 By Staff
April 9th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
There were few people lining up to tell city council how much they liked the building that is to go up across the street from city hall and rise to 23 stories. City council approved the Staff recommendation on a 5-2 vote; ECoB (Engaged Citizens of Burlington) almost immediately said they ddn’t like the idea and the Mayor nodded in agreement – his was one of the two votes against the project.
No word from ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward but expect her to have some choice words for the Section 37 agreement the city arrived at with Carriage Gate the developer of the building that has yet to be given a name.
ECoB at one point was standing at the counter in the Clerk’s office panting to file an OMB appeal but were told they couldn’t do so until the file was complete – meaning that the city had to agree on a Section 37 – which is a process whereby the citizens get some benefit for the extra height and density a development gets that is above and beyond whatever the site had in terms of zoning.
The site for Carriage Gate is comprised of a number of properties that were assembled, each having slightly different zoning.
No word yet on what, if anything, ECoB plans to do with that plan to appeal the decision the city made.
Tom Muir, let the city knows where he stands: ” unacceptable sweetening of an already sweet deal for the developer.” Muir has delegated to city council and has provided the Gazette with a copy of the delegation that will get put into the record of the April 10th meeting.
To: Burlington Planning and Development Committee
From: Tom Muir, Resident
Subject: Written delegation to April 10/18 P&D meeting item of Section 37 staff report for 421 Brant St
Dear Councilors;
I am unable to delegate personally to this item, so I am sending this written delegation of my comments for the record of the proceedings.
To simplify my comments I will target them item by item by following a copy of the staff report text that is pertinent.
1. Regarding; “Specifically, the City “may encourage the use of community benefits provisions with regard to the following matters:””
The words of describing a total voluntary nature of the action by the City, and developer, i.e, “The City may encourage the use of …”,makes me wonder if the staff and Council thinks that city residents are completely stupid, and fools to be bilked.
 Building without a name – just a street address. “May encourage” is a double form of contingency that means the City doesn’t have to do anything at all to secure anything at all, but maybe just think about trying to get the developer to deliver something, and this can be enough.
Given the track record of this very same developer in refusing to deliver on a previous Section 37 agreement on the Carriage Gate development, why on earth would the City agree to such terms and a course of action?
Who benefits from this except the developer, and there is no representation of city residents that I can see.
It’s a ridiculous on its face insult to the residents of this City. This is not a Section 37 Community Benefits agreement, but a very bad for residents agreement, presented as such. It is completely unacceptable.
2. Regarding, (i) “Provision of a wide range of housing types including special needs, assisted, or
other low-income housing.”
• To assist in the pursuit of long-term affordable housing, the Developer agree to a discount of $300,000 to be used against the purchase price of up to 10 dwelling units within the subject development, or in the event that a purchase(s) is/are not to occur within the subject development, the Developer agrees to provide the City with a cash contribution of $300,000 prior to condominium registration, to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building.
This idea is acceptable as long as there are tight provisions to ensure that the units are sold to those demonstrating as needing of affordable housing, and this should be overseen by public agencies involved in such activities.
Provisions must be made to ensure the units are not sold and then appear back in the free market for resale at market prices.
3.Regarding, (iv) “improved access to public transit or implementation of a Travel Demand
Management Plan.”
• The Developer agrees to provide one (1) publicly accessible car share parking space (indirect community benefit assessed at $50,000) and contribute to the City’s emerging car-share network by accommodating a carshare vehicle for a minimum of two years starting from the first occupancy (indirect community benefit assessed at $50,000), or equivalent, to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation; and (v) “provision of public areas, crosswalks, and walkways, and connections to external walkways/trail systems.”
• The Developer agrees to provide a direct community benefit of a $50,000 contribution towards the future expansion of Civic Square, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Capital Works; and
• The Developer agrees to provide public access by way of an easement to be registered on title for lands located at the northeast corner of Brant Street and James Streets, the minimum dimensions of which are in the form of a triangle measured at 16m by 16m (128m2)(an indirect community benefit assessed at
$75,000), to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Capital Works; and (vi) “provision of public parking.”
All of this is acceptable to me, although I fail to see how this is not part of the negotiated agreement for the added height and density permitted.
As well, I am not sure about the adequacy of the amounts provided, and I see no transparent explanation of how any of these terms were rationalized and arrived at. I would like to see this rationalization.
 The structure will dwarf city hall. 4. Regarding, • The Developer agrees to provide eight (8) visitor parking spaces (indirect community benefit accessed at $400,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation;
This is an unacceptable sweetening of an already sweet deal for the developer. I can’t imagine how a negotiation for 23 stories in an 8 to 12 story existing permission (which is also in doubt of validity) can justify no or inadequate provision for visitor parking. And even more so, when parking was a top public concern expressed in the review process.
In my view, this is unjustified to provide this as a benefit to the public when it is really the developer that is benefiting.
5. Regarding, (ix) “protection or enhancement of significant views” • The Developer agrees, and it is enshrined within the amending zoning by-law, that increased building setbacks, including widened sidewalks on Brant Street, James Street, and John Street, and view corridors on Brant Street and Page 5 of Report PB-33-18 – James Street to City Hall and the Cenotaph (indirect community benefit accessed at $250,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building; and (x) “provision of affordable housing, beyond the basic Provincial requirements;” • See (i) above. (xi) “provision of public art”
• The Developer agrees to provide a direct community benefit of $150,000 towards the public art reserve fund to be used within the publicly accessibly privately owned easement area referred to in subsection (v) and/or in the future Civic Square expansion area, to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building; and (xii) “provision of green technology and sustainable architecture”
The Developer agrees to implement green technology and sustainable architecture elements into the subject property in accordance with either LEED certification standards and/or compliance with the City’s Sustainable Building and Development guidelines (indirect community benefit accessed at $300,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building; and (xiii) “provision of streetscape improvements in accordance with Council approved design guidelines”
• The Developer agrees to implement City of Burlington Streetscape Guidelines Standards within the Brant Street, James Street, and John Street public realm areas, including the expanded building setback areas at-grade and the publicly accessible open space easement area outlined in (v) above (an indirect community benefit accessed at $150,000), to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building.
Before enacting the amending zoning by-law, the applicant will be required to execute an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to the satisfaction of the Director of City Building and the City Solicitor, and that such agreement be registered on title to the lands in a manner satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to secure said benefits.
The provisions for community benefits are also included in the zoning by-law.
These features are all acceptable to me, but I have no basis to see on how these were negotiated and agreed to. I also have no rationalization on the values of these, and/or the adequacy of them.
I also have no rationalization of why these features are considered for Section 37, and not a proper included part of the negotiated and Council approved development for the project.
6. Overall, my view is this, and I ask the planners and group that determined these Section 37 “Benefits” for the additional information describing how the “Benefits” are calculated, with transparency.
The fact is it’s cashing in on the City ability to create money with the OP and Zoning permissions.The Benefits should not all go to the developers. – there needs to be a fair share.
Don’t ever think only central banks can create money out of nothing but air (height and density rights written on paper).
This is a powerful wealth creation tool that most people don’t think about really until times like now when the overall “air parcel” bits and pieces, sprinkled all over the place, that is driving the money value, gets too big not to notice.
Just imagine – creating 26 floors of nominal residential space, by converting zero floors of empty space (one can imagine converting 2 or 4 floors) of commercial/retail space with half the unit value, is a mighty injection of wealth created out of practically or comparatively nothing.
The per unit land values, and associated rents, of course inflate in some multiple of proportion of the expected gross return of the build.
I think that the the city planners and someone who works for the City who is in in charge of keeping track of these values for City purposes, can do this, and should be directed to do by Council or the managers. it’s additional information that is needed for financially prudent financial decision-making by Council.
And of course, you have to add in all the negative costs and crap and inflation and lost existing business income that goes along with this set of tear-downs, that gets dumped on residents and businessmen, for them to bear.
So, the city ought to cash in on what it creates, since they control it and it is the city ownership of, and responsibility for, the Plan. It needs a very close look.
If Section 37 benefits are to be calculated, then these are the land value gains, and residents costs, that should determine what these are. I would suggest that the gains as described above be shared 50/50. Those referred to above can provide estimates of these values.
And this is another reason why the city must not give away all the heights to developers “by right”, where there are no Section 37 benefits allowed.
We now know where one citizen stands.
 Tom Muir is a retired federal civil servant who lives in Aldershot and delegates before city council frequently.
Related news stories:
Public involvement in determining Section 37 benefits.
Muir on the city manager’s approach to negotiating.
 By Staff
April 5th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The announcement of an 18 storey structure at the intersection of James and Martha is one more addition to the very significant changes that are taking place in the city.
At a recent community meeting – a number of questions were asked – the answers were insightful – even if they are not what people want to hear.
 Burlington’s former Director of Planning Bruce Krushelnicki Burlington’s former Director of Planning Bruce Krushelnicki was on Cogeco’s TV with moderator Mark Carr who asked Krushelnicki just how and why all this intensification is taking place. Krushelnicki, who was always very good at explaining just what planning issues are all about, gave interesting answers. His comments are short – 4 minutes; well worth listening to.
Watch the video CLICK HERE
The following comes to you via information originally published by ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward
1. How is the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), different from the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT)?
A key difference is that the OMB bases decisions on what is good planning whereas the LPAT is more restrictive—they will ask if the development is conforming to provincial and regional plans.
 Proposal is for an 18 storey building with 153 units. 2. What is happening to the creek?
Realignment of the channel is proposed. Some vegetation will be cut out to create better flow condition. A flood analysis has been done, and flood elevation will be reduced.
3. Will pumping be required for the underground parking?
There will be pumping required.
4. Are you putting cement in creek?
A retaining wall will be right at the creek.
5. What is the design factor for the flood plain?
The City’s Capital Works department will be looking at both regional and 100-year policies. Site engineering staff will be looking at technical studies to ensure there are no adverse impacts to the creek.
 An unhappy transit customer talking to the Mayor and Director of Transportation at a Bfast Forum. 6. Many residents expressed concern that traffic will be worse in the local neighbourhood.
City staff stated that they will ensure that traffic is within acceptable levels by conducting traffic forecasts and redistributing traffic. Staff will look at existing traffic patterns.
The forthcoming Transportation Plan has an emphasis on moving people, not cars… Staff are not expecting that every trip is going to be made by car and believe that people travel at different times during the day.
7. What magnitude of change are we going to see in traffic volumes? Will neighbouring developments be considered in forecast?
Anticipating 40 trips in a peak hour. Staff will be layering every development within proximity.
8. Why are we amending official plan, without transportation plan?
9. Multiple residents are concerned that this development is the beginning of many more like it, and we do not have the infrastructure and roads to support the volume.
Staff will not be widening roads, instead they are looking into transit, and moving people in a sustainable way. Staff are in early stages of reviewing transportation and traffic.
10. Who is going to pay for the sewage and transportation upgrades that will be required due to the increased usage that the development will bring?
Halton Region will determine if there is capacity for our sewage system. The developer pays upfront, and in long-term residents pay through taxes.
11. Would Mattamy have been interested in the site if they could have only gone to 11-storeys?
No, due to the cost to develop site.
12. By the time we get to the site plan phase, the applicant will have already been granted high density.
13. What allowances have you made for visitor parking?
31 parking spaces will be provided on first level.
14. We all chose to live here because it’s not downtown Toronto (congestion). How will you ensure pedestrian safety?
Applicant hasn’t gotten to that stage yet.
15. What is the estimated build time? What street will you be using for staging?
2 years for construction…. doesn’t have answers for staging area yet.
16. Is there going to be a drop off area at the entrance of the building? Resident recommends roundabout at corner of Martha and James.
There will potentially be 2 or 3 spaces at the front of the building for drop-offs.
17. Can City ask applicant to also put together an 11-storey application to compare to the current application in real time?
Would be expensive for developer.
18. Can the developer explain how the development fits with the character of the neighbourhood of 1 to 3-storey buildings?
Downtown is a mobility hub and what you see today is not what you’re going to see in the future. The character is shifting and downtown is going to change.
19. What is price point of units? Will there be affordable housing?
Mattamy doesn’t have answers at this point…application is in early stages.
There were a lot of ‘pig in a poke’ answers given at that meeting. Exactly what does: “Staff are looking into transit, and moving people in a sustainable way.”, mean? You may not want to know.
 Survey will close April 6th. Takes two minutes to complete. When you hear what Krushelnicki had to say on Cogeco TY (link to that conversation is above) you will begin to understand why Burlington is going through the changes ahead of the city.
 By Pepper Parr
April 3rd, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Transit is an issue that Burlington city council has difficulty with. It wasn’t always that way. Doug Brown, the best informed Burlington citizen when it comes to transit, will tell you of the time that bus service to the one GO station Burlington had was free. It was something city hall bragged about. It was so popular that the city eventually put a price on the service and that changed the usage.
 Doug Brown, one of the Bfast founders is getting ready for the 4th Annual Transit Forum. If you get Doug going on transit, and that isn’t very hard to do, he will tell you of the days when the city’s transit service was something to be proud of.
Gary Scobie is another Burlington resident who, not unlike Doug Brown, does his homework and asks questions and digs away until he gets answers,
Scobie delegated to city Council in March to talk about transit the plans to turn a very small parking lot between Brant and John Street that has a small transit terminal siting at the edge of the lot that has been under a construction upgrade doe a number of months.
The parking lot will have fewer spaces than it had previously and it will be one of the links in what the city will come to know as the Elgin promenade that will cut right across the city and allow people to walk or ride a bike on a safe path that will be illuminated and have plenty of places where you can sit and just relax.
That promenade and transit use and the mobility hubs the city is working on as the place in the city where development is expected to take place all come together.
The city Council meeting last March was the occasion where Scobie set out to explain to the city that a mistake had been made by the province and that the city was making a decision based on the mistake. He wanted city Council to see the error.
Scobie said:
I live in Ward 3 and my Burlington includes the downtown.
I did some further research on the Downtown Mobility Hub and found out this mobility hub is based on a clerical error. Well, I may be exaggerating a bit. If you check out the screen image of the Metrolinx December 2015 Profile, note that the second paragraph begins “Downtown Burlington is identified as an Anchor Hub in the GTHA and includes the Burlington GO Station on the Lakeshore West Line.
 Gary Scobie That last phrase confused and disturbed me. How could one Mobility Hub (a junior partner Anchor Hub) include another Mobility Hub (the Burlington GO Station) that is over 2 kilometres away?
Their 800 metre catchment areas don’t even touch. I could find no other pair of Metrolinx Mobility Hubs that are close to each other in municipalities outside Toronto (ie. Hamilton, Newmarket and Mississauga) that claimed one Mobility Hub included the other one of the pair.
I contacted Metrolinx and asked “Is this a mistake?” My contact felt it must be and someone must have accidentally done a cut-and-paste error and inserted it by mistake over two years ago. Funny, no one caught it until I mentioned it. Was it a mistake, or done with some purpose in mind? The phrase did not appear in the 2012 version of the Profile.
It took about three weeks for a full Metrolinx investigation to report back to me that yes indeed it was a mistake, but that it shouldn’t change the Mobility Hub’s legitimacy.
I beg to differ – our Downtown Mobility Hub does not have Rapid transit and barely integrates with Regional Express Rail. The Bus Kiosk on John Street can barely hold 20 people, let alone an actual bus. Attaching the GO Station to it might have given it, in some eyes, the only chance at legitimacy it could ever have.
A week ago, I requested that Metrolinx do three things:
1. Notify the City that no, the Downtown Anchor Mobility Hub does not include the GO Station,
2. Remove the offending text from the 2015 Profile and
3. Make sure it doesn’t reappear in the 2018 version coming out soon.
No response yet, but I understand these things take time. I’ll wait patiently.
 This site rendering of the upgrade being done to the downtown parking lot between Brant and John Streets tells a lot more than you might expect. Running through the middle is part of the Elgin promenade pathway – one of the smarter things the city has done I am still waiting in anticipation to see the coming transit plan that will have to show a dedicated light rail transit line going up John Street and then bulldozed through residential neighbourhoods to the GO Station, or else the subway that will take the same route underground. Nothing short of this will legitimize the Downtown Mobility Hub.
The Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations that Council accepted in 2006 are now leading to uncontrollable intensification and height in the downtown. They contain no height limits. The OMB acceptance of the 26 storey condo at 374 Martha Street has set a precedent that will only be used again and again by developers to gain further height along Lakeshore Road and up Brant and adjacent streets.
Council’s enthusiastic acceptance of a 23 storey condo across from our City Hall, beyond its own planned height, leaves us embarrassingly with little chance of appeal of the OMB decision.
The developers’ lawyers know this and so should we. We have no case under these current designations.
 Is it a parking lot that has been given an upgrade or is it an anchor that is part of a Mobility Hub? Our only option now to exert any future control of height and density downtown is to ask the Province to remove these designations from the downtown and place them at the three GO Stations, living up to our commitment for 2031 and coming 2041 growth targets.
Last time I made this request, I was met with stony silence. One of you on Council must bring back Councillor Meed Ward’s motion to save our downtown, not from gentle change, but from this massive change that is coming.
 The readership survey will close April 6th The practice at city Council is for a delegator to stay at the podium to answer questions that any Councillor might have. Scobie has done this before and in the past he has given the members of Council a good run for their money.
There were questions – one from Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward and two from Ward 4 Councillor Jack Dennison. Scobie added in a comment he made several days after his delegation that his “new information was not what the broad Council wanted to hear. They embrace the over-intensification of the downtown instead of questioning it. They don’t want to hear of getting us out from under the Province’s mandate. It remains their best and only excuse.”
Gary Scobie and Doug Brown are long time residents of Burlington who have been tireless advocates for sensible growth and a city council that hears what the voters have to say.
By Staff
March 20th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The easiest way to get this story out is to report that after deciding to close two of Burlington’s seven high schools the trustees will decide on Wednesday if they want to go forward with the building of a new administrative building at a cost of $23 million plus some ongoing financing that will have to be taken on.
The recommendation the trustees are going to debate is:
Be it resolved that the Halton District School Board direct the Director of Education to initiate the construction of a new administrative building on the J.W. Singleton Education Centre property, pending Ministry approval.
 Director of Education Stuart Miller has put forward a staff recommendation to construct a new Board administration building. In a report to the trustees Director of Education Stuart Miller set out the conclusion that he and his Superintendents arrive at goes like this:
The Halton District School Board is the largest single employer in the entire Halton region. With more than 8000 full and part time employees serving 65,000 students and their families, it is clear the Halton District School Board is a very significant part of the Region of Halton. Moreover, dozens of Halton-based businesses employing a multitude of Halton residents do business with and provide services to the Board, its students and its staff. With a budget of more than $760 million, it is also apparent the Board and its employees contribute greatly to the local economy.
 If the trustees follow the staff recommendation Burlington will see a new multi storey structure at the north west intersection of Upper Middle Road and Guelph Line. The staff who currently work in the J.W. Singleton Education Centre, New Street Education Centre and the Milton Learning Centre are vital to the work of the schools. Halton students and graduates are served very well by their teachers, educational assistants, school administrators and all school- based support staff. Indeed, Halton District School Board students perform consistently at or near the top when compared to other boards across the province.
This cannot occur without the support of those who work in the various Board offices. Vital operations such as information technology, payroll, human resources, purchasing, facility services, library services, academic consulting, student services (special education), financial services, senior management and the functions of the Board of Trustees all occur centrally. Each of these services, and more, provide essential support for both the achievement and well-being of the Halton District School Board’s students. The role of all central support staff is crucial to the continued success of all Halton District School Board students.
 Photographs of current administrative offices at the Singleton Centre on Guelph Line. The current facilities that accommodate these staff are inadequate. There is insufficient space and the condition of the current buildings are found wanting. To meet the current needs, including AODA compliance, would require a significant investment of millions of dollars. In addition, retrofitting or renovations would result in the displacement of hundreds of personnel and several school operations.
The need for an administrative centre that provides a modern, efficient building that is fully accessible and adaptable to future needs, will have a positive impact on professional relationships, operations and ultimately student learning and well-being.
In the fall of 2017 the Halton Regional Police Services moved into a new headquarters on North Service Road. The building itself cost $54 million and was built on Region-owned land. This new headquarters will serve the police services and ultimately the citizens of Halton well into the future.
A new Halton District School Board education centre will serve the same purpose for the tens of thousands of students we serve, well into the future.
 New Regional Police HQ – due to be opened in the very near future. Like the Halton Regional Police Services headquarters, which was situated on regional land, the new HDSB administrative centre would be placed on Board property. This will result in a savings of approximately $5.6 to $8.8 million dollars, as land would not have to be purchased. It is also more efficient and would allow the project to be started and completed in a shorter time period.
It is for these reasons staff are recommending a new education centre be constructed on the site of the current administrative centre, subject to the required approvals.
How did the Board get to this point and have you heard anything about it from your school board trustee?
The Halton District School Board has grown to 65,000 students, an increase of 35% in student population during the past 10 years. This has resulted in a corresponding increase in staff across the system. There are currently 388 staff assigned to both the J.W. Singleton Centre and New Street Education Centre. This number has increased during the years and will continue to increase, as enrolment grows, in order to provide support and oversight to ensure schools operate effectively.
Because of this growth, staff have been engaged in a study of accommodation needs of central administrative Board staff.
 Architects schematic of what would go where in a new School Board administrative building. A February 4, 2015 initiated a review to determine if the Board offices are adequate to carry out the current and future functions of the Board. This report identified Snyder and Associates Inc. as the consultant to lead this study. Two phases were outlined. Phase one was a comprehensive needs assessment followed by phase two which provided options for consideration to address the needs identified in phase one.
A report to the Board in June 24, 2015 outlined the results of phase one, confirming that the current administrative spaces are inadequate to accommodate the current and growing needs of central staff and the functions they perform.
The second phase was a February 17, 2017 report that highlighted ideal proximity of departments for optimal synergies and the importance of centralizing all administrative functions of the Board at one site, ideally geographically central in the Board. The report confirmed the current practice of accommodating staff through reorganization and/or minor modifications/ renovations of current space is not a long term solution. Spaces are cramped, lacking privacy, meeting space is inappropriate, building systems are outdated and accessibility remains an issue.
The report identified the need for a facility that:
• is flexible and adaptable to future needs
• encourages collaboration and innovation
• provides a safe and inclusive environment
• is fully accessible for staff and the public
• enhances employee well-being to improve employee performance
• enhances community and board wide engagement
The report also outlined general specifications including square footage, cost and the number of staff to be accommodated.
An October 16, 2016 to the reported staff had been in contact with municipalities and a joint facility was not a likely option. Staff had also investigated available vacant land geographically central to the Board and determined there is no readily available vacant land.
The facility would require approximately eight acres of land. The report also outlined possible concept plans for two currently owned administrative centre lands: Gary Allan High School/New Street Education Centre and M.M. Robinson/J.W. Singleton Centre.
E.C. Drury Campus
During the course of the past 14 months, staff have investigated the potential use of the E.C. Drury site. This site is geographically located centrally within the Board which has some obvious advantages. The E.C. Drury site, however, is owned and operated by Provincial Schools. This is a complicating factor and to date staff have not been able to engage in the necessary discussions with the Province (Infrastructure Ontario) that would result in this piece of property being considered a viable option. Any further discussions would likely be long and arduous making this option less than ideal.
Land Availability
The consultants have suggested for a new location, eight acres would be sufficient to accommodate a new administration building. This site size would allow for unknowns such as site configuration, setbacks, easements, and future expansion. The Planning Department, supported by consultants Cushman & Wakefield, has confirmed there is currently very little available land central to the Board, including north Oakville or Milton that would meet the size and configuration requirements of a Board administrative office.
Potential Costs
Building a new facility would cost approximately $32 million (tender portion). The Ministry does not fund new administrative centres nor the acquisition of land for a new administrative facility. The Board must finance the construction and, if desired, land acquisition. The acquisition of property for school sites in North Oakville and Milton range in the $1.4 to $2.0 million per acre range. More specific to the Board’s needs for office/employment land, values in north Oakville or Milton are between $700,000 and $1,100,000 per acre, making the cost to purchase the land alone to be approximately $5.6-$8.8 million.
All options presented to the Board will result in a requirement to finance the construction of the new facility. In recognition that funds required to construct a facility would take several years to compile, the following recommendations to allocate funds to the Future Administrative Facility have been approved:
Allocation from Year-end Surplus:
December 2013) $ 1,125,291
November 2015) $2,500,000 Transfers within Accumulated Surplus:
November 2016) $8,919,579
Total $12,544,870
November 2016) $11,100,000
Total Funds Available for Future Administrative Facility $ 23,644,870
The balance of funds required to construct the new administrative facility would be secured through long-term financing. The principal and interest payments would be budgeted through the Board administration and governance funding envelope.
Ontario Regulation 193/10 restricts the amount of funds that can be used for the purposes of constructing administrative facilities. Under this regulation, the Board can only use proceeds of disposition which have been generated through the sale of a former administrative facility. Therefore, the Board cannot use proceeds of disposition generated from the sale of school sites.
Existing Administrative Office Sites
The utilization of existing Board property, either the J.W. Singleton Centre or New St. Education Centre site, would substantially reduce the total cost of the new administrative centre. The Board already owns both potential properties.
Renovating either existing building has been deemed to be problematic for the following reasons:
a. cost of retrofitting and updating the existing building
b. ongoing maintenance and operating costs of existing building
c. accessibility issues within the existing building
The M.M. Robinson H.S. property is approximately 33.6 acres in size, which includes J.W. Singleton Centre (see attachment). Although it is not identified as a separate piece of land, it is estimated the J.W. Singleton Centre site is approximately 5.7 acres in size. The New Street Education Centre/Gary Allan property consists of approximately of 14.67 acres, although the property is fragmented given the previous acquisitions of portions of the site to the City of Burlington.
The consultants have prepared schematic facility fit drawings confirming a 95,000 square foot admin centre could be placed on either property. If the Board were to move forward with building on either the J.W. Singleton Centre site or the New Street Education Centre site, an Official Plan Amendment and rezoning would be required. The Board’s Planning Department has identified the undertaking of an Official Plan Amendment and zoning amendment for the New Street Education Centre/Gary Allan site would likely be problematic, given the residential nature of the surrounding neighbourhood and the concerns related to a use that may not be compatible with the area.
 If approved the building would be built on the north west corner of the Upper Middle Road – Guelph Line intersection in Burlington. The location of the new administration centre on the existing J.W. Singleton Centre site would likely be less cause for concern from area residents. Locating a building at the northwest corner of Guelph Line and Upper Middle Road, would be more compatible to the adjacent land uses (i.e., retail malls to the east and southeast) and M.M. Robinson H.S., located to the west. Also, the location of a new administration centre on the current site, would allow for enhanced building exposure and street presence to ensure the Halton District School Board remains visible in the community.
 The Halton District School Board trustees will decide if they want the administration to proceed with the construction of a new administrative building The current location also offers better transportation/transit access due to its proximity to a major transportation corridors (Guelph Line/Upper Middle Road) as well as the QEW/403 and Highway 407, as compared to the New Street Education Centre/Gary Allan location. Planning staff believes the potential development of a new administrative centre at this location could provide for other office/retail opportunities that potentially could assist in the reducing the operating costs for the new administration centre.
 Does that sound like there will be a Tim Hortons included in the design.
Lastly, the location of the new administration centre at the existing location would ensure the current J.W. Singleton Centre workforce would be minimally impacted.
Get ready for the Burlington reaction to this one.
 By Staff
March 16th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
In the lead up to the June 7th election in Ontario, the minimum wage continues to be a hot button issue.
Both the provincial Liberals and the NDP have committed to increase the minimum wage from $14 this year to $15 an hour on January 1, 2019.
But the new leader of the Ontario PC party, Doug Ford, is now saying that he would freeze the minimum wage at $14 an hour and remove everyone earning less than $30,000 a year from the income tax rolls.
Two different scenarios with very different implications for low-wage workers in Ontario.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) an independent think tank, looked at the most recent Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) data from 2015 and found that 4.9 million Ontarians who had a total income of less than $30,000 per year filed taxes.
In a recent report the CCPA had this to say about not going forward with the minimum wage increases:
Two-thirds of those (3.2 million people) paid no income tax, due to a combination of existing tax deductions and tax credits. For those low-income Ontarians, the promise of no taxes offers nothing new.
The 34 per cent of Ontarians with incomes less than $30,000 who paid tax had an average provincial income tax bill of $485 in 2015.
The average Ontario tax rate for those with incomes below $30,000 a year was 0.9 per cent of their total income.
 Minimum wage demand. So is a $485 tax cut better than increasing the minimum wage from $14 to $15 an hour? The simple answer is: no.
Assuming Ontario minimum wage earners work 37.5 hours per week, a one dollar an hour increase in their wages would be worth $1,950 a year, before taxes.
These workers would be further ahead with an increase in wages rather than having their wages frozen and getting a tax cut.
But it doesn’t stop there.
We know that low-income people rely on public services. They can’t send their kids to private school, they rely on subsidized child care in order to work, they are more likely to take public transit.
Freezing the minimum wage and offering a tax cut in its place would not only reduce low-wage workers’ direct income, it would also reduce the amount of revenue that the province has to pay for the public services that they need to rely on: like public education, subsidized child care, and public transit.
This is simply a bad trade off for low-income Ontarians. And it’s an approach that would create a host of other problems.
Eliminating Ontario income tax on the first $30,000 of income for all Ontarians would be prohibitively expensive.
Removing anyone with less than $30,000 of income from the income tax rolls would mean that only half of the population (53 per cent) would be paying income taxes in Ontario.
Those who are paying income taxes could feel that they are carrying too much of the burden, further eroding our trust in government and public services. As public economist Armine Yalnizyan tweeted: “Can you spell tax revolt?”
 Is this rate of minimum wage growth inflationary? This tax reduction could be targeted to low-income workers through a tax credit as Lindsey Tedds pointed out.
However, economists also worry about the impact on the incentive to work when you face a sharp increase in the taxes you pay on the next dollar of income. This was widely debated and called the “welfare wall” in the 1990s. As economist Mike Moffatt tweeted: “Anyone making $30,001 would face one hell of a marginal tax bill.”
Tax policy is complex and can have unintended consequences.
That’s why we need to know what the impact of such a proposal would be on low-income Ontarians, the public coffers, tax fairness, and incentives. Canning the minimum wage increase in favour of a tax cut would either be expensive or have a number of negative unintended consequences, and ultimately leaves low-wage workers no farther ahead.
 Sheila Block is a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ Ontario office.
By Staff
March 10th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
On March 7, 2018 shortly before 11:00 pm, Halton Police officers responded to the area of Maple Avenue and Plains Road East in Burlington, in response to a citizen-initiated traffic complaint. As a result of an investigation, Joseph Vaccaro (37), of Oakville was charged with driving while ability impaired and driving over 80 mgs.
On March 8, 2018 shortly after 8:00 am, Halton Police officers responded to a collision in the area of King Road and Plains Road East in Burlington. As a result of an investigation, Christopher McBride (30), of Burlington was charged with driving while ability impaired.
 The Regional police issue regular reports on people who are charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) as part of their program to keep the roads in the Region safe.
That task is going to get a lot more difficult when the federal cannabis legalization allows for the sale of cannabis in retail outlets across the province.
At this point in time the police just have to deal with alcohol related offences. When the federal government decides to permit the sale of cannabis related products it will be a much more complex.
Ontario is stepping up support for municipalities and law enforcement to help ensure communities and roads are safe in advance of the federal government’s legalization of cannabis.
The province will provide $40 million of its revenue from the federal excise duty on recreational cannabis over two years to help all municipalities with implementation costs related to the legalization of cannabis. The amount of money each municipality gets will be determined by population size with no one municipality getting less than $10,000
In addition, Ontario is taking further steps to ensure a safe and sensible transition for communities and people by:
 Coming to a neighbourhood somewhere in Burlington. • Increasing the capacity of local law enforcement, including the Ontario Provincial Police, by funding sobriety field test training for police officers to help detect impaired drivers
• Creating a specialized legal team to support drug-impaired driving prosecutions
• Increasing capacity at the province’s Centre of Forensic Sciences to support toxicological testing and expert testimony
• Developing a program to divert youth involved in minor cannabis-related offences away from the criminal justice system
• Creating a Cannabis Intelligence Coordination Centre to shut down illegal storefronts and help fight the unsafe and illegal supply of cannabis products
• Providing public health units with support and resources to help address local needs related to cannabis legalization
• Raising awareness of the new provincial rules that will take effect when cannabis is legalized federally.
Might be time for families to have one of those around the kitchen table talks on what the legislation is going to mean to high school students who get to drive the family car.
 By Pepper Parr
March 6th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
There is something good that will come out of the Program Administrative Review (PAR) that resulted in the closing of two of the city’s seven high schools – the Aldershot high school will get a complete makeover that could turn it into a place that has all the buzz and excitement that Hayden high school has today. That is not to suggest that the other high schools don’t have anything going for them.
During the PAR debates the Board administration put out the idea of re-making Aldershot into a school that would attract people from other schools as well as other jurisdictions – a covetous eye was cast toward Hamilton. The original impetus was to increase the enrollment.
The program that is being put forward will increase the enrollment and significantly improve the profile of the school.
 Steve Cussens, Aldershot resident and PAR committee member. Steve Cussens, one of the PAR members has been cultivating this idea since its inception. He was one of the PAR members pushing the idea of more in the way of educational innovation. His efforts have borne fruit.
There wasn’t a clear idea – other than to describe what might be done as a magnet school, a themed school, an alternative school, and/or an incubator school, when the plans were first talked up.
 Terri Blackwell, Superintendent of PAR implementation Stuart Miller, Director of Education assigned Terri Blackwell to the task. She took a very proactive approach and cast the net for participants on the discussion widely.
She went to the community – and they responded very positively. Her report to the trustees last week was one of those meetings where every question asked was answered and then some. It is an exciting opportunity that is now in the hands of the trustees.
If the trustees buy into what they heard Aldershot will see students enrolling in the grade 9 class of what will be an ISTEM in the fall of 2019.
Some of the ideas that came from the public. All of the themes suggested are set out in a link below.
   
The Board was shown a short video on the way education has not changed – it set out just what the ISTEM initiative is setting out to achieve. It certainly tells what advancing innovative practices is all about?
The objective is to create learning opportunities and support the development of transferable skills: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving; Innovation, Creativity, and Entrepreneurship; Self- Directed Learning; Collaboration, Communication, and Citizenship.
That is a tall order – but it is what education is all about. Can the Board of Education administration pull this one off?
 Graphic that sets out all the parts that come together to result in a new student program offering. If what the trustees were told in February has merit this is a project that is being done the way a project should be done. Blackwell is doing a great job working with a team that is as broad based and inclusive.
They are already thinking through how they want to market this opportunity.
They have thought through how students from across the Region can use public transit to get to Aldershot.
 Superintendents Terri Blackwell and Gord Truffen during the presentation of the ISTEM proposal. Gord Truffen, Superintendent of Education explained that the ISTEM program is a high school offering and will not impact the grade 7 and 8’s that are at Aldershot.
Aldershot parents are said to be halfway to reaching the $125,000 needed to upgrade the auditorium. They might want to reach a little further and allow for some state of the art communications for the space. If they are going to prepare students for the world they will work in – including the high end visual communication should be part of the experience.
Trustee Leah Reynolds mentioned that the Aldershot high school rent out their facilities more than any other school in Burlington –
They are looking at a budget of about $1.4 million to “repurpose” some of the rooms. The labs which are in good shape may need some upgrading.
If the questions from the trustees are any indication expect Oakville and Milton to want an ISTEM program offering in their community.
Current educational research acknowledges the need to recognize societal changes and how education addresses this landscape. The emergence of new technologies is disrupting how businesses operate and interact with their customers, how people work and the careers they pursue, and even how citizens relate to their governments. More and more, personal and national success depends on effective science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. The Halton Board has recognized this and taken a low enrollment problem and turned it into a growth opportunity.
 The process used to create new student course offerings.  The driving forces that bring new ideas and programs to the public. The ISTEM concept was refined through a consultation process which includes generating ideas, drawing on pedagogy (research and practice of teaching and learning) and looking at themes. Many of the generated ideas are reflected in the ISTEM Program Framework which draws attention to the process elements of the program.
Students will be engaged in a variety of learning processes – Project-Based Learning, Design Thinking, Entrepreneurship and Partnerships. The outer ring of the framework reflects HDSB’s current working definition of innovation as “the capacity to enhance concepts, ideas, or products to contribute new-to-the-world solutions to complex economic, social, and environmental problems”. The contentedness of the framework includes explicit connections to critical thinking and creativity in that “critical thinking and creative thinking work together to create innovation in the Design Thinking process. These thinking processes all work together to bring forth creative innovation and problem solving.”
The ISTEM program will open to all interested Grade 9 students in September, 2019. Subsequent years will see the program extend to Grades 10, 11 and 12.
The ISTEM program provides the Halton District School Board with an opportunity to explore and implement a thematic approach to a secondary school. It further allows for an evaluation of ISTEM’s efficacy and its possible expansion to other regions of the Board. Teaching and learning is an ever- evolving process. This endeavour in part reflects the nature of this evolution.
Related news story:
Themes submitted by the Aldershot community for a new course offering.
By Pepper Parr
March 5th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The policy wonks out there – Gazette readers are a significant part of that tribe, will have their chance to get “into the weeds” and learn just how the new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) – it replaces the OMB – will work and what the rules and regulations are going to be.
The transition of matters that went to the OMB and will now be sent to the LPAT should a development application be appealed.
 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regulations will have a major difference over how developers react to development decisions city councils in Ontario make. The Gazette was advised earlier today that an update on regulations under the Planning Act related to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 are to be released and will come into effect on April 3, 2018.
The new regulations under the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 are expected to be finalized in the near future. Links to part of the Regulations are set out below.
Under the Planning Act, changes will be made to existing regulations to facilitate implementation of the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 changes to the land use planning and appeal system by:
• requiring explanations of how planning proposals are consistent/conform with provincial and local policies and clarify requirements for municipal notices;
• making technical changes, such as changing references from Ontario Municipal Board to Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, and amending cross-references; and
• establishing new transition provisions to set out rules for planning matters in process at the time of proclamation.
Ontario Regulation 67/18
“Transitional Matters – General”
Ontario Regulation 68/18 –
amending Ontario Regulation 543/06
Official Plans and Plan Amendments
Ontario Regulation 69/18 –
amending Ontario Regulation 549/06
Prescribed Time Period – Subsections 17 (44.4), 34 (24.4) and 51 (52.4) of the Act”
Ontario Regulation 70/18 –
amending Ontario Regulation 551/06 “Local Appeal Bodies”
Ontario Regulation 71/18 –
amending Ontario Regulation 200/96 “Minor Variance Applications”
Ontario Regulation 72/18 –
amending Ontario Regulation 197/96 “Consent Applications”
Ontario Regulation 73/18 –
amending Ontario Regulation 545/06 “Zoning By-Laws, Holding By-Laws and Interim Control By-Laws”
Ontario Regulation 74/18 –
amending Ontario Regulation 544/06 “Plans of Subdivision”
Ontario Regulation 75/18 –
amending Ontario Regulation 173/16 “Community Planning Permits”
By Staff
March 4th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
In an opinion piece published in the Saturday Hamilton Spectator, Mayor Rick Goldring said:
“The City of Burlington has had many Official Plans, but none have received as much attention as our current draft Plan that council is set to adopt in April.”
The Spectator has very limited circulation in Burlington. The Mayor has yet to post the opinion to his blog
The opinion piece set out below:
 Mayor Goldring speaking to media during the 2014 flood. It was the first time we saw the Mayor wear his Chain of Office outside the Council Chamber, “City building is constantly evolving, and we all want our city to grow thoughtfully and carefully” said the Mayor who went on to say that “ City Council is no different.”
“As mayor, I certainly want what is best for the entire community. I hear from residents that they want a more vibrant downtown and are supportive of the protection of our rural lands and those who are concerned about the future of our city.
The high rise was approved by city council on a 5-2 with the Mayor and Councillor Meed Ward voting against the project. “This was most apparent when late last year City Council approved a 23-storey building across from City Hall at 421 Brant St. I voted against this development for three reasons; it is the wrong location for a 23-storey building, where the adjacent roads are narrow, this approval would lead to similar requests for similar height, and from a policy perspective, this was inconsistent with the proposed 17-storey limit identified in the City’s earlier draft Downtown Precinct Plan.
“While residents are trying to digest this decision, we were recently informed of the decision by the Ontario Municipal Board to approve the ADI development at Lakeshore Road and Martha Street. The board sided with the proponent on a proposed 26-storey high-rise plan. Again, in my opinion, this is the wrong location for the height of the building, and I am very disappointed that the OMB did not prefer a height that was comparable or lower to those in this area.
“It is more important than ever that we approve our new Official Plan. The city’s current Official Plan is out of date and doesn’t conform to provincial policy which is one of the significant reasons why the OMB did not agree with the city’s opposition to ADI’s 26-storey proposal. Clearly, our current Official Plan is unacceptable in planning for an Urban Growth Centre.
 409 Brant is on the south side of James street – across from city hall. They have tucked two “historical” properties on the south end – next to what will become the Downtown mobility hub to give the application some credibility. “With two tall buildings recently approved in the downtown, I understand why residents feel anxious about what is going to happen in the future. I disagree with the decisions to allow the 23 and 26-storey downtown buildings. However, I am supportive of well-planned and justified intensification in appropriately targeted areas of our city.
“Burlington is not an island unto itself. We are part of the Greater Hamilton Toronto Area that currently has 7 million people and will grow to 10 million within 23 years primarily because 40 to 50 per cent of newcomers to Canada want to live in this area. We must accommodate our share of growth.
“We also need to be realistic and acknowledge that Burlington is a highly desirable place to live with an amazing waterfront and rural areas that includes the Niagara Escarpment, great neighbourhoods, wonderful festivals and events that contribute to the creation of an inclusive and caring community. In addition, interest rates are low, undeveloped land supply is depleted, and single family house prices are high. This has made condominium apartments an attractive housing form to all demographics for different reasons.
“It is simply not true that we will have tall buildings at every corner of our downtown. It would be wonderful to protect our downtown and limit growth to exclusively low-rise buildings, but this approach is simply not realistic. By only allowing low-rise buildings, we are making downtown very exclusive to those that have significant wealth.”
“After listening and considering input from residents, Burlington City council made many important amendments to the proposed new Official Plan. We reduced permitted heights and increased building separations, and heritage building preservation is addressed.
“Once the high-level vision of our new Official Plan is approved, we can get to work completing the details to be included in area specific plans. City staff is currently working on new transportation, transit, cycling and parking plans. We will dramatically improve our transit system to provide reliable and frequent service along our key areas, including our GO stations.
 The photograph was provided by the Office of the Mayor – it was used for his 2015 Christmas card. “I am confident that Burlington will successfully evolve to meet our growing population and economic needs. We will be champions for great design and continue to give careful attention to all the important city building details that have made Burlington the city we are so proud of. We need to plan for our children and grandchildren so that Burlington is an inclusive, environmentally and fiscally sustainable city for generations to come.”
Related articles:
Meed Ward on why the draft Official Plan needs more time before it is approved.
Jack Dennison on why he is going to vote for the draft – with some changes.
By Jim Barnett
February 28th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
In past delegations I have pointed out the many shortfalls of the current draft proposal, in particular to the lack of measurable specifics. I have shown that the proposal is an essay on urban planning and it is not a plan on which Burlington can move forward.
The good news is that at a recent council meeting they finally put a number on maximum building height. Seventeen stories. And this can only be achieved with the provision of commercial space, open parking and heritage preservation. Otherwise the maximum is 12 stories!! My question to the mayor” is 17 the max or can staff find “other community benefits” through negation with the developers to increase the height again?” Does 17 stories mean 17 stories max?
This is what happened with the old operating plan. Every development was massaged to give the developers what they wanted. These changes were then used to justify additional changes on other properties and building heights on Maple and Lakeshore rocked skyward, each time setting a new precedent. Soon these ad hoc changes allowed the OMB to rule in favour of the developers and we lost control. Now the planers want to rush us into the new plan saying the current operating plan is not serving us well. They are right, but they are right because they have strayed from the current plan so often that it as emasculated it. Question to the Mayor. What guarantees are you going to write into the plan to make sure that provisions in the new plan cannot be negotiated away by the planning department?
 Nautique: The ADI Group development that the city didn’t want – the OMB saw it differently and approved 26 storeys. In a recent press release ADI has receive approval for 26 stories on Lakeshore. The mayor expressed his regrets and at the same time praised the planning department for all their hard work on the file. How can a department be praised when the results of their efforts are so detrimental to the future of the city?
The downtown is not a mobility hub. The planning there should be quite different from the Mobility Hubs on the Go Train Line. When will this happen?
Question to Councillor Lancaster. You have spoken extensively for the need of affordable housing in the downtown area. What is your definition of affordable housing and how will you deliver the units needed in the down town?
For the mobility hubs and the downtown to be walk able there needs to be grocery stores. Through you Mr. chair, what have the planners done to make sure people can walk to get their groceries in these areas?
Recently a number of council members have said that the proposed plan is not just for now but for 50 maybe 70 years out. This is a classic miss direction to keep us from the important decisions that will effect the next 10 years. We should not let them get away with it. Fifty years from now we may not have enough low cost energy to air condition or heat the 25 story buildings or run the elevators. Lets use our ingenuity to get the near term right.
In my opinion the people of Burlington do not want our downtown to look like Mississauga!!! From what I can read over 90 percent of the citizens do not what our down town to look like Mississaugas. To the Mayor, What steps are you prepared to take to make sure the new operating plan reflects the desires of the people you represent?
The time line is confusing. The city has to do its work then the Region has to incorporate it into their plans which could get changed by provincial edits and directional changes. This could take two or three years and be out of date before the ink is dry. Under these uncertain condition I suggest we just proceed with what is best for us allowing for modest growth.
 For a city to grow it needs a transportation plan, integral to this in a modern city is a transit plan. So far the current draft has little on how the peoples need to move around will be satisfied and to say this will be worked out after the buildings are built is classic putting the cart before the horse and for a city the ultimate in poor planning. We do not need more Appleby Lines.
 Jim Barnett, on the right, at the Mayor’s Reverse Town Hall meeting. We do not need more Lakeshore Roads between Martha and Maple.
This should not be an election issue. It should be a get it right issue. There is still time if you have the will.
Related comment and opinion:
Opinion: Jim Young
Opinion: Gary Scobie
Opinion: Lisa Kearns
Opinion Deedee Davies
By Gary Scobie
February 28th,2018
BURLINGTON, ON
City council didn’t want the development but failed to respond to the application within the required time frame so the developer took his application to the Ontario Municipal Board where it was approved. I live in Ward 3 and I am here to speak against the approval of the proposed Official Plan. Two weeks ago, I received the OMB Vice-Chair’s report that approved the appeal by Adi Corporation to build a 26 storey condo at 374 Martha Street at the corner of Lakeshore Road. If ever there was a proper time to use the phrase “this changes everything”, it was that day.
It was a stunning reminder of the Province’s power to force us to shape up and face up to the massive intensification of our downtown that comes with the territory of being designated as an Anchor Mobility Hub and Urban Growth Centre.
Our current Official Plan, passed in October 2006 by our Council of seven, with three of our current Councillors there at the time, was supposed to be in compliance with the Growth Plan of the province. But alas, we learned that it has not been kept compliant over the years since. It is so far out of compliance that it was disregarded in the appeal. Our City team of Council and planning and legal experts did not even submit as evidence our proposed Official Plan wordings for the site that might have resulted in some compromise in height. Instead, OMB Vice-Chair Schiller pointed out that the City had no legal right to stop the 26 storey condo.
Gary Scobie, a frequent delegator at city hall. I have to ask, what was Council expecting in 2006 when it embraced, on behalf of all citizens, the Urban Growth Centre designation for our downtown? Did they imagine the coming massive re-build of lower Brant Street and its adjacent streets?
Did they imagine 20 plus storey buildings at most intersections and the eventual almost complete destruction of the two storey nature of our historic downtown? I simply can’t believe that they did.
Yet three Councillors from that long ago Council sit here today and I’d invite them to explain to citizens if this indeed was their plan for our downtown.
It is now quite obvious to me that the Town of Oakville was very prescient in 2005 in their assessment of the loss of control that would come if they accepted a Downtown Urban Growth Centre designation. Their Council rejected it and convinced the Province that the intensification demanded would come elsewhere in their town. If only our Council had done the same.
We the citizens are now being asked to trust this Council and the Planning Department, the ones that couldn’t keep our Official Plan compliant, to endorse a new Official Plan that has heights above what we want and that has already been pierced by an approved 23 storey condo across from City Hall and now an approved 26 storey condo right at the lake and in the most southern and eastern point of our Downtown Core Precinct. It was presented by the developer as a Gateway to the Downtown.
Yes indeed, it certainly will be that and much more. It will be a lasting reminder of our hubris. It will be the precedent at the lake, the building to surpass in height by many future buildings. It will represent the low height that Council and the planners promised us by the lake, rising ever higher up Brant Street to the other Mobility Hub that is the Burlington GO Station.
Citizens can only imagine and envision heights of 30 plus storeys going up Brant Street, culminating in not 30 but likely 40 plus storey heights near the GO Station.
We are asked to trust Council and the Planning Department that in approving an Official Plan for all of Burlington, without the three other Mobility Hubs, without a transportation plan and without a transit plan, that they will just get it right on all of these important missing pieces when the time comes to add them. And that the OP rules will be enforceable.
I’m afraid we just can’t trust you to do that. Now that the one entity that is really in charge of intensification throughout Burlington, the Province, has spoken and told us that they have control of our Growth Centres, not just in the downtown, but also at our GO Stations, we have no alternative but to try to at least save our downtown from becoming a forest of 20 to 30 storey highrises.
The only way that this can happen is for one of you to introduce a motion to Council to request that the Province consider the 69,000 people and jobs that are planned to be added at the GO Station Mobility Hubs as our ample contribution to the intensification of Burlington as a whole and free our downtown from this crippling intensification that will come from the Urban Growth Centre and Anchor Mobility Hub designations.
You have, in good conscience, no other choice than to take this route. Council got us into this. Now I request Council to get us out.
You simply agree to contact the Province to try to save our downtown by recovering the control of downtown re-development that was surrendered in 2006.
Do not move forward with the Official Plan approval until you add plans for the critical missing parts and have exhausted every possible avenue of request with the Province to remove the downtown from this planned over-development. I think that you can succeed, but at a minimum, you surely must try.
 Gary Scobie was a member of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. He is seen here, second from the left. If you fail us in this, downtown citizens must prepare to endure ten to twenty years of construction noise, congestion, dust and dirt as tall buildings rise from foundations deep underground seemingly from every corner on Brant and adjacent streets. And the end result of this over-build will not make us the envy of other cities, will not make our downtown more livable and will not preserve our title as the best mid-size city in Canada.
Remember, from out in the lake a skyline of tall buildings jutting into the air may look good on a postcard, but for the people who actually have to live there, who have to live without rapid transit to the GO Station, with traffic congestion of intensification, without any feel of historic two storey Brant Street and its unique, independent shops, without enough parking for residents, let alone visitors to the downtown, with tall buildings everywhere they look, with wind and shadows everywhere they walk, there will be little pleasure other than looking at the lake from their window if they paid enough money for that view and wondering, was it really worth the view after all and perhaps pondering, what were they thinking when they approved this metropolis of Burlington.
Gary Scobie is a long time Burlington resident who frequently comments on how city hall works.
Related comment and opinion:
Jim Young tells Council it has failed to failed to inform, consult, involve, collaborate or empower the citizens.
By Staff
February 27th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
When MetroLinx announced that internet access would be available throughout their network the Gazette didn’t see that as a big deal. They were just catching up to what many other transportation operations were doing.
We didn’t expect the other shoe to fall so quickly.
Loblaws, part of the George Weston operation, battling a price fixing matter, announced today that with internet access available to the tens of thousands of GO train commuters they would soon be able to use their cell phones to log into the Loblaws app and place food orders that they will be able to pick up at the GO station when they get off the train
Busy consumers will soon have one more way to avoid going to the grocery store as Canadian retailers ramp up their e-commerce offerings in an apparent effort to beat tech titan Amazon, which recently entered the country’s grocery market.
 Loblaws and Fortinos locations will be the pick up point for GO train commuters who decide to use the new service, Loblaw Companies Ltd. announced Monday it will launch a new service in the spring that allows commuters to order groceries online and pick them up at one of five Go Transit stations in the Greater Toronto Area the next day. None of the Burlington GO stations are part of the pilot operation.
Jeremy Pee, the company’s senior vice-president of e-commerce said “This is a logical extension of our increasingly popular e-commerce services, and the growing customer appeal for ordering groceries online and picking them up when it’s most convenient.”
The company partnered with Metrolinx, an Ontario government agency that co-ordinates and integrates transportation modes in the GTA and Hamilton area.
 Somewhere in this GO station people will be able to pick up groceries they ordered on line. Lot of logistics to get worked out – will people be able to drive their car right up to the pick up point? The partnership will initially start with stations in Bronte, Oakville, Rouge Hill, Whitby and Clarkson, with plans to expand to additional sites in the region.
Groceries will come from nearby Fortinos or Loblaws stores, and will be waiting in a special delivery truck, in lockers or in an enclosed kiosk.
The service is an extension of the company’s click-and-collect offering as it allows customers who travel on Go Transit a pick-up option that doesn’t require them to adjust their daily commute,
Loblaw launched click-and-collect in 2014 and now offers the online order, in-store pick up service at 300 of its stores. The company is rolling out that service at a rapid clip, with about one new store offering click-and-collect every day.
Amazing what competition will do. Why Burlington isn’t included in the first phase of the new service wasn’t explained. Apparently we are not as demographically svelte as Oakville. That hurts!
By Pepper Parr
February 27th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
City budget are not like corporate budgets. Cities are not permitted to run a loss – they get around that by tucking millions of dollars into reserve funds that can be drawn upon when needed,
The city doesn’t use the words profit or loss, they use the phrase retained savings which is money they budgeted to spend, based the tax rate on and then found that they didn’t spend the money.
For the 2017 fiscal tear the city had $2,889,106 in retained savings. No – they don’t give it back – they put it into various reserve funds. The city has more than 25 reserve funds – several that the provinces requires them to have in place for that rainy day.
The retained savings report shows routine year-end transfers made prior to the calculation of the year-end retained savings for net zero activities.
  Note the 2017 transfer from the LaSalle Park Pavilion reserve fund is a result of the mid-year transition of the banquet and conference services provider.
Development Application Reserve Fund
In 2005, the Engineering Fee Stabilization Reserve Fund, the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund and the Planning Fee Stabilization Reserve Fund were created to ease budget pressures should development revenues slow down due to economic and/or market conditions.
That certainly hasn’t happened. The Planning department is being flooded with development applications that will pump millions into the city coffers.
As of December 31, 2017, the following year-end transfers were made prior to the calculation of the year-end retained savings.
Engineering Fee Stabilization Reserve Fund
The increase in Subdivision Administration Fees has resulted in a provision to the reserve fund of $598,692. One large subdivision administration fee was received in February; however, long term reliance on this revenue source is unsustainable as Burlington shifts from Greenfield Subdivision development to infill and intensification sites. The 2018 budget for subdivision administration fees has been increased to
$200,000.
Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
The Building Permit revenues for 2017 were $4,232,117. The revenues are offset by expenditures (both direct and indirect as per the Bill 124 model), with the resulting provision to the reserve fund of $346,088. The 2018 budget for building permit revenues has been increased to $4,237,863.
Planning Fee Stabilization
Planning fee revenues experienced a positive variance of $1,463,066 due to increase in site plan applications fees, subdivision fees, official plan amendments and rezoning fees. A significant portion of this favourable variance was realized in December when a number of Planning applications were brought forward in advance of pending changes to legislation regarding OMB reform. This resulted in a provision to the reserve fund of
$1.46 million. The 2018 budget for planning revenues has been increased to $1.8 million.
During 2017, departments and service owners (a service owner is a group of people with a specific responsibility) closely monitored expenses and found ways to reduce operating costs.
Human Resources
Total City human resources costs (excluding Winter Control) have a favourable variance of $1,386,569. The city experienced a number of vacancies throughout the year. Some of those vacancies were people the city let go – there was a salary and benefit savings until a replacement was found. The favourable variance was primarily attributed to the period of time from when the position became vacant to being filled after the competition was complete.
The report does not make mention of additions to the staffing compliment.
Earnings on Investments
Investment income exceeded budget by $1,062,950. This positive variance is attributed to $2,253,608 of realized capital gains, of which $1,190,658 was used to meet the budget of $5.3 million. The city has relied heavily on capital gains to meet budget from 2013-2017.
Winter Maintenance
As a result of mild winter conditions at the beginning of 2017, Winter maintenance had a favourable variance of $936,421. The favourable price of salt had a minor role in the positive variance, however the main driver was the large reduction of salt consumption (4,000 tonnes) and improved salt management practices.
2017 Recommended Retained Savings Dispositions
Note: Where reserve fund balances are provided, they reflect the balance prior to recommended disposition.
• $1,000,000 Provision to Allowance to Prior Year Tax Write Offs
In 2017 there were a significant number of prior year appeals and write offs processed which drew down the City’s balance sheet account to zero. The allowance for prior year’s tax write offs requires a balance to cover tax write offs for the next year. To do so, staff propose $1 million of the 2017 retained savings be provided to fund next year’s obligations.
• $500,000 Provision to Strategic Plan Reserve Fund
The City of Burlington approved its 25 year Strategic Plan in 2016. The Financial Plan for the Strategic Plan established a long-term approach to funding strategic objectives including the establishment of a Strategic Plan Reserve Fund. The report recommended that a minimum of $500,000 be provided to this reserve fund in years when the city’s retained savings was in excess of $1 million. The balance in the reserve fund is $236,562.
• $450,000 Severe Weather Reserve Fund
As mentioned above, the winter maintenance budget had a favourable variance of $936,421. This report recommends transferring $450,000 to the Severe Weather reserve fund in order to assist with future weather events that are unpredictable in nature. The uncommitted balance in the Severe Weather Reserve Fund is currently at $3,360,543 which is below the targeted balance equivalent to one year’s budget for Winter Control.
• $939,106 Provision to Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund
It is recommended that $939,106 be set aside to finance one-time expenditures. Over the last few years numerous spending commitments have been placed on the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund (those that are budgeted as well as those that have been approved in-year). The provision will assist in increasing the balance in this reserve fund while continuing to allow unique one-time needs to be addressed without affecting the tax rate and without being built into future budget years. The uncommitted balance in this reserve fund is $3,203,674.
That’s a lot of cash that will get spent – close attention will have to be paid as to just how they do that. The bureaucrats are pretty good at slipping something through.
By Staff
February 27th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
There are two sides to the decision to permit tall buildings in the Downtown core.
Pam Casey, Jim Robinson, Kassia Kocharakkal, Lauren Jenkins, Madison Falco, Brad and Maureen Owen delegated at city council and said Tall buildings appropriate to provide the opportunity for additional forms of housing and retail and commercial space in the downtown, while helping make downtown an active and prosperous place. In an urban environment such as Downtown Burlington, well-designed tall buildings provide the opportunities to add density in a much slender and architecturally pleasing form.
The comments are taken from the notes the Clerk’s office provided.
The Planning department said the development of tall buildings in strategic locations within the Downtown will support and enhance the downtown as a lively, vibrant and people-oriented place and support the Downtown’s role as a major transit station area and mobility hub within the City and Region. New development in the Downtown will be of high quality design to maintain and enhance the Downtown’s image as an enjoyable, safe, bikeable, walkable and transit-supportive place and built to be compatible with buildings and neighbourhoods and complement the pedestrian activity and historical attributes of the area.
Exceptions to the Plan
Steve Keech, Jim MaLaughlin, and Jack O’Brien said in their delegations that they wanted to see hard height limits established in the plan to avoid exceptions being made.
The comments are taken from the detailed minutes provided by the Clerk’s Office
 Bates precinct The Planners said the proposed policies for the Downtown set out height, density and / or intensity permissions stated within all Downtown Urban Centre precincts, except for the Bates Precinct and St. Luke’s and Emerald Precinct, shall be inclusive of the provision of any and all community benefits which may be required as part of the approval of a development.
 St. Luke’s and Emerald Precinct As such, the limits included in the proposed precinct plan are intended to be maximum height limits, which would provide the public, City Council, City staff and the development industry with predictability and transparency with respect to maximum building heights within the Downtown. However, it should be noted that Planning Act legislation permits property owners to submit applications to amend Official Plan policies (including heights).
The Planning Act requires Planning departments to accept every application for an exception to the Official Plan.
Right now the city has an Official Plan that is close to impossible to defend – the result is more than ten application in the last 100 days.
 By Staff
February 27th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The province is sending a no more roads message; is the public hearing?
If it happens in Hamilton – it impacts Burlington. The Councillors on the other side of the Bay got a letter from the Ministry of Transportation, Steven Del Duca indicating that the era of more roads is coming to an end.
The correspondence from the Minister was quietly received at the most recent Hamilton city council meeting. It said that future widening of the QEW and 403 requested by Hamilton are “dependent on further review and prioritization of expansion needs across the province”. Without those expansions, city staff say there’s no sense in trying to widen municipal expressways like the Red Hill Parkway.
 No more of this says the Ministry of Transportation. Double decking parts of the 403 leading into Hamilton isn’t in the cards this decade. “Until the MTO improves the interchanges at the QEW and the number of lanes there and at the 403, it would be somewhat pointless to widen our facilities because the bottlenecks would still be in place,” the city’s manager of traffic operations told councillors in mid-January. “I think we have to sort of plan our facility to match the timing for their widening.”
Given the number of people who work in Burlington and live in Hamilton the traffic on the QEW, the 403 and the LINC are daily issues. Hamilton Mayor Eisenberger pleaded that the province give “high priority” to “the expansion of Highway 403 from two to three lanes between the Lincoln Alexander Parkway and Main Street both down bound and up bound.”
Del Duca noted that such widening had been recommended a few years ago by the larger study that rejected a new mid-peninsula highway (also still demanded by the city) but that the “recommendations are subject to environmental assessments and approvals before implementation timing to initiate this next phase will be dependent on further review and prioritization of expansion needs across the province.”
 A full interchange at Clappison’s Corners with a 2006 price tag of $75 million has been a Hamilton priority for years. It is the only thing that is going to prevent a mid-peninsula highway cutting through Kilbride. Eisenberger’s pushed “the Ministry to re-prioritize upgrades to the Highway 5 and 6 interchange within the next five years.” A full interchange at Clappison’s Corners with a 2006 price tag of $75 million has been a city priority for well over a decade but it’s still not under construction.
Del Duca’s letter says it is “planned for 2022 and beyond” and that “timing to initiate construction will be dependent on the future review and prioritization of important infrastructure needs across the province.”
The provincial focus is clearly on expanding transit like LRT but some Hamilton councillors either haven’t gotten that message or don’t like it. Early in February, Queen’s Park abandoned the proposed Highway 413 from Milton to Vaughan that would have passed through Caledon well north of the 407 and that also dates back more than a decade.
The advocacy group Environmental Defence enthused that the cancellation “shows that there is growing provincial recognition that building complete communities rather than highway-led planning is better for our health, our shared climate and our wallet.”
The provincial decision came less than a month after Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner advised the province that more road building is counter-productive.
If it impacts Hamilton – Burlington feels the pinch.
What isn’t getting a lot of attention is the record vehicle sales – they have risen every year for the past five years. Those vehicles are going to need roads to move on. There is a crunch in there somewhere.
By Pepper Parr
February 22nd, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The decision to turn what has been a location where buses came in, picked up passengers and moved on serving as a transfer station turned into a mobility hub has confused many, particularly in the downtown core.
Most people see the small terminal on John Street as not much more than a bus station.
 At one point the city considered closing the terminal – now it is going to be upgraded to a Anchor level mobility hub. Turns out that there has been a lot of thinking taking place that since well before 2014 when the Provincial Policy Statement was revised.
 Lisa Kierns – part of the ECoB team Paul Brophy, Gary Scobie, Brian Jones, Elaine O’Brien, Brian Aasgaard, Lisa Kearns, Michael Hriblijan, My Dang, Deby Morrison and Nancy Cunningham delegated on the issue at recent city hall meetings
Gary Scobie The issue for the delegations was that the bus terminal on John Street does not make the Downtown a Mobility Hub and that the Downtown area isn’t a Mobility Hub. The delegations wanted to know how the downtown got designated as an Urban Growth Centre?
The planning department provided the following response. It is included in the background papers that will be put before city council on February 27th.
 The current Urban Growth Centre boundary – a quick look at the map suggests the gerrymandering has been done. Does the public really understand the impact of this boundary? “ The identification of the Downtown as a Mobility Hub originated in the 2006 Places to Grow document, which identified Downtown Burlington as an Urban Growth Centre (UGC). At the time the Growth Plan was being developed, the Downtown had been the subject of on- going strategic public investments and revitalization efforts by the City, such as Momentum 88 and Superbuild (2001) funding.
“The identification of Downtown Burlington as an Urban Growth Centre as part of the Places to Grow document further supported and built upon these efforts by establishing Downtown as an area for growth and investment that would support the Downtown’s long-term success.
 The GO train system was going to move people efficiently with 15 minute service and be electrified to help out with climate change. “In 2006, Metrolinx and the Province introduced a Regional Transportation Plan called “The Big Move” for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which contained action items to develop and implement a multi-modal transportation plan. As part of this, a connected system of mobility hubs throughout the GTHA was envisioned to serve as places where connectivity between different modes of transportation including walking, biking and transit would come together seamlessly and where there is an intensive concentration of living, employment, shopping and/ or recreation.
“In addition to serving as transit hubs, these areas have the potential to become vibrant places of activity and destinations in and of themselves. Mobility Hubs are intended to become locations for major destinations such as office buildings, hospitals, education facilities and government services. Two types of mobility hubs were identified and defined within the Big Move: Anchor Hubs and Gateway Hubs.
“Anchor hubs are defined as those areas that have strategic importance due to their relationship with provincially identified Urban Growth Centres, as set out by the Places to Grow Plan. Downtown Burlington is identified as an Anchor Mobility Hub due to its relationship with the City’s Urban Growth Centre; its potential to attract and accommodate new growth and development; the convergence of multiple local transit routes through the Downtown Bus Terminal; the linkages to GO Transit, the other Mobility Hubs and surrounding municipalities; and its ability to achieve densities that would be supportive of a multi-modal transportation plan.
“At the January 23, 2018 Planning and Development Committee meeting a motion directing staff to work with the province to remove the mobility hub classification for the downtown, and shifting the UGC from downtown to the Burlington GO station failed.”
 Mayor Rick Goldring explaining Intensification – the public was told then that the changes were not going to change the Burlington “we all lived in”. The 23 storey condo city council approved and the 26 storey condo the OMB said could be built xx that belief. During the lead up to the serious work being done on what started out as a re-write of the Official Plan the Mayor gave several presentations on intensification. His objective at the time was to assure people that the growth that was going to take place would not change the character of the city.
The public was still concerned then – and they are very concerned now.
What has been come increasingly clear is that it is provincial directions – Place to Grow – the Big Move – the Public Policy Statement that was issued in 2014 and revised in 2017 aren’t fully understood or appreciated by the vast majority of the public.
 A Provincial Policy Statement is issued under section 3 of the Planning Act. The 2014 Statement became effective April 30, 2014 and applies to planning decisions made on or after that date. It replace the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005.
That 2014 Statement got replaced in 2017.
Much of this happened while the Planning department underwent significant leadership and staff changes.
The public is struggling on several levels: to get their council to be more transparent and to listen to what the public has to say.
The public has yet to hear a believable explanation on why the draft Official Plan adoption cannot be deferred until after the October municipal direction. The argument that it has to be approved now because if it is deferred it might mean that any new Councillors would need six months to gain an understanding of what these complex plans are all about.
The fact is that any plan that gets approved in the near future sits on a shelf until the sometime in 2019 when it gets reviewed by the Regional Planning & Public Works Committee.
The provincial government explains on its web site that “the long-term prosperity and social well-being of Ontario depends upon planning for strong, sustainable and resilient communities for people of all ages, a clean and healthy environment, and a strong and competitive economy.
 The Escarpment defines the city of Burlington. No development except for within the three settlement areas and even there development is very limited. “Ontario is a vast province with diverse urban, rural and northern communities which may face different challenges related to diversity in population, economic activity, pace of growth and physical and natural conditions. Some areas face challenges related to maintaining population and diversifying their economy, while other areas face challenges related to accommodating and managing the development and population growth which is occurring, while protecting important resources and the quality of the natural environment.
“The Provincial Policy Statement focuses growth and development within urban and rural settlement areas while supporting the viability of rural areas. It recognizes that the wise management of land use change may involve directing, promoting or sustaining development. Land use must be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate development to meet the full range of current and future needs, while achieving efficient development patterns and avoiding significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose a risk to public health and safety.
 This 26 storey application will be on the south side of the Brant – James intersection.  This approved development will be on the south side of the Brant James intersection. “Efficient development patterns optimize the use of land, resources and public investment in infrastructure and public service facilities. These land use patterns promote a mix of housing, including affordable housing, employment, recreation, parks and open spaces, and transportation choices that increase the use of active transportation and transit before other modes of travel.”
Dense stuff, complex stuff that the public is expected to understand while they decide which program they want to register their children in at Parks and Recreation or figure out how to get the permit they need for changes they want to make to their property.
There has to be a better way to comply with the changes the province has mandated.
By Staff
February 14th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
For those concerned about what is happening to their city and what the downtown core is going to look like the following numbers are pretty brutal.
22 – 23 – 24 – 26
The Bridgewater condominium will top out at 22 storeys.
The 421 Brant project has been approved for 23 storeys
The 409 Brant project (where Elizabeth Interiors used to operate) is asking for 24 storeys
The ADI Development Nautique has just has its 26 story project approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.
Joe Gaetan, a downtown resident who delegated against more height said: “the city is a goner”
In a prepared statement Meed Ward said:
“The OMB decision to approve the 26-storey ADI proposal at Martha/Lakeshore is devastating for the downtown. This will be the new precedent height.
“The decision referred to the Bridgewater at 22 storeys (and other tall buildings in the area); it also referred to the fact that the city had “received” other 23 storey applications (how is that relevant is anyone’s guess; these were only “applications” with no approval at the time of the OMB hearing).
“I am not confident that by rushing adoption of the proposed new Official Plan we will gain more control over planning; the proposed plan calls for 17 storeys for this site. The OMB approval is nine storeys higher. The Brant and James corners (north and south) are both 17 storeys in the proposed new Official Plan, but council approved 23 storeys on the north side and we just got an application for 24 storeys on the south side.
“Developers can, and will, continue to ask for more than what is permitted in the existing or proposed plan.
“The decision also referred to the downtown as an Urban Growth Centre and transit hub, thus the development needed to meet certain densities appropriate for those designations.
“Until we remove those two designations from the downtown (Urban Growth Centre, Mobility Hub), we will not wrestle control of planning back into the hands of staff, council and the community. (Credit goes to Gary Scobie for suggesting these designations be removed, which is what led to my motion.)
“My motion Jan 24 to move the Urban Growth Centre from the downtown to the existing Burlington GO Station Mobility Hub (as Oakville has done to protect their downtown), and to eliminate the downtown as a Mobility Hub, failed 6-1.
“In light of this OMB decision, we have to reconsider this vote. I will bring a reconsideration motion to the next Official Plan statutory public meeting (starts Feb. 27, 1pm and 6:30, extending to Feb. 28 if another day is needed)
“What can residents do? Use your democratic tools:
“There is a provincial election coming up June 7. Ask all candidates who are running if they will work with the city to remove the Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations from the downtown.
“There is a municipal election Oct. 22. Ask all candidates who are running if they will work with the region to remove the Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations from the downtown. There is still time: our new plan isn’t in effect until the Region approves it, which won’t happen until the Region begins its review of its own plan in 2019.”
In its media release the city in part said:
In its decision, … the OMB states that the city’s current land-use policy for the site does not reflect Provincial Policy.
As the OMB noted in its ruling, “the evidence suggests to the Board that the current designation is no longer appropriate for the site and a proposal that is taller and more transit-supportive is both preferable and better implements the transit-oriented and intensification policies of the province.
The OMB further notes that “While the provincial policy regime emphasizes the importance of a municipality’s official plan, there is no suggestion in the provincial policy regime that a municipality’s official plan may undercut provincial policy.”
Mary Lou Tanner, the Deputy City Manager, comments: “In light of the OMB’s ruling, it is even more important that the city move forward with the adoption of the new Official Plan. As this ruling shows, our current OP is a liability; it is out of date and is open to challenge. The area-specific plan for downtown Burlington will strengthen the city’s position on development in the downtown by replacing outdated polices with a plan that better reflects provincial policy, while also protecting the character of the city.
 The black diamond shapes show where the four developments are going to be located.  409 Brant – south of James Street. Application is for 24 storeys.  Nautique – Lakeshore at Martha – OMB approved for 26 storeys. 421 Brant, north side if James – city council approved for 23 storeys.  Bridgewater development – under construction at Lakeshore and Elizabeth – 22 storey condominium
By Pepper Parr
February 11th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
Revision were made to this story after its initial publication. Some of the quotes were attributed to the wrong person.
We got a note from James Schofield, who tells us that he reads the Gazette and added that there was “a line in your piece on the code of contact that caught my eye.
 “Lancaster said that the incidences of harassment and intimidation have occurred both internally and externally and appear to be linked with the insurgence of social media, media, increased communication and participation with the public.
“It may be worth some reflection on the role the Gazette plays in relation to this.
“I’ve largely stopped commenting on your site. I won’t go as far as to say I’ve been harassed or intimidated, but I’ve certainly had my character and motives called into question and been the target of juvenile name-calling. Far from being a place for respectful dialog and an intellectual debate on issues and ideas, I find the Gazette’s comments are often replete with ad hominem arguments and those with entrenched ideas spewing vitriol at anyone who dares express an alternative point of view.
“So I just don’t bother trying anymore. And I suspect I’m not alone. I think that’s a problem, because as the moderate voices keep their heads down we lose out on a diversity of opinion, and the comment section increasingly becomes an echo chamber for those with a particular way of thinking.
“For example – how many commentators have written anything critical of ECoB? Or in support of council’s efforts to pass the Official Plan before the election? Even on something as banal as trying to make it easier to ride a bike around this city, few are willing to stick their necks out. Why poke the bear? Yet when I listen and talk to people in the community — many of them Gazette readers — I find a broad diversity of opinion on these matters. You’d never know it from reading the comments.
“I’m thankful you’re at least moderating comments — I can’t imagine how much junk you must filter out as it is. A real name (and ideally, validation of that name against a social media account) would be a good step. But I think the recognition that commenting on your site is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not a “free speech” right, is also important.”
We consistently have to tell people that we will not approve their comment.
In the back and forth email with Schofield we asked: Are we part of the problem? We wanted to be part of the solution.
An angry old man or an unhappy transit customer? Schofield said “I don’t know if you’re part of the problem or not. You’re at least serving a helpful role in providing some form of media coverage in a city otherwise devoid of it. But I feel there is a strong echo chamber effect, both in the comments, and in the editorial content you feature. “Aldershot resident thinks…” and the like tend to pull from the same streams of consciousness as your most frequent commentators. Can you do more to foster some diversity — both in ideology and in demographics? Can you find some female voices and some young people to complement your “angry old man has something to say” content?
Schofield makes an exceptionally good point – one that has bothered us for some time. There are some very very good comments – and boy is there ever a lot of crap that doesn’t see the light of day. Our objective was to give people a place where their comments and ideas can be published and shared.
In the the past few days the comments on the cycling survey the city is running are a case in point. There are people on both sides who go at it day in and day out and make the same argument.
The New Street Road diet idea was a disaster in the way it was executed and I think that the views of those opposed it were part of what brought the city the point where they realized it had to be cancelled.
The idea never got a chance to have a true trial run – mostly because the city found that the road was continually under some form of construction.
 The New Street Road Diet never got a chance to be fully tested. Poor execution on the part of the city and the Region and vociferous opposition from the car set doomed the idea. Schofield said he did not want to “dwell on New Street but I largely agree with you. As one of the instigators of the whole saga I’ve learned a lot from the entire experience. I still think it was a sound idea, but poor execution, and a 2 km stretch that didn’t connect to anything useful on either end didn’t set it up for success. Lessons learned and we’re moving on.”
Part of the purpose of the comments section in the Gazette is for new information to come to the surface, a place where sound, rational ideas can be voiced and a place where a citizen can hold the politicians they elected to account and ensure that the bureaucrats actually serve the interests of public.
Related content:
Lancaster asks for an anti-bullying – harassment Task Force.
By Jim Barnett
February 7th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
City staff did a lot of hard work putting together Grow Bold, a draft of the new Operating Plan for the city. It now appears that they did most of their work without very much in the way of asking the citizens what they wanted in the city going forward before it was published. After it was published, they then began a number of initiatives to engage with the public to introduce the Mobility Hub concepts.
The presentations were primarily used to sell what was in the Plan, give outside pressure from other layers of government as justification for a number of the conclusions reached and to keep the time line for passage as short as possible.
 Jim Barnett at Mayor Rick Goldring’s Reverse Town Hall. With each passing week the citizenry became more concerned . While there were a number of meetings, there was almost no dialogue. Even in the Reverse Town Hall, a new term, dialogue was discouraged. The essence of Town Hall Meetings is to encourage dialogue!
Then the bombshell. 421 Brant went from 12 to 17 to 23 stories!
The 421 Brant project was a surprise to many – they weren’t aware of the development and stunned at the height approved. At the last committee meeting on the subject there were over 30 delegations, more than 90 percent against the plan and its current amendments,
Why?
I suggest the following.
1. The bombshell woke people up to what was happening to their city and they did not like it.
2. The Plan has four Mobility Hubs. Yet the downtown is very different from the others on the Go Train line. The downtown should have its own set of criteria, its own set of restrictions in the precincts and its own name such as Historic District.
3. A Transportation plan in general and Transit in particular are not in the proposal. People realize that you have to get people in and out and around the area efficiently and needs to be part of the plan, not something that is done sometime in the future.
4. Parking in the downtown area is insufficient now. What will it be like with all the planned new construction. Increased parking ratios for residences, visitors and commercial units in this area need to be increased now.
5. Affordable housing in the area keeps being mentioned as a necessity by some yet they do not come forward with a method to accomplished this. This needs to be corrected.
6. The Plan will and its iterations will affect Burlington for a long time , 25 to 40 years. There is no reason to not take whatever time is necessary to get it right and get the majority of the citizens on side. The timing of the municipal election should not be the issue.
 Planning department expects to bring an updated Official Plan to council for adoption. 7. A plan has numbers so one can measures progress and if necessary take corrective action suggested by actual results not meeting the plan. The current proposal is almost devoid of actionable numbers. This a major shortfall in the proposed “plan”. The current draft is more of an essay than a plan.
8. There has been a suggestion that a meeting be called, under the chair of a moderator, where say 10 representatives of council and staff and 10 from those who have delegated spend a day to try and find common ground. This appears to have great merit. Lets hope the Mayor encourages the dialogue.
9. Past practice is for the Planning Department to grant deviations on property if in their opinion ” community benefits” are derived. This practice should be greatly curtailed.
10. There needs to be a large dedicated food shopping area in the plan. Otherwise, a walk able downtown plan is not complete.
 Councillor Rick Craven – represents ward 1 11. The Councillor for ward one, at the council meeting on January 29, expressed his concern that there had been little feed back from the BIA or the Chamber of Commerce. I would think the planning department has an obligation to get submissions from both of these groups before proceeding. It should be noted that individual business delegations to council presented a number of short comings in the plan.
12. Joan Little, our columnist emeritus suggests that when the citizens and the developers are equally unhappy then council has it right. A better conclusion would be if everybody is annoyed, then there is a lot of work to be done.
In my opinion the process has been flawed. It is up to the council to take the time to get it right.
Jim Barnett is an east end Burlington resident who recalls the time when there was a strong citizens association.
 By Staff
February 6th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
After overwhelmingly positive feedback from last year’s initiative, Pam Damoff, MP for Oakville North-Burlington has announced the launching the Young Women in Leadership program for the second year in a row during the week of April 9-13, 2018.
 Pam Damoff, Member of Parliament for Oakville North Burlington. The program will offer young women in Halton an opportunity to job-shadow in a local business, agency, organization, or government. Damoff is seeking local businesses and organizations, as well as young women currently in high school, pursuing post-secondary education or just starting out in their careers, to participate in this year’s program.
 The Damoff Women in leadership class of 2017. Work experiences are a critical component of preparing youth for transition to adulthood. The need for a career shadow initiative for young women came out of a roundtable on women’s empowerment that I hosted on International Women’s Day in 2016. The goals of the Young Women in Leadership Program are to support young women in:
• developing an understanding of different occupations in order to make informed career choices
• increasing knowledge of specific occupational skills and workplace settings
• gaining career readiness skills, including the “soft skills” that employers look for in entry level workers
• building confidence in professional environments
The program will require commitment of one day throughout the week of April 9-13. Those interested in participating this year as a mentor, please contact the Program Coordinator, Elexa Stevenson, at pam.damoff.a3@parl.gc.ca or call the Damoff office at 613-992-1338.
If you are interested in participating this year as a mentee, please fill out this Google form. Please indicate your interest by March 16, 2018 at the latest.
|
|
