 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.
 By Pepper Parr
December 28th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
February, the second month of the last year of the second decade in this new millennium.
February 1st, 2019: – The plight of those less fortunate than most of us made the front page with a resident deeply concerned over how homeless people were managing to survive and the Mayor offering more of a platitude than anything else.
 The homeless in Burlington – city is still looking for a policy that reflects its values. Marilyn Ansley gave money to a homeless person earlier this week; he was soliciting at Fairview and Brant St. She said: “We must recognize and provide support to the many homeless people in our affluent city.”
People are not permitted to beg on the streets of Burlington – and begging is what it is – let’s not do the Burlington polite thing and call it soliciting.
“I asked him where he would be tonight in extremely cold weather. He said Burlington has nothing and all shelters in Hamilton are full.
Ms Ansley said she followed up with calls to the Region and was told she should tell people who need help to call 311.
The Mayor’s office sent a comment to the Gazette via her Chief of Staff setting out what the city was able to do.
“Resources are available so that there is no reason for anyone to spend a night on Burlington’s streets. The City of Burlington staff and leadership are always open to feedback from the community and continued evaluation of the programs that exist along with their use and effectiveness.”
The Gazette had asked each member of Council for a comment on homelessness and what could be done to help. The response from the Mayor was all that was received – it was a sign of the kind of relationship that was going to exist throughout the year.
There was a reason for this new relationship that no one was talking about.
February 2, 2019 –
 The Festival of Trees put on by the Performing Arts Centre to raise funds for the use of the Community Theatre by different arts group was a bright spot that will be appreciated throughout the year.
More than double the funds raised last year were brought in this year – they actually sold out the draw tickets they had.
Described as a massive success, the event brought 8000 visitors between Nov. 22 and Dec 20, and $7,305 for our Community Studio Theatre initiative, which provides grants to local artists and arts organizations to offset the cost of renting the Community Studio Theatre.
February 5th, 2019: – The City’s 10-year Capital Financing Strategy is heavily dependent on both annual dividends and interest on the note receivable from Burlington Hydro – but the financial statements weren’t given even a wink at the Standing Committee Monday night. The report will get looked at again at a city council meeting on February 25, 2019.
Last night the best council could do was Receive and file finance department report F-04-19 regarding the 2019 Business Plan for Burlington Hydro.
Burlington Hydro is owned by the city – 100% of it.
Burlington Hydro Inc (BHI) and Burlington Electricity Services Inc (BESI) are affiliate companies both of which are 100% owned by Burlington Hydro Electric Inc (BHEI). BHEI is 100% owned by the Corporation of the City of Burlington.
February 10th, 2019
The city lost one of its more impressive business leaders when Pasquale (Pat) Paletta passed away this date. His many business interests through his hard work, perseverance and vision, have all contributed to the growth and prosperity of Burlington. His incredible legacy as a self-made businessman will continue to carry on now through his family.
February 11th, 2019
 Mayor makes herself perfectly clear. Mayor Meed Ward presented a motion that she said would “provide absolute clarity to staff and to the community that the City of Burlington staff are not to use the adopted 2018 plan in evaluating current/new development applications.
Multiple analyses by staff in assessing development applications, downtown in particular, have made it clear we do not need to over intensify in order to meet our obligations under the Places To Grow legislation.
Meed Ward once again put out the word that the city “will immediately discontinue use of the “Grow Bold” term and related branding to ensure we are absolutely clear on our direction.”
 The 2019 winter had arrived.
February 12th, 2019
As of 4 p.m. today, the City of Burlington is closing all city facilities and cancelling all city-run programs and rentals for Tuesday, Feb. 12. The City will work with sport user groups and renters to reschedule times.
Residents are strongly encouraged to avoid traveling as the roads are unpredictable as the city’s snow-fighters plow, sand and salt the primary roads.
All vehicles parked on the street must be removed and parking exemptions are void. Failure to remove vehicles from residential roads could result in being ticketed or possibly towed to allow snow plows and other heavy machinery to safely navigate the narrow streets.
February 16th, 2019:
Earlier in the year, after dismissing the City Manager, Council hired Tim Commisso to serve as an Interim City Manager for what was described as a six month contract, while City Council figured out what it wanted in the way of a new City Manager.
 Tim Commisso: He was brought in as an interim – got an offer he couldn’t refuse – a five year contract. Commisso had earlier been employed by the city of Burlington for a number of years and left holding the title of General Manager. He left Burlington to return to Thunder Bay, the city he was raised in, to serve as City Manager and retired from that job.
Then out of nowhere, with nothing said publicly, Commisso is described as the Acting City Manager.
We didn’t know then that he would eventually be hired as the City Manager with a five year contract after a competition that was said to have attracted 70 applicants.
The first high high rise development to be approved. The change in the city skyline was going to change.
February 18th, 2019:
The initial development application and concept for 2085 Pine St. that would have increased the height from the 5 storeys to 11 storeys was approved. The site was sold and the new owners came back with a proposal to 40 units. The issue for this location has always been the retention of the heritage structure.
The immediate area has a number of development applications that have either been approved (ADI is at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore 24 storeys) or are in the process of being considered by the city’s Planning department. They include plans for an 11 storey development on the east side of Martha south of the James – New Street intersection, the Mattamy development – 18 storeys at the corner of James and Martha
A proposal for 29 storeys – (the highest so far for the city) at the intersection of Pearl and Lakeshore Road.
 Civic Square was going to get a makeover – it wasn’t clear just how big a change the new council had in mind. February 20th, 2019:
To the surprise of many a request for comments and ideas was released. The city had plans to upgrade the Civic Square.
The flag poles will be moved further up Brant Street opening up Civic Square.
The overall design has been determined and artists are being asked to come up with some ideas on what kind of shading there should be and what it could look like.
The competition was to close on March 15th. There is a fee of $115,000 for the artist(s) chosen to do the job.
The contractor for the Civic Square shading project is anticipated to be complete and off-site by end of September. The artist will be expected to install the shade structure in October/November 2019.
Things didn’t work out quite that way.
 Kearns creates a Registry identifying those she meets with. February 22, 2019
During the first month she was in office ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns said she was going to create a Business Registry. Anyone wanting to talk to her about a business matter would have to sign the Registry so that her constituents would know who she was talking to. We don’t yet know how detailed that Registry is going to be – just that there will be one and that it will become public starting at the end of March.
February 22nd, 2019
A statement from the Mayor on development:
My office recently received a letter from Minister Steve Clark of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding their work on the provincial government’s Housing Supply Action Plan.
Minister Clark outlined their desire “to take swift action to streamline the development approvals system” and “speed up the time it takes to get the right kind of housing built in the right places”. He further explained that “land use planning and development approvals are critical to achieving housing and job- related priorities” in our communities.
 “I agree with these assertions and am glad to see their continued commitment to expediting these processes. As part of the new Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force that my office has initiated to support local business attraction and growth, I am committed to cutting red tape for development applications that are supported by council and the community.”
“The Minister’s office continues to consult on proposed changes to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and review the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement as well, with the intention to bring forward legislation and policy changes in the coming months.
“While Minister Clark’s letter advises local municipalities to consider pausing on activities that may be impacted, such as Official Plan reviews, I want to reinforce that until we get more specific details from the Province related to the municipal land use planning process, the City of Burlington will continue to move forward as planned with our review of the Official Plan as per the motion approved by City Council on February 5th.”
The best way to save time and money is to eliminate the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal altogether. The tribunal, like the Ontario Municipal Board it replaced, provides unelected and inefficient involvement in planning matters that are best left to local councils, unnecessarily slowing down the development process.
Leaving planning in local municipal hands would not only speed approvals and remove red tape, but also provide more incentives to the development industry to work with municipalities and their residents to plan full communities rather than just build housing.
February 23rd, 2019:
Taking part in LPAT hearings: Gary Scobie attended a Local Planning Act Tribunal (LPAT) case conference meeting recently.
It was the follow up to a meeting at which he presented a lengthy document on why he felt the Reserve Properties appeal of a city council decision that permitted 17 stories the developer wants 24 – same as the one on the other side of the street.
Scobie had applied to be a Participant in the LPAT appeal back in January and he submitted his views to all Parties as required and filled in all the proper paperwork.
Yesterday the LPAT representative Chris Conti agreed with the Parties that they should all wait for the outcome of a pending trial in Toronto that will better define how LPAT functions going forward.
Scobie finds he is still a Participant in the appeal hearing, as far as he understands, but was told that his role may have ended with his submission. He apparently has no ability as a Participant to further expand or comment on the submission he made nor will anyone ask him any questions on the document.
February 24th, 2019
Burlington’s Best program comes to an end.
 The deadline for what has been an annual event for the past 53 years is February 28th. The city asks the citizens to nominate people they feel have served the city well in eight categories.
This, the 53rd event, is reported to be the last. Gazette sources have advised that the program will come to an end this year.
Established in February 1965 as the Civic Recognition Committee it may have outlived its usefulness.
February 19th, 2019
The site is just yards away from where Marianne Meed Ward officially threw her hat into the ring for the office of Mayor.
The application is to change the Official Plan designation to High Density Residential to allow the development of a mid-rise, 6-storey apartment building, with 160 dwelling units at a density of 258 units per hectare. A rezoning application has also been made to change the corresponding zoning.
 The development was seen as very much out of place with what existed. The lands are currently designated as low density residential in the City’s Official Plan which allows for detached and semi-detached dwellings, and other forms of ground oriented housing not exceeding 25 units per hectare.
The Meed Ward campaign was about sensible, responsible development. Yards away from where she was speaking to a small, enthusiastic audience at the top of Clearview Avenue overlooking the site on which the ADI Development Group is building the Station West community that will amount to a new neighbourhood that will align with the mobility hub.
February 26th, 2019
The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (ACGO) has received an application for a retail cannabis store in Burlington at 103-4031 Fairview St.
 The 2019 budget was very much the Mayor’s production. February 27th, 2019:
The tax increase for the 2019 budget will be 2.99%. They did it. Today the Mayor got her first budget approved – and make no mistake about it – this was the Mayor’s budget. The Operations budget is set at $165,960,609.
The Fire Chief didn’t get his $50,000 drone but the Manager/Supervisor of the bylaw enforcement team did get $35,000 for a car.
There were some incredible decisions made – those people who live below the poverty line are going to be able to get bus passes that will allow them to use transit totally free of charge.
Staff had brought in a request for 3.99% – nope said this council. Make it work on 2.99% – and they did. At the end of the year there was a surplus of $900,000
February 28th, 2019
That time of year again – when hundreds of runner take to the pavement and run the Chilly Half Marathon. This time it is really going to be chilly. There were transit route disruptions on routes 3, 10 & 20.
Related news story:
January 2019 in Review
By Pepper Parr
December 27th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
We are about to enter a New Year and celebrate the last year of the second decade in this new millennium.
How did we do last year? It was a momentous year for the city. With a new city council installed the last month of 2018 we began to see how different the new council would be as we rolled through the year.
But it wasn’t all about city council.
The people of the city were much more engaged – not as fully engaged as they would like to be – they are working at upping that game.
Developments were popping up all over the place.
Let’s look at the year month by month.
January 3rd – Burlington decided to work with a Strategic Plan that had a 25 year time-frame. The practice had been to create a Plan that covered a four year time-frame. Council decided a Strategic Plan needed to be constantly revised to be relevant and opted for a 25 year Strategic Plan.
We didn’t know at the time that this would evolve into what became known as the Vision to Focus level. More on that later in the year.
January 7th – The National Homes development at 2100 Brant – just south of Havendale, howled when they learned of a kink in the appeal process that was taking place over the proposed 233 unit development that got reduced to 212 homes.
 Residents did not want to put up with the level of intensification that National Homes had in mind . They compared the 736 homes in a site to the north in a much larger site to the 233 National had in mind. Ed Door, the citizen who delegated on behalf of the community set out in considerable detail how badly the development application was managed.
 Mike ‘The Beard’ Taylor died suddenly on December 30th, 2018 January 9th -The city announced it would hold a commemorative event on January 13th to celebrate the life of Mike ‘The Beard’ Taylor who died suddenly on December 30th. Mike was a member of Walk Off the Earth a Burlington musical group that went viral with a video that established them as a band that was making a difference.
There was a huge appetite for more influence at city hall and participation at the levels where decision are made. In the past residents who have been very critical of the way they get treated at city hall, are now telling the Gazette that Staff are reaching out to them.
“I don’t seem to have to chase people to get information” said one resident. Another mentioned that she was approached by staff in the Clerk’s office and asked to take part in a committee. “I didn’t know the staffer but she seemed to know who I was” said the resident. Many people didn’t have much time for the Advisory committee process used in Burlington. “They tend to be controlled by the council member who sits in on the meeting and serves as liaison to council”, was the way one resident described them.
What we appear to be seeing at city hall is a small, subtle change.
Real estate report
When all was said and done in 2018, said a real estate agents report, sales were down 12% and inventory levels were down just over 20%. Sale prices settled at 1.9% below the average sale price in 2017. Not a bad result, given the doom and gloom we heard from many industry watchers.
Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government has announced a review of regional governments in Ontario.
Burlington is a part of the Regional government of Halton, which is made up of Burlington, Oakville, Milton and Halton Hills.
Council approves cannabis retail outlets:
They first earned the right to determine what the city’s municipal government would do – they won the election.
On December 3rd, they assumed power.
And now they are exerting that power.
Monday night, January 16th, city council listened to some people who had an amazing amount of information on just what the newest industry in Ontario is all about.
During the debate council members listened to delegations talk about what they knew about the rules and regulations that were either in place or going to be in place.
In the end, meeting as a city council, the earlier part of the evening they were meeting as a Standing Committee, the voted 5-2 to permit cannabis to be sold at commercial outlets in the city. Mayor Meed Ward, Councillors Galbraith, Kearns, Nisan, Sharman voted for the motion – Stolte and Bentivegna voted against.
 Burlington Mayor gets a province wide headline for her remarks on Ford policy – her peers begin to see Meed Ward differently. January 16th – Sixteen mayors from the GTHA region met at Toronto City Hall at the invitation of Toronto Mayor John Tory for a closed-door meeting to discuss shared issues that cross municipal boundaries such as transit, affordable housing, and climate change. The Mayors agreed that no one municipality can fully address these issues alone, and with a federal election coming up, there was an opportunity for them to speak with a united voice on behalf of their communities.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward then delivered a line that media grabbed and turned into headlines. “Instead of a hatchet, we’d like more of a handshake approach from the province.”
The rest of the province just got a look at the ‘chops’ Burlington’s Mayor has. We learned as well that Burlington is not the end of the road for this women.
Opened as the Burlington Mall the site was renamed and is now the Burlington Centre. It will take a little getting used to – but it will stick.
Burlington MPP Jane McKenna talked to staff at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) for clarification about the Mobility Hub legislation.
“The first thing I learned is that “mobility hubs” are identified by Metrolinx’s regional transportation plan, but do not have to be reflected as such in any local planning documents.
“The growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017, does not refer to mobility hubs. The City of Burlington council is free to remove these mobility hub designations from the local official plan.” Burlington might be able to remove mobility hub designations but there isn’t a hope in hades that Burlington will move away from the concept of hubs which are understood to be locations where development is increased and transportation options intensified.
The City’s Planning department is well into some deep dive research and with precincts defined and mapping work done showing where different heights and density of residential will be located.
McKenna has muddied the waters with her comments. There will be three mobility hubs; one at each of the existing GO stations.
January 21st – The Provincial Offences (POA) Courts in Burlington and Milton are getting ready to relocate to one new courthouse at 4085 Palladium Way in Burlington.
The Milton POA Court relocated its services to the Burlington POA Court on Friday, January 18, 2019. On Thursday, January 31, 2019 the Burlington POA Court and all POA court services will move to the new Halton Provincial Offences Court.
January 22nd – After years of getting to the point where there would be a Private Tree Bylaw Burlington is now ready to put at least a toe in the water of a very controversial issue: can anyone just cut down a tree on their property.
The Roseland Private Tree Bylaw Pilot comes into effect March 1. Information sessions are planned.
City tree photo
The pilot project aims to protect private trees with diameters larger than 30 cm, historic and rare tree species from damage or destruction.
The two-year pilot will conclude in March of 2021. At the end of the pilot, a report with recommendations will be presented to City Council.
January 23rd – INTEGRITY: City Council met on Monday in the Great Room at the Paletta Mansion. It was a closed session with two presentations being made: A Workshop presented by Mike Galloway, CAO, Town of Caledon, on Governance for Elected Officials and Senior Management. There was a second Workshop presented by Jeff Abrams and Janice Atwood-Petkovski, Principles of Integrity on Code of Conduct and responsibilities of the Integrity Commissioner.
The province requires all municipalities to have a Code of Conduct in Place and an Integrity Commissioner that the public can turn to should anyone feel that the elected officials and the appointed Staff are not complying with the Code of Conduct.
Marianne Meed Ward, now the Mayor, was a huge champion for a Code of Conduct – but she was never able to convince her colleagues to come up with something they couldn’t slide around. The session on Monday was the first opportunity the new Council got to see what it was that they had to live by.
Clarity asked for.
January 25th – “We are three concerned Ward 1 citizens who believe council needs to act to clarify the status of the New OP and the supremacy of the Existing Official Plan (Existing OP).”
 Greg Woodruff  Tom Muir  Jim Young The Region’s rejection of the New OP renders it null and void and, under the Planning Act, leaves the Existing OP “in Force and Effect” at present. Yet recent applications by developers for zoning or bylaw amendments to the City’s Official Plan appear to be receiving consideration under some kind of blending of both plans. This lack of clarity works very much in the developers favour.
Developers are submitting applications which, while paying lip service to the Existing OP to keep them compliant, incorporate features of the New OP in an attempt to cash in on its more liberal permitted heights.
 The site proposal from the rear which overlooks a residential community. There are many such applications in the works but one good example of this practice is the Proposed Development at 1157-1171 North Shore Bvd. The developer wants 17 stories (62.5) metres in an area where the Existing OP designates 11 Storey (Max 22 metres). Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the development, the process by which it is being pursued by both developer and city staff is not only inappropriate, it is contrary to all the reasons citizens elected a new city council and creates very dangerous precedents no matter what revision of the OP eventually reaches the books.
“At the mandatory public meeting held jointly by the developer and city planners on January 9th, these deviations from the Existing OP; the misapplication of the New OP and many other issues were raised by citizens.
“Our concerns about the legitimacy of the process were completely ignored by city planning staff whose duty, we believe should be to defend the wishes of Citizens, City Council and Halton Region, all of whom have rejected the New OP and pending a rewrite of that plan following its overwhelming rejection by voters in the October election.
If that needs to be clarified to city staff, then we urgently request that council convene to provide direction to staff, as is their prerogative, to the effect that: “The Old Official Plan remains in force and in effect as mandated by The Planning Act, and is therefore the only pertinent consideration for amendment applications until such times as A Revised Official Plan is drawn up, adopted by city council and approved by regional council.”
Grow Bold gets the boot from the Mayor
Mayor Meed Ward issued a statement this morning making it very clear what she had in mind. The Grow Bold tag line the Planning department had fallen in love with was out – and council will be looking at the “approved” Official Plan that the Regional government returned as deficient.
“Burlington residents have consistently raised concerns about over intensification and development in our City. During the 2018 election, they made their voices heard and clearly indicated the need to review the scale and intensity of planned development, especially in the new Official Plan.
“As a result, I am bringing forward a motion to re-examine the policies of the Official Plan that was adopted, though not officially approved, in April of 2018, and review matters of height and density.
“Halton Region has also recently identified areas of non-conformity, so this motion seeks to gain the time to address those issues.
“Once the Region identified areas of non-conformity, that stopped the clock on approving the new Official Plan and opened the plan up for any other matters of discussion. This allows our new city council the time to define what areas we want to study, undertake that work, consult with the community, and send back a comprehensive plan. We expect that plan to truly reflect the needs, best interests and vision of the community and its elected council.
“Further, we will immediately discontinue use of the “Grow Bold” term and related branding to ensure we are absolutely clear on our direction.
 January 29th – Developer gets rough ride over 29 storey structure. A proposal for a 29 storey development on Lakeshore at Pearl got a cold reception when the developer suggested that the 26 storey building approved next door and others on Brant St. serve as a precedent. It was pointed out from the floor that the 26 storeys was imposed by the OMB and never actually approved.
It was obvious from the presentation, and introduction by City planning Staff, that the Official Plan rejected by the region and under review by city council, is still being referred to by both the developer and city planning staff. Assurances that Lakeshore would not be narrowed during construction were not forthcoming. Many of the city planning and developers comments were met with laughter or anger.
Asked if they really think about the impact on people or how disrespectful of citizens and council their proposal to build a 29-storey building in a 4 storey zone is, the developer’s representatives declined to reply. This brought derisive applause from those present. When one attendee asked for a show of hands from the audience there was not one hand raised in favour.
January 30th – Red tape + Red carpet
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward announced plans to launch and lead a Red Tape Red Carpet task force at this morning’s State of the City address at the Burlington Convention Centre and had a media release out before people got back to their desks.
Younger set meeting
In front of a sell-out crowd the Mayor spoke about her plan to help eliminate the red tape and bureaucratic delays that Burlington businesses have faced in their pursuit of growth throughout the city.
The Task Force will begin with a broad meeting that is open to the public to raise specific issues and concerns on topics ranging from permits, approvals, and other obstacles. A smaller task force of stakeholders will then be identified to come up with actionable recommendations that will be brought to council and shared with the Province by summer.
Dates and details will be announced shortly, and the Mayor suggested that anyone interested in participating at the task force level can reach out to her via email at mayor@burlington.ca.
Co-chairing the task force with Mayor Meed Ward will be Kelvin Galbraith, Ward 1 Councillor.
Budget: Staff came forward with a 3.99% tax increase fr the year The Mayor had a different number in mind and, despite putting millions intro the LaSalle Park Marina, council was able to bring in a budget increase of 2.99% – they had to raid some of the reserve accounts to do it.
January 30th – State of the city
During her State of the City address on Monday Meed Ward said her themes during her term of office would be: Partnerships, change and openness.
The business community got their first look at the women who was going to direct the direction the city grew in and the quality of life its citizens would enjoy. She also put out the words: – ‘four to eight storeys is more than enough for the downtown core’, that had the development community in a lather.
January was a full month – February was even fuller.
By Staff
December 23rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton District School Board is hosting several Pathways Information Evenings in January 2020 to allow Grade 7 – 12 students and their families to explore program opportunities offered at high schools in Halton.
The Board offers more than 80 regional Pathways Programs designed to meet individual needs and help students succeed after high school, whether they are pursuing a pathway toward apprenticeship, college, community, university or the workplace. The Information Evenings help students to be better prepared for a rapidly changing world while receiving a relevant and engaging education.
All are welcome to attend and registration is not required.
The meetings will be held at the following locations from 6 – 8 p.m.:
Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2020: Georgetown District High School, 70 Guelph Street, Georgetown
Thursday, Jan. 16, 2020: Craig Kielburger Secondary School, 1151 Ferguson Drive, Milton
Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2020: Garth Webb Secondary School, 2820 Westoak Trails, Oakville
Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2020: M.M. Robinson High School, 2425 Upper Middle Road, Burlington
Pathways Programs include the Specialist High Skills Major programs, Ontario Youth Apprenticeship programs, Specialty School to Career programs, the Employability Skills Certificate program, Dual Credit college programs, Grade 8 – 9 Transition programs, and more.
Agenda for Pathways Information Evenings:
6 – 6:30 p.m. – Pathways displays and meet the Pathways Program teachers
6:30 – 7 p.m. – Pathways presentation (programs and planning for post-secondary)
7 – 8 p.m. – Teacher displays and elementary transition to high school workshop
 High school show that they have been able to do with robotics. The piece of business was built to be able to , find, pick up and throw a basketball. The Halton District School Board recently held a Find the Fit event at the Mattamy Velodrome in Milton where more than 1500 students from within the Region spent two hours talking to people from institutions offering different academic programs and getting a sense of what was out there in terms of post high school programs.
 Superintendent of Education Julie Hunt Gibbons Superintendent of Education Julie Hunt Gibbons is responsible for for Secondary curriculum and school program, Student success and Pathways destinations, Elementary schools: Brookdale, Eastview, Gladys Speers, Oakwood, Pine Grove, WH Morden and TA Blakelock High School.
She said that preparing students for high school is a much different challenge than it was a decade ago. The world these students are going to work within is a lot more complex and ever changing than anything their parents took part in.
Many of the jobs that exist today will not exist when they graduate from high school – education for them is going to be a lifelong task.
 By Staff
December 20th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
 Taxes to keep the city operating. City hall released the following:
City tax increase of 3.99%
The Gazette reported that yesterday.
The approved tax increase of 3.99% includes:
Investments to maintain City services
1.33% to ensure the continued delivery of high-quality services
Investments in infrastructure renewal
1.25% dedicated to the renewal of existing city infrastructure.
Major capital projects in 2020 include:
• Revitalization of the Skyway Community Recreation Complex
• Resurfacing of New Street, between Walkers Line and Burloak Drive
• Repair and renewal of assets at numerous community centres and pool facilities
• Minor reconstruction of Canterbury Drive.
Investments to address climate change impacts
0.82% dedicated to assets and initiatives that support sustainable infrastructure and a resilient environment, including:
 Another Handi-van added to the fleet • Four new conventional buses and eight additional drivers, plus a new specialized transit vehicle (Handi-Van) and driver
• Free transit for children age 12 and under
• New electric vehicle charging stations at City facilities such as arenas and community centres
• A new private tree bylaw program
• Updates to the Urban Forestry Management Plan and a new tree planting initiative
• Funding to complete a Climate Change Adaptation Plan, support for the Bay Area Climate Change Partnership, and resources to implement the Climate Action Plan.
Investments to address risk management and other corporate priorities
0.59% dedicated to enhancing customer service and supporting the implementation of Burlington City Council’s four-year work plan, Vision to Focus, including:
 Staffing needed for the re-vitalized Museum. • Enhanced parks and winter maintenance operations, including sidewalk snow removal
• Four years of the Home Fire Safety program
• Improvements to cyber security resilience
• Temporary staffing to operate the newly expanded Joseph Brant Museum
• Programming at the Burlington Performing Arts Centre that celebrates all cultures.
Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said: “Council and our community should be proud of this budget that focuses on transit, trees, and green infrastructure, among other needs. We had to whittle down requests from Council that would have put us at a 7.5% city-tax increase if they had all been approved. We aimed for enhancing services, renewing aging infrastructure and responding to the needs of a growing community, while keeping your pocketbooks in mind. We made some tough, but strategic decisions for the 2020 budget, and the priorities reflect those of our community.”
Joan Ford, Chief Financial Officer added that: “The 2020 budget focuses on providing strategic investments aligned to the City’s four-year work plan, Vision to Focus, and Burlington’s 25-year Strategic Plan. At the same time, it provides investments to ensure the continued delivery of high-quality services, renewal of Burlington’s aging infrastructure, and funding for new community programs and initiatives.”
The total annual increase to property taxes for a home assessed at $500,000 is $96.70.
 By Ray Rivers
December 19th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
“President Donald Trump, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and others who oppose action to address human-induced climate change should be held accountable for climate crimes against humanity.” (Jeffrey David Sachs- special adviser to the UN)
 He had no idea what he was doing to his body. Have we learned anything from the tobacco companies? For decades they understood the consequences of smoking and second hand smoke. But rather than changing their product, or at a minimum, informing the public, they lied – hiding the truth about the dangers, sowing confusion and misleading the public about the health hazard of their products. It was deliberate and it was manslaughter – a crime against humanity.
So now we find out that the oil companies did the same thing. Their research as far back as the fifties pointed to today’s evolving climate change. And they too established a program of disinformation and outright lies, enabling climate deniers like GW Bush and Stephen Harper to employ the uncertainty they created as an excuse to resist climate action.
 Greta Thunberg Alberta’s latest enabler Jason Kenney has just opened his energy war room, furthering the notion that Alberta is under attack by the environmentalists. And he’s poured $30 million to make himself battle ready for the fight to the finish against the 16 year young Greta Thunberg and those other fearsome greenies. And the chest pounding, hype and propaganda are working.
Albertans were motivated to donate more than anyone else in the last federal election, hoping to get the pro-oil Conservatives elected. And now Kenney’s blind defence of big oil has even spilled over into the classroom. Parents at one Alberta school have threatened a teacher not to use a balanced approach, pros and cons, when it comes to teaching about the oil sands. According to the oil zealots there can be no discussion of a downside to Alberta’s biggest industry.
A few days ago Mr. Kenney rode into Ottawa to shake hands with Mr. Trudeau and pretend he wanted to mend fences, offering him one heck of a Faustian bargain. Green light another monster oil sands project and reap some kind of political peace in exchange. It was an offer he thought Trudeau couldn’t refuse. But chances are pretty good he will.
The Teck Resources proposed Frontier mine oil sands project would convert 24,000 hectares of mostly northern Alberta wetland into two massive open mine pits, a bitumen processing plant and a tailing pond for the toxic waste residue. And it would likely need another pipeline to move the estimated 260,000 barrels of bitumen a day the project will produce.
Four million tonnes of greenhouse gases (GHG) a year will be pumped into the atmosphere every year for the next 41 years. The project would last over a decade beyond the PM’s commitment to achieve net zero emissions. And that does not account for the GHG emissions resulting from burning all that oil.
 Kenney did eventually shake the Prime Ministers hand. And is Kenney serious? How would Trudeau square approving this massive carbon emitting project with his 2030 emissions target. He would lose any credibility he has on the climate change file and with it the support of the third parties, whose support he is counting on for this current mandate. Mr. Kenney may not be the devil but he came to Ottawa to steal Justin’s soul and then to damn the rest of us to an ever faster and more aggressive global warming.
Look at Australia which has just experienced its hottest day ever amid the worst bush fires in the nation’s history. The massive area of scorched earth will take decades before it can be rehabilitated, its wine industry has been dealt a blow and a toxic cloud has blanketed its largest city and drifted across the Tasman Sea as far as New Zealand. The fires have emitted half of the annual GHG national contribution of carbon, and they are still burning.
Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal, mainly to Asia. Much like Canada it has an obscene carbon footprint, not even counting the emissions from the coal it exports. It once dabbled with a carbon tax, but like we did in Ontario the Aussies booted out their environmentally conscious government for one led by a series of right wing climate action deniers.
And speaking of Ontario, premier Doug Ford is as busy as ever eliminating every single climate change mitigation program the previous government had initiated – as if somehow the climate is a partisan issue. And the provincial auditor general has warned that Ford will not come anywhere near the provincial 2030 emission reduction target. But nobody, including his environment minister, expects him to, anyway.
 He means every word in the sign before him – unfortunately. So far he has cancelled the provincial cap and trade carbon pricing system, eliminated rebates for home energy conservation and electric vehicle (EV) purchases, cancelled plans for high speed rail travel, ended the provincial EV charging station program and the requirement for charging to be available in new housing. He has shut down almost 800 renewable energy projects, is fighting the federal carbon tax up to the Supreme Court, and has just canceled Hamilton’s light rail transit system.
Transitioning to a zero carbon society is unlikely to be accomplished at zero cost. But as we have already seen, the consequences of climate change will be much more costly. Just ask the Australians. And the fact is that the cost for many of the transitional changes can be phased in as existing infrastructure gets replaced. Or the costs can be redistributed and shared, like the carbon tax, to avoid major impacts for those in need.
Pennywise and pound foolish are those who would avoid transitioning as quickly as possible to a lower carbon footprint. Financial debt can be paid off, but restoring the earth’s climate and the life it supports, once we have passed a tipping point will be impossible. Which do we think future generations would object to the most? And who do you think they will blame for these climate crimes against humanity?
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. He developed the current policy process for the Ontario Liberal Party.
Background links:
Crimes Against Humanity – Tobacco Crimes – COP 25 Madrid –
Australia – Alberta Political Donations – Teacher Threatened –
Kenney – Natural Gas – Oil Sands – Alberta War Room –
Oil Deception – More Australia – Hamilton –
 By Pepper Parr
December 16th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
We were advised by the Office of the Mayor this afternoon that “The vehicle the Mayor uses is an electric plug-in. Our apologies for any embarrassment we might have caused her Worship.
The climate has dominated the 2020 budget deliberations. Trying to get electric buses as soon as possible, pushing a private tree by law onto the books, setting aside funds to work on the Climate Action Plan, buying level two charging stations that would be set up at community centres.
 If you get to the Locust Street parking garage early enough you can park your electric car and charge it at the same time. But get there early – they get taken up quickly. Getting people out of their cars and onto buses by making it free for those under twelve, putting together a deal with the school boards that will have high school students riding a bus to school. During the summer there was a program that had seniors using transit free during the off peak hours.
Progress – Mayor Meed Ward would like to make transit free for everyone and if the buses they ride were all electric she would be ecstatic.
But there is a fly in this ointment; none one of the city councilors drives an electric vehicle.
 Burlington Hydro leased an electric BMW and made it available to members of the 2014-18 city council and covered the cost of a charging station outside city hall to introduce the elected to electric vehicles. Nothing happened. One reported that he drives his boys to school in his pickup truck and admitted that he found himself following the school bus in his pick-up truck explaining that the school bus didn’t come close enough to his home to make it convenient.
That is not exactly walking the talk.
The Mayor is provided a car as part of her benefit package – to the best of our knowledge it is not an electric car. (See correction at the top of this story) To her credit to the Mayor walks to city hall when she doesn’t have to travel – which isn’t very often.
|
|
By Pepper Parr
