By Pepper Parr
January 3, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Understanding developers requires a mind that can see into all kinds of cracks and crevices.
The Gazette got a call from a reader alerting us to trees that were being cut on the property to the east of Emmas Back Porch.
We made some calls – city hall was shut down for the holiday period and it was difficult to get any real information. We visited the site and took some pictures – speculated that the property might be something the ADI Group was looking at for a sales office.
It took a little time to get through to people – here is what we know.
What was once a gas station is now an empty lot with not a tree left on it. No one, other than the owner, knows what is going to happen next. We will keep you posted.
The owner of the property Draco Vranich, who owns the Waterfront Hotel, has the right to cut down trees that are on is property because the city does not have a private tree bylaw.
Because the site is on the lake’s edge it comes under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Authority as well as the city.
Someone cut down a lot of very mature trees and pushed a lot of the brush over the bank and into the lake.
The Gazette was told that that Draco Vranich was planning on putting in a parking lot that would be used by the “trades” who would be working on the Bridgewater a couple of hundred yards to the west.
Bruce Krushelnicki, Director of Planning and Building informed the Gazette that a free standing parking lot would not be permitted on that site without a change in the zoning.
Krushelnicki also noted that some survey work had been done on the site – there were survey markers in the ground.
During a meeting with the Director of Planning “on another matter” he advised the property owner that a parking lot was not permitted on the property.
He added: “There are no permits issued for this site (site plan, site alteration or building permits) and since the site has no buildings on it, no demolition permits have been issued recently.
By the time anyone from city hall got to the site most of the big trees were down and the trunks carted away. Could that have been why the work was done during the holidays?
Accordingly I observed no excavation, construction or site alteration. It appears – as I reported to you earlier – that the owner in concert with the neighbouring owner, is “cleaning up the site” by removing vegetation and debris. There is no development or building taking place on the site and no applications for development or construction have been received. I did not see any work being done on the slope at the rear although debris had been dumped there historically and may be part of the clean up.”
Krushelnicki continued: “I will have the by-law enforcement people monitor the site to ensure that work proceeds in compliance with the permissions granted, the property standards by-law and property maintenance by-law.”
The owner had alerted us to the work, and asked for our advice. So far he appears to be complying with our advice and acting within his rights.”
Looking into those ‘cracks and crevices’ mentioned earlier we know this:
The site is being “cleaned up”; the property has been recently surveyed. The large concrete blocks that were at the front of the property are now at the lakeside of the property – very close to the top of bank.
The site could, under the existing zoning and Official Plan, take a structure three to five metres deep – and as high as four storey’s.
What bothers the public is the not being told what is going to be done to the properties that edge on the lake. The current city council is prepared to sell lakefront property – when there was no need to do so – which has the public a little spooked. If they will sell part of the community’s heritage there doesn’t appear to be any limit on what they will do.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward strives to keep her constituents fully informed. She had to play catch up on this one.
As my Pa use to say………”you can’t fix stupid.”
Tenni, thank you for proving my point.
“Ambiance” is a wonderful thing to try and protect when it’s not on your property, and you’re not the one financially impacted by it, isn’t it?
James
Actually, there is a huge difference between a dentist, a land owner and a developer. Citizens in a community may want certain restrictions on development in Burlington. Elected officials create the bylaws and changes in bylaws based upon input from citizens. Developers do tend to try to get away with little cost as possible to increase their profit. Don’t try to fool us. Some may not but other do. Height restrictions on new buildings downtown is of a major interest to citizens.
There are several issues in this article that the community may want councillors to examine. Are shoreline property owners permitted to “dump” their waste directly in to the lake according to present bylaws and provincial laws? Mature trees seems to be of interest to many Burly peeps and especially in older neighbourhoods. The ambiance of a community is in part created by the landscaping as well as the actual buildings placed or removed from the downtown.
What’s most concerning about this whole thing is the complete lack of respect shown to “the developer” by the general public. This isn’t specific to this developer, it is a recurring trend all over Burlington, where all developers are thought of as being guilty of getting away with something, and treated negatively by members of the public who don’t have a clue about the facts.
Has this property owner, regardless of his profession, done anything wrong? No. Has he “gotten away” with something that any other property owner might not be able to “get away” with? No. If he was a dentist as opposed to a developer, would this still even be news? Probably not. The work done on this property, was it done legally? Yes. So what if he plans to build something on this property, he like anyone else will need to go through the public process. This public persecution of developers based on suspicions, speculations and assumptions without knowing any facts has really got to end. “Could that have been why the work was done during the holidays?” “Wait for the other shoe to fall” Really? Way to stir the pot.
There’s another article posted on this Burlington Gazette blog about the Economic Development Corporation needing a win. This is very true, but note that second word: Development. Whether you believe this to be true or not, the fact that much of Burlington considers the word “development” to be worse than one of those nasty 4-letter words is one of the reasons why developers are looking to invest elsewhere. Why invest in a City where the people don’t want you there? Why invest in a City where the public is going to drag your name through the mud, and make false accusations about your character? Why invest in a City that says they need development, then do everything in their power to make the process as difficult and frustrating as possible? Burlington has been closed for business for a while now, and the development community knows it. Economic development will continue to suffer because of it.
A LANDOWNER REMOVED SOME TREES AND CLEANED UP HIS PROPERTY!! So, who cares, I did the same thing when I moved here 25 years ago. That’s a good thing, isn’t it? NO, HE’S A DEVELOPER!! LET’S GET HIM!!
Perhaps many fear that the link provided here, will be indicative of the view from the 28th floor across the street…
https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/12/2/9/6/29615100-15c2-012e-37d9-0050569428b1.jpg
Is there any doubt whose pocket Mr. Rusin resides? Thanks to Burlington voters for their decision.
I like the idea of private property tree removal by developers requiring city permission. I am less convinced that someone wanting to remove a tree on their property should need city permission. There may be need for some clarification in any bylaw to define “developer” versus private land owner who has no intention of building or selling the property.
Peter Rusin:
“give the owner a tax break for using the property for open space purposes and for being a good steward of the land.”
Really, the place was a mess. The few nice trees have now been cut down. If true, this good steward push all the shrubs and trees into lake Ontario. A tax break???????? How about a fine for pollution to our great lakes.
Dumping trees and stumps into lakes is an excellent way of improving existing environmental conditions for supporting a more healthy and vibrant habitat for fish, snakes, insects, other small creatures including the odd duck.
Any possibility that this piece of property could become an outdoor patio for Emma’s? If so, is this permitted on this particular parcel of land?
The owner does not need permission to park his car on the site. He can place a picnic table in the middle next to his car, have lunch, and walk his dog off leash, in private. Nice to walk on the public sidewalk and see the lake again. The city should also give the owner a tax break for using the property for open space purposes and for being a good steward of the land.
The city should be concerned since, if the brush and tree limbs were pushed over the bank and into the lake (or where they could be washed into the lake in the next strong wind), they will probably blow down the lake and onto the beach at Beachway Park where the city will have to clean up the debris at the taxpayers expense.
Are there any laws against dumping waste and garbage into the lake? If any soil was moved into the water, there are laws that penalize any alteration to the shoreline.
Maybe something is in the works. Why shouldn’t it be? Why is that a problem? He’s ALLOWED to build something there. Do we all believe Mr. Vranich bought the land so he could picnic there for years to come? This presumption without evidence that everyone and anyone who invests in or wants to develop a Burlington property must be partaking in some sort of nefarious, outrageously greedy scheme does such a disservice to our local business people, many residents, and those who choose to invest in our city and who, for the most part, are doing absolutely nothing wrong.
Editor’s note: It was the late great US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
The fact is that it isn’t possible for anything of any substance to be built on that piece of land. It is bound by so many regulations that at best there is not more than five metres of depth that can be used.
It once had a gas station on it which suggest that it will need an environmental clean up.
There are significant top of bank problems as well – top of bank means you can not build very close to the top of the bank that leads to the edge of the water.
Every planer in the city knows these facts.
But planners and developers in this city continually go before council and far too often get close to outrageous increases in zoning and amendments to the Official Plan. The current best example of that is the application the ADI Group has for a 28 storey structure where eight are permitted.
The owner of what gets called the Tim Horton property hasn’t done anything wrong – other than spend money on some survey work and cleaning up the property. Why?
It is rare for a developer and Mr Vranich definitely falls into this category to pay for a survey and remove trees and brush to simply clean up the property for liability reasons.
Something is in the works!
This city without a ‘private’ but more importantly a ‘developer’ tree bylaw will continue to have issues with individuals manipulating the green space for their own financial benefit. In this case, the city should immediately fine the owner and the construction company for ‘pollution’ of our great lake if in fact they did push all the tree debris into lake Ontario.
Is it regrettable that Burlington doesn’t have some sort of private tree by-law? Sure. But the fact is, we don’t, so I don’t understand what the story is here. At this point it doesn’t sound like Mr. Vranich has done anything wrong, unless he failed to contact Conservation Halton, as he was advised to do, or if he cut down city trees. “So far he appears to be complying with our advice and acting within his rights.”
If turning this land into a parking lot requires a zoning change, then it’s not going to get turned into a parking lot without a zoning change.
Did anyone stop to think for a moment that perhaps the owner wanted to clean up the property for liability reasons? Who knows?
I’m baffled by the logic used in the second-last paragraph:
1. “What bothers the public is the not being told what is going to be done to the properties that edge on the lake.” How do we know we’re not going to be told when there is, in fact, a plan? There are a number of Burlington residents who own lakefront property. Do they need to inform the whole city every time they want to make changes to their property if they’re complying with city/regional rules?
2. “The current city council is prepared to sell lakefront property – when there was no need to do so – which has the public a little spooked. If they will sell part of the community’s heritage there doesn’t appear to be any limit on what they will do.” This is an entirely subjective (and, I’d argue, unfair) statement. In general, the current city council is NOT prepared to sell lakefront property. You are referring to one unique exception. At the last council meeting, I was glad to see several council members take another member to task for insinuating that their decision on that particular matter meant they don’t care about waterfront access. They were angry at the implication, and they had every right to be. Also, the city doesn’t even own the particular piece of property on Old Lakeshore Road next to Emma’s so I don’t understand what the point is of trying to connect these two totally different situations.
3. “Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward strives to keep her constituents fully informed. She had to play catch up on this one.” Why? There’s nothing to tell yet. I do not need to be informed by my councillor every time a private landowner makes alterations to his or her property if all regulations are being adhered to. If there’s a significant building proposal in the works then sure, tell us about it, but I certainly don’t expect a councillor to return early from her Christmas holidays to send out a special bulletin that some brush was cleared.
Editor’s note:
Wait for he other shoe to fall
You refer to “The Director of Planning” at least four times in the article.
Does He/She not have a name?
Editor’s note:
He does.
Bruce Krushelnicki – I didn’t have the correct spelling when the piece was published – and given my history of typos I thought better at guessing.