 By Pepper Parr
August 7th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
There are public hearings taking place at the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Before a full hearing can take place what are known as Case Management Conferences are held that set up the data and sworn statements that will become part of the actual hearing.
At this point in time there are appeals to the ICBL (Interim Control Bylaw) that shut down development in parts of the city for more than two years and the Approved but not in force city Official Plan.
The creation of a new Official Plan is a big deal – the changes the council elected in 2018 put in place were hugely different than the plan the 2014-2018 Council approved.
There are major dollars on the table – opportunities for eye popping profits for the developers and buildings that will change the look, feel and character of the city for decades.
Many people don’t pay all that much attention to these matters – they often don’t understand what is really complex stuff and wonder what difference their voice would make.
Then when they see a 26 storey tower that comes right out to the property line leaving them feel like they are in downtown Toronto they ask: How did this happen?
The picture below is a look at what it at stake.
 The cultural and historical heart of the city has been bought up by developers who want to put up high rise towers reach close close to 30 storeys. Each circle represents a development underway of property on which a development application has been filed.
 By Staff
August 4th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference this morning that lasted just a little over an hour.
They didn’t get all that much done.
 The City and the Region were required to provide time frames and firm commitments so that the 40+ appeals of the city’s adopted but not in force Official Plan could proceed.
Representatives from the city and the Region were supposed to provide a consolidated list of issues related to the appeals to the new official plan by July 23rd, they failed to provide this.
 The city’s legal team expressed surprise at the 54 pages of issues received, adding it simply was not possible to meet the deadline.
The list of consolidated issues is now expected to be ready by the 8th of September and will be discussed at the next Case Management Conference in October;, a time-frame the Commissioner hearing the appeals said seemed relatively expeditious- not everyone saw it that way.
Denise Baker, representing the former Hamilton Halton Home Builders Association suggested the city was “punting” this matter down the road.
The city’s legal counsel said they would work toward lifting the Interim Control Bylaw on areas unaffected by the new zoning by-laws, they expected this to content parties – this also proved unsatisfactory.
Representatives challenged the promise to lift the freeze as vague, ambiguous, and without a time frame.
More later today on this breaking story.
 By Staff
August 4th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
When there is construction work being done within hearing distance from where you sleep – you end up being a very unhappy camper.
Some time ago the city created a policy – Construction and Mobility Management Policy, to address the issue.
 In the past the city has held public meetings and asked the developer of a site to explain to the audience how they will manage the CMMP. Those stand are from the ADI Development Group. The contractors had to submit a plan on how they were going to handle the movement of equipment and construction materials to the site and how they would manage the movement of pedestrian and vehicular traffic around the site.
For the people on Martha Street near Lakeshore a Construction and Mobility Management plan hasn’t made much difference – what has lessened the quality of their lives is the provincial policy that lets workers start at 7 am.
Nothing the city can do about provincial policies – except to maybe write a tart letter.
The city now wants feedback to help refine the policy to address construction impacts on sidewalks, cycling facilities, parking and streets.
 This aerial view of the Nautique construction site sets out the problem; the traffic limitations on a very bust road, the sound and construction dust problems. The Construction and Mobility Management Policy, (CMMP) first approved by Council in the fall of 2019 provides guidelines to:
• Minimize impacts to sidewalks, cycling lanes, parking and streets during construction of new developments;
• Provide consistency in the City’s review and approval of proposed developments;
 The Nautique: it was controversial when it was an idea. Some things never change. • Successfully manage multiple developments, potentially in close proximity, while maintaining an active city for residents and businesses; and
• Coordinate private development with planned construction by the City, Halton Region and Utility companies on public roads.
In June 2020, staff proposed an amendment to the original Construction and Mobility Management Policy to establish additional guidelines for the approval and management of low-density residential construction activities, to minimize impacts to public health and safety, amenities, traffic and the environment in the area. Council approved this amendment on June 22, 2020.
Staff is now looking for feedback from residents about how construction has impacted them both before and after the City implemented the CMMP.
How to Participate
Residents and others interested in the Construction and Mobility Management Policy are encouraged to:
1. Visit GetInvolvedBurlington.ca/CMMP to learn more about the policy
2. Take the survey
An online survey will be available until Aug. 27, 2021 at GetInvolvedBurlington.ca/CMMP for residents to share input about how the policy has affected construction around Burlington to date and what the future of the policy might look like.
You might want to use the Gazette search engine to pull up past stories on construction site problems.
 By Pepper Parr
July 30th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Rick Craven’s opinion piece was sent to a number of close associates and to other media in the area. The Gazette is not on his media list
Former Ward 1 Councilor Rick Craven put out a small piece earlier today – it may have appeared in the local website he writes for.
Craven takes the position that: “Mayor Marianne Meed Ward’s claim that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has already approved a boundary change for the Downtown Urban Growth Centre (UGC) may be wrong.
At a press conference on June 15th the Minister did say that he supported the change.
In his article Craven wrote: “The Mayor then publicly claimed victory. “The Province has approved our request to adjust the boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre.”
Not so fast.
“In an oral ruling during an appeal this month, an Ontario Land Tribunal Hearings Officer (OLT) concluded that until the Minister actually signs off on the new boundary, the existing boundary remains in place and would be used to adjudicate the case before him, possibly creating an advantage for the developer.”
Not so fast yourself, Rick.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing doesn’t just stand up and say – ‘this is the way it is’. He did indeed make a statement on June 15th saying he supported the change in the Urban Growth Boundary.
What he was doing in June was telegraphing what his position was going to be.
Last week the Regional government passed their ROPA 48 (Regional Official Plan Amendment). That document approved the change to the Burlington Urban Growth Boundary and took away that ridiculous MTSA designation given to the John Street bus terminal; a structure that couldn’t hold ten people standing up.
That MTSA (Major Transit Service Area) was let stand during the period of time that Craven was a Councillor – put that burning rubber tire around his neck. It was the existence of the designation that let the ADI Development Group get (what was then) OMB approval for the 26 story Nautique structure on Lakeshore Road.
Craven writes: “The City’s lawyer tried to convince the Hearings Officer otherwise, but without success.
The existing UGC boundary includes areas on both sides of Brant Street to the waterfront. It was set up years ago by the Province to encourage significant intensification.”
 Existing UGC Boundary Craven is totally correct on the province being the people who created the original UGC boundary – where they blew it is in not asking the province to move it.
It was the demand that the UGC boundary be moved that won the election for Meed Ward – something Rick Craven has never been able to come to terms with.
Craven wrote: “Local developers have used this boundary to justify tall building proposals at or near the waterfront including the twenty-nine storey proposal discussed at the Hearing.
The existing UGC boundary includes areas on both sides of Brant Street all the way down to the waterfront.
“Burlington politicians never liked the Province’s UGC boundary. Reacting to downtown opposition to tall buildings, City Council proposed re-drawing the boundary to move it farther north, away from the waterfront. They knew that it would still require Provincial approval.
“It appears now that approval of Council’s change remains somewhere in the wilderness of the Provincial government, contrary to Meed Ward’s public pronouncement.
“Local developers are salivating at what the Hearing Officer’s ruling might mean. Since the City’s proposed boundary is tied to an amendment of the Region’s Official Plan, some believe it may be a long time before it is actually approved.
“The City meanwhile faces a number of appeals and prospective appeals by developers who could potentially benefit from still being located within the Urban Growth Centre. There are outstanding proposals for new buildings as high as thirty-five storeys along the waterfront.
“Developers are also speculating about exactly what the Minister may eventually approve. Will he approve what City Council wants or tweak it, and will his decision be retroactive?
 City’s Proposed New UGC Boundary “In spite of the Hearing Officer’s ruling Meed Ward remains confident.
“We will continue every effort to ensure reasonable growth that accords with community, council and staff vision for the downtown”.
Downtown Councillor Lisa Kearns remains calm amid the uncertainty.
“It would be premature to speculate on the implications of the Tribunal’s oral ruling, or its implications for other downtown proposals, as the details of the reasons reflected in the written decision will need to be considered by the City.”
“The Hearing, during which the ruling occurred, is scheduled to wrap up today. It was about the Carriage Gate Homes proposal for a twenty-nine storey tower at the corner of Pearl Street and Lakeshore.
“In a surprising development the City indicated during the Hearing that it was willing to accept twenty-two storeys, which would be contrary to its own Official Plan and may upset some constituents.
 Site of the Carriage Gate development – asking for 29 storeys – city seems prepared to live with 22. Used to be the site of the Pearl Street Cafe. “If you were hoping for the Mayor and Council to control the growth of new high rises downtown, their position at the OLT to support 22 storeys at Pearl and Lakeshore will be quite a shock”, according to one Facebook comment.
“It may still be months before a final OLT decision on the Carriage Gate matter is announced.
 Former city Councillor Rick Craven “All this may prove particularly uncomfortable for Mayor Meed Ward who has promised for over a decade to “SAVE OUR WATERFRONT” and ran in the 2018 election advocating lower heights in the downtown.”
Craven is out there stirring the pot – exactly what any journalist should do. But he chose to forget the process. What he seems to want is for a judge to make a decision in the middle of the trial – it doesn’t work that way, Rick – and you know that.
Related news story:
Councillor dumps on Meed Ward
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.
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?
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.
By 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.
 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.
 Rambo 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.
There is more to this story – tune in for part two on Monday.
By 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.
 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.
 Much 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.
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.
 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?
By 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.
 Mayor Meed Ward  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”.
 The construction cranes are in place – the building will rise floor by floor in the months ahead.  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.
 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.
 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.
By 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
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.
 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”
By 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
By 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 By 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.
 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.
 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.
 North of Masonry Road at the Waterdown intersection – three condo site.  What is understood to be the park space to the west of the town houses.  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.
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.
 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.
 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.”
 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.”
By 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
By 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.
 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.
By 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.   While 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.
 By 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.
 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.
 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.
 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)
By 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.
 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.
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 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
|
|
