Mayor and ward councillor explain an LPAT decision that perhaps should never have taken place. More to this story

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

August 6th, 2020



The Mayor and the ward 4 Councilor issued a joint statement this afternoon setting out their take on the LPAT decision to permit the application to build 213 homes on a .90 hectare lot.

Meed ward looking askance

Mayor Meed Ward

Mayor Meed Ward and Councillor Galbraith appeared to want to get their side of the story out, particularly after there were some scathing comments earlier about how some residents felt the Mayor had misled them and that the city’s legal department was less than candid or forthright.

Kelvin Galbraith headshot_Super_Portrait

Councillor Kelvin Galbraith

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) has approved the National Homes 2100 Brant Street development after the local neighbourhood group Vision 2100 Brant withdrew as an opposing party to the hearing. Two residents with participant status at the hearing also withdrew.

In advance of the hearing on July 28, Vision 2100 advised the Tribunal that it had settled with National Homes, with no further changes to the proposed development. Vision 2100 did not present any evidence nor make any submission at the hearing.

Based on the uncontested opinion evidence from planners for National Homes and the City of Burlington in support of a revised proposal, and the submissions of the remaining Parties (including the Region of Halton), the Tribunal issued an oral decision approving the settlement and the proposed planning instruments and plan of subdivision.

The written decision states: “At a Case Management Conference held on June 4, 2020, the Appellant informed the Tribunal that it had reached a settlement agreement with the City and the Regional Municipality of Halton (“Region”). On July 7, 2020, the Vision 2100 Brant Neighbours Association, which was an Added Party, withdrew from the proceedings. On July 8, 2020, Jim Young withdrew as a Participant from the proceedings and on July 15, 2020, Tom Muir withdrew as a Participant from the proceedings. No opposing Parties or Participants remain.”

National Homes

The property, owned for years by the Catholic church, grew hay.

The LPAT’s approval of the 2100 Brant St. development brings this appeal to a close, except for a ruling from the LPAT on a motion from National Homes for costs for preparing to appear in support of the previous settlement approved by the former city council. In November 2018, the previous city council approved a settlement with National Homes after the municipal election when 5 of the 7 members at the time knew they were not returning, but prior to the new Council being sworn in.

The new Council rescinded that settlement in order to work with residents, the applicant and planning staff to make additional modifications that resulted in further revisions and the settlement the LPAT approved.

The Tribunal also gave authority to the City for final approval for the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision, subject to a long list of conditions from various parties, including:

• dedicating the natural heritage system and neighbourhood park to the City free of charge;
• submitting an On-Street Parking Plan to ensure sufficient area is provided for on-street parking;
• implementing the approved Tree Inventory and Preservation Plans, including cash-in-lieu compensation for removal of any City trees;
• submitting a Landscape Plan that incorporates a two-year post-planting monitoring program to ensure the success of the proposed native plantings;
• providing a cash deposit to be used by the City for contracted or in-house expenses for dealing with non-compliance with City requirements for control of mud, dust and debris removal;
• hiring a contractor on retainer to deal with after-hours problems related to unsafe situations in active subdivisions and provide the City with the contractor’s 24-hour/7-days a week emergency contact phone number; and
• a warning clause on all offers of purchase and sale that the current unsignalized entrance/exit onto Brant Street may be restricted to right in/right out by a centre median, at some point in the future.

A phasing schedule for construction must also be provided identifying proposed house construction (start dates/occupation dates), tentative grading, sodding and tree-planting schedules in accordance with the City’s grading and sodding policy and schedule.

National homes on Brant

Rendering of some of the units in the development

At some point in the future, National Homes will need to obtain site plan approval for the development of the townhouse component of the plan.


Why did the Mayor and the Councillor for the ward feel they had to issue a statement on an LPAT decision?

We will continue to update residents as this application moves into its construction phase.

While this development may not be what some residents or council members were hoping for, it was improved upon multiple times throughout the planning process over what was initially submitted. That was the direct result of the input received from our community.

The revised proposal includes more green space than the original application, including a new park, fewer units, less height and density, more variety and senior-friendly options, increased setbacks and better transition to the neighbourhoods to the north and south.

We thank the public for their involvement in the process and for continually providing their feedback and input.

We would also like to thank the resident group Vision 2100 for their hard work and cooperation in achieving an improved development plan. They spent countless hours and finances over the past few years, working with city staff, council and the developer to make changes to the development that we are sure future residents of this new neighbourhood will appreciate.

In accepting the revised proposal, council considered a number of factors, including public input, the improvements made that addressed some of the concerns raised, the planning justification provided by staff, and advice from legal counsel.

Our decision also factored in some practical realities, including the inability to secure a planning witness that was of the opinion that the November 2018 proposal did not overall represent good planning, the likelihood that a hearing would not produce a different result, and the possibility that city taxpayers could be required to pay the entire costs of the applicant at a lengthy hearing. In addition, city staff who supported the November proposal would likely have been required to testify on behalf of the applicant, at city taxpayers expense.

This application was in its third year of review.

The decision to settle with National Homes on the 2100 Brant development was the responsible decision for all parties involved. We achieved the best plan possible for the community. This development brings townhouse, semi-detached and senior-friendly housing, along with a new neighbourhood park and protection of natural heritage features.


A saddened planner

What betrayal looks like

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 comments to Mayor and ward councillor explain an LPAT decision that perhaps should never have taken place. More to this story

  • david barker

    This is very interesting. It seems we have on the one hand a builder saying the City extorted the developer, and on the other hand an “anti” development saying the City caved in to the developer. So both sides are unhappy. Is that not the definition of a “good compromise” ?

  • Alfred


    Development charges are approx. $60,000 per lot created x 213 new homes = $12,780,000.00 12 million seven hundred and eighty thousand dollars to City and Region. If you want nimby’s to run away, tell them the truth. Mike is that not enough in your opinion? I find that sum to be added to a persons home to be outrageous. What else did the City extort from the builders?

  • Ed Dorr Chair of Vision 2100 Brant

    Vision 2100 Brant Neighbours Association will present their side of the story on the handling of this application by Council and City Staff in the near future

  • Howard

    I would love to know how much money was wasted in fighting this. This project is now 3 years behind schedule which represents a significant amount of development charges and municipal taxes from new residences. Based on what I have read on the improvements gained, it probably could have been addressed over a lunch at the Queen’s Head.

    • Mike Ettlewood

      The City didn’t fight – that’s the point. And what you’ve read is largely script very carefully prepared by the City for public consumption. They sold out. And development charges, since Bill 108, are not what you think they are. Hopefully, those more closely involved will comment.

  • Blair Smith

    I think that there is far more to this than is conveyed in the joint statement. It will be interesting to see what comes out over the next few days.