City has to write a developer a cheque for $17,088.97 + interest. Mayor has to wear this one

News 100 redBy Staff

March 5th, 2021


Correction:  The figure of  $281,481.62 should have been $28,481.62

The City has been ordered to pay costs in the amount of $17,088.97 plus interest, to the Applicant/Appellant, which in this case is National Homes, who are in the process of developing the property at 2100 Brant that will, upon completion, be a 233 town house development.

National Homes

The site used to be a hay field. The developer has named the property Tyandaga Heights

The city got hit because way back in 2017 National Homes made an application for amendments to both the Official Plan and the zoning on the property.

Marianne Meed Ward, who  was then the Council member for Ward 2, voted against the National Homes development.

National Homes took the city to LPAT (Local Planning Act Tribunal) for failing to make a decision within the required time frame.

They eventually resolved their differences at Pre-Hearing Conferences and signed Minutes of Settlement on November 20, 2018.

In October citizens had chosen a new Mayor and a significantly different Council – with just the one hold-over from the previous Council.

The inaugural meeting for the new City Council, with Meed Ward as Mayor, took place on December 4, 2018.

On December 17, 2018, the new Council held an in-camera meeting and decided to back out of the Minutes of Settlement.

We now know that the city decided to resile (which is lawyer speak for abandoning a position or a course of action) in that CLOSED meeting.

The National Homes people were ticked off and asked LPAT to award them costs of $28,481.62.  They got   $17,088.97.

That CLOSED meeting must have been a doozy – five of the seven people were brand new Councillors with precious little experience in matters like this.  Meed Ward knew what she was doing, Councillor Sharman would have been opposed – for the others – they may have left the room scratching their heads.

Several days before they had gone along with the Mayor on the firing of James Ridge, the then city manager.  Ridge certainly knew what was coming: days before he had told colleagues that if Meed Ward was elected he was toast.

The surprising part of that was – anyone who knew how to read tea leaves would have known that Meed Ward was what the public wanted.

Not as many feel the same way today.


Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

16 comments to City has to write a developer a cheque for $17,088.97 + interest. Mayor has to wear this one

  • Alfred

    David .

    Sorry for the confusion. What I was holding was a Ministers Zoning Order application form. Which is being used by others, not me. This was simply an example of how the Province has all the bases covered. It was decribed to me as a document that silences Mayors and nimby’s that cry wolf one too many times.

    It is now being used often .You can Google and find numerous examples..

    Our coffee bet is still on?

    • David Barker

      I don’t see resident opposition to super tall high rises in the downtown or the tearing up of green space simply for commercial gain as nimbyism.

      Nimbyism in my mind is the opposition to the placement of infrastructure (e.g. power plant, transformer stations etc.) within a community, and yet the community wishes to draw the benefits that result from the infrastructure.

      There was a large number out of the 58 delegates at the Millcroft meeting that, like me, do not live in that community, but are against that development on principle.

      As to the coffee wager, I must meet with my bank first to see if I can cover the approximate $96 cost. I’m retired. Not a rich property developer! LOL

  • Alfred

    Hello David.

    Provincial Divisional Court is where these matters could ultimately be resolved after LPAT.

    I am holding a Ministers Zoning Order in my hand. It is now being used by many to circumvent the City and LPAT completely. Go straight to the Ministry of Housing with an application (with merit) and they can issue the Zoning you require. This Mayor is digging us deeper in a hole every time she speaks. What little impact and authority this Mayor had will soon be gone forever. Look for the bigger picture

    • David Barker


      It seems to me that by using a Minister’s zoning order you are not just circumventing, the OP, City Council, the Regional Council, and LPAT, but the wishes of the residents of Burlington which democratically elected the mayor and council. The courts of justice are where disputes should be ultimately resolved. Not arbitrarily by political favours. A very Trumpian thing to do. Maybe if you don’t like the result, get a Minister’s order to override the result of the next municipal election whilst you are at it.

      Sad to hear you have gone that route.

      Still friends, though.

  • Alfred

    Hello David.

    As you have pointed out so wisely we live in a Democracy. 3 Actually Federal, Provincial and Municipal. For this discussion we can cross out the Feds. As you are aware, the Province is in charge of housing. Ultimately they make the rules for housing that the City of Burlington for lack of a better word must obey.

    The residents of Burlington spoke and knowingly elected a Provincial Government. Conservatives this time and Liberals before them. Both Governments would be in charge of housing Both parties supported the Greenbelt which dries up the land supply in Burlington. Housing costs have skyrocketed.

    Both parties came up with a slogans Build Up not Out. Intesification? Save our land. You do know the Mayor ran as a Liberal and supported all this when it served her purpose?

    How do you know our Official Plan is Provincial compliant. The Region told you? Regional council is made up of Burlington and Oakville Councilors. The Planners there are no different than the previous Planning Director and City Manager that were fired on the spot by you know who.. The LPAT decisions will decide if our Official Plan is worth the paper it is written on.

    Our Mayor tried to get rid of LPAT. It didn’t work. Her desire to change Planning in Ontario and take it out the hands of the Province, failed miserably. When she loses all these cases she will blame LPAT as corrupt. The members being Government Lackies. She’s right there. They are there as a safeguard against Mayors that try to make up their own rules.

    The Province has been around for a long time. She’ nothing new.

    David back to fun.

    I’ll buy a coffee each time the City wins at LPAT You buy when they lose.

    Pepper will keep score and get a coffee either way…..Have a wonderful evening.

    • David Barker

      Hey, Alfred

      Unfortunately we cannot keep this to and froing going. Others may get upset. So my last word.

      How do I know the OP is Provincial government compliant. I rely upon word from the City, the Region, and our MPP. What makes you think that it may not be compliant.

      I believe the common perception, supported by past decisions from LPAT, is hat LPAT ignores compliant OPs in favour of developers without any basis for justification.

      You will recall the last Liberal Provincial Government brought in reforms to the LPAT to address the imbalance and bias. Those reforms eye rolled back by the present government.

      Question for you, for anyone. Does a municipality have the ability to seek redress in the courts to fight an LPAT decision. If the answer is yes, why is that avenue not used?

  • Alfred


    You haven’t seen anything yet. The City (The Mayor) has 48 appeals at LPAT.. The Mayor will loose most of them. The legals and planning fees on behalf of the City. Will total in the millions to be paid by you the taxpayers.(Property owners)

    If the LPAT starts awarding costs to the winning team. Which sounds fair since the Developers lost 2 or 3 years and millions of lost revenue and and legal fees. Those can total in the tens of millions in total. In fairness the Developers should also pay the City if they loose.

    As a side note: The Town of Oakville has spent over 10 to 13 million taxpayers dollars, if not more and rising, fighting the development of Glen Abbey golf course. As they say it’s easy to spend other peoples (Taxpayers) money. They even threw a Heritage designation at it by playing loose and fast with fake rules. Rumours are The Townof Oakville will loose. This was all cooked up between council, legal dept and their planning staff. The then Director of Planning for Oakville. Is now our Director of Planning for Burlington.

    Editor’s note: Albert Facenda is a developer – some complexities are not always clear to him. The person he is referring to heads up Community Planning

    • David Barker

      Alfred, my good friend, I must take issue with your position.

      We live in a democracy. The residents of the City of Burlington in late 2018 spoke and rendered their mandate to a newly elected Mayor and Council. No super high rise towers in the downtown core and careful sympathetic development elselsewhere. Those duly elected officials have produced an official plan that meets or does not go contrary to both the Regional official plan &/or Provincial government’s policies. The hope is that the politically appointed arbiter, LPAT, will respect both the wishes of Burlington’s residents and the City’s official plan.

      Some (developers) might say the new OP is a case of moving the goal posts during the game. That is what democracy allows. Rules get changed which curtail plans already in motion that were initiated under a former rules regime.

      The City of Burlington and the Town of Oakville through their elected officials are standing up for their residents’ wishes and desires. They are standing for the principle that the wishes of the residents expressed via the ballot, and now embodied in the Provincial Government compliant OP be respected by LPAT and by developers.

      The applications from developers seeking super high rise towers in the downtown and the application to partially develop the Millcroft GC are an affront to Burlington’s residents.

      Your view seems to be the money spent to defend our principle is wasted money because we are likely to lose because an unelected body will, like the developers, disrespect our City and disregard the Provincially compliant OP. If that is the reason not to fight, we might as well never fight for anything.

      Best wishes to you, Alfred.

  • Lloyd Ripani

    Complete waste of tax payers money.. Make an agreement then change it..not ethical by my standards.. Like it or not, Burlington is not in a stand still bubble. Development is part of Provincial planning..Municipalities can’t make their own rules, change them and waste taxpayers hard earned money..Nimby ism runs rampant in our town.. Did you think that large parcel of land would stay vacant forever?

  • Hans Jacobs

    Re: “Not as many feel the same way today” – really?
    IMO this council is a huge improvement over its predecessor and MMW has worked very effectively on behalf of Burlington.

  • Maura

    I am very pleased with the job our mayor is doing. Her presentation
    Of information to the public is excellent and thorough. We are fortunate that Burlington
    Still resembles itself as compared to Milton and Halton Hills. We know development
    Will happen, however keeping it in moderation is a challenge.

  • Ed Dorr

    Original claim was an estimate of $ 28,000 (December 2018)

  • Ed Dorr

    A “ slight “ misrepresentation of what really took place and on top of that, this claim from National Homes should have been included in the settlement agreement between National Homes and the City in April 2020

  • David Barker

    Not sure your math is correct. $17,088 ÷ $281,481 = 6%

    Not 60%

    Big difference..

    $17,088 versus $281,481 woukd seem to be a big win for the Mayor and the City.

    My personal view is that just as many if not more residents are behind the Mayor and Council in all they have done todate to try curb developers rumming rampant on our beautiful city. Neither of us have any evidence to back up our opinions.

    Editor’s note: The 60% figure was contained in the LPAT decision document. We have pulled the number from the article.

  • Wayne Brown

    Do you think 17000 is 60% of 281,000?

    Editor’s note: The 60% figure was contained in the LPAT decision document. We have pulled the number from the article.