By Pepper Parr
January 13, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Different citizens groups south of the QEW are gathering their forces to delegate at the statutory public meeting to consider a proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-Law amendment.
The ADI group argues that the design of their 28 storey tower will serve as an excellent gateway on the eastern side of the city into the downtown core. Residents argue it will loom over the neighbourhood. The 22 storey Bridgewater project a couple of hundred yards away will reach 22 storeys into the air.
On Monday January 19th, the Development and Infrastructure Committee of City Council holds a meeting to consider the recent application made by ADI Developments to build a 28 Story building at the corner of Martha Street at Lakeshore. In order for the building to move forward, the city has to approve changes to the Official Plan and change the By-Laws.
During the meeting they will discuss the staff report on the plan and zoning changes released earlier this week. The Gazette has been informed that the staff Report will not include a recommendation.
There will also be a Statutory Public meeting during the Standing Committee meeting. These Statutory meetings give the public an opportunity to comment on a proposal. Anyone can speak during the statutory meeting – one does not have to pre-register as a delegation.
Council will also listen to the public who wish to speak. They have invited delegations who register in advance in writing to Rosa Bustamante: rosa.bustamante@burlington.ca
There is a downtown Core Residents Association and St. Luke’s Anglican Church “centric” group that has been watching this proposal very closely. They are joined by literally hundreds of ward 2 residents who are very opposed. Most of city council appears to be opposed as well – the Mayor has certainly made his opposition to 28 storeys very clear. What council has not done is give any sense as to what they are prepared to accept.
During one of the St. Luke’s centric meetings, many core residents turned out to voice their opposition to the project – because “we are all inherently tied at the hip — what affects one, certainly does the other.”
Staff have released a report outlining the project in which they report more than 127 people have either telephone, written or email the city opposing the project.
In email comments from the Core Residential group they pointed out that “if you don’t comment in writing or request to say a few words at the Statutory meeting you won’t be able to object to the outcome if this all goes to the Ontario Municipal Board. And you know that if the city refuses the application of zone change it will and the city will need all of our support at the OMB.”
Having this application go to the Ontario Municipal Board is a significant concern to the city. The sense is that developers usually get what they want at the OMB – at least that has been Burlington’s experience.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward points out that Oakville tends to do better at the OMB than Burlington.
What few people fully understand or appreciate is that any developer can walk into the planning department with a development proposal. The planners are required to listen and to explain how the city’s Official Plan and zoning bylaws would apply. While the public likes to believe the Official Plan and by-laws are written into stone – they are actually dynamic documents that get changed.
The city is required to review their Official Plan every five years and is in the process of reviewing their plan.
When a developer approaches the city and hears what the planners have to say about their proposal they can still submit a development application – even if the planners don’t think it’s all that good a plan.
The Maranatha project on New Street was approved by Council but a residents group was opposed and they took it to the OMB – the hearing is scheduled for March.
In most instances there is some negotiation and changes get made. The Maranatha project on New Street is a good example. The planners negotiated with the developer and council approved a building that was to be six storey’s high and well set back from the street. A handful of residents objected and they have taken their opposition to the project to the OMB.
Opposition to a development or a city council decision does work both ways.
When a planner takes a proposal to the city – the city has 180 days to g take the application to the OMB and ask them to approve the project.
A hearing is held and a decision rendered.
The ADI Group, the company that wants to build the 28 story structure at the intersection of Lakeshore Road and Martha tends to like to go to the OMB.
Rosa Bustamente, the city planner handling this file explains what the city is faced with”
“The 180 day appeal period begins after the applicant has provided the municipality with “a complete application” (as defined in the Planning Act) which includes the posting of the sign on the property. We provided correspondence to the applicant that their application was deemed complete, including the posting of the sign, on September 25, 2014. By my count, that would make the 180th day following that date March 24, 2015. If a Council fails to make a decision within 180 days of receiving a complete application, an applicant can file an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. It is my understanding that, in this case, the applicant would have grounds to file an appeal on March 25, 2015 if Council has not made a decision on or by March 24th, 2015.”
The Statutory meeting on January 19th is a part of the “clock ticking”
D. Duck makes perfect sense, and it should be intuitively obvious to everyone that bullies pick on only the weak, i.e., those who can’t fight back.
If the OMB were restricted to making sure that municipalities followed their own rules for development to ensure that developers got fair treatment, instead of applying arbitrary rules of the OMB’s making, maybe there would be fewer problems.
And maybe it’s time that our municipal political leaders questioned whether or not “intensification” is really a good thing. Are there any useful criteria for it? New developments are being built right up to the sidewalk. Giving it a name like “streetscaping” doesn’t make it any more appealing and it will change the basic character of Burlington.
“Throw a stone at a bully, you’re going to get hurt. Offer a handshake instead, you might be pleasantly surprised.”……………………..really????!!!!!
“Fight against developers, and they will go all out to get what they want”……….really???!!!
“Work co-operatively with developers, and you may reach a compromise”………..really???!!!
Jim, what world do you live in. Developers are the business to make money. Money comes from building the largest number of units on the small amount of bought land (after they have cut all the trees). City planning bylaws are in place to protect the citizens of the city, the infrastructure of the city, the landscape of the city and the desire of the citizens. Some developers understand this and want compromise in a mutually beneficial way……….we wish 15 stories and not 8 stories so we the developer will make this an eco-friendly building with geothermal, grey water collection, a public parket, etc. OR we want 28 stories and if we don’t get what we want we will smite you through the OMB.
I find that bullies only pick on those that won’t fight back. We may loose the first 1-2 OMB hearings but the bullies will realize sooner than later that it’s not worth the fight if it hurts their brand name. And remember Jim, to the developer, it’s all about the money!!
Good city planning should be about getting balanced growth with both population and employment targets that are coupled. Places to Grow provides these targets and for Burlington, as we all know, they are driving intensification, and accelerated efforts by the city to work on the economic development side.
The problem I see is that developers are focused on the population target only for residential, and use a general intensification rationale to apply for density and ever taller buildings, such as the ADI application. That building proposes 28 stories, 226 units, with GFA for residential of 16,180m2, but only a trivial 348m2 for retail, that appears to be of low value-added potential. This is way out of whack with the Places to Grow targets and ratios.
Assuming the 226 units will house about 450 people, and the site footprint is 0.14 to 0.18 hectare (I’m not sure at the moment), this translates to an equivalent 3214 to 2445 people per hectare, compared to the Growth Plan target of 200. Unless I’ve made a big mistake here, this too is way out of whack. So you can see the issue of the density and intensification here.
Developers are in the business so they are much better connected than most to promote partnerships with commercial and office developers and clients, so as to couple the residential and commercial in their big and controversial proposals.
This joint venture, for lack of a better wording, would I think take some of the sting out. Although height will be of general concern, if there is a meaningful and significant quality employment component, it could attract some support for a compromise that the residential only will never get.
I see this as something that Peter Rusin might weigh in on, along with James and others in this general development conversation, to promote moves in this direction, or ideas how it can be done.
Hans,Burlington is not controlled by developers. On the contrary, Burlington is controlled by the citizens, citizens who don’t like change, and fight every development opportunity that presents itself resulting in City Hall being stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, City Hall knows what the Province wants – intensification. On the other hand, they know what the citizens want – close the gates and don’t let anything change. This leaves City Hall and our elected officials stumbling, resulting in bad decision making, which gives the developers ample ammunition to take matters to the Ontario Municipal Board, where they often win. They win because they think with their minds, not their hearts, and have a better understanding of what represents good city planning than citizens do, who are all too often too emotionally tied to the issues to think with a clear head.
Work co-operatively with developers, and you may reach a compromise that everyone can live with. Fight against developers, and they will go all out to get what they want, not what you want, since you’re not happy anyway, and are costing them more money through the course of battle.
At some point in the near future, the citizens of Burlington need to come to terms with reality, this City is growing, and will continue to grow. Maybe not outwardly, but inwardly. Intensification is happening whether we like it or not. Keep fighting developers, and it will be more of the same, they will continue to dominate the planning of our City. Accept change, work with developers, and perhaps with some effort and learning, citizens can have a more positive role in the outcome of these types of developments. Throw a stone at a bully, you’re going to get hurt. Offer a handshake instead, you might be pleasantly surprised.
The City of Hamilton just approved the new development of a 30-storey condo apartment building for a downtown location. I don’t believe there was any OMB involvement in that particular situation. It appeared to be all very positive.
Usual story – apply for a taller building knowing that the City will accept a lower level building and then the builder and the City all look like hero’s. In addition, many Architects want to leave a “landmark” building that doesn’t fit into the landscape or the people that live in the adjacent community but satisfies the Architects egos.
Burlington is developing a track record of being controlled easily by developers and it has to stop. Otherwise the Planning Department might as well be shut down.