Meed Ward puts locations to her argument for deferral - names 11 sites that will qualify for 17 storeys.

News 100 yellowBy Pepper Parr

January 31st, 2018



The problem people are having with the changes the city is making with its Official Plan is that they don’t fully understand much of the detail and there is a lot of information that needs time to be fully processed.

What will the city look like in five, ten and fifteen or 25 years they ask.


Citizens clutching their notes as they go up against the people they elected to lead them. 30+ delegations later – city council didn’t budge.

During the Reverse Town Hall Mayor Goldring held mention was made of a 3D visual that would let people see what a street would look like. The Mayor seemed to like the idea – it wasn’t possible to get a sense that the Planning department was actually going to do anything. These things are expensive and the Planning department is overwhelmed with new applications.

The housing development sector is keen keen on the opportunity to build in a city where the demand seems to know no end.

Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Mewed Ward has pushed for a deferral of the plan – her colleagues are holding fast to the schedule, which in itself was a moving target.

The original goal was to have the Official Plan approved by the end of January, which would be today.
Meed Ward asked her colleagues, and the public that she was really speaking to, to imagine 17 storeys at

John - No frills - laneway

Draft Official Plan allows 17 stories on this site.

Accura on Brant
No Frills
James and John
The Poacher
The Lion’s Club
Middle of Village Square
Maria and John
Ukrainian church
John and the Lakeshore
Martha and the Lakeshore
Pearl and the Lakeshore

Those locations are currently zoned for four storeys; 17 storeys is intensification.

Brant lakeshore - Molinaro rendering a

Planning department rendering for the north eat corner of Brant and Lakeshore.

She added to that – “the disconnect between what we are told and what we get” and points to the 421 Brant project (approved for 23 storeys)

Meed Ward H&S profile

Meed Ward sticks to her push for deferral of adopting the Official Plan until after the election

Meed Ward is clearly not done with getting the approval of this plan deferred until after the election.
She told her colleagues that “this is not our plan, this is the citizen’s plan.”

There were fewer than 15 members of the public at the city council meeting on the 29th when the modifications were put forward at the two day Planning and Building meeting. The public seems warn out.

There are still a number of dates when the public can speak and there is going to be a whopper of a document available to the public on February 7th on the city web site; printed copies will be available at city hall.

This document is being call the February 28th revision and will show all the changes that have been made since November 30th.

In February 6th, there will be a Planning and Building meeting to “continue the conversation” and focus on the “growth plan”

On February 12th there will be a drop in – meeting with the planners at the Haber Centre; 6:30 pm

On February 15th there will be s similar meeting at city hall in room 247

On February 27th and 28th there will be a second Statutory meeting – one does not have to register for this event.

Meed Ward wanted to know what the last possible date there is going to be for the public to have their say. Deputy city manager Mary Lou Tanner said somewhere around March 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

This is going to be a long march – and it is far from over.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 comments to Meed Ward puts locations to her argument for deferral – names 11 sites that will qualify for 17 storeys.

  • Susie

    1) The public voices are only “formality” by the city fathers doing due diligence in asking for public input.

    2) Noticing (all but 1) of the Councillors, on how they vote for a majority, is all due to, “Density for City Tax Dollars”!

    3) City has not come forward with an OP model for the downtown erected in the City Hall for all to see. This has been requested now for almost 3 months.

    4) The OP has no plans for the ill-aged baby boomers that have to move out of their homes to give to their children who can’t afford housing. Only mention of Carpenter House expanding somewhat?? Can’t afford the exorbitant prices of the private senior homes! The “baby boomers” are a huge population who have been left out of this OP.

    5) Your 4 storey present zoning locations is what should be mandated along with the corner of Brant and Lakeshore. 17 storeys should be considered for the the back streets only.

    5) The unhealthy aged population do not want walking, cycling or the inconvenience of walking to a glorified bus stop.

    6) Public parking, condo parking, emergency vehicle parking, delivery parking, maintenance parking, etc. have not been clarified, therefore the OP is not “Official” until these problems are clear to move forward.

  • Lynn Crosby

    It’s a sad day when council members from outside the downtown wards don’t care about the health of the downtown, don’t listen to or show respect to the downtown residents’ wishes (yet they keep saying they are engaging us and keep adding more meetings … for what? To hear us say the same things and ignore us again?), and don’t listen to and respect the councillor who actually represents the downtown. Her opinion should hold more weight since she represents the actual ward we are talking about. Agree with Elizabeth above that world class cities would not allow this. Who exactly runs the city?

  • Isn’t it sad to think we have insane people on council? All except one actually think it’s a good thing to tear down historical buildings like the Lion’s Club- with probably its’ park- the Ukrainian Church, Village Square. If they tear down No Frills- where are people going to shop who live in these condos? Even now it is the busiest store in Burlington. Maybe I’m being too practical.
    These developers do not care about Burlington’s history! That is the main thing to remember. They will put up as many skyscrapers as they are allowed. They are money-worshippers and nothing less and they are making money all over the world, with as little concern for each and every place they reconstruct. It is incredible. People in France would laugh at us. I can’t see them getting away with this type of development in downtown Paris, Montpellier or any other French city where they revere their history. But we can hardly blame the developers. The people to blame are sitting in council and the only voice of reason is Maryanne’s. It’s a David and Goliath story but somehow a revolution will take place and she will lead us to victory over this insanity.

  • Gary Scobie

    Think what the addition of some thousands of new residents in this compact area will mean when they wish to travel anywhere. If they are commuters, with no plan for a dedicated rail or subway line to get to and from the GO Station, they will try to use their cars and just add to the downtown traffic congestion.

    If they can’t find the necessities downtown within walking distance, they will be forced into their cars again to visit distant grocers and hardware stores. Or they can try the bus from our beloved Anchor Mobility Hub John Street Station and join the congestion in a different seat.

    This unnecessary addition of more congestion in our downtown is a good thing? Yes, according to all but one Council member.

  • PC

    These meetings are simply BS. Since when does anyone within the city hall listen 30 plus delegates at a recent meeting and a majority veto against a rethink of the proposed OP. What are they thinking and who are their masters. The only way out is to vote the current council out – put in a council that wish to align with the majority.