 By Pepper Parr
October 9th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
What happens now?
An 11 hour meeting to get through the Staff version of the Scoped ReExamination of the Adopted Official Plan and then debate the 9 amendments the Mayor and Ward 2 Councillor came up with – and it was then a done deal.
Well, as done as Burlington could do the document.
It has to be sent to the Regional government.
The document will fill a very very thick binder.
How do they get it to the Regional Planner?
 Entrance to the offices of the Regional government. By mid-October, staff will submit the Council-endorsed policy modifications for Downtown and Neighbourhood Centres, along with all supporting documentation, to Halton Region. Due to COVID, the logistics of submission are still to be confirmed.
How long will the Region need to determine if they can approve the document? Recall that they sent it back in the waning weeks of 2018 because it didn’t comply completely enough with the Regional Official Plan.
The Region will issue a draft decision on the City’s adopted Official Plan in November or December 2020.
How does it get returned to the city?
The Region’s Chief Planning Official will send the draft decision to Heather MacDonald, the City’s Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation, and Mobility.
 City Council meeting – before COVID. Perhaps they could assemble in a live meeting to receive the xx from the Regional government. City Planning staff will then present the Region’s draft decision to City Council for review.
City Council will have a chance to review the draft decision and make comments before the Region issues a final decision.
Surely this will not take place at one of those wretched virtual meetings?
One of the issues for Burlington city council was – is the document appeal proof?
It is the Region’s decision that can be appealed, not the City’s.
After the Region issues a final decision on the City’s Official Plan, a Notice of Decision will be sent out to all parties who have participated in the Official Plan process by submitting written comments to the City or Region, or speaking at a public meeting.
The Notice will provide details about how to appeal the Region’s decision, and the deadline for filing an appeal.
 Town Crier David Vollick reading a message to Council. Anyone wanting to receive notice of the Region’s decision, should make a written request to Graham Milne, Regional Clerk, graham.milne@halton.ca, 905-825-6000, ext. 7110, Legislative & Planning Services, Region of Halton, 1151 Bronte Rd., Oakville, ON, L6M 3L1.
All very dry and dull.
Heather MacDonald might consider renting a small bus and driving to the Region where she and the staff she decides to take with her can don their face masks and troop into the Regional office bearing the flag with the city crest and the document in a leather binder carried on a dark velvet cushion.
The Town Crier could proceed this band of brave planners and announce that Burlington has arrived to deliver the Official Plan that city council has endorsed.
Somehow the Mayor will get herself on that bus – this is just too good a photo op to be missed.
 By Pepper Parr
October 9th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
 Proposed 26 story structure on Brant, east side, north of Caroline.
Add another one to the downtown core.
This one is to be located on Brant, north of Caroline on the east side running from the Joe Dogs site north to where the Bank of Nova Scotia is located – at the south end of the No Frills Plaza.
Several blocks north – at Ghent and Brant the Molinaro development on either side of Brant will comprise of three 25 storey buildings that will cover three of the four corners of the intersection.
 Three 25 storey structures.
And there is more to come.
The public will have an opportunity to comment on the plans for a 26 storey at a Pre-Application Public Meeting that will take place on October 26; it will be a virtual meeting.
The Zoom coordinates for the event are:
Participate On-Line via Zoom:
https://zoom.us/j/94629064953
(internet connection required)
Webinar ID: 946 2906 4953
- Participate by Telephone:
1-647-374-4685 (audio only)
The developers proposal at this point is for a
- 26-storey mixed-used building
- 248 residential units, including one, two and three bedroom units
Ground floor commercial space
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns may have a conflict of interest on this development, it is close to across the street from her residence.
Renimmob Properties Limited, based in Hamilton is the developer listed on the file.
 By Pepper Parr
October 7th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
At 10:26 am, Burlington city council approved their version of an Official Plan.
 Mayor Meed Ward chairing an historic city council meeting – the day Council approved a new Official Plan. Did she break out the champagne? For Mayor Meed Ward it was a Hallelujah moment.
Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman did not vote for approval of the plan.
In her comments Meed Ward said: “This is a very pleasing moment.”
In 2018 the then Council approved and adopted a plan that would have permitted 30 high rise buildings in the down town core as well as a 117 storey tower in Village Square, said Meed Ward. She added that she was the only person to vote against that plan at the time.
 Marianne Meed Ward – Moments before being sworn into office. Shortly after the plan was approved by the 2014-18 Council Meed Ward got herself elected as Mayor with a significantly different council.
That council chose to do numerous studies that got them to where they are today which the Mayor said was a fully transparent process. The level of transparency is questionable – something we will detail in a separate article.
There were concerns about the nine amendments Meed Ward put on the table. She said this morning that Staff are in place to give Council their best thinking but that Council had a “more and ethical responsibility” to reflect the views of the people that voted them into office.
“Council is not a rubber stamp” she added.
It is a big day for this Council.
Only the future will tell if the right decisions were made – which is what politics is all about.
 By Staff
October 7th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
This article is one of a series on the process the quarry application will go through.. Part 2 will be on what this will mean to the city and part 3 how the city will choose to tell the story.
Staff had been asked to prepare a report on the land use development application and review process related to the proposed Nelson Quarry expansion, including but not limited to the following:
• summary of the process including decision points;
• anticipated timeline for process steps;
• roles and responsibilities of review agencies;
• a summary of process and outcomes of the previous proposal for expansion; and
• a summary of any new provincial legislation related to aggregate resources.
And they did just that.
 The site that was the focus of the first license application is shown in red. The topographical map shows the relationship to the geography of the Escarpment. On May 14, 2020, the City of Burlington received an application to amend the Official Plan designation of the subject lands to expand the existing quarry operation. Receipt of an application requires staff to assess it for completeness by ensuring all required technical studies and associated Terms of Reference, as identified during pre-consultation, have been submitted for review.
The Planning Act requires a determination of completeness within 30 days of the receipt of an application. However, in accordance with Bill 189, Planning Act timelines were suspended as of March 17, 2020, due to COVID-19. This suspension of timelines ended on June 22,2020, commencing the 30-day requirement. It is noted that that the need for additional studies or reports may arise as the application review progresses.
On July 20, 2020, the application to amend the City of Burlington Official Plan was deemed complete. The application is now formally accepted for review and processing. The application has been circulated to all applicable departments and agencies for review and comment. Public notice has also been issued indicating that the application has been received and deemed complete for processing.
The following studies have been submitted as part of the complete application:
• Agricultural Impact Assessment (prepared by MHBC, dated April 2020);
• Archaeological Assessment (Stages 1, 2 &3) for Lot 17 & 18, Concession 2 NDS, Former Township of Nelson (prepared by Archaeologix Inc., dated August 2003);
• Archaeological Assessment (Stage 4) (prepared by Archaeologix Inc., dated August 2004);
• Stage 2-1 Archaeological Assessment (prepared by Golder, dated March 23, 2020);
• Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Report (prepared by MHBC, dated April 2020);
• Level 1 and Level 2 Natural Environment Technical Report (prepared by Savanta, dated April 2020);
• Financial Impact Study (prepared by Nelson Aggregates, dated April 2020);
• Air Quality Study (prepared by BCX Environmental Consulting, dated March 2020);
• Planning Justification Report (prepared by MHBC, dated April 2020);
• Progressive and Final Rehabilitation Monitoring Study (prepared by MHBC, dated April 2020);
• Traffic Report (prepared by Paradigm, dated February 2020);
• Level 1 and Level 2 Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impact Assessment Report (prepared by Earthfx, dated April 2020);
• Surface Water Assessment (prepared by Tatham Engineering, dated April 2020);
• Adaptive Management Plan (prepared by Earthfx, Savanta and Tatham Engineering, dated April 23, 2020);
• Noise Impact Assessment (prepared by HGC Engineering, dated April 22, 2020);
• Blasting Impact Analysis (prepared by Explotech, dated March 24, 2020);
• Visual Impact Assessment Report (prepared by MHBC, dated April 2020);
• Site Plan package (Drawing Nos. 1-4, including Existing Features, Operational Plan, Rehabilitation Plan and Cross Sections, prepared by MHBC, dated April 2020);
• Public Consultation Strategy (prepared by Project Advocacy, dated April 22, 2020); and,
• Karst investigations and conceptual model of the bedrock aquifer (prepared by Worthington Groundwater, dated April 25, 2020).
The lands subject to the proposed quarry expansion are located to the west of the existing licensed quarry, which currently contain the Burlington Springs Golf Club, and to the south, on lands which currently contain agricultural and residential uses.
 The shaded area is the land Nelson Aggregates wants a license to quarry. Review Process and Decision Points
Decisions on the proposed expansion to the quarry are regulated by the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Aggregate Resources Act, and the Planning Act. The following approvals are required to permit the quarry expansion:
1. Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment and Development Permit;
2. Regional Official Plan Amendment to re-designate the proposed expansion land to permit mineral aggregate extraction;
3. City of Burlington Official Plan Amendment to re-designate the proposed expansion land to permit mineral aggregate extraction; and
4. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry issuance of an Aggregate License for the expansion area.
The applications to the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Region of Halton, City of Burlington, and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) have been received at the same time.
Given the overlap in technical review, it is common for such applications to be filed concurrently to ensure a coordinated review among all agencies. To ensure conformity with the most senior level of government, a sequencing of decisions is required.
The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act stipulates that no approval or permission that relates to development (including aggregate extraction) shall be made within an area of development control unless a Niagara Escarpment Development Permit has been issued. A decision from the Niagara Escarpment Plan comes first in the process of reviewing and permitting mineral aggregate extraction proposals within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area.
A decision on the proposed amendments to the Regional Official Plan and Burlington Official Plan cannot occur prior to approval of the Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment and issuance of a Development Permit. Further to that, a decision to amend the Burlington Official Plan cannot occur prior to approval of the proposed amendment to the Region of Halton Official Plan.
It is noted that the MNRF cannot issue an aggregate license without an approval from the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
 The current quarry is not yet completely mined out – but Nelson Aggregate knows that the site doesn’t have much time left. Public input related to the proposal is welcomed and encouraged. Prior to any decisions being made, public consultation will occur, including a statutory public meeting. The timing of the statutory public meeting has not yet been determined and will be scheduled once the technical review of the proposal has progressed further.
Best efforts will be made to align public consultation with the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Region of Halton, and City of Burlington.
A conceptual diagram, prepared by the Region, sets out the parallel review processes.
The proposed application is exceptionally complex, and the technical review has just begun. At this point it is difficult to outline anticipated timelines this early in the review process.
The sequencing of decisions from senior levels of government (i.e. Niagara Escarpment Commission and Region of Halton) will dictate the timing for a decision on the proposed Burlington Official Plan Amendment.
Both the NEC and the MNRF will be releasing requests for comment on the Environmental Registry of Ontario. This is anticipated to occur within Q3 of 2020, and the ability for the public, the City and other agencies to comment will be open for a limited period of time, as determined by the NEC and MNRF.
It is noted that the legislated timelines from the Planning Act with respect to the Region of Halton and City of Burlington Official Plan Amendments are applicable. Given the technical aspects of the application and sequencing of decisions to ensure conformity with senior levels of government, it is not possible to follow the procedures and timing of a typical development review process.
Regular reporting to council with progress updates will assist in providing clarity on timing as the review process unfolds.
Roles and Responsibilities
An inter-agency Joint Agency Review Team (JART) framework will be used to review the application for the proposed quarry expansion. The JART consists of technical staff from the municipalities and agencies (Niagara Escarpment Commission, Region of Halton, Conservation Halton, City of Burlington) reviewing the requested quarry expansion. The team is also supported by consultants with specialist skills. Halton Region is providing the coordinating role and administering JART for these applications.
It is noted that JART itself does not make a recommendation on whether or not the application should be approved. The function of JART is to review the completeness of the application and analyze the proposal on its technical merits. The JART framework ensures a coordinated review by all agencies. The consolidation of effort through JART minimizes duplication among reviewing agencies while ensuring a consistent and thorough agency response across technical disciplines. The JART framework is also intended to support effective communication with the public by providing information, receiving input, and coordinating a response to questions.
At the conclusion of the JART process, a report outlining the results of the joint technical review will be provided to the City to inform a recommendation report to Council.
The City of Burlington reviews the merits of the Official Plan Amendment application on an independent basis, taking into account the JART’s comments along with agency- specific considerations and public comments prior to making a recommendation.
Similarly, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, MNRF and Region of Halton are responsible for their own decisions on their respective applications.
Previous application to expand Nelson Quarry
A previous proposal for expansion to the Nelson Quarry was submitted in 2004. The Niagara Escarpment Commission, Halton Region, Conservation Halton, and the City of Burlington participated in the review of the 2004 proposal.
 The Jefferson salamander – it should be the city’s mascot. The applications for the 2004 proposal were referred to the Joint Board (consisting of the Ontario Municipal Board and Environmental Review Tribunal, formed under the authority of the Consolidated Hearings Act). The main issue with the proposal was the protection of Jefferson salamander habitat. In the decision, the Joint Board found that the proposal was not consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Niagara Escarpment Plan and not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and refused the expansion.
It is noted that the current proposal encompasses a reduced portion of the lands from the 2004 proposal on the south side of No. 2 Sideroad and also adds a new/expanded phase of extraction to the west on the site of the Burlington Springs golf course.
New Legislation Related to Aggregate Resources
There have been recent proposals by the Province for new legislation related to aggregate resources through amendments to the Growth Plan and Aggregate Resources Act. They are summarized as follows:
1. Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan recommended, among other things, the removal of “habitat of endangered species and threatened species” as a consideration when permitting a new aggregate operation. Staff report PL-42-20 provided an overview to Council of this and all other proposed amendments to the Growth Plan. It is noted that at the conclusion of the public consultation process for Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, the Province did not include this specific revision. “Habitat of endangered species and threatened species” remains as a consideration in the Growth Plan for a new aggregate operation.
2. Building on Bill 132, the Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, Ontario Regulation 244/97 made changes to the Aggregate Resources Act. The changes were based on the following themes: Ensure environmental protection, particularly related to water; Increase opportunities for community engagement on applications; Improve access to aggregates; and Reducing duplication and inefficiencies in the review/approval process. The proposed regulatory changes would apply to new pits and quarries, as well as existing pits and quarries. A staff memo in the May 21, 2020 Council Information Package provides a summary of the changes proposed by Ontario Regulation 244/97.
Communications Plan
On September 23, 2019, Council approved the following staff direction – Direct the City Manager to develop a detailed communications strategy to ensure the public is well briefed on the quarry process by May 2020.
As identified in this report, the Region of Halton will be taking a coordinating role on behalf of JART. Based on this approach, the Region has agreed to also take the lead on developing a communications plan for the Nelson Quarry application process. Discussions are well under way with City staff and Region staff on developing a plan.
The aim of the communications plan will be to ensure that affected residents and beyond are receiving up to date information on the application’s progress.
Communications will also go out to residents informing them about the opportunities to engage with the approving bodies to provide their feedback on any requests for comments.
Once the communications plan is developed by the Region of Halton, steps will be taken by the City’s Communications Department to amplify the information. These messages will ensure all residents living in Ward 3 are informed of the application’s progress. Residents from across the City will also be able to keep updated on the application by visiting the Nelson Quarry webpage, Burlington.ca/nelsonquarry.
Following Council approval of this report, there will be initial communications from the City about the high-level processes that has been identified in Appendix B.
 Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan; his ward is ground zero on the quarry question. Financial Matters:
The application fees to the City for an Official Plan Amendment is $82,220.00. All fees to date have been paid by the applicant. The applicant has been made aware, through the pre-consultation process, that peer review costs for technical reports are also required to be paid by the applicant, in accordance with the JART Protocol.
As identified above, a communications plan is being developed in partnership with the Region of Halton.
An application process timetable was prepared by the Region. The biggest concern for several Councillors was Q3 2022 – that is when the next municipal election is to take place and Councillor Nisan wondered what impact the issue of a quarry license extension might have on his being re-elected.
It is reported that Nisan has received more than 400 letters from people who want the quarry extension to be granted and that the city pay serious attention to the plans for turning the mined out quarry property into a huge public park.
 By Pepper Parr
October 6th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
During the virtual public pre-consultation given by the ADI Development people last week the number of people who were “on the call” was small.
Two that mattered though were the ward Councillor, Kelvin Galbraith and Mayor Marianne Meed Ward.
 Kelvin Galbraith: ward 1 Councillor  Mayor Marianne Meed Ward They were there because council recently passed some rules for a process that, while voluntary, was necessary if the Planning department was to look at the application.
What was most interesting was how little they had to say.
One of the people who took part asked about retail and was told “there wasn’t going to be any”. There wasn’t a word of comment from the Councillor.
The ADI people said that base level retail was not considered. Judy Worsley, Executive Director of the Aldershot BIA said she had met with the ADI people and differed with them on ground level retail adding that “we will be revisiting this”.
 Rendering of a three story tower configuration. The ADI people agreed that retail was important and they saw that being built along Waterdown Road which could become a retail spine for the area.
Shawn Coon did say that if retail is found to work “ADI will be interested” adding that retail might not work right away.
One had to wonder at that point what the Councillor was going to do to get some traction behind the need for retail. The hundreds of people who are going to live at Station West will need groceries, a Beer Store, an LCBO at the least.
The word supermarket didn’t get mentioned.
Galbraith, who has been working with a developer nursing their project along in the area, has said the developer will include a coffee shop in his development. Galbraith is pushing him for a small supermarket that will be a long block away from the centre of Station West.
The matter of fire truck access came up which “needs to be worked out” according to Shane Cooney, an Executive vice president with ADI.
 Two towers at 39 stories each, a third at 29 storey. They will border Waterdown Road and Masonry Court.  Height will range from 39 storeys to 18 storeys Meed Ward urged people to “continue thinking about what you like: green space, retail and built form.
Traffic was another issue: Cooney said that it is early in the process of doing a traffic impact study – we are not certain how to estimate what the vehicle traffic will be.
ADI defines Station West as a complete community with different housing forms.
There is certainly a lot of housing and in time there are going to be a lot of people in that community – but at this point there didn’t appear to be anyone talking loudly about what was missing. By the time half of the people have moved in it will be too late.
No library, no community centre, no park. Not the usual definition of complete community.
Related news story.
ADI gets to tell their story.
By Pepper Parr
October 5th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The first of the Public presentations of a new development under the new rules took place last week.
The new rules require a developer to present their plans to the public and get feedback before taking their project to the Planning Department.
The rules are a little on the complex side and were the subject of some debate, which we cover in a separate article.
The presentation was done by the ADI Development Group and was focused on the second stage of their Station West development. The first stage is well underway – the developers said that there are already people moving in.
Something about that first phase – it is huge. Unless you drive north on Waterdown Road from Plains Road you might not see it. But drive north on Cooke or along Masonry Court and there it is – right in front of you. Cooke is extended right into the site of what amounts to six lengths of row housing.
 The two structures are joined by a lobby area where the elevators are located. We weren’t able to determine just how many elevators there are.  This is the eastern boundary with the Aldershot GO station a short walk away. This is what intensification looks like.  Reasonably attractive, underground parking, basement units with a separate entrance – but it is still row housing with precious little in the way of grass. The meeting was to talk about phase two which is projected to be four towers (but it could be three) with heights of between 18 and 39 storeys.
What strikes anyone looking at the development is – where is the parkland?
 Architectural rendering of the the tower option for phase two of Station West. Where is there any retail?
Those questions didn’t get answered during the hour and a quarter virtual presentation.
More on that in a separate article.
The presentation itself was not all that bad.
There were three people who could be described as public taking part. That was probably because there was very little in the way of public notice.
The Gazette did a short piece two days before – not much time for people to read up on the development and prepare their questions.
The meeting was to get public input on phase two – the first phase is a done deal.
The developer was offering two versions: one with three towers, a second with four towers.
 Four towers with some green space in the middle. Height will run from 18 to 39 storeys.  Three towers with small park space in one corner. One tower at 29 storeys two at 39 storeys. The three tower option was made up of one 29 storey tower and two 39 storey towers.
The four tower option had buildings ranging from 39 storeys to 18 storeys.
There will be additional opportunities for public input. The truth is that there isn’t a community in place yet – there is no one to speak for the development and what it offers for those who see it as a place to live.
It is reasonably priced – said to be in the $700,000 range.
There are no homes in the immediate area that will be severely impacted by the high towers.
The development started when Rick Craven was Councillor for ward 1.
The land was reported to have been purchased from the Paletta interests for $14 million.
The ADI group has in the past built quality housing with some very innovative design.
Their Nautique in the downtown core is a smart looking 26 storey structure that has broken ground.
Getting to the point where they were able to start building meant breaking a lot of the rules; put another way – they were able to convince the then OMB that the little bus station on John Street was an MTSA – a transit area and that justified the height they were asking for.
The ADI’s are tough, very in your face developers. They don’t take prisoners – but they are in the process of creating a community that lacks severely in the way of amenities.
October 4th, 2020
Last week Council endorsed the recommendations from the Planning department on the Scoped Review of the Downtown Core portion of the adopted but not approved Official Plan.
The endorsement goes to Council this week and, if approved, will be come part of the Official Plan that is currently in the process of being revised. It will be sent to the Regional government where it has to be approved.
Citizens created an organization they called We Love Burlington, (WLB). That group released the following statement related to an article the Gazette wrote on the decision of Council to endorse what the planners had brought forward.
The WLB statement should be part of the public record.
Last December and January, WLB delegated before City Council opposing the direction proposed in the returned Official Plan for downtown development and the public waterfront. We were joined in our opposition by our colleague, Gary Scobie, long time civic activist and critic. Today we post a submission by two members of WLB and Gary on the virtually unchanged but ‘final’ direction for downtown and the waterfront. We continue to advocate for local voice and respectfully request that it be heard. If you agree, contact your Councillor and make your voice count. We strongly suggest looking carefully at the morass of documents and not simply the consultant’s Guidelines nor the summaries provided by the City or council members.
September 21, 2020
The following is the joint submission of Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith, two founding members of WeLoveBurlington, and Gary Scobie, long-time civic activist and advocate. We share a common passion for the City of Burlington and a common purpose in protecting its downtown and waterfront from inappropriate development and excessive intensification. We also have a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of local government – that level of governance closest to the citizen and most sensitive to local needs and voice. Indeed, WLB actually was created by the need to counter the provincial direction for amalgamation at the regional government level. The campaign, waged in concert by a number of ad hoc organizations, was ultimately successful and the threat of amalgamation in Halton removed.
Ironically, the government that WLB fought to preserve because of its perceived sympathy to the people’s will, then turned a virtual deaf ear to many of those citizens when it developed its revised plans for Burlington’s downtown. It would appear that proximity to the people is no guarantee of either the ability to hear their voice or follow their wishes.
On December 5th, 2019 and January 12th, 2020, we delegated before Council. On those occasions we questioned the timing and basic process of the course that brought forward the 243-page Integrated Control By-Law Land Use report and the highly interdependent 319-page Preliminary Preferred Concept Report. We challenged the timing, the conclusions and the basic sequencing of events. At that time, we urged Council to address the relocation of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) and the mis-designation of the John Street bus station and the downtown as a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). We argued that these actions must be a priority before any acceptable redesign of the downtown was possible. We asked for ‘no more tall buildings’. And we were not heard. Indeed, with our final delegations there was not one question posed. We raised inconvenient truths and there was no will to exchange ideas, no appetite to debate. We were politely but conclusively dismissed. We determined at that time that further delegation was pointless and the course for downtown irrevocably charted.
Today, however, we are making another statement in response to the latest documents, the Placemaking and Urban Design Guidelines and the Downtown Burlington Fiscal Impact Analysis and the latest, and apparently final, version of Report PL-16-20, Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown Recommended Modifications to the OP. We do this to bring orderly closure to our advocacy and, once again, echo the voice of Burlington citizens who deserve to be but have not been heard. Sadly, the situation remains almost exactly the same as it was nine months ago – all this time spent tinkering with the documents, but not substantially changing the position or the “vision.”
On page 8 of the Guidelines, for example, the two designations that enable both the Province and the development community to force high intensity massing of people and/or jobs in Burlington’s downtown remain unchanged and in force. We refer, of course, to the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) and the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). COB recently announced that Council voted unanimously on August 24, 2020 to request removal of these designations, yet they remain the key component of the downtown OP, the Guidelines, all Schedules and the Fiscal Impact Analysis. Coupled with this is the fact that LPAT, the ‘new’ dispute forum, is a high-rise developer’s dream tribunal where height and massing in designated growth areas are not just supported but are actively encouraged.
The Urban Growth Centre (UGC) designation was first applied to our Downtown through the Places to Grow provincial legislation in 2005 and ratified by Burlington Council in fall 2006, just weeks before the City Election. It demanded a minimum 200 people/jobs per hectare over the area bounded by the Growth Centre and remains in place today.
The Major Transit Station Area designation arrived much later in the second decade of this century through the provincial agency, Metrolinx, based on the unsubstantiated claim that our Downtown Bus Terminal qualified as a Mobility Hub. The MTSA covers roughly the same area as the UGC and requires the same intensification minimums. Both designations support high intensity massing of people/jobs (and buildings) in the Downtown area and reinforce each other as provincial intensification tools. Moreover, both designations share three critical aspects detrimental to the popular “vision” of what constitutes “good planning” for Burlington’s downtown:
The intensification applies over an area, not a building.
There is no maximum stated. Only a minimum is demanded, and municipalities are “encouraged” to go above the minimum.
There is no mention in the legislation of maximum building height – the sky is quite literally the limit.
So, the two most damaging factors remain unchanged and will be ‘in force’ and operative for the foreseeable future – at minimum, until the Regional Official Plan is revised and approved. This factor alone undermines the comforting assurances and lofty principles of the Guidelines. Indeed, the latter are almost a misdirection, intended to appease a skeptical and fatigued citizenry; false guarantees that intensification can be controlled and made amenable to the public will. But, as Guidelines, they exist simply to articulate what “should be” not what “must be” and they can be contravened by any number of higher policies and direction statements. For example, the “Core Commitment: Downtown Vision and Action Plan” (as amended) goes beyond and takes precedence over the “Placemaking and Urban Design Guidelines”.
In essence, the Guidelines are unenforceable, part of an array of reports and documentation that requires a very informed and patient reader to do all the necessary cross-referencing to determine the complete context. As with the past process of last December and January, the documents are too numerous, too dense, too intricate and too complex. They are not intended to easily inform.
Truly, the devil can be in the details. There are instances in which the Guidelines don’t match or conform to the main OP report. One of the best examples is Village Square. The Guidelines talk about 4 storeys “abutting Martha Street” but Village Square, as popularly known, does not extend to Martha Street.
The Guidelines state:
“1. The maximum height of developments abutting Martha Street shall be 4 storeys and/or shall provide a built form transition to Martha Street and north of Pine Street to maintain the existing low-rise character.”
2. Retail frontages should be designed to complement and reinforce the unique human scaled and historic character of the Village Square Precinct.
3. Retail provided at-grade along Pine Street will act as a transaction to the Village Square development and emphasize an intimate relationship with the public realm by providing a minimum setback of 4 metres from the curb.
4. Development should maintain and enhance views of the Village Square.”
The language is intended to give the impression that the low-rise nature of the area is being protected and preserved. However, when the map (notably, only included in the revised schedules and omitted from the Guidelines) is referenced, it is clear that the north portion of Village Square allows 11 storeys. Moreover, both the Report and the Guidelines are silent on the treatment of the Square’s interior. At best this is misleading; at worst, a deliberate omission. And this is characteristic of the Guidelines as a whole. They contain a treasure trove of vague, ambiguous, qualitative language that provides a sense of affirmation but does not allow for measurement or objective validation.
The Guidelines perpetuate a number of known problems and deficiencies already cited with the planning process and the downtown modifications made to the Official Plan. Most glaring, perhaps, is the fact that the Old Lakeshore Road precinct continues to be ignored. Why is this most critical of precincts, the gateway to the downtown, continually out of scope?
Why are the serious issues, constraints and challenges posed not openly addressed? Why reference it as one of the 10 precincts and note that the downtown is “on a beautiful waterfront setting”, then completely ignore what is required to protect the waterfront, enhance its accessibility to the public and maintain the existing views? Indeed, Burlington has had a very uneven record over the last 20 years in terms of preserving and protecting the natural asset of the waterfront. It sold valuable waterfront property to private owners, failed to extend the waterfront trail and allowed development interests to prevail over those of public access. These Guidelines and this Official Plan do little to reverse the mistakes of the past. World class cities provide strict and enforceable measures to ensure that their waterfronts are valued as irreplaceable jewels and true public assets. Burlington, by contrast, posits a “feel good” set of principles (pp 44/45) factored around the discretionary preservation of “views” and “access”.
The same principles with the same poor expectation of effective implementation are used to preserve sight lines to landmark buildings such as City Hall, Knox Presbyterian Church and Village Square. One can reasonably argue that the view of City Hall will be obstructed by the Twin Towers approved for the northeast and southeast corners of Brant and James. Knox is located in the Downtown East Precinct that allows tall buildings and is vulnerable to demolition. Village Square presents a series of already identified issues. In fact, we take serious issue with the whole Downtown East Precinct in which the “precedent” of existing tall buildings is used to justify an ongoing ‘tall building’ development pattern. Why is the “precedent” not anchored in the many one or two storey houses in the area? How does the allowance for 17 storeys on Elizabeth Street and 17 at the Lions Club Park conform to the existing adjacent neighbourhoods? How does it conform to that which the people have been asking and how is it feasible that that small area around tiny Martha Street and Lakeshore/James could possibly accommodate this many tall buildings and additional congestion? Where is the requirement that Carriage Gate finally, after more than a decade, build their promised parking garage and medical centre at the site of their 17-storey condo building atop a three storey “podium” (the much-touted retail portion on ground level still completely vacant) located in the East Precinct? Why is the consultant/staff recommending 22 storeys at the Carriage Gate property at Pearl and Lakeshore, beside the uniformly unwanted ADI property next door?
There is almost a complete lack of green space and amenities. The map in Schedule 3, Appendix D shows three green circles denoting “public parks” (viz. Ghent/Brant, No Frills parking lot and Martha near New Street). They are small, located in insignificant areas and appear as afterthoughts – not integral components of the plan. The City claims to want to create complete communities with all of the amenities, but this worthy goal appears to have been abandoned in the downtown. Indeed, there is no section in the Guidelines dealing with green spaces and parks. Instead of needed amenities, community hubs and actual parkland, we are presented with the concept of POPS (Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces) as leisure and recreational areas for the thousands of people who will populate the new buildings. The POPS were featured in the Fall 2019/Winter 2020 presentations of the preferred concepts for downtown. They were not critically acclaimed then and deserve no better treatment now. In fact, little has changed with either the concepts or the consultant’s treatment of the design for downtown. So, for example, where is the recognition that the pandemic has dramatically changed our reality? In the Fiscal Impact Analysis:
“Table 3-1 summarizes the residential growth projections for Downtown Burlington to 2031. It is anticipated that the within Downtown Burlington, the City’s population will grow by 2,787 population over the 2020-2031 forecast period. The population growth will be facilitated by the development of 1,720 additional high-density residential dwelling units. Consistent with the assumptions of the 2016 FIS, it is assumed that 75% of high-density residential development will be in the form of condominium development, with the remaining 25% comprising apartment developments.”
Remarkably, there is no updated view of the changes that COVID has made to our lives and the nature of our future living. Today, and for the foreseeable future, there is far less desire for condominium living and cloistered spaces. People want to distance and separate, want more open spaces and houses with traditional features and backyards. Accordingly, there should be fewer allowances for tall buildings and much better-defined planning for open spaces. Why is the consultant’s vision unchanged?
This speaks to our final major issue – the implicit cynicism of the consultation process and the lack of meaningful public engagement. Much has been made by the City and Council in ward newsletters and social media posts of the extensive outreach that has been undertaken. Citizens have been thanked for their time and effort reviewing an endless array of documents, helping to make the Official Plan and its policies a better, more inclusive work. However, nothing has materially changed. The preferred concepts, the vision and principles, the Official Plan itself with its myriad ancillary reports and the strategic documents ‘ad infinitum’ have not been varied or amended. The direction has not been moderated by either public comment and feedback or influenced by a differing public perception. The development scenario was essentially set during last Summer and Fall, when SGL Consulting was engaged under a directed tender to validate staff-defined outcomes. The necessary substantiating reports and studies were then concluded with predictable findings and the path forward unaltered from that framed and established at the very beginning.
Neither Council nor Planning staff should believe that a lack of new comments opposing much of these final documents means that the public now finds them acceptable. In the midst of a pandemic and at the end of a very long, quite protracted and overly tiresome process with too many documents, too many cross-references and too many versions, people are fatigued with the need for repetition; for saying repeatedly what they want and never being heard. We know that the council members are there to speak up on our behalf, convey our long-standing and unchanged positions, and to direct staff as they see fit. This is what the public expects and is counting on.
In summary, we’ve been here before – several times actually and nothing substantive has changed. It’s not that we expect that Council is under any obligation to passively comply simply because we attended and delegated. However, we did expect to be respected and to be heard. We represent a popular voice to which you have turned a deaf ear; worse, to which you have claimed an avid attention, then done nothing. We respectfully request that you provide for substantive amendments to the Official Plan, addressing the deficiencies noted in this submission and reflecting what the people of Burlington want for their downtown.
We understand that Council has worked with staff on modifications to produce a revised Official Plan for endorsement but we believe that it is seriously flawed. It leaves the waterfront vulnerable to development and permits a downtown in which tall buildings will dominate, with no real green space or public amenities. As we have said from the beginning, there is only one waterfront and one downtown – once gone there will be no bringing anything back and we urge the current Council, elected with such high popular expectation two years ago, to do everything needed to clearly ensure their permanent protection. Your legacy depends on it.
By Pepper Parr
October 1st, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It was an eleven hour meeting that went as smoothly as things like this can go.
The result – the city now has an Official Plan that it will soon send to the Regional government where it has to be approved.
 They were sworn in to deliver – yesterday – they delivered. Getting the document to this point has been a massive effort on the part of the people in the Planning Department where many of the people in place now are new to the city.
 Alison Enns on a walking tour with a group of citizens. Alison Enns and Thomas Douglas did a huge job of involving the public and fattened their resumes with some superb work.
Director of Planning Heather MacDonald, new to the city as well, was able to get staff to meet the call every time she asked.
Council deserves credit – they believed a better Official Plan was necessary and they hung together for the most part to see it to the point where it passed through the Standing Committee on a 6-1 vote with Councillor Sharman being the exception.
 Councillor Sharman with Councillor Bentivegna – they voted against the 9 Meed Ward amendments – with one exception. His decision not to support the motion was as much a political move as a vote against what is a good Official Plan. This Council did the work that the 2014-18 Council wasn’t able to get done.
Even Councillor Sharman admitted as much.
Mayor Meed Ward did what she always does – did it her way. She, along with ward 2 Councillor introduced nine amendments to what the Planning department brought forward.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward – she ran on creating a better Official Plan – she has delivered. Much of the amendments focus was on the eastern side of the city where Meed Ward brought forward reasonable changes. Most people agreed with the Mayor; although the Lions Club would have liked the Mayor to look upon the block sized property they own a little differently.
The specifics of the nine amendments will get covered in future Gazette articles.
The now endorsed Official Plan gets put before a City Council meeting early in October where it will be passed.
Is it the right plan for the city? Only time will tell – what is not in doubt is the size of the effort from everyone involved.
The plan should get through the Regional level – but it looks as if a number of vested interests are going to appeal the document.
The number of letters put on the record by different developers and the legal counsel that have in the past represented the interests of the developers more than suggests the battle isn’t over.
 Heather MacDonald talking with a citizen at a public meeting – we used to have events like this. Is the plan defensible at LPAT is the question on many minds.
Only time will tell.
Heather MacDonald was given the task of hiring consultants to support the work that had to be done. The firm hired –SGL Planning & Design Inc., was her choice – she chose well.
By Pepper Parr
September 30th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
City Council is meeting today as a Standing Committee that is preparing to endorse the recommendation from the Planning department on a Scoped Review of the downtown portion of an Official Plan that was approved in xx 2018, went to the Region for approval – the Region returned the Official Plan pointing to four areas that did not comply with the Regional Official Plan.
In sending the plan back to be made conforming with the Region the invited the city to make additional changes.
That allowed the current city council to make all the changes they thought the city needed.
That process, which began in 2018 is coming to a head today.
It is a convoluted, complex process, evident in the graph set out below.
 A complex process that is coming to a head at council today. The consult the city hired is doing a superb job; planning staff have set new heights in terms of the community outreach they have done.
Some of it has been excellent – what has not been all that excellent is the public participation. There were walking tours that had less than 20 people. The Action Labs were an interesting approach.
The city has gone through two Planning directors – the difference between the two has been very evident.
Councillors are facing a full day’s work. The delegations and letters sent to council went from a through to r. A lot of people want to be on the record for this run at getting an Official Plan in place that can change the way the city will grow as it faces significant population growth targets.
The Gazette will report in detail on what was said and who said it.
By Staff
September 29th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The city now requires developers to take their plans to the public and get feedback at that level before taking their project to the Planning Department.
The ADI Development Group will be telling their story to the public on Tuesday, September 29, 2020 Time: 5:30 -7:00 PM.
Participate On-Line via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/91873809076
Webinar ID: 91873809076
During the meeting, City Planning staff will provide an overview of the development application review process and opportunities for public participation in the process.
Adi Development Group will provide an overview of their redevelopment plans. This proposed development consists of two different design options for community feedback. The first of which consists of three towers with heights ranging from 29 to 39 storeys, and the second option consists of four towers with heights ranging from 18 to 39 storeys.
Both options yield the same approximate number of units, 1,258. There will be a question and answer session to share your thoughts about the proposal with Adi Development Group.
Councillor Kelvin Galbraith and the Mayor will also be in attendance to hear your input.
The four towers are the second phase of this development known as Station West which is within walking distance of the Aldershot GO station.
 By Pepper Parr
September 28th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The intersection of Brant and Ghent is a bit of a waste land. An empty field on the west side north of Ghent, a parking lot on the east side north of Ghent.
A low two story office building that has seen better days is on the south side Ghent on the corner of Brant.
You could drive by and not know what you had just passed.
That location is in the process of changing.
The Molinaro Group released architectural renderings and announced a date for the now required pre-consultation meetings with the public before an application can be taken to the Planning department.
This is a development that isn’t within what most people see as the “downtown core” – which suggests that it will pass muster with the people that are fighting for what they call the heart and soul of the city
Given the virtual world we live in everything is now accessible by a Zoom link.
To participate On-Line via Zoom go to the web site set out below and use the webinar ID set out below.
https://zoom.us/j/96657726680
Webinar ID: 966 5772 6680
Participate by Telephone: 1-647-374-4685 (audio only)
Burlington is in the process of beginning to look like a very different city.
Three 25 story buildings with some townhouses on Brant thrown in.
By Pepper Parr
September 22nd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
PART 2 of a SERIES: The first piece in this series of articles on the incredible success the citizens living in the Appleby Village part of the city had when they went up against a developer who had filed an appeal with the Local Planning Act Tribunal (LPAT) .
The first the larger public heard about how things had turned out for the citizens who were opposed to the Appleby Village development was when the Mayor announced during a Council meeting that there was a settlement offer from the developer.
The development project in the east end goes back to 2014 – the developer had a plan that got put on hold when the Region realized that the Storm Water System could not handle the amount of flood waters; that a larger pipe would have to be put in place.
That put the project on hold for two years.
Jeremy Skinner, an east end resident who spends his free time going to community meetings, had become friendly with Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman and got into the habit of attending his meetings.
Skinner wondered if there were people in the community who were as curious as he was about how such a development would get past the Planning Department.
 There is a very vibrant community surrounding the site. The area in the center in grey is the land that has undergone significant re-development during the past ten years. The X is where the high rise and town houses are going to be located. The Gazette had been following the story but not as closely as Skinner.
Skinner put together a flyer and dropped them off at homes in the immediate area of the proposed development which at that time was for two Residential Condominium Apartment Towers with one at 12-storeys and the second at 17-storeys. These were subsequently changed to 17-storeys for both towers when the matter got to an appeal application.
The residents who bordered the proposed development of Appleby Village were shocked to receive invitations to attend the initial LPAT Pre-hearing Conference for the First Capital (Appleby) Realty appeal for lack of City decision to amendments to the Official Plan (OP) and the By-law (ZBL). They got the invitation either because their homes were within a boundary set out by the city or because they had attended a meeting and put their names on a sign up sheet.
 Public art is set at the north west corner of the Village. Goats. The Official Plan (OP) and the Zoning Bylaw ( ZBL) for the 6.6-hectare site were defined as a maximum of 12-stories.
Nothing was happening while the Region improved the storm water pipes. That work was completed by the end of 2016.
At about the same time there were rumblings within the development community that the Ontario Municipal Board was going to undergo a significant change. Word at the time was that municipalities were going to have more involvement in the process – that belief supported by the new name. Local Planning Act Tribunal. The LPAT acronym turned out to be very misleading.
The new act came into effect on December 12th. Many developers, believing they could read the tea leaves, filed appeals wanting to be heard under the old OMB rules. First Capital filed their appeal on November 17th, 2017 which meant their appeal would be held under the to-be-replaced OMB rules and procedures. It also meant that the city’s Planning Department was out of the game – the city lawyers now had the file.
By this time Skinner had become quite active in the community and recruited what he called “street captains” people who would distribute another flyer to households.
 The invitation Jeremy Skinner distributed to the neighbourhood. Sixteen people took up the invitation – Skinner now had his community group.
They met on a number of occasions figuring out what their approach should be and what was actually possible. They knew the development wasn’t going to be taken off the table – but believed they could get changes that made it better for everyone in the community.
 It’s an active site with a very good restaurant, a Starbucks, an LCBO, a bank and a supermarket. The first LPAT appeal meeting took place at city hall on May 1st where those seeking Registered Participant status were advised to group themselves with other residents who had common concerns and identify representative speakers who would make statements at the hearing.
That was initiative enough for Skinner to host a neighbourhood meeting on the 26th of June 2018 at Pineland Baptist Church. “At the meeting, we reviewed what was known about the development application, and then considered our response based upon what we believed was possible to win at LPAT and what would be required to do so.
“We decided not to challenge the Developer or the City on matters such as: the number of buildings; building heights; number of residential suites; the number of their guests’ vehicles in underground parking; and impact on traffic for the developer and the City to resolve” said Skinner.
“This was due to the high costs to hire LPAT recognized Subject Matter Experts and suitable Legal representation. Instead, we decided to focus our efforts on documenting our issues of “transition compatibility to our bordering residential neighbourhood properties” and the need to “improve and make safe pedestrian egress to the site”.
“We drafted and ratified a proposal letter complete with eight conditions summarized below which, if satisfied, would result in the community group withdrawing our objection to the proposed development and instead to follow the City’s lead. It was sent to all LPAT parties and the LPAT Case Coordinator on the 8th of July 2018.
 These were the conditions the community took to the developer.
There were numerous meetings with the developer’s architect and senior people at First Capital. The residents knew that the development was eventually going to get approved and that they really didn’t have much clout; the developer wanted to get on with the construction and move the file forward – getting rid of the residents was the price they would have to pay.
At a subsequent LPAT meeting (Preconference Hearing # 2 ) Eileen Costello, a lawyer,with Aird and Berlis, counsel for the developer, advised LPAT that on the 30th of October, 2020 they would be submitting a revised development plan that was being submitted on a Without Prejudice basis and that “discussions have continued with the City”.
Ms. Costello stated that they have looked at the information submitted by the local residents and intend in the future to take a revised proposal out for communication and discussion with the residents.”
What this meant was that the residents had prevailed – the developer was going to go along with much of what the residents had proposed.
 Green = development pedestrian egress & townhouse front yards Now the challenge was to make that point with the city and to get the Planning Department back into the game. They were no longer part of what was happening – the moment the developer filed the LPAT appeal the city’s legal department was in control of the file – not that the city had all that much going for their side of the difference of opinion on the development.
Jeremy Skinner delegated at city hall on a matter that was part of the CLOSED SESSION agenda.
He started out telling the Council members that the day before there had been a ZOOM meeting that his group had been invited to attend. The developer set out the changes they had made.
Those changes were enough for the Appleby Village community group to withdraw their objections.
In a short report on the city web site the scope of the win for the residents is set out:
The settlement between the City and First Capital resolves the issues in dispute between the City and First Capital on the basis that First Capital and the City will seek LPAT approval of a revised development concept for the property. The City and First Capital will request the LPAT withhold a final order approving the development until the City and First Capital are satisfied with technical studies that are required to support the revised development concept.
The revised development concept proposes 368 dwelling units in both apartment and townhouse forms located on a portion of the site of the former Appleby Mall that currently contains a parking area adjacent to existing retail/commercial uses. The revised development concept reduces the building heights of the original proposal from 12 and 17 storeys, down to a 9 storey and two 12 storey buildings that are in compliance with the Official Plan. The revised development concept also: increases setbacks from Pinedale Avenue; reorients and redesigns the buildings to achieve compliance with the City’s Urban Design Guidelines; introduces townhouse units at the base of the buildings; and provides enhanced landscaping, among other things.
The City and First Capital will attend at the LPAT hearing scheduled to commence on November 2, 2020 to seek approval of the Zoning By-law amendment and revised development concept by the LPAT.
End of part 2
Part 1.
By Staff
September 22, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Wrong building, wrong place and miles outside the Official Plan and zoning for the property.
The development was to be located on the west side of Guelph line just south of New Street.
The Staff recommendation was to refuse the application for official plan and zoning by-law amendments submitted by Weston Consulting, on behalf of Valour Capital Inc. for the development of a 13-storey residential building on the property located at 420 Guelph Line.
CARRIED
Council debated this one for more than an hour and urged the developer to do a makeover and perhaps work with an abutting property owner.
The immediate area already has several development applications in the works – five years from now you will probably not recognize the area.
 The developer was asking for too much and the neighbours didn’t like it.
By Staff
September 21st, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
A Pre-Application Community Meeting will take place this evening between 7 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.
Millcroft Greens is hosting a virtual consultation meeting this evening to discuss a proposal to redevelop portions of the Millcroft Golf Course. The owners are proposing to develop five (5) parcels of land for residential uses. The intention is to also make design improvements to the existing course layout while retaining an 18-hole golf course.
 Current golf course layout.
 Proposed golf course layout.
The meeting will have an interactive format with live questions and answers.
Telephone and video-conferencing participation options will be available. Millcroft Greens is working with representatives of residents’ groups (Millcroft Against Development and We Love Millcroft), city staff, the Mayor and Council to design the format of the meeting.
This consultation meeting is the first step in a comprehensive review of the draft proposal. The purpose of the consultation meeting is for Millcroft Greens to address key questions and obtain community feedback prior to the submission of any development applications.
The City will assist with hosting the meeting in a virtual capacity and the meeting will be hosted and broadcast live from Council Chambers. Councillor Bentivegna and Mayor Meed Ward will be in attendance to listen to the discussion and hear from residents, they also welcome any resident feedback.
Participate On-Line via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/94419494959
Webinar ID: 944 1949 4959 (internet connection required – Zoom User Guide available at www.burlington.ca/millcroftgreens)
Participate by Telephone: 1-647-374-4685 (audio only)
By Pepper Parr
September 17th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It was to be the last of the meetings where the public could learn more about the Scoped Review of the Revisions to the approved but not yet adopted Official Plan.
This is the plan that was voted on during the closing days of the 2014 – 18 city council that was then turned back by the Region where it has to be approved.
When the document was returned to the city the new council had an opportunity to make additional changes that were more in line with the new agenda.
The document that was being prepared now has 21 appendices, the latest of which was released shortly before the meeting.
The document will go to a meeting of Council where it will be heavily debated. That meeting is on September 30th.
On the 6th of October it goes to city council again and will be voted upon.
 This is a map of the Growth Framework with the Neighbourhood centres shown.  This is the map with the Urban Growth Centre boundaries in place and each of the precincts colour coded. This map has gone through numerous revisions. . The public was introduced to where the neighbourhood centres are to be located. There are eight of them.
It will be passed at city council. Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman might vote against it.
It then goes to the Region where it has to be approved.
Then back to Burlington city council where any last minute touch ups get done – it then becomes the law of the land.
Unless of course it is appealed to the Local Planning Act Tribunal.
Last night the public got to see some new maps.
By Pepper Parr
August 24th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
There is a lot of development taking place in Aldershot where ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith faces a sticky wicket.
There is a development for a six storey structure that is literally around the corner from his house.
He did the right thing by talking to the City’s Corporate Counsel and then declaring a conflict of interest every time the matter was on a Council agenda.
The developer has taken the position that they listened to the residents and made significant changes to the development. Their revised proposal is now before the Planning department.
 While the height was a concern – the massing was terrible. The immediate neighbourhood consists of detached houses, some two storey in a quiet neighbour with a tennis court nearby. The GO train tracks are to the north where the ADI development is well underway but distant enough not to intrude. The six stories were a clear intrusion.  Proposed revision: The height is still there but the massing is gone. The developer added a number of townhouses on the eastern side. Is this an acceptable improvement? Will it fly? In a letter to city council the developer said:
These revised plans represent a number of significant wins for both the City and the community over the original proposal. The revision to the plans can be summarized as follows:
1. Building Length: Reduced from 113 meters to two 51 metre buildings with a connecting element;
2. Increased front yard setback (from Masonry Court) from 3 metres to 5 metres;
3. Increased rear yard landscape buffer from 1.51 metres to 5.25 metres;
4. Reduction in surface parking from 49 to 29 parking stalls;
5. Elimination of one driveway entrance/exit from the Subject Lands;
6. The addition of townhouse facade to the St. Matthews elevation to ensure appropriate transition to the homes along St. Matthews;
7. Setback of building along St. Matthews of 4.5 metres as requested by staff, which will align with the setback of the homes to the south;
8. 45 degree angular plane achieved to ensure no adverse privacy or overlook impacts ;
9. Improved building articulation, landscape and amenity areas ;
10. Increased suite mix from 22% two bedroom units to 35% two bedroom units.
Clearwater Street was the location where Marianne Meed Ward threw her hat into the ring and announced (to the surprise of anyone?) that she was running for Mayor.
By Pepper Parr
August 19th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Most of the reports listed below can be reached by clicking on the link.
The “Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown” (Scoped Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan) is a document-heavy process.
To get a sense as to just how document-heavy it has been – and it isn’t over yet – gaze at the documents listed below.
 That Closer Look amounts to a big pile of paper The project team has released recommended modifications to the downtown policies in the Adopted Official Plan. These policies will guide development in downtown Burlington to the year 2031. The recommended modifications and associated reports are linked below.
The meat of it all is in the first document – not actually in the document itself – it’s in one of the Appendices.
The recommended modifications are discussed in staff report PL-16-20 and in Appendix 1 of PL-16-20, SGL Planning & Design Final Report.
The Official Plan recommended modifications themselves are contained in Appendices 2, 3, and 4 of report PL-16-20.
Appendices 5-14 of report PL-16-20 contain technical studies that have been completed in support of the Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan.
- PL-16-20 Appendix 5: Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment: Revised Report (Prepared by ASI, Feb 19, 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 6: Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes Downtown Mobility Hub Study Area (Prepared by ASI, May 2019, revised September 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 7: Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub Market Analysis (prepared by N. Barry Lyons and Associates, August 2017)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 8: Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub – Illustrative Economic Analysis (prepared by N. Barry Lyons and Associates, July 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 9: Scoped Environmental Impact Study Downtown Mobility Hub (Prepared by Dillon Consulting, October 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(A-1): Flood Hazard and Scoped Stormwater Management Assessment (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions Wood, June 1, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(A-2): Flood Hazard and Scoped Stormwater Management Assessment – Drawings (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions Wood, June 1, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(B-1): Hager-Rambo Flood Control Facilities Study Report: Downtown and Burlington GO Mobility Hub (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, May 29, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(B-2): Appendices to Hager-Rambo Flood Control Facilities Study Report: Appendices (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, May 29, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 10(B-3): Hager-Rambo Flood Control Facilities Study Report: Drawings (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, May 29, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 11: Downtown Burlington Traffic Overview (Prepared by CIMA+, October 2019)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 12: Downtown Burlington Micro-Level Traffic Operations: Review of the preferred Land Use Scenario (Prepared by CIMA+, May 1, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 13: Updated Area Servicing Plan (ASP) for Stormwater, Water and Wastewater: Downtown Burlington (Prepared by Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, May 28, 2020)
- PL-16-20 Appendix 14: Fiscal Impact Analysis (To be prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd and shared in July 2020) This document got moved back a month.
Appendix 15 of report PL-16-20 contains draft Downtown Burlington Placemaking and Urban Design Guidelines, to be prepared by SGL Planning & Design and released in July 2020.
Appendices 16-19 contain information about public engagement that informed the recommended modifications to the adopted Official Plan. This includes responses to feedback received.
Appendix 20 contains updates on other City projects, as of May 2020. This appendix may be further updated in September 2020.
Appendix 21 of report PL-16-20 will contain a project update that will be prepared and released in September 2020, in advance of the public meeting. This appendix will address all feedback received up until August 28, 2020.
Next Steps
The City will share two more documents – expected sometime in September:
- Financial Impact Analysis concerning the recommended policy modifications, and
- Draft Downtown Burlington Placemaking and Urban Design Guidelines for public review.
Aug. 28, 2020: Deadline to submit comments on the recommended modifications to the adopted Official Plan so the project team has time to consider the feedback in advance of the Sept. 30 Committee meeting.
Sept. 2020: The project team will release an additional appendix to the staff report PL-16-20 that was published in June. This appendix will provide project updates and a response to all feedback that was received prior to Aug. 28.
Sept. 30, 2020: City Council will consider all reports at a public meeting of the Community Planning, Regulation, and Mobility Committee on Sept. 30. This meeting will include a presentation from City staff and the project consultants. The public will have a chance to delegate.
Oct. 7, 2020: Council will consider the Sept. 30 recommendations at a Special Council meeting on Oct. 7. Council will decide whether to endorse the recommended policy modifications and submit them to Halton Region for inclusion in the Region’s approval of the new Official Plan that Council adopted in Apr. 2018.
The Gazette will now dive into the pile of documents and report on what it all means.
Stand By and Stay Tuned..
By Pepper Parr
August 19th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It was the best ZOOM production we’ve seen since the lock down.
 Michelle Dwyer handled the flow of questions exceptionally well. There may be a future for her in professional broadcasting. Michelle Dwyer served as the moderator who took the calls during a virtual information meeting about the close-to-final report from the Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown event which she passed on to the team on the other side of the panel that included Alison Enns, Thomas Douglas and Jenna Pulato.
It ran smoothly, a truly professional production. The people who run the city web casts – especially the Standing Committee programs, could learn something from this team.
Dwyer would have looked even better if the camera had been adjusted just a little.
Each of the participants was working from home (Dwyer might have been working out of city hall) and were able to move from person to person without any glitches.
They were doing a virtual information meeting on one of the final Get Involved Burlington segments that was focused on the Scoped Reexamination of the Adopted Official Plan for the Downtown.
By way of background – the 2014-18 city council approved a new Official Plan that was sent to the Region where it had to be approved. The Region sent it back saying there were parts of the Plan that didn’t fit with the Regional Official Plan – they needed some fixes.
That notice from the Region came in after the 2018 election which brought a lot of new faces to the council table and a Mayor who saw the development of the downtown core a lot differently than her predecessor.
In its notice to the city about the Official Plan that it was sending back, the Region said the city could look at other elements of the Plan and not just the four the Region had been specific about.
That gave Mayor Meed Ward the room she needed to take a deeper look at what could be done with the downtown core.
 Mary Lou Tanner, former Burlington Director of Planning The city now had a new Director of Planning: Mayor Meed Ward did not get along with Mary Lou Tanner who was directing and defending what the 2014-18 Council had approved.
Mayor Meed Ward sent City Manager James Ridge packing and brought in Tim Commisso in as an interim City Manager who quickly became the choice of new full time city manager.
Most of the players had changed – which got the city to the point where the Scoped Reexamination of the Adopted Official Plan become almost a cottage industry in itself. The Director of Planning was given carte blanche to hire a consulting firm to lead the Review. They were thorough – and they weren’t cheap.
Heather MacDonald, the new director of planning, was given permission to do a sole source search – she hired SGL Planning and Design who began a process that produced literally dozens of reports with two more to come.
 Alison Enns, part of the panel that took questions from the public on a virtual information meeting, worked very smoothy with Thomas Douglas on the ZOOM presentation  Thomas handled most of the question related to transportation at the virtual information meeting. The FINAL report with some surprising recommendations wasn’t available to the public until a few days before the live review; despite that many of the questions were very detailed – members of the public had drilled down and done their home work.
A transcript of the broadcast, as well as the broadcast itself is expected to be available “shortly” Both will be posted to the Get Involved section of the city web site.
Planning staff have asked for comments before August 28th. The report will go to a Standing Committee September 30th and to Council in October.
If the report makes it through each of these steps, and doesn’t get bogged down with an appeal before it goes to the Region, it could become the law of the land before the end of the year.
It will have been a long, tortuous and expensive trip.
Delegating before city council is both a tradition and an important part of citizens getting their views before those elected to guide the city and direct the administration on what they want done.
Burlington has some fine delegators; people who do their homework and believe their role is to hold city council accountable. Yesterday Hunter Lawson delegated on the plans the Region of Halton has for the updating of its Official Plan.
Lawson delegated several hours before Curt Benson, Planner for the Region, talked about the five Discussion papers the Region has prepared. Benson referred to the Lawson delegation several times during the long explanation he gave members of Council. Hunter Lawson had been heard and Curt Benson had listened.
Lawson now gives his opinion on what public engagement is all about.
 By Lawson Hunter
August 12th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Halton Regional Council held a workshop on July 8th and a Council Meeting on July 15th to deal with the Region’s upcoming Official Plan Review (ROPR) and how it relates to Planning changes recently made by the Province through the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement.
A City’s Official Plan must conform to the Region’s Official Plan which must conform to several Provincial Bills and Regulations. Over the past two years, the Provincial government has been busy making drastic amendments to Provincial Plans and the Provincial Policy Statement. This is why the citizens of Burlington must be informed and engaged.
Five Discussion Papers were drawn up that form the key themes of the Regional Official Plan Review:
Climate Change;
Natural Heritage;
Rural and Agricultural System;
Regional Urban Structure; and
North Aldershot Planning Area.
I delegated to Council to urge them to go beyond what the Region has planned for Public Engagement. From what I can gather, it is limited to the an online survey and one or two Public Information Centres, which will be difficult given our challenges with social distancing due to coronavirus. I propose that the City of Burlington hold its own Public Engagement strategy to inform the public of the importance of the Regional Official Plan as it relates not only to Land Use but to the Climate Emergency that this Council has declared. We need a ‘made in Burlington’ engagement plan. (Note: Curt Benson, Director of Planning Services at the Region, later told Council that there would be 4 PICs)
 Though the Regional Official Plan is not slated to be finalized until Q4 2021, and the Region has hinted that Public Engagement will be undertaken – my concern centres on the fact that public engagement was slated to run from July 15th to Sept. 28th. Summer months are well known to be a slow time to engage the public. The time between July 15th, the day that Regional Council accepted the Discussion Papers, and July 29th, the day that public notice was sent of a request for comments, is a concern. The next Regional Council meeting will be Sept. 16th, when it’s expected Council will discuss public feedback, which is twelve days before the public engagement period ends. Neither inspires confidence that public engagement will be full and effective. (Note: Benson later told Council that Regional Staff would require considerable time to evaluate and prepare a report for Council’s review)
Public engagement is also noted for Phase 3 of the process but by that time Regional staff will have prepared ‘preferred options’ which will limit public discussion, as we have seen over and over again – a public display of an either/or choice or worse, “adopt this or nothing”.
In comparison, the City of Burlington has held extensive public engagement regarding the City’s ‘Adopted Official Plan’ and specifically the ‘Taking a Closer Look at Downtown’. Surveys (online and paper); 7 Citizen Action Labs; 17 pop-up events; outreach to 130 students and the Burlington Youth Council and the Halton Multicultural Council; walking tours; 3 drop-in sessions; and an upcoming online Town Hall on Aug. 18th. An unprecedented amount of effort.
 Scoped Review of the Downtown portion of the affirmed but not yet adopted Official Plan So I must ask, “Is Downtown Burlington more important than North Aldershot, the Rural and Agricultural System, Climate Change?” Each of the five topics that the Region is seeking public comment on is important in its own right. How much emphasis does the Region and the City place on these planning issues?
The timing of public engagement needs to be pushed back into the Fall to allow for a comprehensive process and full disclosure so that residents can digest, and discuss among themselves, the various reports, some of which are longer than 100 pages.
If the Region is not prepared to do this, then the City of Burlington must insist on these changes so that at least Burlington is prepared to look into the future and make its own Official Plan the best that it can be.
A municipal Official Plan does not inspire most residents to take notice. Despite the endless discussions this Council has had on its ‘Adopted Official Plan’, most Burlington citizens, outside of a few committed downtown residents, have only a vague notion of the significance an Official Plan has on how this city will look and operate for decades to come.
We need the Province to hear more than just a nice letter stating that the Region is discussing Climate Change and Natural Heritage and the rest. Each deserves comprehensive public engagement not only with ‘stakeholders’ but with the public that will be affected by those issues and by the Province’s changes to Plans such as the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan, to specific topics such as lessening Environmental Assessments and removing restrictions that protect Endangered Species and eliminating zoning designations.
This is, perhaps, our best chance to let the Provincial government know exactly how we feel about those changes and how we want our city and region to look, feel, and develop for our children and future generations.
 Appleby GO station – one of the hubs (now called MTSA’s) – Major Transit Service Area – where the city wants intensive development to take place. Think in terms of concentrations of apartments I’m sure someone will note that it is the traditional practice of the Province to allow public feedback through letters, online postings or the Environmental Registry. But, you also have to admit that several of these changes were made under the cover of the COVID crisis, behind a wall of secrecy or hidden within some omnibus bill.
This is our chance to be heard. Public Engagement needs to reach the highest level we have ever known in this community. We need to pull out all the stops, educate, explain and underscore that changes to legislation and the Official Plan will have a major impact on our community for the next 30 years.
The Official Plan is the most significant tool that a city has to influence how neighbourhoods will look. How and where parks and amenities are located. What mixture of high, low and mid-level housing will be allowed. What transit and transportation methods will have priority. Where and what kind of development will be permitted – rural or urban, greenfield or intensification. Will we have walkable, complete streets or continue to bow to the car culture? Where and what kind of industry and business will be located in appropriate areas?
 Lawson Hunter All of these things, and more, affect our promise to reduce GHG emissions over that same 30 years. The Land Use policies ‘we’ decide to enshrine will ensure that our air is clean, our neighbourhoods are livable, that we can accept the influx of new residents that we know are coming, 1.1 million residents in Halton by 2051, depending on whose forecasts you choose to accept.
Public Engagement, if done right, represents an unparalleled opportunity to discover what the public really wants our city, region and planet to look like – now and in the future.
Does that not require an extensive, well-funded and timely occasion to inform and listen to what the majority of citizens want?
 By Pepper Parr
June 29th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It is a construction site right now.
 The reflecting pool in the Centre will be a feature of the Court yard setting. The 22-story condominium is on the right. The ballroom will be on the second level of the hotel on the left. But a look around the space that is filled at this point with pieces of equipment and parts of the work completed, you can get a sense as to what it will look like when it opens in March of 2021. Leanne Ciancone who, with her brother Aaron, oversee the development of this latest venture, explains “there will be a soft opening” – “we will phase in the different parts of the project – when one is working flaw-free we will then open another part.”
This is a development that has gone through some awkward stages before the Ciancone people got to it.
Few people have heard of The Pearle.
It will become the destination point for the city; a place where people can dine and have a magnificent view of the lake with the Pier sitting just a bit to the west in full view.
 The concrete block spaced out on the Court yard grounds will hold the trestles that will cantilever over the Court yard. Restaurant will be to the left, hotel ballroom on the second floor of the hotel that faces into the open space. The Court yard of The Pearle is going to be something this city has not seen before.
 The full name is The Pearle Hotel and Spa.
It is part of the Bridgewater development that is close to five years behind its first announced opening date which was to be in 2015 when the Pan Am Games were taking place.
The approval for a 22-storey tower was approved when Walter Mulkewich was Mayor. At one point it was going to be a 30-storey structure and be known as a Legacy site.
The condominium is not yet complete; the 7 story condominium has some residents in place and a security team is now in the lobby – which isn’t finished.
What was to be a Delta Hotel at first, got upgraded to a Marriott and something went wrong – the Marriott pulled out and The Pearle took its place. They took a much different approach than the one the Marriott people had in mind. “We wanted something that was more family oriented – and not driven by a corporate approach.”
The people behind the Pearle are no slouches. They operate Spencer’s on the Waterfront, The Old Mill in Ancaster, The Elora Mill in Elora, which has become a premier location for large weddings… these, along with a number of respected and well run hospitality locations in the area.
 Leanne and Aaron Ciancone, a brother and sister team: he does the long range planning – she makes the plans a reality. Aaron and Leanne Ciancone (brother and sister) are the operators; they took over from their Dad in 2000.
The operation will consist of a Spa, a 150 room hotel and a restaurant that includes a small private venue and the Court yard.
The Gazette has been watching this site from it earliest days when the property was owned by the Mayrose Tyco interests, people who owned the land for decades before deciding it was time to build.
The land was once the site of the Riviera Motel, a location with fond memories for many.
Pearle, the name given to this latest hospitality venture by the Ciancone’s, is taken from their Grandmother. She would be very proud of what her grandchildren have done.
The entrance to the hotel, restaurant and Spa is off Elizabeth Street south of Lakeshore. The Spa has another separate entrance on Lakeshore.
Once inside the doors there will be a hotel registration desk and a grand curved staircase going up on either side of the lobby getting you to the second level. A lot of wedding pictures are going to get taken on those stairs – they will have the majesty of something like Gone with the Wind.
There is nothing steep about the stairs and there is an accessibility ramp as well.
Elizabeth Street, south of Lakeshore, slopes a bit to the lake. The 4 and a half level underground garage entrance is at the bottom of the street.
On the second level you enter the restaurant and can walk out into the Court yard. Based on what the Gazette has seen so far – it is the Court Yard that will be the jewel.
It will be hidden from the street – tucked in behind the portion of the hotel that stretches along Lakeshore.
Some of the open area is a shared space.
 The view from the top of the stairs leading to the lake looking north to the entrance to the public space on Lakeshore Road. The 22-storey condominium is on the right, the hotel on the left. The Court yard is on the west side with a public right of way on the east side that leads from Lakeshore right through to a magnificent set of stairs that lead down to the edge of the lake. While a little on the steep side there is a series of gently sloping ramps that people can walk down.
 An early rendering of what the Bridgewater development was to include. Some of the heights and the location of some features changed Those stairs will be a great place to sit and enjoy a cup of coffee. It will be public space which rules out holding a glass of wine or bottle of beer in your hand.
The area is spacious – far more than we expected.
Sitting on the east side of the Court yard is a reflecting pool.
It will without a doubt become the place to wine and dine.
Aaron Ciancone explains that it is the kind of place where you will be able to have a cup of coffee or a piece of pizza if that’s what you want. This is going to be a people place.
What’s on the menu? They hasn’t been revealed yet but given the locales that the Ciancone’s operate it will be fine fare; a lot more than slices of pizza.
The hotel has a ballroom that will be able to hold 400 – that will get crimped a bit until we have the Covid-19 virus under control.
The business model is to operate a small hotel, restaurants, the Spa and make the venue a wedding destination.
The Gazette will be tracking this story right up to that soft opening in March of 2021.
New Year’s Eve of 2021 it will be the locale for a great party – unless someone books it for a wedding. The only unknown is whether or not we will all have to wear masks.
|
|
