Millcroft: Fundamentals of an established community being challenged.

News 100 greenBy Pepper Parr

March 27th, 2021


Part 1 of a series

Millcroft logoThe proposal by Millcroft Greens Corporation (“Millcroft Greens”) seeks to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and register a plan of subdivision to allow five portions of the existing Millcroft Golf Course (“Areas A-E”) to be developed with residential uses. A total of 98 detached dwellings and one mid-rise apartment building containing 130 dwelling units are proposed.

The development resulted in a Statutory meeting that was stretched over three different days, heard from more than 58 delegations, and ended up with Staff directed to continue working with the developer to see if there was a compromise.

The Statutory meeting, something required by the Planning Act, was the largest and longest in the history of the city.
Planning department staff set out what was being proposed when they presented a series of graphics.

All 5 sites

Illustration shows where the developer wants to put in new homes. All are single family dwellings – with E being a 6 storey apartment.

Areas A - B C

A close up an sites A and B – with zoning shown.

Area D and E

Sites D and E – E will be an apartment building

Area A and B detail

Sites A and B appear to be the most problematic. The location and space that existing homes take up is shown in light grey.

There are a number of agencies and departments that have to give consent on a development of this nature, which has taken up a lot of time – so much so that there is concern the 120 day time limit will not be met. If it isn’t met, the developer has the right to take an appeal to the LPAT – Local Planning Act Tribunal.

The developer has said that at this point they are not thinking in terms of going to LPAT. The residents don’t believe them.

The concern at the home owner level is intense. There are two groups. MAD – Millcroft Against Development – and I Love Millcroft.

MAD has hired an independent planner who at one point worked with the city planning department when the project was being processed. Alan Taylor didn’t work on this particular development but he appears to be fully aware of the problem areas: what rights the developer has over what is described as privately owned open space.

That space is the land the developer wants to re-develop. Most of it is a golf course which is said to no longer be profitable. By changing the design of the golf course the developers argue that it will be safer and that a smaller golf course will be profitable.

This is part 1 of a multipart series.  Next – the delegation for the planner, Glenn Wellings, a very active developer in the Burlington market with at least three major developments in the hands of the Planning department.

The Gazette and Wellings Planning Consultants are involved in a libel dispute

Millcroft current Sept 21

The current golf courses layout.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 comments to Millcroft: Fundamentals of an established community being challenged

  • Alfred

    Hello Hans,

    An example of getting rid of an extreme developer would be the application made on Bluewater St. The applicant was asking for townhouses in one of the most stable neighbourhoods in Burlington. Council said no, LPAT said no. This all happened in a timely manner Bye Bye developer. The process worked perfectly, just like it should.

  • Alfred


    It’s interesting watching you Nimby’s turn on each other. I would consider the Millcroft Nimby,s to be similar to the Jefferson salamanders. They are concentrated and are concerned only for the small area they live in.

    If the creation of housing that is more affordable is not in the broader public interest, then me and you live on different planets. Housing is the most important key to survival. I would encourage you to try to sleep outside in the winter to make my point clearer.

    Housing development should be simple. Get rid of the extreme developers that think they can build anything they want. Get rid of extreme Nimby’s who say no to everything and your there.

    Getting rid of the developers is easy getting rid of foolish Nimby’s is difficult because they vote. The dumbest Nimby is a genius in this Mayors eyes.

    Millcroft area is one of the most beautiful subdivisions in Ontario. It appears to have been built by private developers without all this drama. They certainly got it right.

    • Owen Scop

      Oh come on Albert – what have you “developed” that’s bigger than a treehouse? But, of course, you’re entitled to your opinion, freely and continuously expressed.

    • Hans Jacobs

      Re: “Get rid of the extreme developers that think they can build anything they want…” – would you please explain how this could be accomplished? You must be the only person in Ontario who has that knowledge.

  • Owen Scop

    Well, it is interesting that the Millcroft community finally woke up and developed a social conscience when their blessed property values were challenged. Where were they when the downtown and our waterfront were being sold to the highest bidder? They are the definition of NIMBY. And so no one misunderstands, I am certainly not in favour of the developer’s proposal. It’s totally in conflict with any form of community interest – however, selfish that community happens to be. In a perfect world there would be a ‘fight to the death’ with both sides succumbing. Unfortunately, our world is far from perfect and this sort of ridiculous nonsense occupies the attention of government and legal resources that would be far better focused on issues of broader public interest.