By Pepper Parr
June 22, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
At the Standing Committee earlier in the month a Staff Report on the Emshih Developments request for an additional six months extension for Phase II of their Garden Trails sub-division to be tidied up.
The Staff report didn’t see it as quite that simple and set out their concerns.
The subject lands are located south of Provincial Highway 403 and the CN Railway tracks, at the terminus of Genista Drive and are approximately 3.8 hectares in size. The lands are made up of two blocks within a Registered Plan of Subdivision and are adjacent to a tributary of Grindstone Creek, which is located south of the subject lands.
In 2001, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), now known as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), approved the draft plan of subdivision to facilitate Phase II of the subject draft plan of subdivision, which includes the creation of 20 single detached lots fronting onto a new municipal road, being the extension of Genista Drive; the creation of new servicing blocks and the establishment of a new Open Space block.
As part of the draft approval, the applicant was required to satisfy the conditions provided within three years. Since the time of draft approval in 2001, the applicant was granted several extensions to the timeframe in which to clear conditions, with the current lapsing date being June 30, 2020.
In November 2019 the applicant requested to extend the lapsing date by an additional three years to June of 2023. As part of this request, staff reviewed the remaining conditions of draft approval and are of the opinion that the applicant has not been demonstrating that they have been actively working toward clearing conditions of draft approval. In addition, staff is of the opinion that a further extension is not appropriate as substantial policy changes have taken place since the original draft approval in 2001, which conflict with the draft approved plans.
Despite the Staff recommendation the Standing Committee decided the developer should get the extension.
That Standing Committee decision came before Council yesterday where it got another hour of debate. The Mayor was adamant – the developer would have to file a new application – any extension was not warranted.
The four who were prepared to give the extension stuck to their positions which produced a classic Burlington division – a 4-3 decision.
Mayor Meed Ward wasn’t able to sway any of the four (Sharman, Bentivegna, Kearns and Galbraith) but she was able to sew some doubt on the costs involved which resulted in City Treasurer Joan Ford having to write a report for the August round of meetings. The Mayor also managed to raise some legal issues which resulted in City Solicitor Nancy Shea Nicol also having to write a report for the August round of meetings.
The motion to extend the development application for six months got revised to just two months while the Treasurer and the Solicitor wrote their reports.
Phase II of the Garden Trails development (shown in green) was the result of an OMB decision that was handed down close to 20 years ago.
At Standing Committee earlier in the month Councillors Sharman, Kearns, Bentivegna and Galbraith were prepared to give Enshih Developments the six months they felt they needed to resolve the differences with the Planning department.
At Council Mayor Meed Ward didn’t want to go along with what was a clear council majority and used an hour to badger her colleagues into going along with her wishes. She went so far as to say the developer had done a good job of lobbying Galbraith and Kearns and providing them with information the rest of Council didn’t have.
Councillors Sharman and Bentivegna thought the request for the additional six months to resolve the differences before the application was closed down by the Planning department was reasonable.
Mayor Meed Ward who appears to be standing by herself during the playing of the National Anthem at the beginning of a city council meeting. There were three other people in the Council Chamber. City council meets virtually – with the rest of Council elsewhere communicating via Zoom.
The Mayor along with Councillors Nisan and Stolte were opposed to giving the developer an opportunity to bring the technical parts of the application up to date arguing that the legislation and environmental requirements had changed so much that a new application would be required.
The Staff report painted the big picture –
The subject lands are located south of Provincial Highway 403 and the CN Railway tracks, at the terminus of Genista Drive and are approximately 3.8 hectares in size. The lands are made up of two blocks within a Registered Plan of Subdivision and are adjacent to a tributary of Grindstone Creek, which is located south of the subject lands.
Staff believed the policy changes since the 2001 OMB decision made any further extension inappropriate.
Sometime in August, when Councillors usually have the month off they will go at this again.
The Mayor’s remark that two of the Councillors were heavily lobbied and given information the rest of Council didn’t have may result in heels being dug in even deeper.
Some really snarky remarks passed between the Councillors with several Points of Order put on the table that had to be resolved by the City Clerk.
Throughout the debate all of the Councillors repeated to each other that they were pleased with the “collaborative” approach that was being taken.
There was more manipulation than collaboration on this matter at City Council yesterday afternoon.
Staff, in their report did say that:
Based on a review of the submitted materials and the nature of the technical comments received, a substantial amount of additional information is still outstanding and would need to be provided to demonstrate that the proposed development is able to achieve compliance with the current policy framework and regulations. Given the time that has elapsed since Draft Approval was first granted in 2001, several studies and reports would require updating and thorough review by staff.
The policy framework has changed substantially since draft plan approval in 2001, and given the ecological significance of the lands, it is important that current standards and regulations are considered and maintained. It is not appropriate to assess the proposal using outdated policy framework given that the applicant has not actively been working toward clearing conditions. In the opinion of staff, these requirements are not minor and should not be considered as part of an extension request; but rather, be more appropriately comprehensively reviewed as part of a new plan of subdivision application.
For these reasons, staff are of the opinion that the extension of the draft approval should not be granted and that a new plan of subdivision application should be submitted by the applicant.
A majority of Council didn’t see it that way. The decision yesterday was to give very short extension while reports are prepared by Legal and Finance.
The original motion that made it through the Standing Committee earlier in the month consisted of just the first paragraph with the date of December 31st. The revised motion brought in the City Treasurer and the City Solicitor who were to produce their take for the August round of Council meetings.
Related news story:
Standing Committee agrees to give developer an additional six months to tidy up an old subdivision application.
