By Staff
February 6th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It is not just the traditional and known developers who want to build in Burlington.
Metrolinx operates the GO train system in the province including the three station in Burlington; the GO station on Fairview, the station in the west end in Aldershot and the station in the east end – Appleby Line.
During the council meeting that was deliberating at the “Taking a Closer Look at Downtown report last week, it became clear that the Planning department was quite aware of that Metrolinx had plans for the property owned around each of the stations.
Entrance on the south side of the Burlington GO station; some are concerned about having to cross that wide roadway with buses coming in one after the other.
The focus right now is the station on the north side of Fairview where there are land holding north and south of the railway tracks. Metrolinx has an interest in developing their property.
Jim Young, a transit advocate told the Gazette that Metrolinx will consider development at all its stations where there of profitable potential. They are said to be particularly interested in providing retail space where commuter convenience can be offered.
Metrolinx didn’t spell anything out but is reported to have said that serious consideration being given to additional parking. Currently Metrolinx 77,000 parking spots and plans on adding another 23, 000 system wide …possibly 800 in the Burlington market. It wasn’t clear if this was for all three Burlington stations.
The audience was told that Toronto Star reports that parking fees were in the future were “unsubstantiated and not under serious consideration at this time.
Electrifying the Lakeshore west line and offering 15 minute service is part of the going forward plan – no dates on either yet.
Electrification of the Lakeshore West line is more of a long term plan with no specific dates. The type of electrification has also not been determined. Overhead or diesel/fuel cell hybrid being technically evaluated.
Same with 15 minute service – no specific date; Metrolinx is working with local transit bodies to ensure local support and connections are in place.
Why no Presto scanners on trains like they have on buses? Buses charge per journey. ….. Trains per stop/station.
There was some serious criticism of Wheelchair Access at Burlington GO The distance from Parking to first access ramp and the roundabout route from entry to elevators and back to platforms is a problem issue.
No answer on why old north side bus terminal has 11 bus bays while south only has 6. This causes city buses to drop people on Fairview, on both sides of road with danger of crossing and buses waiting to connect with train causing traffic snags.
Naming rights for the GO stations – wonder what they will go for?
Naming rights for stations is under consideration .. But not committed yet. One wag wondered how popular TD Aldershot or RBC Appleby would be would be after the first derailment or passenger injury on the news at “Named Station”
Related news story:
Metrolinx shows its development hand.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward delivered her second State of the City address this morning to members of the Burlington Chamber of Commerce.
The Gazette has published these addresses for the past nine years.
Good Morning!
How’s everyone this morning?
It’s great to see you out – thank you so much for being here.
I really look forward to sharing with you today, although you’ve gotten some really good highlights already.
I really appreciate you coming and giving the gift of your time to me and to each other to learn about what’s happening here in the City of Burlington.
I’m going to keep our focus sharp this morning – I do want to allow as much time as possible for your questions. Normally I get five minutes of speaking time at Council. I think I have 30 today, so that’s a great gift.
I’m going to cover what we’ve done and what’s ahead.
You will see that we are the “giddy-up let’s go” council.
This is a group of folks that has packed, I think, 4 years’ worth of activity into the first year, so I’m really looking forward to what we’re going to do over the next three years.
But before I get started, I would like to offer some thankyous and acknowledgements.
First of all, I’d like to thank Carla and her team for organizing this event in a brand-new spot and changing it up a little – our wonderful Performing Arts Centre – so thank you Carla for putting this together for us.
We couldn’t do this without our sponsors of course: Cogeco, Bell Canada, Burlington Hydro and Durward Jones Barkwell & Company. Thank you for your support and of course to Cogeco and YourTV for broadcasting this.
I’m also glad to have our City Manager, Tim Commisso here, members of the city’s senior leadership team, as well as representatives from our partner agencies, boards and commissions. Thank you so much for being here.
And of course, my fellow councillors are here with me today.
I will call their names…they can stand and if you can hold your applause until the very end so that you know where they are if you would like to talk to them after.
So, we have Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith;
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns;
Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan;
Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte; and
Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna
Chamber of Commerce chose the Performing Arts Centre as the venue for the annual State of the City address from the Mayor.
I’d also like to thank my husband Pete Ward who is here in the front row, and our three children for another year of outstanding support. I wouldn’t be here on this stage without the support of him and my family and I thank him for sharing me with the community to do the important work that you’re going to hear about this morning.
You, in the community, are why we do what we do.
And I want you to think as we go over what’s happened and what’s coming, think about “Is anybody better off?” “Does any of it matter?”
And you’ll hear the voices of citizens, to answer that question.
COMMUNITY PRIDE
So, let’s start with Community Pride.
Burlington as you know was recognized in 2019 as Canada’s Best Community to Live and to Raise a Family. Now, we knew that already, we all know our city is number one, but it’s very nice to be recognized by others.
Many of you know that I’m not from Burlington. We moved here, my husband and I and our three kids, in 2000 for many of the reasons that we are celebrated as the number one community: we have an amazing waterfront, nature on your doorstep, healthcare, community amenities, great employment and jobs, and arts and culture.
But the very best part of Burlington is you: the people.
One of the privileges I have in being Mayor is meeting the incredible residents who quietly make our city better, from the Gift of Giving Back, Canada’s largest youth driven food drive (and we have representatives here today – they didn’t know I was going to say that and I didn’t know they were going to be here, so thank you), free weekly community dinners at our local churches, fundraisers for clothing, for cancer research, for poverty and so much more.
And as the city’s Chief Storyteller – that is on my business card – I get to tell the stories of the people and businesses that you’re going to hear about today.
Our community events are always a highlight and last year was no exception.
Burlassic Park was an amazing accomplishment and planned in a matter of days to celebrate and cheer our Raptors on to their historic Number 1 championship. I can’t say enough about the staff, many of whom are here today, who put this event together for thousands of our residents to come together and celebrate. And I heard from many people in the community – Burlington residents – that that made them proud to be a resident. I also heard from people who are not from Burlington that were envious of our ability to pull this off.
So, here’s just some of the things our own residents have told us they love about our city:
Family Room of the Performing Arts Centre where the Teen Tour Band performed the day the building was turned over to the public, The Mayor addressed the Chamber of Commerce at this venue.
You love our waterfront and our Teen Tour Band.
All our incredible volunteers throughout the city.
You love how we have everything we need but still have a small-town, friendly, warm people.
You love our trails and green space, our beaches, our festivals, and how family-friendly & inclusive we are.
And you love that we have a safe city full of outdoor programming all year round.
We have so much to be proud of, and one of my main responsibilities is to recognize and honour our businesses and our residents.
In 2019, I launched the Key to the City program after Mike Taylor who was with the Walk Off the Earth band died suddenly, and we had no meaningful way to recognize him. He put Burlington on the map when they travelled internationally.
So, Mike became the first recipient and we announced a new Key to the City program at a remembrance event that we held for Mike in Civic Square that was organized, again, in less than 7 days.
The key features the city crest, and there’s a lot of neat stories about the crest – you can look that up online or ask me about it in the Q&A, but it also features green for the escarpment, blue for the waterfront, trees, and our slogan at the City, which is “Stand By” and that can be taken in one of two ways: Stand by or with me, or stand by for orders – be ready for action.
And I think both are equally true of Burlington.
Residents told me that they were thrilled with the key. It was made here by a local artist. One person told me they thought it had an ethereal look to it, and how it reflects just how magical Burlington is.
A couple of weeks ago I was honoured to present 2020’s first Key to the City to Gordon Schottlander, at his 95th birthday party. He is a veteran of D-Day, landed on Juno Beach, and fought for our ability to gather in peace and freedom and for me to stand here on this stage.
As you can see he is still going strong, dressing like a boss. He plans to learn the piano and play at his next birthday party. I would say Gordon is my 95-year-old goal.
We took the opportunity this past year to honour all our Veterans. I hosted Juno75, a free sold-out event right here in this room, and I was privileged to attend the 75th anniversary of the D-Day memorial ceremonies in France, with our global ambassadors the Teen Tour Band, local residents, and another one of our D-Day vets, Jim Warford, who sadly, died earlier this week. And we did lower our flags at City Hall to half-mast to honour his legacy to us. Jim was an awesome ambassador to our city and our country and he will be sorely missed by his family, friends and the community.
The Canadian Juno Beach Centre and Museum as some of you may not know is there in France because of Burlington residents. One of our own veterans, Garth Webb, thought of the idea in a basement on Woodward Ave. Every other country had something to honour the contribution of their soldiers on D-Day except for Canada. So he worked with the mayor of Courseulles Sur Mer to locate it there He worked with residents to raise money and get money from the federal and provincial governments. And, of course, it was designed by one of our local architectural firms, Chamberlain Architects. And we’re now discussing a potential twinning relationship with Courseulles Sur Mer, to continue to honour and solidify our connection and the legacy our veterans gave us.
WHAT HAVE WE DONE? WHAT’S AHEAD?
So what have we done at City Hall, and what’s ahead for us in 2020?
We took a 25-year strategic plan and we broke it down into what we can accomplish in the four years of this term of council, called Vision to Focus, or V2F for those who like acronyms.
A key mandate for this council has been controlling the pressures of overdevelopment – particularly in the downtown. We have always been open for business and we want to ensure the right development, in the right place, at the right amount, and enshrine your community vision for our city going forward.
So last year we launched two studies: one was to review the Major Transit Station Area designation downtown and at the Burlington GO station and the second to review height and density downtown that was in the Adopted Official Plan approved by the previous council. This MTSA designation was used by the provincial land tribunal to overrule city council and the community and allow a 26-storey building in a 4-8 storey zone. So we knew we had to do something.
We instituted a one-year development freeze downtown and at the Burlington GO Station to study the MTSA. That study found that our Burlington terminal, ticket window, as some would say, and shelter, does not function as an MTSA, and that the bulk of new population growth is going to be around our three GO stations.
So, later today, right after this we’re going into a meeting to approve new policies in our Official Plan that reflect the difference between the downtown MTSA and the Burlington GO MTSAs and will limit the pressures we’ve been experiencing of overdevelopment. And we’re on track to lift the development freeze by March 5, as promised.
The other study was a review of the height and density in the Official Plan that was adopted by the previous council. This (current) City Council approved a new concept earlier this week that limits height in a number of areas including Brant Street, Village Square, and nearby established neighbourhoods, and it does direct height further up Brant Street where the community asked for it to go.
So we are planning to update our new Official Plan with policies that will come back in April and then send that to Halton Region for final approval this spring. And at the end of this work, we will be approaching the province to review the MTSA and the Urban Growth Centre designations downtown, which have contributed to some of the over-development pressures we’re experiencing. And the studies and work we are currently doing will position us well for those conversations.
In the meantime, Burlington has remained open for business. The Interim Control Bylaw development freeze affected 1% of Burlington’s land. The purple on the map shows all the current projects that were happening across the city last year, and we get more applications every week. We are, and we remain, open for business.
So, is anyone better off? Here’s what one resident told us:
“I’d like to say how impressed I am with the work that you and your staff are doing, especially with fighting the downtown overdevelopment. Dillon’s report sounds very promising and I’d like to encourage you and your staff to keep going and prevent the beautiful downtown from becoming a tall concrete jungle. Your efforts are much appreciated.”
ENVIRONMENT & GREENSPACE
Protecting our environment and our greenspace was also a key deliverable for this council.
In 2019 Council declared a Climate Emergency to ensure that all our decisions consider the impact on the environment. And we also repeated that at Halton Regional council and some of our Mayors are here today.
This week we implemented an urban private tree bylaw – after 9 years of debate! Over those years it has been a very divisive issue, but this council worked hard to hear the community and come up with something we all could support and the vote ultimately was unanimous. We also successfully advocated to the province to back off of plans to open the Greenbelt for development last year.
Our Cityview Park Pavilion will be net carbon zero using solar panels and we’ll be redeveloping the Skyway Arena to be a low carbon operation with initiatives like geothermal heating. We already have 29 electric vehicle charging stations on City of Burlington property with more on the way thanks to the 2020 budget. And we’ll continue to contribute to the Bay Area Climate Change Council with our partners at Mohawk College and the City of Hamilton.
And we’ve invested more money in each of our budgets in tree planting and are starting a task force this year to partner with citizens groups, agencies and corporations to invest in more tree planting.
So is anyone better off?
One resident sent me this note about the Climate Emergency Declaration:
“This is a great strategic imperative for our city and I appreciate the update on some of the tactics and future plan.
Proud of my city and appreciate your leadership.”
TRANSIT & TRANSPORTATION
We are also looking at ways to ease traffic congestion, and one of the best ways is to increase transit use to get more people out of their cars. This is a very transit-friendly council, and in the last two budgets, we’ve added additional funding for more buses and more drivers.
We also brought in free transit for seniors at off-peak hours, for low income residents, and for students under 12. And this year we are talking to school boards about partnering on free transit for high school students. And it’s great to see the Chair of the Halton Board here this morning and at least one of the school trustees.
So is anyone better off?
Well this led to a 34% increase in senior ridership, an absolutely outstanding number, and overall a 10% increase in transit use in less than a year.
One resident said this:
“I wanted to thank you for the bus program that you guys have given people on fixed incomes allowing those using Split Pass to ride for free. It has opened up my life and allowed me to travel a little more than I normally would have. Thank you so much. When you live on fixed income it is hard to do much of anything but this program helps so much, you have no idea…thank you again.”
And about a week ago I was here in this room for Chinese New Year celebration and a woman approached me who was so appreciative of how the free seniors transit programming is enabling her and her friends to get around town easier that she made me this amazing piece of art personally and gifted it to the City as a thank-you.
BUDGET
So let’s talk about budgets. We actually passed two budgets last year, the first delivered the lowest tax increase in 8 years at 2.99% on the city-portion which is about a third of your bill, and more recently our budget was 3.99%. When that is blended with the Region and Education taxes it delivers an overall increase in line with inflation, at 2.44%.
Our budgets are focused on community priorities: investing in infrastructure, tree planting, more transit, a new community centre at Skyway Arena, and more. And we’re always looking for ways to save money. Each year staff find about $1million in savings. We also applied for and received funding from the province’s Audit & Accountability fund to review and find savings in several areas of the city, including the city fleet, and our planning department.
So…Is anyone better off?
I got this note recently:
“I am proud how well Burlington is trying to stay within budgets and cutting wasteful spending. Too many politicians use taxpayer money as a personal piggybank to fulfill their frivolous fantasies with little regard to whether the people want or need them. I’ve lived in Burlington since 1942 and love this town. I think our new mayor is doing a great job.”
COUNCIL & CITY HALL
We set a goal of fostering respect and civility at City Hall – we can disagree about issues without being disagreeable. We respect diverse voices and experiences, and we want every voice to be heard, around the council table and in the community. And we’ve delivered.
This council works together with each other and with the community, and here’s just a few examples:
I’ve partnered with Kelvin Galbraith on the Red Tape, Red Carpet task force, and the Tyandaga Quarry community council.
I’m working with Paul Sharman and Kelvin Galbraith on the review of BEDC, TechPlace and consider a potential Municipal Development Corporation.
I’m working With Rory Nisan and Shawna Stolte this year on the free student transit.
I’ve worked with Lisa Kearns on downtown overdevelopment.
And of course with Angelo Bentivegna on countless flag raisings and fundraising events.
We are committed as a team to working together for the good of our city and we’ll keep doing so in the years ahead.
And right away, people noticed a change.
One of the first comments I got after a council meeting last year was this one:
“The difference in how council, committees and staff work together is palpable at city hall and throughout the city. Citizens at city hall and council meetings are not only respected but are heeded. Thank you council and staff for listening and adapting to a whole new mindset so quickly and graciously.”
COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
We’re also building collaborative relationships with fellow mayors through my membership in the Large Urban Mayors Caucus of Ontario, and with our local representatives at the provincial and federal level to advance the interests of Burlington. We had the Prime Minister visit us last year, and in the near future will hope to welcome the Premier of Ontario for a visit.
We’re also building global relationships through our twin city partnerships with Apeldoorn, The Netherlands, where I’ll visit this May with councillor Nisan, and Itabashi, Japan which we both visited last October. Those twin city visits occur once every five years.
The goal of twinning is to build bonds of friendship and peace, increase our understanding of other cultures so we can welcome diversity in our own community, we learn from other cities how they tackle major issues and advance our economic interests. We learned that we have much in common: from dealing with flooding and the impact of climate change, to affordable housing, transportation and building a global economy. Most of you know I love seafood, especially fish, and I learned new ways to eat fish! It was in my sake, and that’s a true story, and I even ate it on a stick at a local festival, which was wonderful!
I got this note on social media during my Itabashi trip:
“I really admire how you and delegates are not doing just fun “tourism” stuff, how you are all deeply going into areas and history of devastating parts of Japan as well – which will help move forward with understanding and knowledge on how to better promote friendship, peace and camaraderie between both communities and cities and countries!”
AWARD-WINNING BUSINESSES
So I want to take a minute now to update you on business activity over the past year and what’s ahead – so many great things are happening in our community and our businesses often operate very quietly. Last year I had the pleasure of touring some of our unique and award-winning businesses that are putting Burlington on the map globally.
I toured Samuel & Son company and they make steel so if any of you drive a Tesla it might have some local steel in it.
I went to PV Labs in Burlington who recently got an investment of $4M US from Lockheed Martin and they also made the gimbal – which is a housing for cameras – that was used in the Marvel film Black Panther and have won both an Academy Award AND an Emmy for their technical contributions to movie-making – that’s amazing!
I met local businessman George ‘Sandy’ Thomson from Thordon Bearings when receiving the prestigious Elmer A. Sperry award in recognition of a new technology that they developed in the 60’s, this is an oil-less water-lubricated bearing for ships. What it means? It has prevented millions of litres of oil from polluting our lakes and oceans.
We also have a local business, Precision Records, that did the vinyl pressing for Kendrick Lamar’s album Damn, which won the Pulitzer prize ever for a rap album, and they’ve also pressed records for other groups like The Tragically Hip.
And I toured Hunter Amenities so if you’ve ever washed your hair in a hotel room, you’ve probably done it with Hunter shampoos, anywhere in the world.
MAYOR’S RED TAPE RED CARPET
At last year’s State of the City address I announced the formation of the Mayor’s Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force, that was co-chaired by my fellow councillor Kelvin Galbraith. Burlington Economic Development was also a key partner as were city staff. We spent six months listening to our business community and heard a few things about what we were doing well and we heard about what we needed to do better.
The result is 22 recommendations that were unanimously passed by Council and are already being implemented. You can follow our progress of all 22 recommendations on the website that is up on the screen and continue to give us feedback there as well.
So, is anyone better off yet?
Let’s hear from our businesses:
“I am so impressed, not just by these recommendations but by the team, the process and the time-line that produced them. Our Mayor and Council should be very proud of what they’ve accomplished. I look forward to seeing all of these recommendations implemented, and to the fruit they will bear, particularly in the Rural Area.”
One of the recommendations that we made was to create a role focused on liaising directly with business owners to remove obstacles and challenges – that’s the “roll out the red carpet” piece. Mike Greenlee at the City has been doing a great job, stepped into that role immediately and I know from personal experience that he has helped dozens of situations and quickly gotten people the answers they needed and helped move business forward.
ONE BRAND LAUNCH
Another of the Red Tape Red Carpet recommendations was to create a stronger value proposition and branding for Burlington and…you heard it here first…watch for the launch of Burlington’s One Brand – an initiative that came out of the city’s 25 year strategic plan to create one unified message that speaks to one city, one story, and can be used equally by residents, businesses, and City staff. It will better position Burlington to compete for investment, talent and tourism, as well as build local pride. A project team comprised of Burlington Economic Development, City Hall Corporate Communications, and Tourism Burlington has been formed to create the brand.
A GREAT TEAM TO WORK WITH
In closing, none of this would be possible without a great team to work with on staff and council, so I’d like to leave you with their words about what they are most proud of this year or looking forward to and maybe a few little-known facts about them.
Tim Commisso, our new City Manager is already proud to be part of our strategic leadership team, and in his words, he works for a visionary and passionate Mayor and Council. So thank you Tim. His goal is clear and aligned with our #1 Community ranking: to be the Best Run municipality in Canada based on achieving Council’s approved customer experience and strategic outcomes. My goal, and Tim’s is this: if you could choose a city hall across the street to do business with, we want you to still choose us.
Little known fact – if you have a morning meeting with Tim, he’ll always bring coffee. And maybe also a scone.
Ward 1 Councillor Kelvin Galbraith says that as a business owner himself, he really enjoyed the experience of working on the Red Tape Red Carpet initiative because business owners and entrepreneurs contribute so much to our growing economy and local employment. He found that hearing their concerns and helping to address them proved to be a very rewarding experience and helped ensure Burlington is very much open for business!
Little known fact: Kelvin is also a great source of fitness tips which are always handy this time of year! And he has the record number of kids on council at SIX! True story. Check his Instagram feed.
Councillor Lisa Kearns said the highlight for her has been the sense of possibility that runs through our city and that she is elated with the path we are on together. She’s proud of the Vision to Focus workplan, the efforts to bring a community vision to downtown, and the amazing progress we’ve made on matters that make us the best place to live, run a business, raise a family or age in place.
Little known fact about Lisa: her big smile and heart are part of her proud Newfoundland heritage thanks to her grandparents.
Councillor Rory Nisan was proud to bring forward the climate emergency declaration for Burlington, one of the first in Ontario, now being followed up with a climate action plan. He’s also noticed that since joining city council he has become an instant expert on…everything?
The highlight for Councillor Shawna Stolte in 2019 was the people: the enthusiastic, engaged residents of our community, the dedicated and hardworking staff of the city and the great group of passionate and committed Councillors/Mayor that she has the pleasure of working with every day. That’s a mutual feeling. Little known fact – although the secret may be out – Shawna is our official tree hugger, and the only thing Shawna loves more than trees is her three daughters, and the soup that she newly discovered from Saigon on Brant!
Councillor Paul Sharman from Ward 5 told me the most important moments and defining aspect of the last year was the huge learning process experienced by everyone and the degree to which our whole council has come up to speed.
Little known fact although some of you might know it well: His nickname around City Hall is “data guy.”
And finally, Councillor Angelo Bentivegna of Ward 6 told me about a few key phrases he now uses on a regular basis:
No, I don’t have all the answers
Sorry, but I can’t have your street plowed first
Please don’t ask me for a favour, and
Yes, I’ll be late for dinner
And a little-known fact about Angelo is that he will often bring you treats from the business he and his wife Diane have run together for years, Mrs. B’s Gifthouse. My personal favourite is the chocolate covered licorice. If you haven’t had it yet, you are missing out!
Like I said, this is an amazing group of people working together for your city and for you and I’m so proud of the work we have accomplished, and I truly look forward to the next three years.
I want to thank you again, so much, for your time and attention and for being engaged in what is happening in our City, for the support you offer our staff and council, myself – and each other.
— Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward
Mayors’ 2019 State of the City addresses:
By Staff
January 30th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Wow!
The words were barely out of her mouth and then there they were – in the land of tweets.
These appeared in the Mayor’s tweet account during the Special City Council meeting that took place after her State of the City address earlier in the day.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward had her Media and Digital Communications Specialist gathering what the Mayor had to say and sending them out to her twitter followers – the volume ranked right up there with the president of the United States – and look where THAT got THEM.
Here is a portion of the content.
• For clarity, any policies that reference growth in the MTSA’s should also include reference to the overall MTSA typology which differentiates the characteristics between downtown and the GO station MTSA’s
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility to consider the following modification to the proposed Official Plan Amendment:
Approve the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment as amended attached in Appendix E (https://burlingtonpublishing.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=38757
) to supplementary staff memo dated Jan. 30, 2020 to community planning report PL-01-20; and
Approve the proposed Official Plan Amendment as amended attached in Appendix D (https://burlingtonpublishing.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=38756
) to supplementary staff memo dated Jan. 30, 2020 to community planning report PL-01-20; and
3/8
As the Mayor speaks her words are captured and sent out as short tweet bursts of data.
Receive the Interim Control Bylaw Land Use Study report prepared by Dillon Consulting as amended and attached as Appendix B (https://burlingtonpublishing.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=38753
) to supplementary staff memo dated Jan. 30, 2020 to community planning department report PL-01-20; and
The motion on the floor for vote follows:
Deem that no further notice is required in respect of the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment in accordance with Sect. 34 (17) of the Planning Act concerning a change to a proposed bylaw made after the holding of the public meeting; and 1/8
“… This is merely another step we are taking in this process and we have a lot of miles still to go.” 5/5
“… We saw from the consultant’s report our downtown bus terminal doesn’t function as an MTSA like our Burlington GO station & it won’t, no matter how many transit upgrades occur. This is a transit-friendly council & we will continue improving transportation in our downtown. 4/5
“… That’s our next step, and the consultant’s report positions us with solid planning rationale for these conversations with the Region and Province… 3/5
“… These policies will help us better manage growth in the downtown. There is also an outstanding staff direction to review the appropriateness of the downtown’s Major Transit Station Area & Urban Growth Centre designations at the end of the ICBL/OP review studies…. 2/5
Mayor Meed Ward comments: “This is a really historic moment and I want to thank staff, Council, all members of our community and the consultant. This is a significant milestone for the City in getting a community vision for our downtown & controlling overdevelopment… 1/5
Here is a link to a copy of the ICBL Land Use Study done by Dillon Consulting and revised January 2020: https://burlingtonpublishing.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ash
This is a classic example of what is wrong with the tweet world – no context, just a collection of phrases thrown up into the air hoping they will land somewhere.
Responsible, public leadership meets with media regularly to answer not just questions but follow up questions and is available for clarification. Burlington doesn’t have that level of municipal political leadership.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
January 28th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
In the world of politics keeping clear communications paths is vital.
It means being nice nice to people you may not have a lot of time for.
A number of people have commented in the Gazette and asked: why doesn’t the city do whatever has to be done to move the boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) which is a boundary the city must have – province says so. However, it appears where that boundary line is drawn is something the city can influence.
When the UGC was created Burlington either didn’t realize they could influence the boundaries or was satisfied with what the province handed down.
As you can see from the map below – that boundary covers all of lower Brant Street which many people don’t believe that’s where the city’s growth should take place.
The precincts that are shown are out of date.
The city council elected in 2018 took a much different view and made some tough decisions. They drafted and passed an Interim Control Bylaw which froze development within the UGB – which really upset the development community.
Council also decided to re-write parts of the adopted but not approved Official Plan. That process is close to complete.
Burlington MPP Jane McKenna has written the Mayor offering her services to help with anything the province needs to do. In her letter to the Mayor there were some less than parliamentary comments. The two women have never really gotten along all that well.
Mayor Meed Ward responded to MPP McKenna in a letter dated January 13th.
It starts out politely enough.
Read on.
Dear MPP McKenna,
Thank you for your interest in the Official Plan Review matters detailed in my January 2020 newsletter. We’re honoured to count you among our readers and subscribers!
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward in front of city hall.
We’re gratified that you have found the information useful, as have so many of our residents, and that the newsletter has prompted further dialogue about issues in our city, which is one of its purposes.
Please allow me to take the opportunity afforded by your correspondence to summarize the journey we have been on, where we are at, and next steps in the process of reviewing our Official Plan and vision for downtown.
Our current Official Plan was created in 1997 and has been updated more than 100 times since. Our current plan has enabled the city to be recognized at the Best City in Canada, and the Best City to Raise A Family, as well as achieve – 12 years early – our city-wide population of 185,000 by 2031.
We are also well on our way to surpassing our population and growth densities for the downtown of 200 people or jobs by 2031.
Nevertheless, in 2016, the previous council chose to develop a new Official Plan rather than continue to update the existing one. That led to the 2018 Adopted Official Plan, which the current city council is in the process of revising to better respond to the community’s vision for our city, particularly downtown.
To support the review of both the current and the Adopted Official Plan, council initiated two studies in early 2019: the Scoped Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan related to the downtown policies, and an Interim Control Bylaw to conduct a land use study to consider the role and function of the downtown bus terminal and the Burlington GO station on Fairview Street as major Transit Station Areas and as well to examine the planning structure, land mix and intensity for the lands identified in the study area.
That work kicked off last February, and the one-year Interim Control By-law expires March 5th of this year.
Given the MTSA and UGC currently exist in Regional and Provincial policy and did so at the time we began our review, our work to update our Official Plan was required to conform to the existing designations.
The transit station on John Street, which was once up for demolition as a cost saving measure, is defined as a Major Transit Service Area.
Nevertheless, council and the community are keen to discuss the appropriateness of the designations. As a result, last year, council also directed staff to, at the conclusion of our studies, to review the designations for the MTSA and UGC downtown.
The ICBL land use study has just been completed, with the report released to council and the community in late December 2019. Discussion of this matter is happening at committee on January 14, 2020. The scoped re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan policies is expected to be completed and considered by council in April 2020. After completion of both studies, staff will report to council in May 2020 on any proposed changes to the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Area designations applicable to the Burlington’s downtown and the Burlington GO that could be recommended as a result of any proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments arising out of the studies.
Over the past year, the City has consulted with the Region on the status and process steps related to the ICBL land use study and the scoped re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan policies. The City will continue to work closely with the Region of Halton and the Province on any further changes that might be proposed regarding the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station designations as the result of the report directed to be brought forward to Council following completion of the studies. It is expected that the process to seek any changes to provincial legislation will be complex. While a formal request to Province would ultimately be required, there would be several steps that would first need to be completed including reporting back to City and Regional Council for required approvals.
The sequencing of steps is to ensure that our discussion on all planning matters, including these designations, is grounded in good planning analysis, policy and principle. This will be particularly important should the City ultimately seek any amendments to the provincial Growth Plan.
Burlington MPP Jane McKenna was first elected to the provincial legislature in 2010 , lost the position to Eleanor McMahon in 2014 and regained the seat when she defeated McMahon in 2018.
We believe the analysis provided by both studies will be immensely helpful to the Province, Region and City of Burlington as we move into the next step of discussions together about the MTSA/UGC designations downtown.
We welcome and will need your involvement and assistance in this next step and appreciate the offer in your letter to work with myself, the city manager and council on these matters.
I look forward to the next step in this journey and am grateful for your continued assistance in these matters.
Signed The Mayor of Burlington.
When it comes to pecking orders – MPP’s trump Mayors. The city is required to work with the local MPP. Meed Ward does not have the best of relationships with the current MPP nor did she have a particularly strong relationship with the former MPP, Eleanor McMahon. Based on this observer’s experience the chemistry between the Mayor and the MPP’s just wasn’t there.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
January 27th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
How did city council spend an afternoon and well into the evening hearing what Director of Community Planning Heather MacDonald had to say about the process being used to review the material prepared for the Scoped Review of the Downtown portion of the adopted but not approved Official Plan and get to the point where they received and endorsed the document?
Staff presented its report, explained what they did to get input from the community; council then asked Staff and the consultants that were hired to come up with ideas as to how the downtown could be developed – those ideas then had to be codified – put into language that became the rules used when development applications were being considered by the planners.
The cover of the report sets out the challenge: pictures of the Burlington that is – with a building site ready for a construction crane.
Getting input from the community was no small matter. Planner Alison Enns went more than that country mile coming up with ideas that were interesting, innovative and did aide in getting a clearer picture of what the public wanted.
This time Planning Staff did the work – the public could have done more. Burlington has a small stable of people who delegate and comment – that stable could be a lot larger.
Enns is reported to have spent her Christmas holiday writing and revising so that documents were ready in time.
The Planners were first asking that the report could be received – it could have been deferred.
They then wanted endorsement of the report – which Enns explained wasn’t approving everything in the document but it was telling the planners that they were going in the right direction.
However before the endorsement was recommended by the Standing Committee there were a number of amendments that came from Mayor Meed Ward and ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns who had spent all of the weekend prior to the Thursday meeting going over the recommendations in the SGL report; combing through them precinct by precinct and writing up the changes they wanted to make.
The Staff report they were working with was titled: Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown: Preliminary Preferred Concept“, January 2020.
The first step was to:
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation, and Mobility to consider the following during the development of policy modifications to the adopted Official Plan:
appropriate built form;
enhancement of transition provisions in the Downtown East Mixed-Use Precinct, to ensure an appropriate interface with the areas to both the east and the north;
enhancement of provisions to protect the existing character and streetscape of the Downtown East Mixed-Use Precinct, with particular attention to the pedestrian experience on Elizabeth Street;
appropriate built form in the V2 area of Village Square Precinct, with appropriate performance standards to avoid or mitigate potential impacts from new development on the existing low-rise buildings on Martha Street and existing low-rise buildings west of Pearl Street;
policy or mapping-based solutions to acknowledge, protect, and enhance existing community institutions or other private organizations that provide public services or amenities; and
Recognize the need for a transportation corridor through the Mid-Brant Precinct without presupposing that it must be a road, to allow consideration of the appropriate function of the new transportation corridor during the block planning exercise; and
Upper Brant Mixed Use precinct. The numbers refer to the different height limits that were being proposed. The hope was that there be some form of parkland as well.
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility to consider, during the development of policy modifications to the adopted Official Plan, enhancement of transition provisions in the Upper Brant Mixed-Use Precinct north of Ghent Avenue to ensure an appropriate interface with the established neighbourhoods to the east; and
In order to send the recommendation to council the Standing Committee first had to pass them.
Direct the Director of Community Planning to prepare detailed modifications to the Adopted Official Plan to implement the recommended concept as discussed in community planning department report PL-02-20 and in the report titled “Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown: Preliminary Preferred Concept“, January, 2020, prepared by SGL Planning & Design
CARRIED
Amendment
Moved byMayor Meed Ward
Endorse the recommended concept in PL-02-20, Appendix A, subject to the following modifications:
Exclude from endorsement, subject to the considerations in 2, the recommended concept for the lands identified as:Village Square Precinct V2 sub area; and
Mayor Meed Ward worked through a weekend with ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns on crafting amendments to a staff report on what the changes to the approved but not adopted Official Plan would permit.
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns worked with the Mayor during a weekend to craft amendments to a Staff report. Baggy gym pants were the dress of the day according to Kearns.
Downtown East Precinct located east of Elizabeth Street and south of Lions Park, and the block bounded by John Street, Maria Street, Elizabeth Street, and James Street; and
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation, and Mobility to consider the following during the development of policy modifications to the Adopted Official Plan:
appropriate built form;
enhancement of transition provisions in the Downtown East Mixed-Use Precinct, to ensure an appropriate interface with the areas to both the east and the north;
enhancement of provisions to protect the existing character and streetscape of the Downtown East Mixed-Use Precinct, with particular attention to the pedestrian experience on Elizabeth Street;
appropriate built form in the V2 area of Village Square Precinct, with appropriate performance standards to avoid or mitigate potential impacts from new development on the existing low-rise buildings on Martha Street and existing low-rise buildings west of Pearl Street;
policy or mapping-based solutions to acknowledge, protect, and enhance existing community institutions or other private organizations that provide public services or amenities.
CARRIED
Amendment
Endorse the recommended concept subject to the following modification:
Mid Brant precinct
Recognize the need for a transportation corridor through the Mid-Brant Precinct without presupposing that it must be a road, to allow consideration of the appropriate function of the new transportation corridor during the block planning exercise.
CARRIED
Amendment
Moved byMayor Meed Ward
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility to consider, during the development of policy modifications to the adopted Official Plan, enhancement of transition provisions in the Upper Brant Mixed-Use Precinct north of Ghent Avenue to ensure an appropriate interface with the established neighbourhoods to the east.
CARRIED
There was concern over what was going to happen to the heritage structures in the Downtown which resulted in a Heritage study staff direction. They resolved that as well.
The red sites are designated heritage properties. The blue are on the municipal registry
Moved by Mayor Meed Ward
Direct the Director of Community Planning, in consultation with Heritage Burlington, to assess the heritage value and appropriate protections (including possible Heritage Act designations) for the potential built heritage resources and potential cultural heritage landscapes identified by ASI in their September 2019 “Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment of the Downtown Mobility Hub”, with funding source to be determined, and report back to Council with the assessment and associated recommendations by Q4 of 2020.
CARRIED
The concern over the development that was taking place at the Lions Park. staff direction
Moved by Mayor Meed Ward
Direct the Executive Director of Legal Services, working with the Executive Director of Environment, Infrastructure, and Community Services, to report back with options for the future of Lions Park.
With the recommendation motions put on the table, voted upon (all the votes were unanimous) the city was days away from having a bylaw that significantly modified an Official Plan pushed through by the previous council, despite a clear signal from the community that the plan did not meet the desires of a very significant community voice.
Was that group of people a majority? The election results suggest there was a majority – there was certainly a group of people who paid attention and advocated for a change.
Appeals are possible of course and something might come “out of the blue” at the Special Council meeting to take place on the 30th of January, but in the words of Standing Committee Chair Shawna Stolte “we are bringing it home” and those of the Mayor who said “we are close but we are not there yet” the city had an Official Plan that they believed met the immediate future needs of the city, gave the development community enough for them to be able to work with the city and was defensible should it get taken to the a Local Planning Area Tribunal (LPAT)
Some would say when and not should.
There are reports of up to three appeal applications to LPAT for non-decision on the part of the city.
By Pepper Parr
January 27th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Metrolinx sent the city a letter outlining their concerns with “the materials presented on January 14, 2020 for the Interim Control By-Law (ICBL) Land Use Study and the related proposed Official Plan (OP) and Zoning By-law (ZB) Amendments being considered by Council on January 30, 2020.”
Metrolinx’s interest is related to the proposed OPA and ZBA on the lands at and surrounding Burlington GO Station within 800m of the station and within 30m of the rail corridor.
Burlington GO station – south side
“Burlington GO Station is served with regional rail service, which will be increased to headways of 15-minutes or better under the GO Expansion program by 2027. To capitalize on provincial investment in regional transit and to realize the intended benefits, Metrolinx is undertaking transit oriented development at and adjacent its stations to increase ridership, improve the customer experience and to offer more choices in modes of travel. Transit oriented development is, at its essence, mixed-used high density development well integrated with transit and all other modes. These objectives are consistent with the policies of the Growth Plan (2019), and 2041 Regional Transportation Plan.
“With regard to the proposed Burlington Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments arising from the ICBL Land Use Study, Metrolinx requests the City:
• retain existing land use permissions and not approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for the study area at this time;
• undertake additional analysis to demonstrate that the proposed land use and height permissions, at a minimum, support the Growth Plan density target of 150 people and jobs per hectare for the Burlington GO Major Transit Station Area (MTSA);
• consider greater densities within the MTSA, in order to incentivize transit oriented development and support the massive investment in regional transit currently underway as part of the GO Expansion program; and
• further engage affected stakeholders and landowners, including Metrolinx, in detennining the proposed land use framework for the ICBL study area, prior to presenting a revised proposal for City Council’s consideration.
More detailed comments on the ICBL Land Use Study and proposed OPA and ZBA are below.
Scope
Metrolinx’s comments on the ICBL Land Use Study and proposed OPA and ZBA are focused on our lands located at 2101 Fairview Street and 2120-2144 Queensway Drive, and those lands adjacent to and/or within 30 m of the active rail corridor where Metrolinx has an interest to ensure safety, operational, and policy compliance.
Comments have also been provided on proposed policies that may impact how future and recent GO customers access mid use Burlington GO Station.
15 minute service by 2027 – imagine?
Land Use
• Metrolinx supports the conclusion in the ICBL Study that the highest and densest buildings be located closest to the GO station. The study however, effectively down-zones lands in the M’I’SA at a time when the Province is-promoting transit oriented development that can leverage the benefits of the significant capital and operating investment in regional transit. This is of great concern to Metrolinx.
• Analysis should be provided by the City to demonstrate that the proposed height and land use permissions, at a minimum, allow for achieving the Growth Plan minimum density target of 150 people and jobs per hectare within 500 to 800 metres the Burlington GO station, which is a designated MTSA.
MetroLinx understands that the exact boundary of the MTSA will be determined through Halton Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) and that an interim boundary may be required for the City’s analysis. The boundary used previously in the Burlington GO Mobility Hub Study should be considered until the limits of the MTSA are confirmed by the Region.
• Metrolinx encourages the City to consider permitting densities above the minimum established in the Growth Plan, taking into consideration:
o the surrounding community context, including the existing land uses and block structure which provide any opportunity to transition between tall buildings on underutilized sites at the core of the MTSA, to lower density residential neighbourhoods:
o the frequent rail service being provided to Burlington GO Station;
o the Provincial interest in incentivizing transit oriented development to support the massive investment in regional transit currently underway as part of the GO Expansion program.
• In addition, and with regard to the specific permissions proposed in the OPAs, we note the following:
o Recommendations in Section 14.2 of the Dillon Land Use Study and in Part Ill, Section 7.2.3 of the proposed OPAs in Special Planning Area “A'” significantly constrain feasible development on Metrolinx lands. When combining proposed public space allocations, maximum building floor plates, mid-block public right-of-way, and associated setbacks with existing rail corridor safety standards and setbacks, it becomes difficult to implement transit supportive development. A more fulsome investigation and analysis of the net result of these recommendations, coupled with rail safety standards needs to be undertaken.
o We note that the draft outputs of the on-hold Mobility Hub Study did not restrict development to 24 storeys and that the Mobility Hub Study conclusion was reached through extensive consultation with Metrolinx staff, other landowners, agencies, and the public. Until further consultation and analysis is completed, the existing height permissions should be retained.
Connectivity and Circulation
• Metrolinx supports conclusions in Section 6.2.1 of the Dillon Land Use Study relating to improved mobility and connectivity to Burlington GO Station and between the station and Downtown. Through the 2016 GO Rail Station Access Plan Metrolinx has identified several complementary recommendations that would integrate well with the ones proposed in the Study. It is encouraging to see that sustainable and active travel modes are being prioritized to move people within Burlington and to the station.
Metrolinx wanted quite a bit more height than the Planning department is proposing.
• Metrolinx also supports recommendations in Section 6.2.2 of the Dillon Land Use Study that support improvements to the local transit network and its operations; particularly the implementation of bus priority along Brant Street as this is also identified in the 2041 Regional Transportation Plan.
• Map 4 (Schedule M-1 MTSA Special Planning Area) from the proposed OPAs and Diagram SA from the proposed ZBAs note a new mid-block, public right-of-way running east-west between Fairview Street and the rail corridor. Metrolinx does not support this road bisecting the existing bus loop at the Burlington GO Station. If this proposed road were to be implemented, significant impacts to bus operations could be expected and bays, which are already at a premium, would be reduced. This concern was previously shared with City staff from the Integrated Mobility Team so it is concerning to see the road included in the proposed amendments.
Process
• In Appendix A, the overview and timeline details activities between 2006 and 2022. The anticipated future schedule of the Burlington GO Mobility Hub Study is requested to be included as it is understood the forthcoming Secondary Plan for the Burlington GO Station area would replace the ICBL recommendations.
• Metrolinx requests to be included in the Technical Advisory Committee and Landowners’ Group when the Burlington GO Mobility Hub Study (as well as Aldershot and Appleby GO) resumes.
• Metrolinx also requests further consultation on the delineation of the Burlington GO MTSA boundary and identification of height permissions and density targets through City of Burlington secondary planning and Region of Halton Municipal Comprehensive Review process.
One hopes that the GO trains run on a better schedule than the letter sent to the city. The public meetings on this issue are all but complete – they go to a special session of city council later this week.
At least Metrolinx is on record with their position.
By Pepper Parr
January 23rd, 2020
BURLINGTON
The Halton Region is critical to the convenience and comfort of the life people who line in the Region. They provide the services that don’t lend themselves to purely local delivery. Water, sewage, waste management, police, public health services and the maintenance of roads that run between municipalities.
Transit is currently a municipal responsibility – there are those, including the Mayor of Burlington, who would like to see it made a Regional responsibility.
Transit is a local service but it is becoming evident that it will soon have to be moved up to the Regional level where it can be managed and funded for a wider market and not require people to change buses just because they are crossing the border into Milton.
Regional governments sit in between the local municipalities and provincial ministries.
Who runs this level of government and who pays for what they provide? The latter part of the question comes down to this – there is just the one tax payer with pockets that the money for every level of government comes from.
The people who make the Regional level decisions come from the municipalities that are served – with the number of seats on Regional Council determined by the population of each municipal council except for the Chair who is elected by popular vote.
Regional Chair Gary Carr tasting honey while on an agricultural tour.
Each municipality determines who it wants to send to the Region. In Burlington all seven members of council are also Regional councillors.
Gary Carr, the current Regional Chair, does a more than reasonable job – the concern is that there isn’t anyone in the wings who even looks like they have the skills in the kind of leadership Carr has provided.
The Region has seven members from the City of Burlington; eight members from the Town of Oakville; three members from the Town of Halton Hills; five members from the Town of Milton for a total of 24 when you include the Chair.
In 2000, as a result of changes to the Ontario Municipal Act, Joyce Savoline became the first person to be directly elected to that position by the voters of Halton. She was re-elected in 2003. Prior to 2000 Savoline had been selected by the members of the Regional government.
The Regional Council is served by a bureaucracy that has to look at the bigger Regional picture rather than the tighter, narrower focus required at the municipal level.
Regional administrative office are on a sprawling site in Oakville . The building once housed the offices of the Regional Police as well.
Administratively the Region’s corporate leadership is done by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). There are six departments, one being the CAO; the other five are: Legislative and Planning Services, Finance, Health, Public Works, Social & Community Services. A Commissioner leads each department.
The last review of representation for Regional Council, which culminated in an increase of three members during the 2018 election was initiated by a resolution adopted by Regional Council in February of 2015, asking the four local municipalities to set out the conditions under which they would consider any changes to Regional representation.
Under Section 218 of the Municipal Act, an upper-tier municipality is compelled to review the composition of its Council after 2018 and every second regular election after that (2026). The legislation does not specifically align the timing of any reviews to the release of census data.
There is an exception provided in that any upper-tier municipality that made a change to its composition between 2014 and 2018 does not need to undertake this review until after the election in 2026, which means there will not be any changes in Halton until 2030.
Any such changes must be approved by a triple majority – a majority of all votes on Regional Council must be cast in favour of the changes, a majority of the local municipal councils must pass resolutions consenting to the changes (three local municipalities in the case of Halton).
The Regional Council – elected in December of 2018
By Pepper Parr
January 16, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
With one long, exhausting day, during which city council accepted the recommendation from the Planning department that came out of a dense and complex report from Dillon Consulting, the public and council move to the next phase of the city getting what the Mayor refers to as a ‘better grip on the kind of development that takes place”.
Many felt that getting the Land Use Study part right was essential – and that if council did get it right they could then move onto the Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown report; if they didn’t get it right there was no point in doing the second part.
It is too early to determine if council did get it right on Tuesday.
There were some surprises and still some confusion as to just what the process is for moving the boundary of the Urban Growth Centre and then – how does the city get rid of the MTSA designation that was slapped on the bus terminal ?
Burlington had to have an Urban Growth Centre. It has to be a certain size. The boundaries of the Burlington UGC were determined by the province – the city wants to change those boundaries. The above are the current boundaries.
Heather MacDonald didn’t come across as being totally committed to the level of citizen participation that the people who packed council chambers on Tuesday expected.
Some people were upset over the lack of time the public had to download a 135 page document and wade through it all.
There was a lot of data – making sense of it was the hard part.
Heather MacDonald outlined the purpose of the Statutory meeting and, when needed, spoke to issues that needed clarification. Jamie Tellier, on the right aided while City Manager Tim Commisso observes. He said little.
MacDonald said that there was no requirement to promote the Land Use Study meeting. One wonders why one of the two critical meetings, Taking a Close Look at the Downtown, was promoted mercilessly while the other got very little promotion.
Councillor Bentivegna was brought up a little short by Chair Stolte when it wasn’t clear if we actually asking a question. It was nicely done.
The Tuesday meeting was legally a Statutory meeting – something the city was required to hold and follow strict rules as to how the meeting is conducted.
It started at 9:30 and ended just before 8:00 pm – with breaks for meals.
Committee Chair Shawna Stolte did an excellent job of keeping things moving – she was able to curb Councillor Angelo Bentivegna’s penchant for asking questions that were less than clear.
There were conflicting statements from the Planning people on what the city can do about the Urban Growth Boundary (UGC) boundary and the status of the bus terminal.
Heather MacDonald did explain why nothing has been done yet. She argued she felt it was vital that she have motions from the city making it clear why they wanted a change. She also wanted evidence and data to support the request. The Land Use Study certainly has loads of data.
The understanding is that the province doesn’t care where the Urban Growth Centre boundaries are – but that the city does have a growth centre.
The consultants the city hired said the province has never said yes or no to such a request – because no one has ever asked.
Council was not prepared to direct the Planner to do just that. Such a request would be political and it would be appropriate for it to come from the Mayor to the Minister.
There is considerable concern over how the Planners decided to keep the Waterfront Hotel within the Urban Growth Centre. Don Fletcher, heavily involved in the Plan B initiative said he believed the “Waterfront Hotel + Old Lakeshore Road Precinct + Brant Main Street Precinct should be moved out of the UGC, and define a similarly sized area (roughly 11 ha or 10% of the total 106.4 ha) within a suitable precinct north of Prospect Street on Brant/ Fairview.”
The view of many is that the UGC should be moved north and not include the Brant – Lakesh0re area; that will be a different debate – and not an easy one.
The John Street bus terminal has the same status MTSA – Major Transit Station Area as Union Station which everyone agrees is dumb, The city wants to have that status lifted from the terminal.
As for the status of the bus terminal – it appears that this is something the Region can do on its own – and that any request for a change has to comply with ROPA – which is the Regional Official Plan Amendment.
Waiting until city council has dealt with the Land Use Study, which determines whether or not the Interim Control Bylaw is lifted. It is due to expire on March 5th. The ICBL has been an expensive experience for the development community and for one developer, the Molinaro’s quite unfair.
Meed Ward in her first city hall office – the desk is as cluttered in her new space . Her eighth floor office is a lot more spacious and tastefully decorated.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward made her views crystal clear and pleaded for the community to trust council when she said: “It was identified in this study that there are significant gaps in our own policy and provincial policy. To be able to define the downtown bus depot that it doesn’t function the same as Pearson/Union (even though designated the same), it also doesn’t function as a bus depot. Now we have the evidence that this designation downtown is odd. I greatly appreciate that work from the consultant and staff. We now have a policy framework in front of us and can better manage the pressures of over development in the downtown. That’s what the community asked us to do & that is what this Council has done. I can appreciate members of the public don’t feel that way. I would plead to the community to hear us when we say we have heard you, understood & taken steps to control over development pressures. That was the start of this journey. We have independent research and policy tools to help us now. The one thing I think we all agree on is the downtown isn’t the same as the GO and will never be.”
Burlington MPP Jane McKenna jumped into the fray in January when she sent Council a letter that only served to further muddy the waters.
The day long Standing Committee sessions produce recommendations that go to a Special Meeting of Council for approval on January 30th.
Related news story:
Planning preferred concepts for downtown core.
By Roland Tanner
January 14th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Glenn Nicholson delivered this delegation on behalf of Roland Tanner who was out of the country.
EcoB’s position with regard to the ICBL study is as follows. While there are elements within the report which we support, there is a key area where we believe the staff recommendation is in error.
Roland Tanner, co-chair of ECoB taking part in one of the Action Labs that were part of the public participation events that were part of the Taking a Closer Look at the Down Report.
Firstly, we would like to recognise the good work in the staff recommendations in their acknowledgement that the Burlington Go Station area needs improved zoning and height regulation. While we believe the Go Station is a far more appropriate location for a dense Urban Growth Centre neighbourhood connected to mass rapid transit, we do not believe this is an argument for bad development. For the Go Station area to become a vibrant new neighbourhood it is essential to have excellent zoning that insists on commercial space and retail and places reasonable limits on height. It is an opportunity for a truly complete community properly connected to transit. We support the staff recommendations in this specific regard.
Secondly, however, we do not support the recommendations regarding the downtown MTSA.
We acknowledge that current debate around the downtown MTSA revolves around which change is possible in which order. What these recommendations state is that we pass a new Official Plan and put in place zoning that builds the MTSA into all our city planning documents, at exactly the same moment as city planning staff have acknowledged that the John St bus terminal simply does not, never has, and never will function as a MTSA.
The staff solution to the assessment that the John St Bus terminal is not an MTSA perhaps makes sense from the perspective of municipal procedure, but it makes no sense from the perspective of logic or reality. The city must come into compliance with the Region, says the ICBL report, even if though, to put it bluntly, the Region is not in compliance with the laws of physics. The staff recommendation is therefore to continue to build the MTSA language into our planning documents, but to redefine MTSA, in this one instance, to mean what we want it to mean.
EcoB does not think this recommendation makes sense. To be flippant, if something does not look like a duck, or walk like a duck, or quack like a duck, and a consultant agrees that it is not a duck, and never will be a duck, is it really so unreasonable to insist that we stop calling it a duck immediately? If it’s instead large and grey and has a trunk and is a completely inappropriate resident of the local duckpond, does it make any sense to redefine the word ‘duck’ to describe something that everybody can see quite clearly is an elephant? We don’t think so.
Debate centered to a large degree on the John Street bus terminal that most people didn’t think should have the status of a MTSA Major Transit Station area. Others want significant funds spent on upgrading the site. All the city has seen in the last six months is upgrade to the transit shelters.
A better way to square the circle of legal requirements and practical reality would be to make a clear statement that Burlington does not believe downtown is or can be an MTSA, and that zoning and density targets should reflect the impossibility of major mass rapid transit ever coming to downtown Burlington, regardless of higher level designations.
Because the fact downtown is not an MTSA gets to the core of the entire debate we have been having in recent years. Places to Grow and the subsequent growth plans were all predicated on the sensible objective of placing people near mass transit. Oakville asked its Urban Growth Centre to be placed in midtown because its downtown could not support mass transit. Our council did not, no doubt still thinking in a car-centric manner of the proximity of the QEW exit, and not of what the province was actually trying to achieve.
Places to Grow and successive provincial governments asked cities to place intensification near transit. That is the alpha and omega of planning logic over the last 15 years or more. Rightly. Burlington has gone down a road of saying transit existed where it does not and cannot exist. Yes, even if shuttle buses can be provided, as they should, from downtown to key areas and transit hubs across the city, that will still not make downtown a major transit hub. Because of this fatal misdesignation, we are in fact concentrating development in a place the Province was at pains to avoid – somewhere separated significantly from a major transit node.
Surely the time to stop pretending downtown is an MTSA is now. Right at the moment when staff have acknowledged it is not – in any practical way – an MTSA. Not in two or five or more years when we can persuade the Region to change. And not after playing games with language which developers and LPAT are unlikely to respect or acknowledge and might well appeal.
In short, building more inaccurate language into our documents must be an error, and we urge council not to accept the staff recommendation on this matter.
Since every element of the logical basis for downtown designation for major intensification was based on the concept of mass transit, and since we have now established that logic was at fault, we therefore ask council to consider a formal motion to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing making a public request for:
A) His clear guidance on how the downtown Urban Growth Centre can be urgently moved or modified, because of the faulty logic by which the UGC was first established.
B) How the province can work with the Region to speedily correct the error that was made when it designated John Street as a Major Transit Station Area.
Burlington MPP Jane McKenna is said to have a simple answer on how to resolve the MTSA concerns.
We have already received multiple indications from MPP McKenna that the Mobility Hub designations are within council’s remit to designate or undesignate, and we believe Council should do so as soon as practically possible.
Time is of the essence, and we cannot rely on the tortuously slow process of multi-year municipal planning revisions to deliver these essential corrections to the mistakes of earlier councils.
By Pepper Parr
January 14th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Fifteen delegations; one lawyer threatening to sue, a private sector planner suggesting that the city planners might want to get some legal advice before they go much further was all part of the mix. The Council Chamber was packed – not even standing room.
One group of developers complaining that they have suffered a 40% drop in the value of their investment because of what they see coming in the way of changes being made to an Official Plan that has been approved but not adopted.
Scott Snider – lawyer for a group of developers who he claimed were about to take a financial bath.
Councillor Paul Sharman
Council Sharman gave a rather lame excuse for the serious failures of the 2014-2018 to do their homework and understand just what the province meant when the created MTSA’s Major Transit Station Areas.
The city had to spend more than half a million dollars on consultants who dove into the weeds and asked the necessary questions – they learned a lot and taught this council a lot.
The city’s solid core of delegations held Council’s feet to the coals and consistently reminded them why they were elected in 2018
The Interim Control bylaw will in all probability be lifted, and if not, several of the developments that were frozen will get an exemption from that bylaw. The Molinaro’s took a significant financial hit when the bylaw was passed.
Patrick (Paddy) Kennedy and Justine Giancola from Dillon Consulting confer before answering a question at the Standing Committee that was debating the Land Use Study.
The Land Use Study done by Dillon Consulting. while both dense and complex, has served the interests of the city very well.
It will take a little time for the flaws in the report to come to the surface – there are always flaws.
Developers who invested heavily in land, especially at the Drury Lane end of this area – were shocked when they saw the height limitations that were going to be imposed.
A group of developers were “shocked” (those were the words used by their lawyer) when they saw what the height limitations were going to be for land they had acquired. Those developers are not going to walk quietly into the night.
Council voted unanimously to receive and file the consultant’s report – but before Mayor Marianne Meed Ward put an amendment on the table – which got unanimous approval.
There is much more to say – a lot of detail – but it is late and I have to go home to let the dogs out for their evening constitutional.
At a Special Council meeting January 30th council will vote on what they spent the day talking about – expect the city to have made some good decisions.
Then the hard work really begins – they now have to deal with all those development applications that were stopped.
The developers, their planners and their legal counsel will begin figuring out how they deal with this new regime.
Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith
January 14th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
“This is the “as written” rather than the “as delivered” version of WeLoveBurlington’s delegation. There are some inaccuracies in the “as written” version, a result of late changes in the staff/consultant presentations that were presented just before the delegations, to which the delegates had no opportunity to respond and which caused last minute ‘on the fly’ changes for us and others. As such, it is a resounding QED (Quid est demonstratum = which is proven) for WLB’s principal complaint of a flawed and disrespectful public engagement process”.
Good morning Chair, Councillors, Your Worship.
I am Lynn Crosby and with me is my colleague, Blair Smith. As you know, we represent the advocacy group, WeLoveBurlington.
We stand before you, as we did on December 5th, to ensure that citizens are heard. We are honouring a commitment – both to ourselves and to the other advocates for citizen empowerment and strong local voice. We question the timing and basic process of the course that brings the 243-page Integrated Control By-Law Land Use report before you for approval today – just 14 working days after it was first released on the Friday before the Christmas holidays. Also the 319-page Preliminary Preferred Concept Report to be presented to Council two days from now, and released only 3 business days ago. The reports are highly interdependent and the almost concurrent timing of both is very unfortunate. Is this truly enough time for even an engaged and well-informed citizenry to properly review, assess and comment? We believe not.
Lynn Crosby watching council while her delegation partner reads.
The ICBL Report is exceedingly long and dense. A great deal of the necessary detail and the associated import is carried by and buried within the appendices; the degree of cross-reference and referral needed does not produce ease of understanding nor transparency. Nor does the staff report provide a clear and readily understandable summary of what it all means.
There has been no engagement exercise or review of the ICBL Land Use policies – no opportunity for the public to examine and respond. Why hasn’t the public been engaged on this as they were on the concepts? Why hasn’t this crucial meeting been actively promoted? Isn’t the Statutory Public Meeting the opportunity in the planning process to address the issues, allow the public to debate and obtain public input? Why is this meeting focused on approval rather than information collection and exchange?
This report accepts the same limiting factors and planning constraints identified in our earlier delegation:
· The urban growth centre designation for downtown
· The anchor mobility hub designation for the DT and
· The major transit station area designation for the current John St. bus station
Although important qualifications are made, no consideration has been given to our earlier recommendation – to shift the focus and effort to first eliminating these constraints, or attempting to, before establishing the amendments to the Official Plan.
Where is the “strategy” for approaching the Region or Province to relocate the Urban Growth Centre? Why is that not before us today? We believe that that is the first order of business and last month we were told by Ms. MacDonald that it would be coming. We are in a good position to ask for the Province’s assistance in this regard. As noted in the staff report (p.4), “Local Official Plans address much more specific planning issues within a city and provide greater detail and clarity on how a broad provincial direction is addressed at a local level.” In other words, the province is predisposed to leave issues of detail, such as the location of the UGC, to local decisioning.
MPP Jane McKenna
One year ago, our MPP Jane McKenna stated publicly in the Burlington Post, and again in her newsletter, that she often hears this request from residents and that she approached the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. She reported at length and concluded that …
“The City of Burlington council is free to remove these mobility hub designations from the local official plan. If city council voted to change the boundaries of the downtown Burlington urban growth centre this could be accomplished by Halton Region as part of the next official plan review. This must take place prior to July 1, 2022. Burlington could then, in turn, amend its official plan to reflect the new boundaries.”
We would like to openly acknowledge Ms. McKenna’s effort. WLB has not always been a cheerleader for our local MPP but here she did what she was elected to do and she did it when it could have made a difference. The citizens of Burlington expected and still expect that these conversations would have been undertaken by the City and that we would be well on our way to having the designations removed and the UGC moved. That this much time has elapsed without any such attempts is disappointing. We don’t accept that it’s now too late since you don’t want to extend the ICBL because you fear developer appeals if you do.
Respectfully, this is a situation created by you; we ask you to now fix it. If developers appeal, let them. In the meantime, you have the time needed to get the vital missing components done and in the proper order. As we have stated and continue to state, you only have one chance to protect the downtown and the waterfront and that chance is now.
The revised Land Use policies being recommended for adoption this morning, as Official Plan Amendment 119, are conveyed as appendices D and E. If accepted, we believe that OPA 119 will lock us into a downtown over-intensification scenario. There are technical planning considerations and policy issues that speak against the direction proposed for the downtown. They include the absence of all the planning components for which the Adopted OP was originally considered to be “non-compliant” by the Region, including the lack of a Transportation Plan or Mobility Hub Plan. Why do these gaps still exist? Why does the ICBL Land Use Study not address them?
There was a time when Transit staff suggested the bus terminal be torn down – now the building is being described as vital if transit is to grow or the defining of the building as Major Transit Station Area as a major mistake.
How can the downtown be designated as an MTSA when it is recognized that the anchor DT bus terminal currently does not function as a major bus depot and is unlikely to do so barring substantial and unplanned future improvements?
How can the downtown be designated as an MTSA when it is acknowledged that it “is not located on a priority transit corridor nor is it supported by higher order transit nor by frequent transit within a dedicated ROW”?
Shouldn’t the land use implications of designating the downtown as an MTSA be identified and isn’t this designation, since MTSAs are focal points for higher intensity and mixed-use transit supportive development … likely to result in over-development?
Can we be confident that with these amendments, but leaving the mis-designations and the UGC as is, that building heights can be effectively limited and those limits defended? We’re looking to the downtown of the future but also to developments that are already in process, such as those proposed for Lakeshore and Pearl or James and Martha? This question is critical to the entire exercise.
Significant details and implications are carried by the maps and are not immediately transparent. Map 3 should be amended to remove the Major Transit Station “dot” reference since it is easily missed and accepts the mis-designation of the John Street bus terminal as an MTSA.
Maps 1 and 2 amend the existing OP with what the Dillon report refers to as the “revised” DT Urban Growth Centre boundaries. Set aside the question of whether it should still be located in the DT at all, were the UGC boundaries revised and what were the revisions? On what basis and why was this not presented to the public and Council first?
Weeks after being sworn in the new Council posed for a Christmas photo – there was nothing festive about the questions asked by delegations.
We would like to echo something raised this morning but that has been frequently voiced at Statutory Meetings, the Action Labs and Ward Meetings. All of you ran, implicitly or explicitly, on a platform that became a populist groundswell that defeated the incumbent Mayor, two sitting members of Council and caused two more to seek alternative career or life opportunities. When not a fully expressed component of your own platforms, you nevertheless benefited from the anti-intensification message that resonated with exceptional force. The citizens of Burlington now expect you to honour this mandate. At the very least, please defer approval of the recommendations before you today until a much more complete engagement process with Burlington citizens has been conducted.
Why are we rushing as staff led Council to rush in 2018? As we noted previously, and as confirmed by the Region, there is no clock ticking. We urge you to take the time to address all the building blocks of a new Official Plan. Indeed, if the recommendations of the ICBL Report are approved today, then Thursday’s Preferred Concept meeting becomes ‘pro forma’ and meaningless. Which process is being respected today – a sense of false urgency to the Region – or that which provides for meaningful citizen engagement?
Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte chaired the Standing Committee today. She had to tell two very strong delegations that there were no questions for them. It appeared she did so reluctantly.
We do not believe that what is before you today hears either the voice of the people or the direction of the Council they thought they elected. We recognized in our previous delegation that many of the errors made concerning the future of Burlington’s downtown go far back and are not yours. But that excuse stops today. The direction going forward is clearly yours and yours alone. It will be your lasting and irrevocable legacy. We ask you to consider your legacy carefully, step up and defer the decisions being asked of you this morning.
We acknowledge and appreciate the work of staff in creating the Preliminary Concept Report to be presented on Thursday. However, what that concept allows or does not allow for the downtown doesn’t matter if it won’t be enforceable because you approved this report today with the mis-designations and UGC location unchanged. Thursday’s report would then be irrelevant and we would see little point in debating its merits. We delegated today because this is the crucial moment. This is the final chance any of us have to protect our downtown and waterfront. We ask that you don’t let us down.
By Pepper Parr
January 10th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
They are referred to as MTSAs – Major Transit Station Areas – they have be-deviled the thinking of city council for some time.
There was a point when a former Mayor, trying to assure residents that over-development would not take place, wasn’t fully aware of what role MTSA’s played in development.
The city has since learned that they are the biggest influence in what is going to be built where. There are those who knew and understood the bigger picture – they just didn’t want to be the one to tell the public what the public did not want to hear.
Public transit is what is being pushed upon a public that still clings to its automobiles.
There was a point at which the transit department had recommended tearing down the transit station.
Few in Burlington really want to ride a bus – but they are going to have to if they want to get around efficiently.
Somewhere in the bowels of city hall there is, hopefully, at least a draft version of a longer term transportation report – it is now four years overdue. But that is another matter.
Transportation is not efficiently led and has yet to produce a significant report since the new leadership was put in place. But that is another matter to be discussed at a more appropriate time.
Were it not for the designation of the John Street Bus terminal as an MTSA – this building may never have been approved.
Burlington was assigned two MTSAs – one at the Burlington GO station, which was close to perfect and another at the John Street bus terminal which didn’t make any sense to anyone – other than the developer who used the existence of the designation to get a favourable OMB decision due to the existence of the John Street MTSA.
Many citizens have urged the city to make application to the Ministry of Municipalities and Housing to move the location of the Urban Growth Centre (more north) and to scrap the idea of an MTSA on John Street.
A consultant the city had hired said at a Standing Committee meeting to the best of his knowledge no one had asked the provincial government to change the boundary of an Urban Growth Centre.
The removal of an MTSA was said to be a Regional matter.
Marianne Meed Ward wearing a smile.
In her most recent Newsletter the Mayors said:
“Only the Region and Province can change MTSA designations and until that happens, Burlington needs to update its Official Plan policies and Zoning Bylaw before the development freeze ends on March 5 to better define and control the impact in each area. We are on track to meet that deadline with upcoming discussions at committee Jan. 14 and Council on Jan. 30, followed by a 20-day appeal period.”
True but what bothers many is that the Mayor and council have yet to ask the province or the |Region to remove the John Street MTSA designation.
Burlington MPP Jane McKenna – waiting for a call?
Why hasn’t this been done?” asks one very active ward 2 citizen. She is not alone in asking that question.
MPP Jane McKenna is reported to have explained to ECoB what the city has to do and is said to be waiting for a call.
There may be some egos at play here. There isn’t much in the way of thinking shared by the Mayor and the MPP.
By Pepper Parr
January 10th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
On Tuesday of next week there will be a Statutory Public meeting at which Planning Staff will present their thoughts on the Land Use Study report that has been available to the public since before Christmas.
It’s a critical report that the city must get right the first time.
It’s a complex report; one that the five new members of council will struggle with.
The cover of the Land Use Study report tells the full story. The images of the downtown core as it is today – all within the circled pictures – and the site that is about to undergo new development. That is Burlington’s future. The limitations on that development are the issue.
The Gazette has talked to several members of Council about their take on the report.
ECoB had published an Open Letter to city council imploring them to defer receipt of the ICBL Land Use Study Report on January 14 and to reject the recommendations for Official Plan and Zooming Bylaw Amendments.
We asked members of Council by email for a comment on the ECoB request.
We got the following from a council member. “I feel it is too early for me to comment. I have meetings this week with staff that will help form my thoughts.”
We are not going to identify the council member but want to comment on the position taken.
Statutory meetings are set up to allow Council members to ask questions of Staff and any consultants that produced a report. The public can make a delegation – registration is not required for a Statutory meeting.
The regrettable part of the meeting is that it takes place during working hours – which will limit real public participation. Those with a vested interest will appear – there is at least one major apartment operation planning to appear.
The question and answer between Council and Staff is always very enlightening; when it takes place in public we get to learn how Councillors arrive at their decisions. What Staff have to say is said in public – which is the way decisions are supposed to be made.
One would not want to encourage Councillors to meet in private with senior staff. Burlington’s public does not have a lot of trust in the Planning department – they see serious gaps between what the planners think their city should look like and what they think their city should look like.
There was an occasion when a former city manager walked over to a developer, shook his hand vigorously when their 20 storey + development had just been approved by Council. There was significant public opposition to the development – it began the process that is going to change not only the skyline of the city but the feel one will have as they walk the downtown streets.
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns sets out her position in her most recent newsletter. Do let us know if there is any meat on the bone she has thrown you.
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns -most of the downtown is in her ward.
“Key matters regarding land use planning for the Downtown / Urban Area are coming forward for important discussion. As your Councillor, my position is aligned with the values many of you have shared with me – to deliver a focused plan that represents reasonable growth, not over-development.
“The upcoming meetings are an opportunity to continue bringing your vision forward in planning for the future of our downtown.
“Now and in the coming years, Burlington will welcome many new residents and businesses. A majority of these will be through increasing housing and employment opportunities across the City and especially in the Mobility Hubs, including Ward 2’s Burlington GO area. The planning work underway right now through the Interim Control By-law (ICBL) and the Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan will support this and continue to be a focus of Council.
“Stepping into 2020 will be a flurry of activity in finalizing and responding to a series of milestones in the Local, Regional, and Provincial Planning processes. We are going to get a better plan for the downtown that truly reflects the Community and Council’s vision. Your engagement matters. I recognize that timing and the ability to schedule attendance for these meetings might not be optimal, what I can assure you is that you’ve put your trust in me to act on your behalf. I continue to work diligently for you to ensure that every detail in this process is vetted, challenged, understood, and analyzed to deliver on an Official Plan we can all be proud of.”
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward focuses on transit matters – height limits don’t get that much comment from her – at least not at this point.
In her most recent Newsletter Mayor Marianne Meed Ward sets out her position when she said: “The Downtown MTSA has been used to justify development well above current planning provisions, including the recent Ontario Municipal Board decision granting 26 storeys at Martha and Lakeshore where 4-8 storeys is permitted. This led council to implement a one-year Interim Control Bylaw to freeze development and conduct a land-use study of the downtown and Burlington GO area.
“The result? The downtown bus terminal doesn’t currently meet the MTSA threshold and is unlikely to without future improvements or enhancements, and Burlington GO has the potential to accommodate much more transit ridership than it presently does.
“There are several types of MTSAs in provincial policy, including a “major bus depot in an urban core.” Dillon concludes the John St. terminal “does not function as a major bus depot,” and the Downtown MTSA “is not expected to be a significant driver for intensification beyond that which is required by the Downtown Urban Growth Centre (UGC)”
“Dillon also states there are significant gaps in provincial and city MTSA policies and definitions. The downtown is also classified as an Anchor Hub — the same designation for Pearson Airport and Toronto Union Station without anywhere near the same passenger volumes.
“The report also found the Burlington GO area is under-performing relative to its potential given planned 15-minute regional express rail service. There’s opportunity to direct significant future job and population growth here.
“Only the Region and Province can change MTSA designations and until that happens, Burlington needs to update its Official Plan policies and Zoning Bylaw before the development freeze ends on March 5 to better define and control the impact in each area. We are on track to meet that deadline with upcoming discussions at committee Jan. 14 and Council on Jan. 30, followed by a 20-day appeal period.
Related news content:
The ECoB Open Letter
By Pepper Parr
January 10th, 20120
BURLINGTON, ON
We now have the report.
It is complex. There is a lot of information but it is a little short on clarity.
It will take a bit to go through the material and do an early analysis.
There are nine sections – some of the material has been made public before.
It will take a bit of time to do a thorough reading of all the material and begin to analyze. We can share some of the material – a detail of parts of the city and what the height recommendation is.
The scoped re-examination of the adopted Official Plan is being undertaken at the same time as the Interim Control By-law Land Use Study.
The findings of the Interim Control By-Law Land Use study were released in late December2019 (PL-01-20) and will be presented to the Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee on January 14, 2020.
A Council decision on the ICBL is anticipated for January 30, 2020.
The ICBL Land Use Study proposes an Official Plan amendment to the existing in-force OP and a Zoning By-Law amendment to strengthen the integration between land use and transit by introducing policies related to transit-supportive development;
strengthens the concept of Major Transit Station Areas into the Official Plan; establishes a policy framework including an MTSA typology distinguishing the GO Station MTSAs from the Downtown Bus Terminal;
introduces development criteria for development applications within the ICBL study area;
updates or adds definitions to the OP to align with Provincial policy documents and/or assist in the interpretation of OP policies;and,introduces additional permitted uses and heights on lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station.
The two reports, the Land Use Study and the Closer Look at Downtown, to use the language of the Planners, “inform each other”.
The findings of the Interim Control By-law Land Use Study that have been made public and will be debated and discussed at Council on Tuesday. The Taking a Closer Look report will be debated and discussed by Council on Thursday.
Is there an end in sight to all these reports?
The Planning people set out the schedule at the bottom of this report.
If council can arrive at decisions that keep those active in municipal affairs at least a little bit happy – it will be a major achievement.
At this point it is far from certain that they can pull this off.
By Jim Young
January 10th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Jim Young is going to be out of town on January 14th & 16th and unable to delegate when the City’s Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee meet to discuss the Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) and the Scoped Review of the 2018 Official Plan (OP). Here is what he would have loved to say.
Considering the Dillon Report on the ICBL, The Official Plan Review (downtown precincts only), the continuing backlog of intensification zoning amendment applications and the complete lack of progress on the Transportation and Mobility Master Plan, I have to conclude that the ICBL has achieved nothing for the people of Burlington.
The ICBL was intended to buy the city a one year pause on the land planning process which would allow them to correct the more egregious errors of the OP. Citizens were hopeful that their concerns with the OP would be addressed. Concerns that: downtown intensification and building heights were extreme, exceeded provincial guidelines and that there was no Transit Plan in place to address the increased traffic and congestion that over-intensification would bring.
The over-intensification was predicated on the precinct being designated an Urban Growth Centre (UGC) which in turn was based on the Region’s designation of the bus ticket office on John Street as a Major Transportation Station Area (MTSA).
The ICBL and the OP Review have failed to address these concerns in a way that means anything to the people of Burlington.
Even the Dillon Report suggests the John Street Bus Terminal is not on a priority Transit Corridor, not supportive of regional transit and does not function as a major bus depot. Yet, so long as that John St. MTSA designation stays in place, any changes to the OP are meaningless and the proposed scoped review of that OP bears this out. Planners have presented two downtown options which amount to unattractive “Short Squat” density on Brant St from Ghent to Lakeshore or Alternating Extremely High buildings along that same stretch, neither of which have won favour with council and certainly do not appeal to local residents.
In the meantime the ICBL has not stopped developers from submitting numerous amendment applications, it has only stalled these in the process. They are still awaiting planning consideration while the ICBL is in effect. So even the hoped for “slowdown effect” has not been achieved. This will eventually allow developers to bypass the process by appealing to LPAT (Land Planning Appeals Tribunal) when planners are too overloaded to respond in time.
This will be aggravated by changes at LPAT, shortening the city’s response time from 210 to 90 days (120 for OP Amendments). Now even more failure to respond appeals will go to LPAT. Wins for developers will increase due to the fact they can now claim “compatibility” with the already approved/appealed hi-rises on Brant, Lakeshore and Martha Streets and the fact that city planners plan to “average” precinct density targets while developers and LPAT review applications on a case by case basis.
The Burlington GO station is clearly a point where different forms of traffic can flow in and flow out.
Report suggests the John Street Bus Terminal is not on a priority Transit Corridor
The end result will be a severely over-intensified downtown without a transit plan in place to move the additional people around or to the real MTSA at Fairview GO. While a dedicated few will cycle or walk from downtown to the GO station, it was always more likely that commuters already committed to transit into Toronto would take a bus to the GO. If the bus is there! Yet all the talk of “Integrated Transportation and Mobility” are centered on cycling, walkability and active mobility modes, ignoring the most efficient way to move people in an over-intensified and congested downtown: Improved Public Transit.
Sometimes it feels like downtown mobility concepts seek health outcomes more than serious transit solutions.
The year of grace granted by the ICBL would have been better served by planners creating the transit plan that would have connected the city’s Urban Growth Centres to its GO stations, eliminating the need for a downtown mobility hub, working instead with the Region to remove that downtown MTSA designation. The Dillon Report clearly points out that this is a regional responsibility, “………The Province directs that upper-tier municipalities such as the Region of Halton are responsible for evaluating the major transit station areas within the region, delineating the boundaries of each major transit station area ……….”.
Heather MacDonald with Planner Jamie Tellier at a council meeting.
Heather MacDonald, Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility suggests this was clearly the original intention of the City’s ICB: …. “The recommendation to implement an ICBL ……………. will come back to City Council on Jan. 14 with proposed amendments ……………. that will make it possible for new development in the identified study area to be better informed by the City’s transit, transportation and land use vision……” I ask again, as many did in 2017/2018: Where is The Transit Plan on which all this intensification is based?
City advocacy groups; Engaged Citizens of Burlington, We Love Burlington and Waterfront Plan B are disappointed (see Open Letter, Gazette January 6) that after so much citizen outreach, feedback and supposed input so little attention has been paid to their voices.
Personally, I fear the downtown as we know it is already lost to over development. My only hope is that maybe now, finally, the city is coming to realize that that the voices of city residents must be heard. Because so far they have not.
Perhaps city engagement efforts should involve a little less reaching out, and a little more listening in.
Jim Young is an Aldershot resident who was part of the group that formed ECoB. He delegates at city council frequently.
By Pepper Parr
January 8th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
There is often a high degree of tension between a ward Councillor and those who are both active and passionate about their community.
With almost every ward having a new council member there is bound to be some friction between the residents who were close to abused by the previous council and the new council member who is still learning the ropes.
Greg Woodruff said he thinks the public input was sadly lacking on the 92 Plains Road development application – Ward Councillor doesn’t see it quite that way.
Last week Greg Woodruff, a former candidate for the Regional Chair and for the office of Mayor in 2018, wrote an opinion piece in which he set out his concerns with the practice some developers have gotten into the practice of taking their applications to LPAT as fast as they can. His Opinion piece is linked at the bottom of this piece.
Kelvin Galbraith responded to several questions the Gazette put to him with the following: “As is the case with the 92 Plains Road site and other similar developments that have gone to LPAT, the public consultation and input has been used to form the final application that is being considered by staff and LPAT.
“The fact that some of the public’s input was not considered is usually because of a difference of opinion or that the planning rational by our professional planning staff could not support the request. Should the public have new information to form opposition to the development, they would have the opportunity to become a participant in the LPAT hearing.
Kelven Galbraith had a solid handle on what the people of Aldershot were looking for – they don’t all agree with each other which puts him in an awkward spot from time to time,.
“At a settlement hearing, staff are not there to defend residents or participants. Planning staff have contributed to the settlement agreement and by this time it has been also endorsed by council so opposing the settlement at this stage would not make sense.”
Galbraith adds that: “There is a new pre-application process that adds another layer of public engagement when it comes to development applications. I would argue that this improves public input opportunities and assists with the tight timelines that we are now facing and hopefully prevents more applications from being appealed for lack of decision before the deadline.
“At some point in a development application a decision needs to be made. There will always be some opposition but we need to make decisions as staff and council that are best for the community. Much work and expense of the taxpayer are afforded to files that go the LPAT route. Negotiating a settlement as opposed to taking our chances with an adjudicator, allows our staff to offer their professional planning rational and come to some conclusion of the file and not prolong further expense. “
Galbraith points out that he is “not sure how the old council worked but I can say that I have offered a fresh set of eyes on every situation that I have encountered. Development is going to occur and Aldershot is seeing lots of interest and activity surrounding the Go station and Plains road. Many that I speak to in the community do not want empty lots, strip clubs and motels that currently hinder the success of our main street. I feel we are in an awkward period of transition between our old highway and a new urban strip of vibrancy with successful businesses and people living close to the amenities.”
Related Opinion piece
Woodruff on LPAT hearings: they are a total fraud.
By Pepper Parr
January 7th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington is fortunate to have the community organizations it has. Three that were formed within the last three years have brought about profound change.
A bus snazzy bus shelter does not equal a transit hub – even if there is a tiny ticket office across the street.
ECoB (Engaged Citizens of Burlington) organized debates in every ward of the city during the 2018 municipal election, with precious little help from the city’s administration.
We Love Burlington worked with We Love Oakville to ensure that the Provincial Review of local government was made public and that a Burlington voice was heard. The “Lovelies” would very much like to see the report to the Minister which appears to be what dissuaded him from making any changes to the organization structure of the Region of Halton.
Plan B wants to make sure that the entrance to Spencer Smith Park is as grand as the view of the lake – and that a replacement for the aged Waterfront Hotel doesn’t gobble up all that space.
Plan B is focused on what gets done with the land the Waterfront Hotel is located on. There are plans to demolish the hotel and erect something a lot higher. Plan B wants to ensure that the interests of the citizens of the city are protected; they were not convinced that the city council in place when the development application was filed would ensure that there was a clear sight line from Brant Street through to the Pier and Lake Ontario nor do they appear to believe that the Planning department is going to do what anyone you ask would want to see.
All three organization have written an Open Letter to city Council and the provincial elected officials setting out their argument for changes in the Staff report that is going to a Statutory meeting on January 14th.
That report is complex and there is some doubt in the mind of this writer that every member of Council has actually read the report and that they understand its implications.
The Open Letter is pretty direct, makes a lot of sense and is very well argued.
The community organizations, ECoB in particular, were one of the, if not the biggest, citizen groups that got this city council elected. It behooves Council to listen very closely to ensure that the Planning department understands what the will of council means.
As an aside, there was a point when Mayor Meed Ward had to state publicly that the Planning department Grow Bold concept was no longer on the table and that Planning staff were not to refer to the concept in the future.
The expiry date for the Interim Control ByLaw (ICBL) is early March. An extension is possible but would be exceptionally unfair to the development community. One developer has experienced a revenue delay of millions due to a site approval that could not be given due to the bylaw.
The Open Letter asks council to defer the Land Use report; should council do so it must be for a very very short period of time to ensure that the ICBL is lifted before early March.
All the gains that were made with the election of a significantly different city council will be lost if the matters pointed out in the Open Letter are not dealt with. The election of the new city council was a turning point for the city – let us not lose what has been gained.
Related news stories:
The Open Letter
An Open Letter
TO: Marianne Meed ward, Councillors Kelvin Galbraith, Lisa Kearns, Rory Nissan, Shawna stolte, Paul Sharman, Angel Bentivegna
Copied to: MPP Jane McKenna, MPP Effie Triantafilopoulos, Hamilton Spectator, Toronto Star, Burlington Post, Burlington Gazette, Bay Observer.
Re: Burlington Community Planning Department Report PL-01-20
(Including ICBL Land Use Study Report)
Having reviewed the above mentioned report, we the undersigned Burlington community groups wish to make the following requests of city council members.
We are encouraged by one of the primary findings of Dillon’s report, which concludes, as our groups have argued for some time, that the John Street Bus Terminal is not located on a priority Transit Corridor, nor is it supported by higher order transit, nor frequent transit within a dedicated right-of-way, and that it is not functioning as a major bus depot based on common characteristics of typical major bus depots.
Given the narrow rights-of-way downtown, the function of the John Street Bus terminal will not change. Simply put, the John Street bus terminal is not, and will never be, a Major Transit Station area (MTSA).
The report has made it clear, that the Region classified the John Street Bus terminal as an MTSA in their ROPA 38 in 2009, that Burlington must conform to Regional & Provincial Planning Policy, to the extent that it cannot delineate or establish densities for MTSAs.
It also has been noted that local official plan policies can provide clarity on how provincial or regional plans, policies and definitions will be implemented within the local context of its municipality. We must not lose sight of the fact that the local Official Plan remains the most important vehicle for implementation of Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement. Planning staff have recommended that the John Street bus terminal remain classified as an MTSA despite Dillon’s findings, albeit distinguished from the three MTSAs in Burlington which are served by regional express rail. This recommended use of MTSA designation serves no purpose other than to continue to imply a level of transit infrastructure that does not and can never exist. By doing so, developers will continue to request building densities based on MTSA designations far beyond those appropriate or legislated by provincial or regional policy, and which will never have appropriate levels of transit to support them.
Staff have further claimed that MTSA designation will not increase intensification downtown beyond the current 200 jobs/residents per hectare, because downtown is also designated as an Urban Growth Centre. This claim assumes that the Urban Growth Centre remains as-is downtown, which is far from certain and not what residents want, and is made in spite of the glaring example to the contrary provided by the OMB’s decision to allow a 26-storey building at 374 Martha Street on this basis of the downtown MTSA, against Burlington’s position.
It is apparent from the PL-01-20 report that the Region made an error in classifying the John Street Bus terminal as an MTSA, and we must not propagate the error through Burlington’s Official Plan and supporting policies.
We emphasize that we do not oppose better transit for downtown Burlington. MTSA designation does not create more transit, and arguing for the designation’s urgent removal does not constitute an argument against better transit services. MTSA designation is a development and building density tool, not a tool for better transit.
We, the undersigned organizations, therefore urge members of council sitting as the community planning, regulation & mobility committee, to defer receipt of the ICBL Land Use Study Report on January 14 and to reject the recommendations for Official Plan and Zooming Bylaw Amendments.
Furthermore, we implore the committee and council to take the necessary steps to advise the Region of Halton of their classification error and request that they correct it, and to direct the Burlington Planning Depot to remove any and all references to a downtown MTSA in and through their future official plan and zooming bylaw amendments, including those in PL-01-20.
Respectfully, the undersigned
By Greg Woodruff
January 6th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
That headline is a strong statement but the 92 Plains Rd development is a case in point:
Planning department Staff did not come back to Council with a recommendation on the development application which gave the developer Chelten Developments Inc. an automatic Local Planning Act Tribunal hearing.
Tom Muir, also an Aldershot resident, has raised the issue of the Planning department repeatedly letting this happen: no accountability ever occurs. The current council has done nothing to address this issue. I’ve asked several times if Staff are attending LPAT hearings and if residents can get a heads up on what they are going to present. They don’t respond.
Currently, residents have no idea what the staff might present until the development application has already been settled and heading to LPAT. Council has done nothing on this practice.
The development was originally for four stories of housing – the application was revised to six.
In the 92 Plains case, Tom Muir was able to get participant status at the hearing with a couple of other residents. Muir submitted several well-reasoned arguments as to process and development compatibility. He was doing the job Staff should have been doing. Some Planning Staff did attended the hearing but said nothing at that time.
Staff, who are paid by the residents through their taxes, should be on the side of truth or basic reality and represent the interests of the residents, assuming this is the will of council.
Because of the structure and process used by LPAT only people with accepted professional designations can give testimony. Staff have those designations. The developers have planners with the required designations. Staff chooses to be mute so the developer’s “land use planner” is then the only “planner” presenting evidence.
Muir, who consistently provides reams of evidence, which gets put into the file but is never heard at the hearing, because he is not a “land use planner”. If Burlington staff said the exact same words it would be “testimony” and the tribunal would have to take these points into consideration. However, since they don’t, the developer’s testimony is “uncontested”. The LPAT makes their decision based on what they hear and because there was evidence and testimony from just the one land use planner the LPAT Commissioner has to side with the evidence presented by the developer’s representative.
An LPAT decision made without any input from residents or council becomes just an elaborate farce.
It’s hard to tell if the LPAT system works or not; the negligence on the city’s part is staggering. Not only do they bungle the application by letting it go to LPAT because there was no decision within the required time frame. City staff doesn’t even say anything at the LPAT hearing. They could defend the settlement by backing up participants when the developer’s land use planner makes misleading statements.
Woodruff: This requirement was to take a point in the far end of the go station parking lot, not the entrance which is 600 m away.
That staff offers nothing at LPAT matters immensely because there is no evaluation of anything. The developer can just say anything true or not, real or not. For example, the developer said the development was within 500 m of the GO station. This requires them to take a point in the far end of the go station parking lot, not the entrance which is 600 m away. Would this have made any difference?
No one knows because the staff presented nothing. What residents present doesn’t matter. This because we are not “land-use planners” and cannot afford one.
Now we can get into an interesting discussion. Is the the city just insanely incompetent or is it deliberately “throwing the game”. The take-home point is “engagement” or “consultation” has nothing to do with what gets built. You either get planning staff to defend residents or we don’t have any say on development at all.
I have seen nothing that leads me to believe staff is doing anything differently than they were doing in the last administration. Nor, have I seen anything from the current council that directs staff to behave differently. Thus we are currently getting what we were getting from the old council.
That the LPAT system certainly sucks does not let the council off the hook. They don’t appear to be even trying to work the system. If the city was doing all that could be reasonably expected to give at least lip service to will of residents. However, the current new council is just working the will of the old council.
Putting the development in context. Content taken from the developers application:
In 2008 the City of Burlington released its “Intensification Study” which intended to provide preliminary residential and employment intensification estimates to 2031 in support of the Sustainable Halton Plan. Within the study, Plains Road is identified as an “Urban Growth Corridor”
Staff outlined that there was potential for approximately 3,750 dwelling units and 7,500 residents along these particular growth corridors. The available GO Stations were an important component of the corridors, and these areas were identified as being suitable for higher intensity development. These figures were based on an estimate that indicated that future developments or redevelopments would be made up of 60% residential, 30% mixed use, and 10% retail/service commercial.
The owner has proposed to redevelop the subject site for a six storey, 49 unit apartment building with ground floor office/commercial uses.
The proposed building will front onto and have pedestrian access to the pedestrian network on Plains Road East. Vehicular access to the subject site and development will be maintained along Plains Road East.
The proposal will also be accessible via a mixture of public transit modes; the Aldershot GO Station is located within 500 m of the proposal (walking distance). Burlington Transit route 1(1x) provides east and west services along Plains Road, and is accessible just west of Birchwood Avenue, and immediately north of the subject lands on the north side of Plains Road East.
Greg Woodruff taking part in a Mayoralty debate broadcast by TVOntario
Take home points:
1) We need Council to change direction and insist that Staff defend the plans Council passes.
2) Tom Muir has basically done the work the planning department should have done.
3) Presently unelected LPAT Commissioner and developer consultants are deciding if we get to keep trees, stores, grass and sunlight in our community.
Greg Woodruff is an Aldershot resident who works as a web site developer. He ran for the Regional Chair in 2010 and for Mayor of Burlington in 2018.
By Pepper Parr
December 23rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
First published before Christmas; the location of the full report is shown at the end of the article.
In March of last year the city brought in an Interim Control By Law which put an immediate 12 month hold to any development proposals in the Urban Growth Centre, a boundary imposed on the city by the province,
The reason for the bylaw was the rate at which development proposals were flooding into the Planning department; the city was beginning to lose control over what got built where and was working with an Official Plan that was badly out of date and a zoning schema that needed updating.
The 2014-2018 City Council had passed a new Official Plan months before its term expired. That “adopted” went to the Region for approval. While the “adopted” plan was being considered at the Region the city held a municipal election – we had a new mayor and five new members on a 7 member city council.
Shortly after the council was sworn in the Regional government returned the “adopted” Official Plan to the city asking for what were some minor changes and added that the city could make additional changes if they wished.
The new City Council, with a new Mayor, took that opportunity to re-write the “approved” Official Pan. That re-write is currently taking place. In the parlance that is used by the planners these days the land use study will “inform” the re-write of the “adopted” Official Plan
While all that is going on the Planning department was told by Council to bring in consultants to help determine what should be done with the Urban Growth Centre (UGC)
This map does not appear to be identical to the map we saw when the Interim Bylaw was being put in place. Waiting for some comment from the Planning department
The decision to impose an Interim Control Bylaw came out of the blue as far as the public was concerned.
For the Planning department and the senior levels of the city administration it was a move that had to be made.
Development applications were flooding into the Planning department – staff were overwhelmed and the city was in the process of losing the control it did have over what was developed, how high the towers were going to be and where they would be located.
The decision meant real financial hardship for at least one developer and a retirement home operator.
Heather MacDonald, Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility was given a lot of latitude and the funding needed to source a consultant – she was permitted to sole source for this task rather than have to go out to the market. Her budget was $600,000
It is a building that at one point was recommended for closure by the Transit department. It became a huge stumbling block for the city during an appeal the ADI Development group made on the site for the 24 storey Nautique.
Heather MacDonald, said in announcing the release of the report “The recommendation to implement an ICBL was brought forward by City staff in response to two primary concerns, including growth pressures that continue to emerge for the lands in the study area and a need to review the role and function of the John Street Bus Terminal as a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA).
With the findings of the study in hand, the city has called for a Statutory meeting January 14th at which the public can delegate and Councillors can ask questions. Expect this to be a contentious meeting. Staff will listen, take notes and use what they hear at the Statutory meeting to prepare the recommendations that will be included in the Staff report they bring to Council later in the year.
Many were concerned that the report could not be produced in the one year time frame – MacDonald surprised many when it was delivered two months early.
The 135 page document with graphics galore needs time and consideration.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said she: “I will be reading the staff report and accompanying appendices overt the holidays and will have more to say in January. I welcome the public participation. This is another step in the process to get the community’s vision reflected in our downtown. We are well on track to completing this work when the one-year deadline on our ICBL is up
The purpose of the ICBL Study was to:
- Assess the role and function of the downtown bus terminal and the Burlington GO station on Fairview Street as Major Transit Station Areas
- Examine the planning structure, land use mix and intensity for the lands identified in the Study Area; and,
- As required, provide recommendations to the City on updates to the Official Plan and Zoning bylaw regulations for the lands identified in the Study Area.
In the report the consultants said:
“There is a strong policy basis for Burlington’s Downtown John Street Bus Terminal as an MTSA and hence the numerous policy documents at the Provincial, Regional and City levels which identify an MTSA in the Downtown. Lands within the Downtown Burlington are identified as an MTSA in the Big Move, Halton Region Official Plan and the City’s adopted Official Plan (but not within the in force Official Plan). Furthermore, a number of long range plans identify potential for transit improvements along Brant Street to enhance connectivity between the Downtown and Burlington GO MTSAs. The Province’s RTP 2041 includes a “Priority Bus / Priority Streetcar” corridor on Brant Street between Downtown Burlington and the Burlington GO Station; and Halton Region’s DMTR reinforces this opportunity, identifying the link between the Burlington GO Station and the Downtown as a Priority Transit Corridor.
The consultants added:
Tough to describe the John Street bus station as a Major Transit Station Area. There was just an estimated 320 boarding/alightings in the am peak period.
“From a policy perspective, the Downtown Burlington John Street Terminal is clearly understood to be a Major Transit Station Area. From an operational perspective the John Street Terminal is estimated to have 320 boarding/alightings in the am peak period, with potential to grow to 1800 boardings/alighting in the future. However, in comparison to the characteristics of typical major bus depots, the John Street Terminal has a number of limitations which underpin its lower ridership levels, including:
- Limited number of major trip generators in the Downtown;
- Limited connectivity to Burlington GO Station;
- Limited station infrastructure; and,
- Limited number of convergence and limited number transfers.
“With the above-noted limitations in mind, it is important to recognize that not all MTSAs are equal. The various density guidelines (e.g. Growth Plan density targets, Mobility Hub Guidelines and MTO’s Transit Supportive Guidelines) reinforce the notion that there is a hierarchy when it comes to transit, with facilities which operate in dedicated right-of-ways, such as subways, LRTs and BRTs, having the greatest potential for ridership compared to bus services which operate in mixed traffic. And while the current ridership levels are low, despite the fact that the Downtown is the City’s densest area, the John Street Terminal functions as a relatively important transfer point in the context of the City’s system.
“With this in mind, the station alone is not understood to be a significant driver of intensification, however, certain forms of intensification, such as employment uses or other major trip generators would help to reinforce the function of the MTSA. Furthermore, future improvements to services and infrastructure could help to improve ridership.”
Shovels are in the ground. A development the city did not want, a development that began the high rise fever and alerted other developers with just what they could get away with in Burlington.
That, unfortunately, was just the argument that the ADI Development Group used to convince the then OMB to approve their Nautique appeal. The idea that transit will be used by people who live in the downtown core suggests a huge failure to understand just how transit is used in this city.
Put a free bus running up and down Brant Street and people will use the service – you don’t need an MTSA to make that happen.
During a Standing Committee the public was led to believe that the Region could, if asked, declare that the John Street terminal was not a MTSA. The consultant also said that the province has never refused to permit a change in the boundaries of an Urban Growth Centre – but added that no one has never asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs to change a boundary.
This may be one of those occasions where that phrase GROW BOLD, would apply.
The Land Use Study has a number of graphics that give credence to that “a picture is worth more than 1000 words” phrase.
Two that will interest many follow.
Top graphic is what the heights on Brant street now look like as you look eastward. Bottom graphic is the opposite direction.
This is the elevations looking north from the lake.
Where the height is located.
We will return to a very important document – one that the Gazette believes has to be revised if the intentions of a majority of the current council are to be achieved.
The full report can be found HERE
Appendix B is the consultants report.
|
|