making the distinction between ownership and to me there is a difference.

MMW:  So that’s what I’m trying to understand.  Can you tell me what the difference is on ownership?

GW:  In terms of ownership, if it were publicly owned then the City certainly has control over the use of those lands currently and in the future when they’re privately owned, the City can zone those lands and of course an owner of those lands can bring forward an application for consideration of a different use so it was really just trying to distinguish between public vs. private ownership.

MMW:  Right, sorry, I think the question was more around what difference does it make for the ongoing use given that regardless of ownership public or private, the use as defined in our OP even at the time of this development is for open space, in both the OP and the zoning.  That’s the vision for this in our plans.

GW:  That is what the OP and zoning bylaw do with the exception of Parcel E.  Parcels A through D is open space.  I do acknowledge that, but MG has made an application to propose a different use of portions of those lands with the retention of the golf course and they’re asking for those applications to be considered.  If they were publicly owned lands, these applications wouldn’t be on the table.

MMW:  That wasn’t my question but you’ve kind of touched on it so that’s fine.  I gather that you’re still waiting on comments from the regional OP.  Their plan also, on page 10 of the report, their plan designates this as Regional Natural Heritage System in Section A of A to D.  E is completely different so we won’t talk about E.  But A is definitely Regional Natural Heritage System and any alteration of the components of a Regional Natural Heritage System are not permitted unless it’s been demonstrated there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or areas or their ecological functions.  So have you heard back from the Region whether they are even on for that in Section A?  Feel free to answer why is this not also a regional OP amendment.  I guess they do their comments through our process, I guess that’s why.  But what have you heard from the Region?

GW:  We haven’t received regional comments so I‘m hoping those will come soon but it’s important to note that the whole golf course is not a Regional Natural Heritage System, it’s just a small portion of it – the vicinity of Appleby Creek and the pond are considered Regional Natural Heritage System.  So these lands are in the urban area under the Plan; they’re in the urban surfaced area.  And of course municipal services are available to these lands and to the community so we will see what the region has to say.  I’m not going to speculate.  No answer yet.  There’s quite a few comments still outstanding.

MMW:  Sometimes because of the time delay between the report and a meeting like this there could be a time delay so I’m trying to ascertain if they have provided anything in the interim.  So yes it’s just Area A, but it is one of the areas being proposed for redevelopment, so thank you for that.

RN:  Coming back to the zoning bylaw for a second, and the reason I brought up the townhouses is that it seems like all the changes that you’re proposing reflects more of a townhouse form than a detached form.  I’m certainly not suggesting that townhouses aren’t a good idea here, far from it, but I’m just wondering can you provide comments at some point about why you think these are appropriate using neighbouring zoning bylaws because you’ve asked for no maximum lot coverage.  Is there precedent for that?

GW:  Zoning is complicated and in terms of lot coverage yes there is precedent for zoning bylaws that do not have lot coverage and the reason being is the coverage is actually controlled through different means, being setbacks from the side, the rear and the front.  So sometimes the controls result in a lot coverage yield.  What we’ve done in terms of the zoning bylaw, and certainly Councillor Nisan, we’re prepared to spend much more time on the zoning bylaw and discuss with City staff, is we’ve also provided for the opportunity of bungalow product in the zoning bylaw but I do want to remind you and committee the proposed lots through Areas A through B are 50 foot lots so that’s a large lot in the urban surfaced area, so I would not equate these in any shape or form to townhouses.  But the zoning bylaw is prepared in draft form, it’s submitted to the City, the City is reviewing it and I expect to have comments back on it, so there is some provision that will warrant further discussion.

RN:  I’ll have more questions for you and staff about that and I’ll save my comments on it for later.  Just getting back to Councillor Kearns’ question, which I thought was a very pertinent question, you mentioned that you’ve mostly heard just opposition but I’ve heard very specific opposition for specific reasons, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss those concerns as just being opposition, so I want to know what you’ve done to mitigate concerns that have been raised.

GW:  By no means are we ignoring public concerns and I want to be really clear on that point.  I spent last night going through a couple of hundred submissions just trying to get a handle on the public concerns, so it’s a process that’s going to evolve, we’re going to go back and look at the public concerns.  A lot of those concerns are common.  Some of them are a little bit different.  So the goal of the MG group is to take those public concerns, evaluate them and discuss them with city staff and if there are some solutions or changes that could be brought forward, we would do that, but the public comments are important, as what we are going to go through today is important in hearing the feedback from the public and there has been lots of correspondence I know.  Councillors, you have all received that correspondence.  It’s pretty daunting.  There are a lot of letters and materials to go through and we will go through them and provide an assessment.

RN:  Thank you.  I would just note that is the point of the pre-consultation meeting that we had months ago.  Chair, I have two more questions if the board is clear and then I’m also finished.

Chair:  Yes, I’ll just remind committee that this is delegate 1 of 57.  Go ahead with your questions councillor.

RN:  Promise not to be as hard on the rest of the delegates in the community.  In E, is it going to be a six storey building or a seven storey building because the staff report says seven.  And what will be the actual linear height of that building?

GW:  The proposal is six storey.  As far as the linear height, I don’t have that at my fingertips but I can certainly follow up on that.  It’s on the plans, I just don’t have them in front of me.

RN:  Well just to clarify, the report says Unknown Linear Height so I’m wondering why you didn’t know at the time or perhaps I’ll ask staff why this wasn’t presented at the time of the report and it says seven storeys, not six, in the report so something’s not right here.

GW:  I think staff will have to confirm that CN, because it’s definitely a six storey building as far as I’m concerned and if you want a metric equivalent to the six storeys, we’re happy to provide that, I just don’t have it at my fingertips.

RN:  That would be great, thank you.  Final question, why are you offering compensation to homeowners?  It’s unusual to do that.  Why aren’t you just presenting the plans to go ahead.  Why are you offering compensation?

GW:  First of all, the offer of compensation, the principle of compensation is something that was put forward by MG and it’s something that’s still on the table.  Because it’s not a planning matter, it’s not something I’m prepared to discuss at today’s public meeting.  It is a matter between MG and the adjacent residents.

RN:  Well it was in your video, so is there someone on the line that could respond to that?

GW:  No there isn’t, Councillor Nisan, and that’s not something we’re going to discuss today.

RN:  You brought it up.  It’s in the video.  So you brought it up.  So that’s why I’m bringing it up.

GW:  Councillor Nisan, I think you’ve heard my answer.

Chair:  I think the answer’s clear,

RN:  Yes it’s clear.  I don’t understand it, but you’re right, it’s clear.  Thank you very much.

Chair:  OK, thank you Glen.  I see another question from Mayor MW.

MMW:  One final question on the public engagement piece and two excellent questions earlier, so just to follow up on that.  One of the requirements that our planning department has, and it may be somewhat unique to Burlington, it’s why we do a pre-consultation public meeting is so that the applicant can demonstrate that they modified plans in respect of the public input they heard and we’ve heard very similar comments at the pre-consultation public meeting as are in, certainly some of the comments now as residents have seen some of the public reports are much more detailed, but certainly some of the same themes.  So I did want to go back and give you a chance to say how you have satisfied that city requirement in your plan to take into account and modify your plans in respect of the information that you heard from the Community, partly through the pre-consultation process which was quite extensive.

GW:  It’s not something I have at my fingertips tonight.  I can tell you that the pre-application meeting had a number of comments.  There was also comments from the BUD, the City’s Urban Design Review Panel and those were all sort of gathered and looked at in terms of the submission.  In terms of pinpointing, your Worship, on specific areas where changes occurred, I’m going to have to just take that back and follow up on that.  I just don’t have it at my fingertips.

MMW:  Ok, that was the answer.  However, my understanding was that the Planning Justification Report that would be submitted is required to show those things in the actual report and as the author of that report, that’s why I’m asking you the question.  So, granted it may not be off the top of your head, and I’ve looked at the Planning Justification Report and I can’t find it there either, unless it’s sort of woven in, but it’s a requirement that it be documented when you apply for the application so I guess I’m just asking where to find that and if that requirement has actually been met.  I don’t know, but …

GW:  Yes it has your Worship and what is required of city staff on a pre-application meeting is that detailed minutes be prepared, there was actually a transcript prepared and the latter part of the Planning Justification Report does go through the areas that were raised through that pre-application meeting.  But I think you’re wanting to know how some of those comments facilitated change and I’m saying I don’t have that at my fingertips.  It’s something I’m prepared to come back with.

Meed Ward style

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward

MMW:  Ok, that would be extremely helpful and I will also ask staff as this may be something we need to make even more clear to applicants that they are required to be quite clear in their application how they’ve addressed those.  That’s the intent of the policy framework that we have and we have followed for some time.  But I suppose there’s more to come all around.  There are technical comments to come and you’ve certainly heard from us that that’s really something we need to see.  Thank you.

Chair:  Ok, thank you Glen.

The meeting then went on to hear other delegations.

The Gazette and Wellings Planning Consultants are involved in a libel dispute

Part 1 of the series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return to the Front page