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

Millcroft: Fundamentals of an established community being challenged.

News 100 greenBy Pepper Parr

March 27th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Part 1 of a series

Millcroft logoThe 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 development resulted in a Statutory meeting that was stretched over three different days, heard from more than 58 delegations, and ended up with Staff directed to continue working with the developer to see if there was a compromise.

The Statutory meeting, something required by the Planning Act, was the largest and longest in the history of the city.
Planning department staff set out what was being proposed when they presented a series of graphics.

All 5 sites

Illustration shows where the developer wants to put in new homes. All are single family dwellings – with E being a 6 storey apartment.

Areas A - B C

A close up an sites A and B – with zoning shown.

Area D and E

Sites D and E – E will be an apartment building

Area A and B detail

Sites A and B appear to be the most problematic. The location and space that existing homes take up is shown in light grey.

There are a number of agencies and departments that have to give consent on a development of this nature, which has taken up a lot of time – so much so that there is concern the 120 day time limit will not be met. If it isn’t met, the developer has the right to take an appeal to the LPAT – Local Planning Act Tribunal.

The developer has said that at this point they are not thinking in terms of going to LPAT. The residents don’t believe them.

The concern at the home owner level is intense. There are two groups. MAD – Millcroft Against Development – and I Love Millcroft.

MAD has hired an independent planner who at one point worked with the city planning department when the project was being processed. Alan Taylor didn’t work on this particular development but he appears to be fully aware of the problem areas: what rights the developer has over what is described as privately owned open space.

That space is the land the developer wants to re-develop. Most of it is a golf course which is said to no longer be profitable. By changing the design of the golf course the developers argue that it will be safer and that a smaller golf course will be profitable.

This is part 1 of a multipart series.  Next – the delegation for the planner, Glenn Wellings, a very active developer in the Burlington market with at least three major developments in the hands of the Planning department.

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

Millcroft current Sept 21

The current golf courses layout.

Return to the Front page

High rise residential with a little flair and imagination

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

March 26th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

high rise menkesIf Burlington is going to have high rise  residential towers – and they are planned for properties around the GO stations – could they at least be interesting, inviting and innovative?

Vaughan is scheduled to get a three tower development that will involve several developers.

This is what they have in mind.

 

Return to the Front page

City reminds public that we are into salamander mating season

News 100 greenBy Staff

March 11th, 2012

BURLINGTON, ON

 

It’s Salamander mating season. And to do what that salamander needs to do to maintain the species he has to cross King Road – which means for a period of time King Road will be closed to traffic. This year, the road is already closed for construction of a nearby subdivision.

Salamander space at Nelson

The green patch has been identified as a natural habitat for the salamander and will not have public access. The shaded parts are land the Nelson Aggregate people want to extend their license to quarry. The large open area in the middle if the current quarry site that is reaching its extraction limits.

The annual passage of the endangered Jefferson salamanders during their breeding migration will begin soon on King Road near the base of the Niagara Escarpment to Mountain Brow Road. Since 2012, the City of Burlington has closed the same section of road for the salamanders which are a nationally and provincially protected endangered species.

The Jefferson Salamander has an exalted place in the minds of the environmentalists who want to keep the escarpment lands as pristine as possible which for them means not allowing any increasing in the size of the Nelson Aggregate open pit off Side Road number 2 at Guelph Line.

After failing to have an application to expand the pit in 2015 Nelson has filed a new application that sets aside land for the salamander.

That Nelson application is working its way through the application process.

JeffersonSalamander

Jefferson Salamander – becoming a cult figure with the various vested interests working to give them a place to live.

About the Jefferson Salamander
In Canada, the Jefferson salamander is found in Southern Ontario in select areas of deciduous forest, mostly along the Niagara Escarpment.

Jefferson salamanders spend most of their lives underground. As the weather warms up and the spring rains begin, the salamanders emerge and migrate to breed in temporary ponds formed by run-off, laying their eggs in clumps attached to underwater vegetation. Adults leave the ponds after breeding. By late summer, the larvae lose their gills, become air-breathing juveniles and leave the pond to head into the surrounding forests.

Adult salamanders migrate to their breeding ponds during wet rainy nights. They show a strong affinity for the pond in which they hatched and can be very determined to reach it, sometimes causing them to cross busy roads.

Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward appears to have adopted the Jefferson salamander – referring to them as “Jeff” in her comments which we share below.

“The Jefferson Salamanders are a unique part of Burlington’s biodiversity and have become a truly beloved part of our local community. At the City of Burlington, in partnership with Conservation Halton, we’re glad to play a small role in protecting the salamanders while raising awareness about their endangered status – ‘Jeff’ also is earning an unofficial mascot status for our city. Closing off this section of King Road each year is proving to be an effective tool in supporting the survival and recovery of this rare species. I’m always grateful to our residents for being willing to inconvenience themselves for a short period of time to help ensure ‘Jeffs’ numbers flourish in the future.”

hassaan basit

Hassaan Basit, President and CEO, Conservation Halton

Hassaan Basit, President and CEO, Conservation Halton chimes in with:  “With all due respect to Wiarton Willie, here in Burlington, we look to the Jefferson Salamander to let us know that spring is on its way. As the warmer weather and rain arrive, the Jefferson Salamanders head towards breeding ponds, that without human intervention, would require some of them to make a dangerous trek across King Road. Conservation Halton is proud to partner with the City of Burlington each year to ensure that the salamanders can safely make their way to the ponds.”

The Jefferson salamander is protected at both the provincial and national levels. It was added to Ontario’s endangered species list in 2011.

Unlike most small animals, Jefferson salamanders can live a very long time; up to 30 years of age.

Return to the Front page

Virtual meeting on a Housing Strategy gets more than a mouthful of data - but few realistic ideas were put on the table

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

MARCH 11th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The people who made the time to watch the first meeting on the approach the city wants to take to its Housing Strategy got a sense as to the size of the problem – along with plea from city staff running the virtual event to please take part in the survey and let them hear from you.

There weren’t enough people to keep the phone lines buzzing – a couple of people got in twice, one small developer created a phony name for himself and called in twice; one gentlemen needed three cracks at the log in procedure to make it to the screen.

Organizationally – it was presented in a traditional way – with a panel of people who are close to housing issues and have an understanding of the size of the challenge.

Then a panel of citizens and then calls were taken from those watching.

The five experts knew their stuff and brought unique and important perspectives to the event.

Mike Simiono, newly acquired Director of Community Planning (Burlington poached him from Oakville) talked about the meaning of owning a house and the role it take in creating community.

Ted Hildebrandt did a statistical overview. Some of his material was dated but the points were still clearly made.

The number of people who drive to Burlington from Hamilton was startling – the belief is that people live in Hamilton because housing is less expensive there.

commuting flow

The commuting flow in the chart on slide #7 was taken from the 2016 Census. It is derived from a question asking “At what address did this person usually work most of the time?” On this chart, the blue bars indicate people that are commuting to work in Burlington from the respective municipalities. The orange bars indicate people leaving Burlington to work in other municipalities. In terms of the figure of 24,505, this is the number of Hamilton residents that travel to work in Burlington.

 

 

 

rental vacancy 16-20

More space available …

rental rates Ham - Burl

... at less cost.

living alone 2016

The number of people living alone – Data as at 2016

pop changes regionCity staff did an entry explanation to set the context within which the city has to work. Currently the city has no direct responsibility for housing: that responsibility rests with the Region – they work with what the province makes available in terms of enabling legislation and funding.

The federal government does have a National Housing policy – it just doesn’t seem to be meeting the needs of places like Burlington.

Central Mortgage and Housing (CMHC) has been active and creative in funding and sponsoring creative approaches to housing – the co-op housing sector would not exist were it not for CMHC.

The cost of housing in Burlington and the availability of affordable housing is the challenge before the working group the city is setting up to dive deep into the data.

housing sales

Between 2015 and 2019, the average price of new sale in Burlington was $527,949 and the average price of resale was $676,628. On an average annual basis, the average price of new sales increased at a rate of 5.6 per cent per year. The average price of resale increased at a higher average rate of 9.3 per cent. The 5 year average price of both new and resale was $670,091, which increased at an average rate of 8.7 per cent per year.

affordable housing sales

Nine affordable units were sold for more than $393, 400 – which is the threshold for an affordable home. 24 were sold below the threshold.

City council endorsed a recommendation from the Planning department and hired consultants.  The plan is to move into an action-implementing mode once the results of the survey have been analyzed as well as any feedback from those that took part in the Zoom meeting.

A report gets taken to Council on April 6th.

There is a survey on the city Get Involved part of the web site. That survey is open until Match 19th – LINK to the survey.

 

 

There are affordable units in Burlington:

1,497 subsidized units made available by community housing providers in Burlington

838 units across 13 properties are directly owned/operated by Halton Community Housing Corporation.

659 other subsidized housing units are made available by 11 other non profit and cooperative housing providers funded by Halton Region.

162 additional new subsidized (brick and mortar) units were recently created in Burlington by the Region as part of the Comprehensive Housing Strategy

344 additional subsidized housing options and growing have been secured in Burlington with 16 landlords using rent supplement funding.

125 additional Burlington based households and growing are receiving a portable housing allowance to subsidize their rents.

This adds up to 2,128 subsidized units in Burlington.

City Council wants to increase that number – and is hoping to come up with a strategy that will make it possible.

There will be a part 2 with the comments made by the panelists.

 

Return to the Front page

Major new approach to housing development in the works - city wants to get in on the game

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

March 9th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Part 4 of a 4 part series

Last night there was a two hour Zoom event on the Housing Strategy your city council wants to put in place.

The city uses its Get Involved web site  program to spread the word. If you know about that part of the city web site – you can keep up to date with what the city is doing in terms of projects.

HS The panel

These are some of the people who took part in the Zoom event Monday evening. But that is not what this story is about.

The city doesn’t do a particularly good job of promoting that site.

Mostly of the members of Council did very little directing people to the event.

The Gazette  covered the event  and will report back to you.

But that is not what this story is about.

The Housing Strategy is one part of what the Burlington Lands Project (BLP) is all about. Never heard of the Lands Project? That doesn’t surprise us. It too has been poorly promoted

There is a link at the bottom of this article telling you what we know about the Project.

A few weeks ago there was a bit of a scramble by members of Council to get a seat on the BLP Steering Committee, where much of the grunt work is expected to get done.

The final decision on any development will be made by city council. The concern was this – would every idea get taken to city council or only those that the Steering Committee felt had merit and were worth taking to council?

Council couldn’t decide who the members of the BLP Steering Committee would be several weeks ago – it was left with the City Manager and the City Solicitor to come back with some suggestions.

Tim-Commisso-finger-up-hard-eyesCity Manager Tim Commisso reported last week that he talked to everyone involved and was not able to arrive at a consensus as to who should be on that Steering Committee and suggested Council discuss it.

The feeling that came out of Council was that the Mayor should be there along with the Chair of the Standing Committee the Steering Committee would report to. WHICH ONE

That didn’t go down all that well with ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman who really wanted to be on that Steering Committee. Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte, the strongest talker on the Affordable Housing file, had a passionate hunger to be on the Steering Committee and argued that given that she was going to be the incoming chair of the Standing Committee the Steering Committee would be reporting to – she too should be on the Steering Committee to give it a sense of continuity,

Sharman was not impressed with Stolte’s bonafides and basically trashed her.

Commisso stareCommisso thought he might see every member of Council wanting to be on the Steering Committee – not something he was on for.

Here is how they settled it. None of the members of Council would be on the Steering Committee BUT every proposal and idea that came forward would be taken to council.

The Steering might rank their development preferences but Council would know everything that was discussed.
It will be interesting to see how that works out.

What you, the weary tax paying citizen can do is look in on the Zoom meeting this evening and give a listen and contribute your ideas on the affordable housing file.

The BLP is not just about housing – it wants to do more about getting more shovel ready sites in place for future job site.

The Economic Development people talk in terms of having 50 hectares of land shovel ready for development – there are less than 20 l hectares 0f shovel readyproperty at this point.

While there isn’t a lot of land left for employment sites – there are some sites that are zoned employment lands – the owners of those properties want to upgrade the zoning for residential.

Related news stories

The first we heard of the BLP

Just what is the Burlington Lands Project.

Return to the Front page

We were just unreasonable - not more than that.

background graphic redBy Pepper Parr

March 7th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

For a city that is unable to stop talking about being voted the best medium sized city in Canada to live in it is nice to know that we were not reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous

NationalHomes renderingThat finding came out of a decision made by John Douglas in an LPAT (Local Planning Act Tribunal) hearing that said:

The Tribunal further finds, that although unreasonable, the actions of the City did not rise to the threshold of being reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous.

The Tribunal awards costs on a partial indemnity basis. As per the Motion Record, the Applicant/Appellant is seeking an order for the Tribunal directing the City to pay costs totaling $28,481.62. Exercising its powers under Rule 23.10 of the Rules, the Tribunal is fixing costs on a partial indemnity basis (at 60%) in the amount of $17,088.97 plus interest.

The hearing related to the National Homes development on Brant Street that is now under construction. 233 townhouses will be built.

Related news story

Mayor wears this one.

Return to the Front page

City provides detail on the status of the Official Plan and the outstanding appeals.

News 100 blueBy Staff

February 25th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

OP cover NEWBurlington has what they call an interim working version of its Official Plan that is being appealed by a number of people. A list of the appeals is part of what can be found at:

The City’s new Official Plan was approved by Halton Region on Nov. 30, 2020. This was followed by a 20-day appeal period, during which 48 appeals were filed.

The appeals have been made available online, along with an interim working version of the new Burlington Official Plan. More information is available under “Latest News” at burlington.ca/newop.

1. OSSGA – Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association
2. United Burlington Retail Portfolio Inc.
3. Crystal Homes
4. Landform Development Group Inc. and 2413350 Ontario Inc.
5. 1085 Clearview Limited Partnership
6. WE HBA – West End Home Builders Association
7. 440 Elizabeth Street Holdings Ltd
8. 2084 Lakeshore Holdings Ltd
9. Emshih (800 Burloak Drive)
10. Emshih 895-901 Brant and 2250 Fairview Street
11. Emshih 372-380 and 433-439 Brant Street
12. Carriage Gate Homes Inc., Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc. and Old Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc.
13. Molinaro Group of Companies and 1820473 Ontario Inc.
14. Victoria-Brant
15. Renimmob Properties Ltd.
16. Penta Properties Inc., Paletta International Corporation and P&L Livestock Ltd.
17. Fairview Limited Partnership
18. Ann Marsden
19. New Horizon Development Group
20. Brad Wilson
21. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
22. Millcroft Greens
23. RK Burlington Mall
24. FEHD Holdings Inc., Hodero Holdings Ltd., Branthaven Development Corp., M. DeLuca, W. DeLuca, Burlington Tree Farms, and The Central Canadian District of the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada.
25. Pine Street Burlington Corp.
26. Adi Developments – Masonry
27. 1246235 Ontario Inc. (789 Brant Street)
28. Khai Tuyen Ly and Donna Yuk Lee (795 Brant Street)
29. RioCan Holdings Inc.
30. 335 Plains Holdings and 355 Plains Holdings
31. Camarro Developments 789-795 Brant Street
32. Camarro Developments 519-527 Brant Street
33. Camarro Developments 1062 and 1074 Cooke Blvd
34. Infinity Developments
35. Spruce Partners and Amico Properties
36. Branthaven Developments
37. S&G Consulting
38. 735 Oval Inc
39. William R Love
40. Nelson Aggregate
41. Mac’s Convenience
42. Core FSC Lakeshore GP
43. Vrancor Group
44. Reserve Properties
45. 2584979 Ontario Inc
46. Medica
47. Emshih 901 Guelph Line
48. Mattamy James Street Limited Partnership

# 44, Reserve Properties is believed to have abandoned their appeal.

 

Return to the Front page

Scrambling for seats at the Burlington Lands Project Selection Table.

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

February 10th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

The following series is lengthy.  It sets out what the city has decided it wants to do on development projects that will put tax money at risk.  None of what is now known as the Burlington Lands Project was discussed, nor even mentioned, during the last municipal election. It bears watching

Part 4 of a 4 part series.

 

When talking through the Terms of Reference for the latest hot idea from City Hall – members of Council were not shy about looking for a way to sit on the Selection Committee – the place where the decisions are going to be made.

Lisa in the chamber

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns preparing to take the Chair of a Standing Council Committee

The document that set out who would be on this all-important committee had the Mayor, the Chair of the Corporate Services, Strategy, Risk and Accountability (CSSRA) who, this year, is Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns.  The Chair of the four Standing Committees change each year.

stolte a

Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte

Vice Chair of the CSSRA is Shawna Stolte who has made it clear that she feels she should be on the committee for several reasons.

She has a strong commitment to the concept of affordable housing and points to her private sector experience in the field and the fact that she is still a licensed realtor. And, she added, as the vice chair of the CSSRA she would bring some continuity to Council representation on the Burlington Lands Project because she will be chair next year.

Sharman a

Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman – wants to sit on committees that have clout and influence. He misses the Economic Development seat he held – why did his term on that Committee end?

Councillor Sharman didn’t see the Stolte bonafides quite the same way. He went so far as to say there had to be some merit in adding someone to the Selection Committee and that experience is important.

The original plan was to have two members of Council on the Selection Committee. Adding the vice chair of the CSSRA to the two would take it up to three which was not quite what City Manager Tim Commisso had in mind when he structured this latest initiative for the city.

He was rather firm when he said that there was not going to ever be four members of Council on the Selection Committee – that would have amounted to a Council quorum.

The decision as to the membership on the Selection Committee as it is set out in the Terms of Reference appears to rest with the City Manager and the Clerk.

The decision on the final Version of the Terms of Reference will be decided when the issue goes to City Council on the 19th.

mmw a

Mayor Meed Ward has managed to put the members of Council in roles they were ready for and kept those with depth and experience far enough away.

The Mayor would rather do without Councillor Sharman. She’s not at all interested in giving the only real competitor on Council for her job as Mayor any oxygen.   The next election is just 20 months away; all kinds of things can happen in that period of time.

There are people prepared to run against at least some of the incumbents and there are at least two members of the current Council who are at risk.

Marianne Meed Ward will run for re-election and win – providing she doesn’t slip on a banana peel and slide under a bus and providing she finds a way to come up with a budget that enough residents can live with.

At this point there is no reason to expect a strong contender from within the development sector.  Some of the decisions coming out of the LPAT might change that.

There are two members of Council who have their eye on the Chain of Office but they are at least another term as Council members before they have the credibility to take a run at the job.

Sharman will run for Mayor if he sees an opening he can exploit. He will have been on Council 12 years.

Despite how polite the members of this council are to each other – this is not a bunch of really happy campers.  Meed Ward has yet to find a way to bring them around to the point where they buy into the dream she has and also a way to coax the five newbies into her tent.

We will know before the end of the month who will join her on the Burlington Lands Project Selection Committee.

Part 1 of a 4 part series

Part 2 of a 4 part series

Part 3 of a 4 part series

Return to the Front page

With $250,000 in Hand and a Terms of Reference Document Waiting for the Nod from the City Solicitor - City Hall is Off and Running. Watch this one carefully

background graphic redBy Pepper Parr

February 11th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Part 3 of a four part series

What is the Burlington Lands Partnership?

The Burlington Lands Partnership (“BLP”) is a flexible, multi-dimensional and integrated approach that seeks to address multiple areas of municipal strategic land management including acquisition and development.

For the City, the BLP will initially focus on achieving tangible and measurable community benefits and returns in three areas: supporting economic growth and direct job creation, completing “city building” projects and delivering much needed affordable housing.

Oversight and strategic direction will be provided by a new steering committee that is ultimately accountable to Burlington City Council. The committee is proposed to consist of the Mayor, the City Manager, the Council member serving as current Chair of the Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee, key senior municipal staff, and representation from Burlington Economic Development (both the Board and staff).

Additional partner-based stakeholders such as community leaders, the heads of community organizations, and representatives of private corporations are proposed be part of smaller project specific task forces that are accountable and report out to the BLP Steering Committee.

The Steering Committee, which is the group that will look for partnership opportunities they can research, determine the risk and decide if there is enough in the way of benefits to the city to proceed.  If they come to consensus, they take their decision/recommendation to city Council where the decision to proceed will be made.

There doesn’t appear to be much in the way of public participation or opportunities for people to delegate.  The Steering Committee meetings will not be public.

Why is the Burlington Lands Partnership Needed?
• There are several strategically positioned and emerging municipal land development opportunities within Burlington, but there is no single entity that has the mandate and resources to realize the opportunities for the long-term benefit of the City.

• There is widespread support for the City to take a greater strategic role in targeting municipal land development in Burlington.

• Burlington has many active community organizations and not-for-profits which could engage in mutually beneficial partnerships to aid in developing communities within Burlington.

• A partnership in this form allows for the City, Burlington Economic Development (Burlington EcDev), and a coalition of public and private sector partners to pursue additional funding and strategic partnerships including but not limited to the Halton Region, Province of Ontario and Government of Canada.

The widespread support is not something that Gazette has heard of or become aware of and this council does not have a mandate to undertake something as large as what is being proposed..

Mandate of BLP

Throughout 2020, urbanMetrics was engaged by the City of Burlington to assess the viability, function and structure of a municipal corporation or other strategic land entity to facilitate the development of City owned lands with a focus on economic development and city building initiatives.

Parking lot CArolina and John June 2019

There was once a house on the corner of this property that was owned by the city. It was torn down to increase parking in the Caroline – John Street intersection. Little thought was given to creating a parking lot with a permeable surface to aid in rain water run off. City bureaucrats seldom have their ear to the ground and are rarely aware of what the public wants.

The study was undertaken in conjunction with a governance study conducted by MDB Insight to examine the role of the Burlington Economic Development Corporation. The recommended approach to a strategic land development entity, which was subsequently brought forward and recommended by the City Manager as the Burlington Land Partnership (BLP).

• The internal strategic real estate structure would involve Burlington EcDev, as well as other, potential partners, such as Halton Region, other public agencies, private industry and private and public institutions including not-for-profit community groups, as required.

• Oversite and strategic direction would be provided by a steering committee that would ultimately be accountable to Council. The City Manager, as staff lead, would be responsible for strategic managerial leadership and would serve as chair of the steering committee. Outside consulting expertise would be engaged as needed.

The mandate of the organization or partnership would be on leveraging real estate to:

o Maximise opportunities for economic growth and job creation;
o Develop and implement city building projects; and
o Create opportunities for the development of affordable housing.

Ultimately the BLP should have access to City staff and other resources to seek, identify and develop strategic land opportunities into viable projects; to direct the acquisition and disposition of related City lands; to undertake land and facility development visioning and design; to obtain necessary planning approvals; and to fully engage with outside partners.

• Initially, the BLP should be tasked with seeking, identifying and developing opportunities into viable strategic land projects. A number of opportunities have been presented through the urbanMetrics and Cresa studies. These, as well as others that may be identified in the future, need to be more formally prioritized and envisioned complete with detailed project plans, recommended by the BLP Steering Committee and approved by City Council.

• The BLP would be the first step towards the creation of a municipal development corporation, however this would not occur until 2023 (at the earliest) following a reporting to Council on the activities and accomplishments of the BLP in 2021/22.

• Establishing the BLP as a first step, achieves a good balance among the opportunities, the desire for augmented internal strategic land capabilities, the current resource capacity limitations and the need for due diligence and caution.

The longer term goal is to have the city getting into the the development business.  Is there a supportable collection of data that identifies the public buy in on an idea of this magnitude?  The is not a small potatoes idea.

After an initial start-up period of two years, the organization should be evaluated on an annual basis, with respect to achieving measurable results related to:

o Supporting job creation, business creation and economic expansion;
o Developing and implementation of community-wide “City building” projects;
o Realizing tangible affordable housing opportunities and increased housing supply;
o Fiscal impact (increased assessment base/taxes, development charges, other fees);
o Enhancing the profile of the City and contributing to the public identity of Best City to Live in Canada;
o Supporting the City’s 25-year Strategic Plan, Council’s Vision to Focus 4-year work plan and community planning and other land related policies; and
o Delivering value for money and cost effectiveness to Burlington taxpayers.

Bare bones Pier from high with trestle

The city basically built the Pier twice.

Seeing a set of benchmarks that would be used would certainly help the public decide if the idea has merit and serves the public and not the career aspirations of the bureaucratic cohort at city hall.

Remember the Pier.

BLP Working Groups

To be determined by the Steering Committee with approval by Council on a project- by-project basis as part of a separate project brief/plan.

Duration and Transition
The Burlington Land Partnership will function during an initial “pilot period” of two years including 2021 and 2022. A report on the strategic activities and outcomes of the BLP will be presented to Council prior to the end of their 2018-2022 terms and will include recommendations for consideration for the 2023-2026 term of Council.

The BLP represents a transitional approach that allows for the expansion of organizational capacity and a build-up of expertise that will in turn enable further consideration by Council of a formalized municipal development corporation (MDC) in line with other municipalities in Ontario and utilizing the powers allowed under the Municipal Act related to municipal corporations.

Overall, the Steering Committee will make recommendations to Council and decisions (where applicable) in the best interest of the City as a whole.

BLP steering terms 1

BLP steeriing terms 2

Agendas and Meeting Notes:
Agendas (including confidential materials as it related to property and legal matters) will be published ahead of meeting date, including attached documents required for discussion and decision making. Deadlines for attachments need to be respected to provide adequate time to read all required material to allow for comprehensive participation. If required, agenda items may be deferred at request of BLP member if materials are not distributed by deadlines.

BLP agendas and meeting notes will managed/prepared by the City Manager’s Office (CMO) and shared confidentially with Steering Committee members, City Clerk and Council Members.
blp steering terms 3

blp steering terms 4

The only thing left to do is order the new business cards.

Part 1 of a 4 part series.

Part 2 of a 4 part series

Return to the Front page

A Burlington Lands Partnership: Has a budget of $250,000 - now settles down to thinking what to do first

background graphic redBy Pepper Parr

February 9th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

The following is lengthy.  It sets out what the city has decided it wants to do on development projects that will put tax money at risk.  None of what is now known as the Burlington Lands Project was discussed, nor even mentioned, during the last municipal election.

Part 2 of a four part series

What is the Burlington Lands Partnership?

The Burlington Lands Partnership (“BLP”) is a flexible, multi-dimensional and integrated approach that seeks to address multiple areas of municipal strategic land management including acquisition and development. This strategic forward-looking approach will encompass the leveraging of future municipal land investments to maximize the potential benefits for the City and related partners.

For the City, the BLP will initially focus on achieving tangible and measurable community benefits and returns in three areas: supporting economic growth and direct job creation, completing “city building” projects and delivering much needed affordable housing.

Oversight and strategic direction will be provided by a new steering committee that is ultimately accountable to Burlington City Council. The committee is proposed to consist of the Mayor, the City Manager, the Council member serving as current Chair of the Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee, key senior municipal staff, and representation from Burlington Economic Development (both the Board and staff).

Additional partner-based stakeholders such as community leaders, the heads of community organizations, and representatives of private corporations are proposed to be part of smaller project specific task forces that are accountable and report to the BLP Steering Committee.

Why is the Burlington Lands Partnership Needed?

Burlington wants a Stage 2 designation.

There are parts of this fair city that could use some development – or to use the language planners use – put the land to better use.

• There are several strategically positioned and emerging municipal land development opportunities within Burlington, but there is no single entity that has the mandate and resources to realize the opportunities for the long-term benefit of the City.

• The establishment of a full-scale municipal development corporation (MDC), under the Municipal Act, would involve an onerous amount of capital investment and resources, which would challenge the City’s current strategic priorities, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported to CPRM Committee (CM-29-20, Oct. 6,20), a different approach is needed at this time.

• There is widespread support for the City to take a greater strategic role in targeting municipal land development in Burlington.

• Burlington has many active community organizations and not-for-profits which could engage in mutually beneficial partnerships to aid in developing communities within Burlington.

• A partnership in this form allows for the City, Burlington Economic Development (Burlington EcDev), and a coalition of public and private sector partners to pursue additional funding and strategic partnerships including but not limited to the Halton Region, Province of Ontario and Government of Canada.

Mandate of BLP
Throughout 2020, urbanMetrics was engaged by the City of Burlington to assess the viability, function and structure of a municipal development corporation or other strategic land entity to facilitate the development of City owned lands with a focus on economic development and city building initiatives.

The study was undertaken in conjunction with a governance study conducted by MDB Insight to examine the role of the Burlington Economic Development Corporation.

In addition to a case study review of the land development entities in other municipalities and an assessment of development opportunities within the City, the urbanMetrics study included an extensive consultation program with the Burlington business community, Council and City staff and the Burlington Economic Development Corporation. The recommended approach to a strategic land development entity, which was subsequently brought forward and recommended by the City Manager as the Burlington Land Partnership (BLP), involved the following:

• The internal strategic real estate structure would involve Burlington EcDev, as well as other, potential partners, such as Halton Region, other public agencies, private industry and private and public institutions including not-for-profit community groups, as required.

• Oversite and strategic direction would be provided by a steering committee that would ultimately be accountable to Council. The City Manager, as staff lead, would be responsible for strategic managerial leadership and would serve as chair of the steering committee. Outside consulting expertise would be engaged as needed.

• The mandate of the organization or partnership would be on leveraging real estate to:

o Maximize opportunities for economic growth and job creation;
o Develop and implement city building projects; and
o Create opportunities for the development of affordable housing.

• Ultimately the BLP should have access to City staff and other resources to seek, identify and develop strategic land opportunities into viable projects; to direct the acquisition and disposition of related City lands; to undertake land and facility development visioning and design; to obtain necessary planning approvals; and to fully engage with outside partners.

• Initially, the BLP should be tasked with seeking, identifying and developing opportunities into viable strategic land projects. A number of opportunities have been presented through the urbanMetrics and Cresa studies. These, as well as others that may be identified in the future, need to be more formally prioritized and envisioned complete with detailed project plans, recommended by the BLP Steering Committee and approved by City Council.

• The BLP would be the first step towards the creation of a municipal development corporation, however this would not occur until 2023 (at the earliest) following a reporting to Council on the activities and accomplishments of the BLP in 2021/22.

• Establishing the BLP as a first step, achieves a good balance among the opportunities, the desire for augmented internal strategic land capabilities, the current resource capacity limitations and the need for due diligence and caution.

• The BLP will:

o Place a priority corporate focus on realizing strategic land opportunities.

o Build on and leverage existing skills, relationships and expertise within the City and Burlington EcDev.

o Enable an interim integrating structure to build organization capacity and expertise and deliver key outcomes related to strategic land management.

o Provide increased organizational capacity through the development and approval of ongoing due diligence contracts with external services firm(s) that have expertise across all facets of strategic land management.

o Provide an integrated and accountable organizational structure including a steering committee, designated staff leads and enhanced business processes including Council oversight (both open and closed session reporting in keeping with the City’s existing procedural by-law).

After an initial start-up period of two years, the organization should be evaluated on an annual basis, with respect to achieving measurable results related to:

o Supporting job creation, business creation and economic expansion;

o Developing an implementation of community-wide “City building” projects;

o Realizing tangible affordable housing opportunities and increased housing supply;

o Fiscal impact (increased assessment base/taxes, development charges, other fees);

o Enhancing the profile of the City and contributing to the public identity of Best City to Live in Canada;

o Supporting the City’s 25-year Strategic Plan, Council’s Vision to Focus 4-year work plan and community planning and other land related policies; and

o Delivering value for money and cost effectiveness to Burlington taxpayers.

Vision
Burlington remains a prosperous, vibrant and affordable community that continues to be one of Canada’s best places to live and do business, with a remarkable quality of life strengthened through partnerships, economic development and city building initiatives.

Mission
Through innovation, strategy and partnerships, the Burlington Lands Partnership, will pursue and unlock the potential of strategic land opportunities that enhance the quality of life and growth of Burlington residents and businesses.

Principles
The Burlington Lands Partnership will:

• Place a priority corporate focus on realizing strategic land opportunities.

• Build on and leverage existing skills, relationships, and expertise within the City and Burlington EcDev.

• Facilitate coordination and cooperation between community organizations, not-for- profits, private corporations, and the City and Burlington EcDev.

• Enable an interim structure to build organization capacity and deliver key outcomes related to strategic land management.

• Provide an integrated and accountable organizational structure including a steering committee, designated staff leads and enhanced business processes including Council oversight (both open and closed session reporting).

Strategic Focus
The Burlington Land Partnership will use a wide range of approaches depending on what is appropriate or possible and contingent on the needs, interested partners, and resources available for any one specific strategic land related project or opportunity.

The BLP will:
• Lend expertise and enable connections to commercial and residential land development that is undertaken by the City of Burlington, land holding community organizations or not-for-profits or private developers interested in working with the BLP.

• Work with private businesses to foster job-creating commercial real estate developments in strategic areas such as the Innovation District and Major Transit Station Areas.

John - Wellington tower + bus office

The Wellington Tower is part of the Regional Government Housing inventory.

• Partner with Halton Region and other organizations with an affordable housing mandate, to develop affordable housing or seek to incorporate additional affordable housing into future private or public housing developments, including but not limited to the completion and implementation of the City of Burlington Comprehensive Housing Strategy starting in 2021.

• Work with other interested potential partners and key stakeholders to ensure all surplus school sites within Burlington are evaluated and where possible, developed in a manner that improves quality of life in the local neighbourhoods and generates public value.

• Place a strategic focus on the following three priorities:

1) Encouraging Economic Development.
Objective: To maximize business development opportunities and advance future economic growth and job creation.
Key Stakeholders:

– Local businesses
– Regional businesses seeking to expand their presence
– New businesses to the region
– Commercial property developers
– Regional Municipality of Halton
– Provincial and Federal funding partners

2) Implementing City-Building Initiatives
Objective: To facilitate the implementation of city building projects that enhance the quality of life for all citizens.

Key Stakeholders:

– City Building project partners
– Regional Municipality of Halton
– Local landowners and property developers
– Provincial and Federal funding partners

3) Delivering Affordable Housing

Objective: Develop and implement projects that deliver an increased supply of affordable housing through proactive long-term strategies and innovative partnerships.

Key Stakeholders:
– Regional Municipality of Halton
– Residential Property Developers
– Housing Focused Not-for-Profits (such as Habitat for Humanity)
– Provincial and Federal funding partners

GOVERNANCE

Overview
The Burlington Lands Partnership governance structure borrows from lessons in other municipalities and the ongoing operations of the Burlington Economic Development Corporation. First, BLP is led by and accountable to Burlington City Council. Second, BLP provides an integrated and accountable organizational structure including a steering committee, designated staff leads, and enhanced business processes with Council oversight including both open and closed session reporting.
Oversight and strategic direction are provided by a steering committee that is ultimately accountable to City Council. The committee is comprised of the Mayor, the City Manager, selected members of Council and appropriate senior staff, and representation from Burlington EcDev.

BLP Steering Committee
The BLP Steering Committee will provide ongoing strategic leadership and oversight and will be established by City Council with approval of BLP Terms of Reference.
Membership consisting of the following for a period of 2 years (with exception of Chair of CPRM committee which is 1 year concurrently with their term as chair).

– Mayor.
– Current Chair of the Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee of Council.
– City Manager (Chair).
– Chief Financial Officer.
– Executive Director – Legal Services and Corporate Counsel.
– Executive Director – Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility.
– Executive Director – Environment, Infrastructure and Community Services
– Executive Director – Burlington Economic Development.
– Board Member – Burlington Economic Development.

The BLP will meet on a regular basis (anticipate 3-4 meetings/year) with agenda management including meeting notes prepared/completed to the satisfaction of the City Clerk in keeping with City’s procedural by-law.

BLP Working Groups
• To be determined by the Steering Committee with approval by Council on a project-by-project basis as part of a separate project brief/plan.

Duration and Transition
The Burlington Land Partnership will function during an initial “pilot period” of two years including 2021 and 2022. A report on the strategic activities and outcomes of the BLP will be presented to Council prior to the end of their 2018-2022 terms and will include recommendations for consideration for the 2023-2026 term of Council.

The BLP represents a transitional approach that allows for the expansion of organizational capacity and a build-up of expertise that will in turn enable further consideration by Council of a formalized municipal development corporation (MDC) in line with other municipalities in Ontario and utilizing the powers allowed under the Municipal Act related to municipal corporations.

There is a lot to be said about this initiative.  That it gets presented to the public just before the current Council begins to move into election mode (the next municipal election is just 20 months away) and put on the table while the country is fighting a second wave of the COVID-19 virus can be seen as a little foolhardy.

Part 1 of a 4 part series.

Return to the Front page

City is in the process of creating a Lands Partnership that will look for and create development opportunities

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

February 8th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

Part 1 of a 4 part series.

On October 19, 2020, City Council approved the following recommendation related to the establishment of a new organizational structure called the Burlington Lands Partnership (BLP) –

Using the language of the Vision to Focus (V2F) which is the part of the 25 year Strategic Plan the city has in place,  the purpose of the BLP is to:

Increase economic prosperity and community responsive city growth

Support sustainable infrastructure and a resilient environment

Increasing options for housing across the city

There is quite a bit more to it than that, which we will get to.

Last week, Council approved the Terms of Reference and funding in the amount of $250,000 from the Strategic Plan Reserve Fund to support the year one operations.

The City Manager was directed to report back on the following:

Burlington wants a Stage 2 designation.

How much of the city will the new BLP want to put shovels into the ground? Is there a risk the public should be willing to take?

• In Q2 2021, following consultation with the BLP Steering Committee, with the proposed Burlington lands partnership operating model and the 2021/22 business plan objectives; and

• In Q3 2022, with a status update report on the Burlington lands partnership including overall 2021/22 performance/accomplishments, detailed financial report, both operating and capital budget related and recommendations for future strategic land management.

In an Appendix to the City Manager’s report in 2020 Strategic Land Priorities and Business Model Framework Options were set out.  They were to:

Business development opportunities and advance future economic growth and job creation.

Implement major city building projects that enhance the quality of life for all citizens.

Deliver increased supply of affordable housing through proactive long-term strategies and innovative partnerships.

Direct the City Manager to engage further with the Burlington Economic Development Corporation and key City staff in the development of the Burlington Lands Partnership Terms of Reference and the Proposed 2021/2022 Business Plan and report back for Council consideration and approval in December 2020

An RFP was awarded December 2019 to MDB Insights led by the Executive Vice- President Lauren Millier and to urbanMetrics with Partner Rowan Faludi.

The consultant worked through a Steering Committee to complete the work outlined in the RFP and also engaged the Board of Directors for Burlington Economic Development (Burlington EcDev), Council and City staff.

The consultant’s report was presented and received by the Community Planning, Mobility and Regulation Committee on Oct. 6, 2020. Several options as to the structure of what the city council thought they wanted to do were debated. Among the organizational options were:

1. New Municipal Development Corporation (MDC)

2. New Burlington Lands Partnership (BLP) – APPROVED

3. Internal COB Strategic Lands Project Team

4. Hybrid: Build strategic land management capacity and expertise and re-consider need for MDC in 2 years.

The Lands Partnership is a significantly new and different direction for Burlington.

Other than reports to Council there has been little in the way of informing the public on just what it means to have a Lands Partnership.

The BLP has the $250,000, taken from the  Strategic Plan Reserve Fund, which has has an uncommitted balance of $548,877.

Commisso stare

City Manager Tim Commisso will be the strong man behind the Burlington Lands Project. He will chair the Steering Committee which will in turn take projects to the city for approval.

The funding will be used to support the ongoing work of the BLP including and dependent of the needs of each strategic land initiative, completion of external due diligence across a broad range of disciplines (e.g. land economic analysis, professional services including architectural/urban design, engineering, financial planning, fiscal impact analysis etc.).

The language in the paragraph above clearly indicates that the BLP wants to acquire land or use land the city already owns and build things and create partnerships with other organizations that have land the city thinks can be put to use.  Think in terms of the Region of Halton, Burlington Hydro.

This could be seen as a municipal administration playing a revised form of monopoly with public money.

Responsibility for the ongoing financial management and reporting related to the BLP will be through the City Manager’s Office with oversight by the BLP Steering Committee which includes the Chief Financial Officer as a member.

It deserves very close attention.

Return to the Front page

Major housing development south of the Burlington GO to be discussed at Council on Thursday - 2400 plus units

News 100 blueBy Staff

January 14th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

It is a huge development by Burlington standards.

It is what the current council used as the basic plank of their individual election campaigns back in 2018 and what the Mayor wanted to see when she took on the task of producing an Official Plan that moved the focus of development from the downtown – east and west of Brant Street and south of Prospect.

CLV size of property

The development, which could be as much as a decade to complete, will create a whole new community around the GO station – adding to the Molinaro development which is more than half done.

The development which will be discussed at the Community Planning, Regulation & Mobility Committee meeting on Thursday is to consist of:

Seven (7) residential towers on top of four (4) mixed use podiums.

Overall heights ranging between 29 and 37 storeys.

Podium heights ranging from 2, 5 and 6 storeys.

A total of 2,494 residential units of mixed type and tenure.

3993 m2 of commercial space.

41, 821 m2 of shared amenity space.

Five (5) levels of underground parking and a four (4) storey parking structure which will be integrated with the residential units.

Pedestrian connections to the surrounding neighbourhood and Burlington GO Station.

A Site Plan Application offers information to use existing zoning and gives you the chance to learn and be informed about the applicant’s plans.

CLV Fairview Jan 21

A drawing showing where the buildings will be located on the property.

For this application, formal engagement and public comments were received by the City of Burlington as part of the adoption of the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw policies and regulations that apply to this site.

The application was circulated with various internal staff and external agencies for review and comment.

The applicant recently responded with a re-submission which is currently under review.

A neighbourhood meeting will be planned in early 2021.

Return to the Front page

Seventy units proposed for a small lot in the Dundas Appleby area. Public meeting #2 - virtual

News 100 blueBy Staff

January 6th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

It is a smallish development put forward by one of the premier developers in the city.

The application is under review.

Second community meeting to take place virtually Thursday evening.

Zoom coordinates are:

Webinar ID: 944 0610 6407
Passcode: 917193

Turnberry - rendering of structures

Rendering of what the development would look like when completed.

The purpose of the second public meeting is to present and discuss the latest revisions to the proposed residential development at 2273 Turnberry Road. Since the last meeting with the community in March 2020, Branthaven have been working with City of Burlington staff to refine the concept for the property to address a number of the comments heard from the residents as well as municipal and other agency comments.

The original plan has been resubmitted to the City after substantial discussions with staff, and has been included on the Committee of Adjustment agenda for January 20, 2021.

Turnberry site

The site is currently a vacant lot. Proposed configuration appears to be the same as the houses to the right.

Turnberry - site plan

Quite tight.

It’s currently a vacant lot, fronting onto Appleby Line, backs onto Turnberry Road, and abuts Taywood Drive to the north, and a Private Condo Road to the south.

Proposed 70 townhouse units.
Overall heights include 2- and 3-storey units, with basements.
18 visitor parking, including one Type-A Barrier-Free space.
Zoned: RM3-104 – Townhomes permitted use under current Zoning By-Law.
Land Use Designation: Residential – Medium Density.

Not that much in the way of information on what took place at the March meeting. Unusual for a development to be before the Committee of Adjustment and the Planning department at the same time.

Return to the Front page

Tell me about Burlington – Part 2

News 100 yellowBy Pepper Parr

January 6th, 2021

BURLINGTON, ON

 

“So you live in Burlington” you were asked. Nice place? As a city does it work?”

Tell me more about what the civic administration is like.

Burlington wants a Stage 2 designation.

Burlington looking west.

Well, you might answer – Elections in Burlington can and have made a difference.

The 2010 election brought Rick Goldring in as the Mayor – that got rid of Cam Jackson who wasn’t a bad Mayor – people didn’t like his style and Goldring was a nice guy, responsible and respected. He didn’t have a vision when he began to wear the chain of Office; he wasn’t Cam and that was what mattered.

He didn’t do anything wrong nor did he do anything.

Marianne Meed Ward was just a citizen when this picture was taken - now she is on the other side of the podium, sitting as a Council member. Should make for greay political theatre when the Medicca One zoning matter comes before committee.

Marianne Meed Ward was just a citizen when this picture was taken – she of course went on to become a Councillor and then Mayor.

His eight years as Mayor was all the time Marianne Meed Ward, then a Councillor for ward 2,  needed to position herself for a job she aspired to from the day that she ran against Rick Craven in Ward 1 in 2006.

The day after the 2018 election Rick Goldring was still trying to figure out why he lost.

Meed Ward had a clear objective: she was going to change the way development was done in the city.

She had made numerous much needed changes as a City Councillor and she was really sure that she had the job in the bag.

The City Manager, who Meed Ward fired the day after the was sworn in, is reported to have said to a person who worked at city hall that, if Meed Ward won he was “toast”.

At the final meeting of the 2014-18 council Meed Ward showed just what she was going to be able to achieve.  Using a “point of personal privilege” she ripped into comments that were made by defeated members of Council, saying that this kind of behavior would not be tolerated.

She set out to take the steps needed to get an Official Plan the city badly needed.

It’s not a perfect plan but it is a very good plan that puts in place the tools the city needs to shift where the development takes place.

The developers would have preferred to be able to continue putting up structures that have begun to reach the 30 storey level but they will build wherever they can build.

Burlington is a great market to develop in. The fact that the province is pushing to increase the rate at which the population grows has helped the developers. Their dream is to be able to eventually build north of Dundas and Hwy 407.

Few fully understand what Meed Ward has been able to achieve. In two years she has changed everything at the development level and at the same time given the developers areas within the city that they can build in.

Football

That football shaped area, lower right, was always ripe for development. Once some land assembly was completed development proposals rolled in with heights well above 20 storeys.

The downtown core will have a number of high rise buildings. Will Meed Ward manage to save the “football” – it is going to be a challenge, there are major major dollars that have been invested and those kinds of dollars have a voice.

SaveOurWaterfront- Meed ward

The water front was a focus point for Mayor Meed Ward when she first ran for the ward 2 seat.

Way back in the beginning of the Meed Ward run for the Office of Mayor the waterfront was her focus – never forget that.

The Planning department that she has always wanted is beginning to come together. She has a City Manager with whom she works well.

The Official Plan should make it through the appeal stage because it is a good plan that a mayor made happen.  Sure she had a Council that was compliant – five of the seven were so new they had to learn how to be Councillors and leave the heavy lifting to the Mayor.

This is part of what Burlington is.

Tell me about Burlington – Part 1

Return to the Front page

Objection Letter to the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) License Application for the proposed Burlington Nelson Quarry Extension

background graphic redBy Staff

December 8th, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The City of Burlington Community Planning Department is in receipt of the information package, dated, October 27, 2020 as circulated electronically by the proponent’s consultant planner.

The ARA package included an Agency Utility Letter, including copies of all technical reports/studies and plans related to the Application, a copy of the Notice of Application for a License (Form 1), and Notice of Public Information Session (Form 2).

The Community Planning Department is actively engaged in the review of applicable land use development applications, including amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, Region of Halton Official Plan and City of Burlington Official Plan as well as the application for Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) License, as it relates to the proposed extension of the Burlington Nelson Quarry.

Quarry map

A coordinated review through a Joint Agency Review Team (JART)(established in 2020) involves cross-consultation with agency partners (including, NEC, MNRF, Halton Region and Conservation Halton) and the applications remain in the early stages of review. It should also be noted that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) cannot issue an Aggregate License without approval from the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

For these reasons, it is the opinion of the City of Burlington Community Planning Department that to review and comment on the specifics of the ARA License Application is premature given the anticipated duration of the review process and the relative early stage of analysis at this time. We therefore object to any form of ARA approval prior to a further evaluation and decision regarding land use impact, compatibility and appropriateness of the proposed development in the context of provincial and municipal (Region and City) policy.

In its initial review of the applications, City of Burlington staff and peer review consultants have also identified several areas concerning the proposal where either there has not been sufficient information or data provided; where analyses are not sufficiently coordinated with other key areas of review; or, where methodological bases of the information presented in the submitted plans, studies/reports remains undetermined or is inconsistent.

Five general theme areas of concern related to this information have been identified, as follows:

Effects on Surface Water Quantity and Quality 

Improved coordination and cross-referencing between the applicant’s various disciplines is needed to perform a holistic review and analysis of issues related to groundwater, hydrology (quality and quantity) and impacts on surface water. This includes, but is not limited to, assessment and reporting on any/all water quality issues;

Confirmation of the suitability of the analytical tools selected by the applicant to simulate the existing and proposed drainage conditions and the accuracy of modeling techniques, assumptions and interpretation of results. This may include additional QA/QC of the monitoring data collected from gauging stations and clarity on the selection of locations for the gauging stations, as the data collected at these stations is applicable to the overall study;

Further assessment by the applicant of potential impacts to the municipal infrastructure and mitigate measures (roadside ditches along Colling Road) and predicted impacts to the surface water features resulting from the proposed quarry extension is needed;

A number of hydrologic features will essentially be lost, including an existing pond within the west expansion, as a result of the proposal and additional assessment is required by the applicant to demonstrate that the lost functions are appropriately replicated in the post-development conditions;  Further review is needed by the applicant of the potential impacts to the Willoughby Creek flow regime and the effects on Medad Valley, as well as new surface water.

The conveyance features proposed within the subject lands and their impact on municipal infrastructure as a result of the expansion of quarry operations.

A mutually agreed upon Adaptive Management Plan is needed that addresses the technical comments of the Joint Agency Review Team (JART)(including a schedule for updating the plan), as are details also needed about the long-term rehabilitation plan and potential financial liabilities related to ongoing and future operations.

Natural Heritage Effects

There have been several natural heritage features with potential for impacts noted in the proponent’s submission that have been identified for further scoping within the study area.

These include provincially significant wetlands (outside of the 120 metre buffer for adjacent lands); significant wildlife habitat; significant woodlands; fish habitat (zone of influence to be confirmed); and landscape connectivity. Additional need for the evaluation of Species at Risk was also identified. The further consideration and analyses of these matters may involve the coordination and review of other technical studies and reports in the context of natural heritage, including potential and/or indirect impacts that may result from the proposed development (i.e. connections and linkages between natural heritage features, surface water features and groundwater).

Additional information is required to ensure the protection and reduced impacts of the proposed development on significant natural heritage resource areas, features and functions; particularly as it relates to mitigation and monitoring.

The assessment of long-term, cumulative impacts of future uses and long-term rehabilitation (after-use) plans may require additional clarification and data support.

Agricultural Effects and Existing Farming Practices

The Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) submitted by the applicant concludes that the permanent loss of the subject agricultural lands is inconsequential, yet the analysis is not systematic and does not examine impacts relative to pressures on the agricultural system at a broader scale (i.e. climate change, demand for settlement area boundary expansions, aggregate extraction, cemetery lands etc.), nor does it address the cumulative effect of the incremental loss of a finite resource over time;

The agricultural lands within the southern study area have been characterized in the AIA as fragmented, implying lower value/viability. However, the overlapping natural features, limited rural residential uses, and passive recreational uses within the area are generally considered compatible and complementary uses in relation to agriculture. Further, in terms of land use designation, the area is contiguously mapped as prime agricultural lands. Therefore, a comprehensive AIA is required for these lands.

The AIA notes that the average parcel sizes are indicative of smaller, ‘hobby-sized’ farms, implying lower value/viability. The PPS, 2020 does not make a distinction for ‘hobby’ farms and section 2.3.3.2 notes that “In prime agricultural areas, all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses and normal farm practices shall be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards”.

The extent of soil disturbance within the western study area is presumed as beyond rehabilitation, according to the study. Insufficient information has been provided to validate this claim.  The AIA speaks to the consideration of “another property located farther away” but does not provide any detail with respect to the evaluation of this alternative site in relation to the proposal.

The AIA notes that an expansion to an existing site is less detrimental to agriculture than a new site, based on the use of existing haul routes. Yet it does not assess the impacts associated with an intensification of the existing aggregate use, i.e. increased quarry traffic on existing haul routes, as well as the extension of the life of the quarry and the long-term disturbance to agricultural operations within the area.

The AIA notes that an open-water feature can provide benefits to the agricultural area by providing flood attenuation and fresh water for irrigation purposes, yet does not present supporting evidence identifying a need/demand for flood attenuation or irrigation within the subject lands.

Human Health (Air Quality)

A technical peer review of the applicant’s Air Quality Study, as included with the application submission is ongoing, with particular focus on matters related to methodology, findings and conclusions associated with any potential air quality impacts of the proposed quarry extension.

Operational/Coordination

The City of Burlington expresses concern with the planned future for existing industrial land uses (i.e. processing facility) on the quarry lands and the prospect of the continuation of those activities in the context of an expanded quarry operation. There has not been consistent or adequate detail pertaining to the use of the existing quarry lands for an industrial use in the event that aggregate resource extraction ceases (or is substantially reduced) on that portion of the quarry operation and its resultant conformity with applicable legislation and policy related to the Niagara Escarpment Area. It should be noted that concerns have been raised by stakeholders with respect to the timelines of the receipt, review and comment on the ARA License Application and the change in format.

A Public Information Session (PIS) required as a component of the review process.

While the City recognizes and appreciates the rigour of provincial regulation pertaining to public consultation and the restrictions on public gatherings implemented to contain the spread of COVID-19 (as documented in the August 2020 Aggregate Resources Program Bulletin: Resuming Aggregate Application Timelines and Public Consultation under the Aggregate Resources Act (Post COVID-19)), issues of public access to this process persist.

While the City Community Planning Department understands that the prescribed format for information sessions is not established through regulation and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has provided guidance on alternate virtual public information sessions to facilitate verbal exchange between parties, the City Community Planning Department reasserts that maximum public disclosure and access is paramount.

At present, the format of the consultation described in the Notice of Public Information Session appears focused on a format that may solicit direct communication between the proponent and an interested individual rather than among and between the larger stakeholder community and the proponent.

A virtual public information session in a format that is widely available for a public exchange between all parties (simultaneously), and which is initiated and coordinated by the proponent, is technically possible, and should be a minimum requirement. The City of Burlington Community Planning Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments in response to the circulation of the ARA License Application, and requests notification of any future meetings or updates on the review of this file.

The City of Burlington reserves the right to raise further issues as the review of these applications progresses.

Return to the Front page

Those opposing the expansion of the Quarry in rural Burlington face a December 14th deadline

News 100 greenBy Staff

December 1st, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

 

A  major influencing point for CORE, (Conserving our Rural Ecosystems) the organization that is opposing the application by Nelson Aggregates  seeking  additional licenses for the quarry they operate in rural Burlington – letters opposing the application are due December 14th.

So far CORE reports they have seen “54 excellent opposition letters. Heartened as we are by this response, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed if we are to have any chance at all of influencing the MNRF to render a decision AGAINST Nelson/LaFarge Aggregate’s two-pit plan for our precious Escarpment.

CORE is looking for letters “in the hundreds; which is why we’re asking all 452 of our subscribers to write, today, tomorrow…but certainly by that hard deadline of December 14th.

Core cartoon - MAyorCORE adds that: “An opposition letter to the MNRF is one of THE most important windows for public access into this entire messy bureaucratic process. Each of the approving agencies/governments involved in this clunky approval process renders their decision without consulting the others. That is why we, as members of the public who do NOT have decision making powers, MUST voice our opposition to each agency at the time when that particular agency is willing to hear from us. If you’ve already written a letter (to the City of Burlington, for example) you may use that same letter for the MNRF.

Quarry map

The shaded areas are where Nelson Aggregates want to expand.

Gord Pinard, spokesperson for CORE explains that submission of comments to MNRF/Nelson is a critical part of the application review process.  It is an important opportunity for community members to register their concerns/objections, each of which must be responded to by Nelson.  Expecting that this application will ultimately end in an LPAT hearing, those who what to have a voice at the LPAT hearing must have submitted their objections during this response period.

“We’ve made it easy for you to craft your letter and send it. And if you have any trouble at all, please reach out to us for additional support. Click the link to access our step-by-step guide, including a copy-paste letter template.
https://www.coreburlington.com/what-you-can-do-now

The letter MUST be sent to:
tecia@white-water.ca
ARAApprovals@ontario.ca

And it MUST include your full mailing address, including postal code.  Without your full mailing address your letter will not be accepted.

Return to the Front page