 By Cheryl DeLugt
October 12th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The intrinsic nature behind the school closures in Burlington is clearer than most may think. For almost a year now the Halton District School Board (HDSB) has been instrumental in its’ ability to have consistently provided the community a false sense of good intentions when it comes to closing our schools.
 Cheryl DeLugt and Steve Armstrong with the message from the community. Let’s face it….our schools were doomed, some would say…”A Done Deal”. Well, that was at least what was implied by the HDSB and how the majority of the community felt from the very beginning of the Program Accommodation Review Process (PAR). As the PAR process unfolded, it became more evident that closing a school or two was their primary objective.
The mere fact that our school was named and recommended to be closed in advance of any community input or public consultation, made it obvious the board had its own agenda, which in turn became the driving force behind the HDSB efforts to assure their plans to close Burlington high schools were achieved.
It now appears, to many community members, that the whole PAR process was intended to attain a controlled means of community input sufficient enough to claim community participation as part of the Halton District School Boards’ intent and plan to close two Burlington high schools. The process itself lacked honesty, transparency, logic, reason and effective community input. In addition, those who voted on the final decision were elected officials from outside of the affected communities, making the decision to close any schools in Burlington that much easier, or at least easier on one’s own conscience.
Fiscal responsibility to our community was by no means the predominate factor considered when making the decision to close our schools and if it was, a no school closure would have been given equal consideration. The cost savings of closing schools will be in the result of some staff savings and operating costs, but there will be added costs to decommission, insurance, maintenance, that will be added with closure. If one was to look at accounting for all costs, small schools such as Lester B Pearson are in fact more cost efficient on a per capita student basis than larger schools.
 Was Lester B. Pearson high school “doomed” from the beginning? Early on in the PAR process, it was apparent that there was reluctance and obstruction by the HDSB to engage in open and meaningful conversations with the general public and the communities affected by the school closures. This action alone revealed the school board’s lack of transparency and made many residents question the board’s motive for moving so quickly and forcefully to close our schools.
 Kim, a Lester B Pearson high school parent Perhaps the need for a greater emphasis on more open communication and input from our entire community including local and regional officials including the Mayor of Burlington, should have been actively part of the process. The Halton District School Board just recently announced its’ effort in exploring community partnerships now. In an effort of fairness, democracy, and the Ontario Ministry of Education principles, the HDSB had a moral and legal obligation to have explored other creative options more aggressively including possible community partnerships prior to proposing any school closures.
While the HDSB focuses their efforts on the transition process for Lester B Pearson high school and their desires for a “NEW” Administration building, many members of the community will now redirect their attention on the Burlington citizens appeal to the Ontario Ministry of Education now approved Administrative Review (AR).
With the AR soon underway, the need for better collaboration between the City of Burlington, its’ residents, and the Halton District School Boards prior restriction of information and the dissemination of correct, timely information in a transparent fashion will become apparent.
While the Halton District School Board continually reiterates to the public that the Administrative Review will NOT reverse their decision, it should indeed question it to a fair degree. The purpose of the Administrative Review (AR) is to thoroughly review the board’s honest commitment, integrity and ability to follow the HDSB and Ontario Ministry of Education policies while conducting the prior PAR process plus determine if there is need for HDSB procedural change.
 Ward 4 school board trustee Rachelle Papin at a school council meeting. In light of the approval of an AR, and with consideration of the facilitators findings, the community expects our elected Trustees to welcome the opportunity to openly review and change their June 7th, 2017 decision based on newly revealed supportive facts that the process they followed led them to a decision which was indeed without a doubt “flawed”.
After-all, how can and why would any school board or elected official stand behind a decision that they know was made using questionable methods, non- transparency and incorrect information and executed process?
A question we ALL should be asking at this point …especially the school board Trustees.
 Cheryl is a Registered Nurse who was a member of the Program Accommodation Review Committee that was unable to reach a consensus on which if any Burlington high schools should have been closed.
 By Pepper Parr
October 12th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Two men, both from Aldershot, delegated at city council earlier this week – both had similar comments and both had problems getting their material into the record – no one knew what happened.
 Greg Woodruff, who ran for Chair of the Region in the 2014 election, had comments to make about the development planned for 35 Plains Road. While he didn’t like the idea of an additional two floors of density being given to a site that is zoned for six storeys – that wasn’t his biggest concern,
His objections to the 35 Plains road development were that the building is not of pedestrian scale. It is important he pointed out that we not create buildings which tower over the pedestrian walkway
Woodruff pointed out that the building does not comply with employment usage. This application he said seeks to remove employment space requirement and still want the “mixed use” designation.
The building is close to a transit hub, which allows people to commute to Toronto and would also allow people to commute to employment uses in Aldershot. There are people doing that now in Burlington.
Woodruff thought that 70% was a good requirement because it would create commercial pedestrian densities if enforced. “We are far better served with creating employment usage in the area than just residential. There is no vibrancy or transit enhancement created by people commuting to Toronto and gone from the area all day. Vibrancy requires people here all day – which employment usage properly creates.
 Woodruff then added that the 35 Plains Road proposal does not comply with the Aldershot Village vision. The vision calls for sites that have large landscaping and large generally open spaces.
Woodruff wants to see a minimum amenity area maintained. Zoning minimums are required because buyers can not asses reasonable levels. Creating a large number of small inexpensive low amenity units create a building were the major selling feature is low cost. Though this looks attractive at first long term it creates problems.
The developer wants the parking spaces reduced from a required 130 to a proposed 100 and have visitor parking reduced to 17 from the required 28 spaces.
Reduction of commercial parking is a mistake. While it is generally available vendors do no keenly enforce it.
Thus a shopper can park at once place and walk the near other businesses. At this site you can see someone using it and the adjacent bank without moving their car. However if customers cannot park easily vendors will enforce it – this requires movement of cars for every trip to every store.
We all know how this has worked out at the parking space at the No Frills plaza on Brant Street.
Woodruff told council of comments made by Brent Toderian at a public meeting. Toderian is a Vancouver based consultant who has done a considerable amount of work for Burlington who was asked:
How do you make density something that communities welcome?
 The Toderian line of thought – make sure that you’re spending the value on things that make density successful. Toderian responded: “I don’t support stupid density. I sometimes have as much concern about the YIMBY [Yes In My Backyard] movement as I do about the NIMBY movement. I don’t buy an absolute not-in-my-backyard, but I also don’t buy the argument that we should get rid of our zoning codes and have at it, build as much as we can. Both of those are the extreme.
Toderian was then asked: Explain density bonusing.
Toderian: “You have a base density, but [a developer] can increase to a higher density by negotiating amenities that make that higher density more livable. The key is to make sure that you’re spending the value on things that make density successful. Doing this “… gives the community a sense that the additional density is translating into something that’s going to support quality of life. They can see a connection between the additional density and amenities their community needs, but probably won’t be able to afford.
Woodruff doesn’t think the Planning department has taken to heart the Toderian line of thought. He suggested to Council that they were paying more attention to what the developer was asking for than they were to the zoning in place and the policies that had been adopted.
 Tom Muir recognizes the difference between evidence-based policy-making, and policy-based evidence making. Tom Muir, who has been delegating to city council for more than 25 years saw the same kind of thing happening but chose different language to make his point.
“In my 45 years of policy and issues analysis I learned to recognize the difference between evidence-based policy-making, and policy-based evidence making. This looks to be the latter – decide what you want first, and then pick the evidence.
Oftentimes, sections of the Policy Framework said to be used, are selectively chosen that support the recommendation to approve. Other parts raising issues of approval are sometimes stated, but not followed up on. As a result, the viability of existing business and commercial economic development is being sacrificed by planning recommendations such as this one. What I continue to find disturbing is the continued de-commercialization of Aldershot.
Muir made it clear that both the Provincial Policy Statement and the city’s Strategic Plan point to the need for commercial uses to be planned for and increased not reduced and the needs of existing business to be accounted for, not sacrificed. “But the proposal” said Muir, “contradicts what the policy calls for. It talks about complete communities, but goes in the opposite direction
“Aldershot is losing retail to residential builds. We are told there needs to be more residents to support retail, which is not generally true except for a grocery store. However, if you get the residents, but no longer have the land supply to build retail/commercial, and a cost structure that is not competitive, you still don’t get the commercial.
What seems to be missing is any representation of the present reality, of the real businesses, with real business value, real jobs with real employees, and real customers, who are being plowed under, forced to leave and maybe drive more. This is happening at an increasing pace. Who of you speaks for these folks? The only one around this table that made sense of this is Councillor Meed Ward.
 Tom Muir: Its pie in the sky to me, promising a Mobility Hub utopia where the business dead will rise again. Muir argues that “we are told that the mobility hub plans will take us to another place with everything we want, and that we should celebrate, although here fanciful speculations are blurring proper judgement more and more, with each new proposal that comes along. Its pie in the sky to me, promising a Mobility Hub utopia where the business dead will rise again. I can hardly call this “good planning”.
Delegations are made before the meat and potatoes part of city Council meetings.
Council voted 6-1 in favour of the 35 Plains Road development that will be eight storeys in height with the first six floors being basically flush to the sidewalk – no set back and no trees.
Councillor Craven held a community annual meeting last week at which he brought his constituents up to date on the numerous developments taking place in Aldershot – the Gazette will report on that event soon.
 By Staff
October 10th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The Burlington Fire Department is recognizing Fire Prevention Week from Oct. 8 to 14, 2017 with a contest for residents who connect with them through social media.
Residents are asked to look for Fire Prevention Week transit shelter ads around Burlington, take a photo clearly showing the safety message– selfie optional – and tag @BurlingtonFire on Twitter or @BurlingtonFireDept on Facebook to be entered into a draw to win a Fire Prevention Week gift pack.
The contest runs from Oct. 2 to 29, 2017.
Fire Prevention week is a province-wide initiative held each year in October. This year’s theme of Fire
Prevention Week is “Every Second Counts: Plan 2 Ways Out!”
In a fire, you may have just seconds to safely escape your home. Be prepared in advance with these simple steps for home fire escape planning:
 Fire and smoke move faster than you can. Plan and practice fire escape exercises. Consider the needs of everyone in your home
Identify anyone who needs help to get out of the home safely, such as small children or older adults.
Make sure that you have working smoke alarms on every storey of the home and outside all sleeping areas
Make sure everyone in the home knows the sound of the smoke alarm.
Identify all possible exits (doors and windows) and make sure they work
Know two ways out of all areas, if possible.
Everyone must know what to do when the smoke alarm sounds
Name someone to take care of those who need help.
Identify a safe meeting place outside.
Call the fire department from outside the home – from a neighbour’s home or a cell phone.
Practice your home fire escape plan at least twice a year
Have everyone take part.
Make changes to your plan if necessary.
Burlington Fire Chief Dave Lazenby tells people that “Fire and smoke move faster than you. There’s no time to figure out how to escape your home after a fire starts. Practice an escape plan before there’s a fire so you can get out safely.”
By Pepper Parr
October 10th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The Mayor tried this once before – it didn’t work out all that well. But he is game to try it again.
 Mayor with Mark Carr preparing for a live call in Cogeco broadcast from city. Sometime during his first term of office the Mayor teamed up with Mark Carr and Cogeco and set up a call in show that was done live from the city Council Chamber. There were very very few calls.
This time the Mayor is going to talk to his constituents about the budget priorities in an online Town Hall.
In the past the city has held public meetings to talk about the budget – the Mayor is now saying that “We’re making changes to our budget engagement strategy based on last year’s survey results which told us residents didn’t want to come to a public information centre and would prefer a more convenient way of being informed and asking questions.”
The photographs taken of previous public budget meetings show a room filled with people. There was one exception – in 2015 – a snow storm kept people away.
 A rapt audience listened to an overview of the 2014 budget. .  Lot of people showed up for the 2011 budget review meeting.  The 2015 budget review meeting didn’t draw very many people – there was a snow storm – however the arena right next door was packed. The Telephone Town Hall on the 2018 Proposed Budget will take place on Wednesday, October 18th, between 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. for residents, businesses and community partners.
Participants will learn about and discuss the proposed 2018 budget priorities with Mayor Rick Goldring and senior city staff.
Residents, businesses and community partners will be randomly selected to participate by telephone invitation from the Mayor. Anyone who does not receive a telephone invitation can call 1-800-537-6616 at 7:30 p.m. on October 18th and listen in to the conversation.
The purpose of the Telephone Town Hall is to discuss the proposed 2018 budget priorities with the Mayor and senior city staff.
In this live, call-in session, residents, organizations and business owners can ask questions about the upcoming budget. There will be an emphasis on:
• Resident satisfaction with value for service
• Increased funding for transit
• Support for city infrastructure renewal funding
There is no mention of any documentation or overview of what the 2018 budget is going to contain which makes it a little difficult for people to comment. It does give those who get invited to take part to rant publicly – which makes one wonder just who is going to get invited. The selection of participants is said to be random – random from what – a list of voters or those who donated to the Mayor’s election campaign or those on his Christmas card list?
The discussion will start shortly after 7:30 pm – those who want to listen in can call in a minute or two early; anyone who is late will be able to join anytime. The system can handle up to 20,000 participants.
 Joan Ford, the city’s Director of Finance knows where every dollar comes from and where every dollar gets spent. Joan Ford, Director of Finance adds that: “The budgets are being drafted right now. The feedback we receive from the Town Hall will be put into a report and presented to City Council for their consideration. All questions received during the Town Hall, regardless of whether they were discussed live will be posted online with answers a few days after the event.”
By George Ward
October 7th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Many residents in Burlington are still questioning why we are closing two schools in the growing City of Burlington. The Halton District school Board has presented its perspective and justification for the closures, it still doesn’t make sense.
 Hayden High school, Burlington’s newest built as part of a complex that includes a Recreational Centre and a public library with a skate park across the street. The school is well over its intended capacity and currently has 12 portables. To begin, closing both Pearson and Bateman high school does not alleviate the overcrowding at Hayden (overcrowded with over 1,650 pupils and growing, necessitating the use of 12 portable classrooms and a desire to add 6 more in the future).
Secondly, it does not alleviate the growing pressures on our busing system and in fact contributes to the growing problem and safety concerns. Closing our schools makes absolutely no sense, is unwarranted, unjustified, and simply put is very short-sighted.
The board seems to have lost sight of the fact that schools are public assets and that taxpayers have invested their money in these schools and communities. If one was to look at these school closures in Burlington solely from a financial perspective you would realize that closing Pearson and Bateman will result in a substantially higher costs.
Closing two schools save approximately $2 million, however, some of these operating costs, such as the pool and day care, added busing, and other new ongoing costs to take care of the closed schools are not accounted for. In addition, the costs of capital equipment and facilities to transition specialty programs to Nelson was put at $12 million, but there is concern that this will be much higher. While a no school closure would result in the expense range of approximately $250,000 in operating costs. How is that being fiscally responsible?
 Some of the data that was presented during the PARC meetings was out of date and conflicted with other data put forward. Many had difficulty figuring out just what the full story was. Superintendent of Facilities Gerry Cullen was challenged at times to give a satisfactory explanation. Throughout the Program Accommodation Review (PAR) process, it became clear early on of the lack of transparency when it came to information sharing from the board. From information and data changing periodically to the extensive and lengthy data provided, it became a challenge to gain insight into the facts that led to the decision to close our schools.
With more questions than answers, one might start to wonder: What is the real motivation behind the HDSB wanting to close these schools?
Perhaps when we go back through Board Minutes to understand why the board needs to move forward on school closures in Burlington.
Below is an excerpt from HDSB meeting minutes of February 2017:
The Halton District School Board Administration is experiencing significant growth pressures due to growth in student population and the increasing complexity of its work. As a result, the Board’s existing office facilities have become woefully inadequate. This is not a question of quantity of space, but rather of quality of space.
 It is only a concept but it gives you some idea as to how far along the thinking is within the Boar of Education Administration. Our analysis of how to meet the Board’s current and future needs presents an opportunity to provide the staff of the HDSB with a 21st century work environment: a new 95,000 sq. ft. facility to accommodate 350 staff within a single building, designed according to the guiding principles identified herein.
The sale of the existing J.W. Singleton site would make this project possible and in turn, create a facility that reflects the Board’s values, resulting in the delivery of the highest quality education for the Board’s students.
Budget Estimate: 95,375 sq. ft. x $310/sq. ft. = $29.6M
This estimate is based on the HWDSB (Hamilton-Wentworth) precedent and it is for project costs only. Land costs are not included, as they will depend on the site selection. Space for growth (10,000 sq. ft.. included) is based on HDSB projections, and can be adjusted should projections increase.
Costs:
• 1 move required
• Unknowns could impact the costs include site issues such as geo-technical, soil, zoning,
Benefits:
• Only 1 move – no temporary accommodations required, and minimized disturbance to staff.
• Because this would be a purpose-built environment, it is the option that would best meet the Board’s needs outlined in this report without compromise.
• Other sites no longer in use could be used to raise funds.
It is clearly stated in the minutes that it is NOT a situation of need for additional space but rather a desire for better quality of space. According to the board, a better facility for their staff would in turn provide better education. How does having a nicer work space for HDSB board staff contribute to a better quality of education for our students?
 Demonstrations didn’t make a bit of difference. The trustees, who are the people who made the decision, didn’t hear the parents.  Bateman high school parents chose to give their school a public hug. Shouldn’t priority be that our students have the “best quality learning environment”. Where students can walk or ride their bikes to school instead of sitting on the floor of an overcrowded bus. Where students are able to learn in an environment that is quiet, calm, and not overcrowded, where classes are not held in hallways, where students are not learning in portables, where there is sufficient heating, air conditioning, and/or proper ventilation systems?
The planning for a new Administration office for the Board Staff are moving along: The following comes from a report prepared by a firm of architects. The options before the Board were set out as follows:
Do Nothing,’ but maintain the existing facilities, for an estimated cost of $20M over the next 25 years, with no improvement to the actual offices in terms of functionality or design .
Complete a Renovation- Addition to one of the existing buildings, which would yield a compromised facility with increased disruption, for a similar cost to the final option .
Build a new facility, estimated at
$29 .6M (not including land) is the option that would best meet the Board’s needs as outlined in our guiding principals .
In order to obtain true value and create the desired synergies enabling Board staff to work at their best, we strongly recommend the Board proceed with constructing a new Administrative office facility .
Because of existing legislative requirements, selling the J .W . Singleton property appears to be the best way to generate sufficient dollars to fund this project . This would in turn allow for a new administrative facility to be centrally located in the Milton/Oakville area, where the Region’s growth is projected in the next 25-50 years .
The next phases of this Study will explore potential partnerships that could yield community benefits as well as capital and operating savings . Once specific sites are identified, concept plans, cost estimates and implementation strategies will be completed .
It appears that the need to accommodate 350 board staff takes precedence over the 76 elementary schools, and 17 secondary schools that serves over 50,000 students, excluding those in adult, alternative, and Community Education program within our school system.
Despite the fact the Minister of Education announced a moratorium on the Program Accommodation Review process and the fact that the HDSB is now subject to an Administrative Review, the HDSB continues to move forward on their plan to close two Burlington high schools, despite the fact the process that led to the decision has been publicly deemed to be flawed.
So, the question still remains.
Why is the HDSB really closing schools in Burlington?
Related article:
School Board announces it is looking for partners.
 George Ward is a semi- retired quality control auditor who is deeply involved in the community effort to keep the Lester B. Pearson high school open. Both his children and some of their children attended Lester B. Pearson.
By Pepper Parr
October 4th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It is taking a bit longer than anyone expected but the Ministry of Education assures us that there will be an announcement shortly on who has been assigned the task of doing the Administrative Review of the PAR process that resulted in the decision to close two of the city’s seven high schools.
Is there any life left for this high school? “The Ministry is currently in the process of finalizing the details regarding selecting a facilitator to undertake an Administrative Review for the Pupil Accommodation Review which included Lester B. Pearson High School and Robert Bateman High School.
“Once finalized, the ministry will notify the Halton District School Board, lead petitioners and the broader public.”
The parent groups at each high school feel there is a lot riding on whatever the appointed facilitator concludes after looking at all the documents.
 HDSB Director of Education Stuart Miller with students during a public meeting. Bate parent group member Denise Davy stands to Miller’s left. Halton District school Board Director of Education Stuart Miller told the Gazette recently that “these reviews tend to be paper heavy”.
There are those in the community who feel that the delay in appointing someone is a part of the process to keep the issue out of the public eye until the June 7, 2108 provincial election is out of the way – that’s ten months off.
The Board staff had hoped that this would all be done quickly so they could get on with the job of getting one school upgraded so they could take in the students. Many of the Bateman students are due to move to an upgraded Nelson high school in 2020.
Lester B. Pearson is scheduled to have their last high school graduation in June of 2018; in 2019 they are supposed to become M.M. Robinson students.
 One wonders if the PARC that was created to serve as the communications channel from parents to the Board will have anything to say once the Administrative Review is completed.
Most parent groups felt the PAR failed the community – which is part of why they requested the Administrative Review.
The school board staff just want to get on with the job of transitioning students to their new schools – the parent groups have taken the position that this isn’t over yet.
By Pepper Parr
October 2nd, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The process a development proposal has to go through is complex – there are dozens of hoop a developer has to go through and each step is expensive.
The developer is at significant risk – they are putting their money on the line and every penny is lost if they don’t get the approvals they need.
The large 20 storey plus projects draw a lot of attention. The smaller developments raise the ire of the neighbourhood they are to be built in but they don’t get the exposure the big ones get.
The city is compelled to grow its population. The province dictates the growth level and the Regional government does the fine tuning that decides how many more people are to be housed in a community or how many new jobs are to be created.
Burlington has focused on the residential development – the Economic Development Corporation does entice some new jobs to the city – but we aren’t celebrating that many new jobs.
There is a development in ward 5 that is drawing a lot of attention in that part of the city.
 The level of intensification is evident in the drawing. The developer is seeking permission to construct 22 residential dwelling units consisting of 8 semi-detached residential dwelling units and 14 townhouse units on Upper Middle Road where five properties have been assembled. These lands are hold outs from the previous subdivision development that surrounds these properties. These lands are located on the north side of Upper Middle Road, east of Appleby Line. The total area of the development is approximately 0.5 hectares (1.23 acres).
To the north of the subject properties are low density (single detached) residential dwellings; to the east are low density (single detached) residential dwellings; to the south is a high school and vacant employment lands (Bronte Meadows); and to the west is a stormwater management pond and a townhouse development. Description of Applications
There was a community meeting in May of this year –comments from that meeting appear below.
The meeting taking place at city hall tonight is a Statutory Public meeting – something the city is required to hold. It gives the public an opportunity to express their views on the suitability of the project.
The report will be received and filed and then be brought before the Planning and Development Committee on October 10th where the real debate takes place. Then it goes to city council where a final decision is made.
The purpose of the report that will be presented Monday night is to provide background information for the statutory public meeting required under the Planning Act for Zoning By-law amendment applications.
The report provides an overview of the proposed application, an outline of the applicable policies and regulations and a summary of technical and public comments received to date.
 The report sets out the start of the “ticking off” of the boxes.
The report relates to the following objectives of the City of Burlington Strategic Plan:
A City that Grows
Targeted Intensification
Higher densities in key intensification areas (including mobility hubs, downtown, uptown and along major roads and commercial plazas) that will build neighbourhoods that are environmentally friendly, infrastructure-efficient, walkable, bikeable and transit-oriented.
Focused and Directed Population Growth
A City that Moves
Increased Transportation Flows and Connectivity
A Healthy and Greener City
Healthy Lifestyles; every resident of Burlington lives within a 15-20 minute walk from parks or green spaces.
All these are set out in the Strategic Plan the city spent more than a year creating and putting in place. That Plan is a hoop that has to be gotten around if not over.
The application got to the Planning and Building Department on May 4, 2017 to permit 22 residential dwelling units consisting of 8 semi-detached residential dwelling units and 14 townhouse units. The townhouse block includes three separate buildings ranging from four to six units.
The semi-detached dwellings are proposed to be freehold units fronting directly onto an extension of Georgina Court. The townhouse units are proposed to be condominium units that would front onto an internal condominium road that would be accessed from the Georgina Court extension. The townhouse condominium is proposed to include five visitor parking spaces. The townhouse blocks will have access from the proposed internal lane; however, the southern blocks would have frontage and pedestrian access directly to Upper Middle Road.
Technical Reports
Another set of hoops that had to be gotten through included a Cover Letter, Zoning By-law Amendment Application, a Conceptual Site Plan Layout, a Planning Justification Report, an Urban Design Brief, a Building Height Certification, a Noise Impact Assessment, a Traffic Brief & Parking Study, a Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report, an Environmental Site Screening Questionnaire; a Land Use Compatibility Assessment, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, and a Tree Inventory and Preservation Study.
The application along with these materials have been circulated to various departments and agencies for technical review.
The next set of boxes that are going to have to be ticked off are various policy framework documents. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment application is subject to the following policy framework:
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014;
Places to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017;
Halton Region Official Plan;
City of Burlington Official Plan, Orchard Community Secondary Plan
City of Burlington Zoning By- law 2020.
 Provincial policy determines what a municipality can and must do. The subject lands are designated in the zoning bylaw as Residential – Medium Density.
According to the Residential Areas policies, residential areas are intended to provide housing and other land uses that are part of a residential environment, and may take forms ranging from detached homes to high-rise apartment structures.
One of the objectives of the Residential designation is to encourage new residential development and residential intensification within the Urban Planning Area in accordance with Provincial growth management objectives, while recognizing that the amount and form of intensification must be balanced with other planning considerations, such as infrastructure capacity, compatibility, integration with existing residential neighbourhoods, and protection of the natural environment.
 This is what most of the Orchard community is today. Another objective of this designation is to provide housing opportunities that encourage usage of public transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation networks and decrease dependence on the car. The designation also encourages the integration of a wide range of housing types and tenure, while requiring new residential development to be compatible with surrounding properties.
 OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA Medium Density designation, either ground or non- ground-oriented housing units with a density ranging between 26 and 50 units per new hectare shall be permitted. Within the Orchard Community, there are site specific policies which permit the following housing forms within the Residential – Medium Density designations: townhouses; street townhouses and stacked townhouses; semi- detached, duplexes, three-plexes and four-plexes. This designation also permits detached dwelling units up to a maximum of 15 percent of the total housing mix on each property.
Draft New Official Plan
The city has been working on a new Official Plan that was presented as a Draft document on April 6, 2017. The document communicates Council’s vision and establishes strategic priorities for the City’s growth management, land use and infrastructure.
 The draft new Official Plan designates the subject lands as Residential Neighbourhood Areas, and more specifically Residential – Medium Density. The Residential Neighbourhood Areas are intended to provide for housing and other residential supportive land uses that are part of an urban residential environment. New residential housing within the Residential Neighbourhood Areas shall be accommodated primarily through infill or intensification, of existing areas, where compatible.
On lands designated Residential – Medium Density, ground and non-ground oriented dwellings including single-detached and semi-detached dwellings, townhouses, street townhouses, stacked townhouses, back-to-back townhouses and low-rise residential buildings may be permitted. Lands within this designation shall be permitted at a density of 26 to 75 units per net hectare,( it was 26 and 50 in the current Official Plan) with a maximum height of three storeys for ground- oriented dwellings and four storeys for non-ground oriented dwellings.
Draft new Official Plan policies were brought to the public and Council for consultation over the spring and summer of 2017. The draft new Official Plan is scheduled to be presented to the Planning and Development Committee and Council in the fall of 2017 for adoption.
Orchard Community Secondary Plan
The Orchard Community Secondary Plan final report, dated February 1995, identified three key elements of the community structure as the transit corridors, residential neighbourhoods and a connected open space system. At the time, the Orchard Community was expected to develop at generally higher densities than those found throughout the existing suburban areas of Burlington.
 The subject lands are located in the southern portion of the Orchard Community and were identified as Residential – Medium Density. In Medium Density Residential areas, either ground or non-ground oriented housing units with a density between 26 and 50 units per hectare shall be permitted. This designation permits housing forms such as street, block and stacked townhouses, semi-detached, duplexes, three-plexes and four- plexes. The designation also permits detached dwelling units up to a maximum of 15 percent of the total housing mix on each property.
City of Burlington Zoning By-law 2020
5219 Upper Middle Road is currently zoned ‘Development (D)’, while the remaining properties subject to this application are zoned ‘Medium Density Residential (RM3-138)’ with a site specific provision. The ‘D’ zone only permits a single detached dwelling. The ‘RM3’ zone permits a variety of dwelling types from a detached dwelling to an apartment building, as well as a retirement home or community institutional use. The site specific provision applying to the vacant parcels (138) sets out zoning regulations for detached dwellings, semi- detached dwellings and street townhouse dwellings, and limits a maximum of 15% of the total of all dwelling units located within all lots and blocks zoned ‘RM3-138’ to be detached units.
The applicants are proposing to amend the Zoning By-law by changing the zoning of the subject properties from ‘D’ and ‘RM3-138’ to a site specific ‘Orchard Community Residential to permit the proposed semi-detached and townhouse development.
Technical Review
On May 5, 2017, staff circulated a request for comments to internal and external agencies, including Halton Region. Agency comments will be addressed in the subsequent recommendation report.
Burlington Economic Development Corporation (BEDC):
BEDC has no comments.
Halton District School Board (HDSB):
HDSB has no objection to the proposed application, as submitted.
Halton Catholic District School Board (HCDSB):
In response to the application which seeks to permit the development of 8 semi- detached and 14 residential townhouse units, the HCDSB has no objection.
Parks and Open Space:
Adequate parkland is available to accommodate this development as Brada Woods Park and Orchard Woodlot are located within the 0.8km distance for a neighborhood park and the 2.4km distance for a community park. As such we recommend cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication be applied for this development.
We note a driveway in the east side of the proposed development. This driveway is immediately adjacent to the existing service road/walkway access around the storm water pond facility. The city will not permit snow to be deposited on the storm pond lands and or trail. We would recommend a buffer between the development and the city storm water facility be incorporated to ensure there is space for snow disposition. We will also require a chain link fence be placed on the city side of the property line. Please note gate opening through the fence will not be allowed.
Site Engineering:
Prior to providing a recommendation, Site Engineering requires further information to be submitted for review.
Finance Department:
Property taxes must be paid in full, including all installments levied.
Transportation Planning:
Transportation Planning has reviewed the Transportation Brief for 5219 Upper Middle Road & 2004-2005 Georgina Crt and is satisfied with the Conclusions.
In response to feedback received at the neighbourhood meeting (May 23rd 2017) regarding the potential for a traffic signal at the intersection of Quinte Street and Upper Middle Road, Transportation Services staff conducted a traffic signal review for this location. Based on the traffic data available for this intersection (taking into account the estimated number of trips proposed to be generated by this development in the AM and PM peak hours), it was determined that a traffic signal is not warranted.
City Forestry / Landscaping:
Urban Forestry has no objection to the rezoning of this site. Additional tree planting should be provided where possible, and tree and landscape planting on site should be carefully considered within the context of the site.
Halton Region:
Regional staff has no objection to the above noted application, subject to the provision of a holding provision, until such time that as servicing and environmental matters have been addressed to the Region’s satisfaction.
All the boxes up to this point have the tick in the box.
That’s how intensification development gets done.
 The developer took this … It was done in the Queensway where six properties were turned into 58 housing units.
 … and put up this. The Burlington that once was – isn’t going to be for much longer.
Not really very much that can be done to prevent it.
By Pepper Parr
September 28th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The latest Molinaro project made its public bow last night at a community presentation at the Performing Arts Centre. The general public got a look at what the developer plans for a site on the corner of Ontario and Brock Streets.
 Proposed 22 storey tower for a part of the city that has a number of high rises. Good design. The developer has made an application for a change to both the current Official Plan and the zoning bylaw for a 22 storey, 170 unit apartment condominium complex that will have four levels of underground parking. There will be a roof top amenity area and two levels of mechanical space on that top level.
The building is distinctly different in terms of design. While taller, it is also going to be quite a bit slimmer than high rise buildings in Burlington have been in the past.
The city put in place Guidelines for the construction of tall buildings – the objective was to ensure that there was a decent amount of space between the buildings and that people have a view that was not looking into someone else’s bedroom.
These public meetings are part of the process that takes place for every development. There will be a statutory public meeting at city hall where people can go on record as being opposed to or in favour of a development.
The application is in the hands of the Planning department who review all the studies the developer was required to submit. There will be ongoing discussion with the Planning consultant the developer hired and eventually a report from the city planners with their recommendation as to what city council should decide to do.
The city Planner’s report is debated at length at a city council Standing Committee meeting and then goes to a Council meeting where it is either approved or not approved.
Most developments do get approved, many have changes made based on what gets discussed at the Standing Committee level.
When the city planners completed their explaining the meeting got turned over to Marianne Meed Ward, the Councillor for ward 2.
She said “something will be developed on the site” and explained that this was the time for people to say what they liked and didn’t like.
There were about 55 to 60 people in the Community Studio at the Performing Arts Centre – the traffic and noise concerns were the biggest issues. Any development downtown has to get through the traffic concern hoops.
 Aerial view with rendering of proposed building dropped in. People do get upset over applications to change the permitted height of a building. Asking that property zoned for 7 storey’s be changed to allow 20 storey’s plus offends some people – even though, in this instance there are already a number of buildings that are well above that seven storey level.
Meed Ward did say that the city hasn’t done that good a job at explaining the development process to the public and the public believes that city council rolls over for every developer who walks into the Council chamber.
It is a complex process – and while the public is convinced that every developer is making huge profits the reality is that the developer has to assemble the land, pay significant development charges, cover the cost of the various studies that are required before they can put a shovel in th ground.
The risk is significant.
These first public meetings always bring out the concerns of people who tend not to be in favour of developments. The concerns are usually related to traffic, noise and sometimes light pollution.
These meetings start with a presentation from a city planner who explains what the fundamentals of the development are and what the developer is asking for.
In 2011 the Molinaro’s took part in a meeting to show the public what they planned to build on the corner of Brock and Elgin.
The company asked for a height and density increase from seven to 14 storeys – which they got.
They moved their corporate offices into the ground floor and rented space to member of the provincial legislature.
 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward,chaired part of the meeting and did what she does better than any other Councillor, coaxing comments out of her constituents and listening to what they have to say. Getting that project approved was not a slam dunk – the public didn’t like very much about the building and they were really opposed to the idea of more traffic.
It was not the most orderly of meetings.
All the complaints that were heard at the 2011 public meeting were heard once again last might. Traffic, traffic and noise.
One women rose to speak about the noise. She said she was an early riser and when she sat outside on her balcony she could hear the traffic noise from the Skyway. Sound carries and having the stillness of the morning disturbed by the sounds of hundreds of cars travelling at pretty high speed over a bridge is part of living in an urban setting.
The biggest in the meeting Wednesday meeting was that a number of people liked the design – several called it a beautiful building and it is indeed a much more attractive building than what we call Brock 1 – the first building the company built on that location.
There were complaints about light pollution, there were complaints about the number of visitor parking spaces. developers have this conundrum before them. The city is pushing for more use of public transit, they want to see fewer cars on the streets; there is a movement to shared car ownership which will mean that the need for parking spaces will not be as high – but no one wants to be in a building that doesn’t have parking spaces.
The Molinaro Planning consultant Fothergill pointed out that the building they construct today are going to be there 50 years from now when our relationship to the automobile is going to be a lot different.
There were concerns that the building might become rental units and have residents that were not sufficiently “invested” in the building and let it become a poorly maintained ghetto.
Meed Ward pointed out that Burlington does not have enough in the way of rental properties – more are needed.
There was a considerable amount of snobbishness swirling around the room.
About a dozen people chose to speak; notes were taken and will be part of the review the city planners do as they prepare their recommendation.
While architectural renderings always show a building through rose coloured glasses – Graziani + Coraza have done some remarkable work elsewhere in the GTA – if the final product is close to the renderings the building is going to be a pleasure to look at. The Molinaro’s deserve credit for adding some interesting architecture to the city.
 By Pepper Parr
September 26, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton District Board of Education is always looking for opportunities to make the course offerings more creative and relative to the work force students will be going into when they graduate.
During the PARC discussions members of that committee wanted to see some innovation – they weren’t at all sure that the school board had the same understanding of just what innovation is in the eyes of the public sector and the way it was interpreted by the private sector.
 Small school – they roar when they have to. The Board had an addition problem – enrollment at the Aldershot high school was low – 358 now with a capacity for 558. One school board Superintendent summed it up pretty well when she said “there are elementary schools in Burlington with higher enrollments”
Aldershot is a grade 7–12 school. It was originally just a high school that had grades 7 and 8 added in 2001 to make use of spare capacity.
Aldershot was at risk during the PAR process – it was spared but the Board knew that it had to do something to increase enrollment.
The community is being asked by the school board what they would like to see added to the school’s curriculum.
 All kinds of ideas have been floated – an alternative school, an arts school or a school that focused on entrepreneurship. What had become evident was that the school board did not have a clear idea or pedagogical objective – they seemed to be flailing about for the “right idea”.
Given the continued enrollment challenges at Aldershot High School, the School Board decided to explore possible theme/magnet/incubator programs that are in alignment with the Multi-Year Plan, will increase student enrollment, and enhance student choice.
The asking for ideas is being labelled the Aldershot High School Focus Exploration.
The decision to go looking for something that will boost enrollment came out of the Program accommodation Review process – the concern was the possibility of closing yet another high school and have all the Aldershot students bused to Central high school. The political flash back from that was more than anyone wanted to take on.
 Early rendering of the Station West development proposed for the Aldershot GO station area. Aldershot is in the awkward position of having an older population that is going through a process of transition. There are a number of developments that will add significantly to the student population which includes the ADI Station West project next to the Aldershot GO Station; the National Homes project that is being proposed for Brant Street, a project on Plains Road where there is currently a Bingo Hall and then the long term upgrade to the Georgian Court Community.
Add to that the long delayed Eagle Heights project that Paletta interests have been sitting on for more than a decade.
Lots of development in the pipeline – the School Board’s problem is that it has empty seats today and needs to do something.
It will be interesting to see what gets put into the ideas box,
The School Board has said it “will explore (and potentially develop) unique programs that currently exist provincially, nationally and internationally.
Whatever they recommend will align with the Ontario Ministry of Education curriculum expectations.
The request to the community for ideas ends on October 20th with the following meeting dates
Exploration Committee Meeting #1 – Oct. 24 (3 – 5 pm) @ Aldershot High School
Open House – Nov. 13 (5 – 7 pm) @ Aldershot High School
Exploration Committee Meeting #2 – Dec. 7 (3 – 5 pm) @ Aldershot High School
Exploration Committee Meeting #3 – Dec. 12 (3 – 5 pm) @ Aldershot High School
All those meetings are in the afternoon – doesn’t exactly encourage parent attendance. There are some really smart people in Aldershot that shouldn’t have to take time off work to participate.
 Superintendent Terri Blackwell  Superintendent Jacqueline Newton  Superintendent Gord Truffen The ideas that come in are going to be sorted through by the committee formed to figure out what can be done with Aldershot. Committee members are Superintendent Jacqueline Newton, she handles the innovation file, Superintendent Gord Truffen – he oversees IT, School principal Maria McLellan, Student representation, Terri Blackwell, Superintendent of Education responsible for the Aldershot file and Superintendent Julie Hunt Gibbons
It will be interesting to see what they find in the Ideas Box.
In an earlier edition of this story we noted that the name of the ward trustee was not on the list. The staff people we interviewed did not mention the name of the trustee.
They apologize for that error
By Staff
September 26th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Frequently our readers make the case for change and wonder why the bureaucrats are not on top of the task?
 Kevin White Ken White, an Alton Village resident, makes a significant point when he comments on the push to intensify and get people out of their cars and onto public transportation or their bicycles.
Here is his comment:
“The Provincial Intensification target was in part meant to promote public transit to accommodate housing density. This was to reduce greenhouse gases and add a mix of affordable housing.
“Fast forward to Burlington and as evidenced by the Committee of the Whole council took part in on September 7th.
“We learned then that we essentially don’t have a transit plan and in fact Burlington Transit will require years of intense investment to bring it to the point of sustainability.
 The city doesn’t have a capital budget for transit – relies on part of the gas tax they get from the province and the federal budget. “A total failure of project management where transit is working in one silo and planning is working in another.
“Frankly, if you can’t convince anyone that you can move this intensified city then you have no business adding population in the first place.”
Is this the first look at a citizen thinking about elected public service?
By Pepper Parr
September 20, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
While the city beavers away at getting all the public participation for the Mobility Hubs done and another group in the Planning department works through the steps that will be involved in getting what is going to be built on the Waterfront Hotel site clarified and the people over at Transit get used to the idea that theirs is going to be a much different world if what the City Manager had to say at a recent Council meeting was real, there is another department finalizing some of its work and will have information for all of us real soon – the BUDGET.
 The budget for Capital spending in 2017 The Finance department works to a well-honed time line to get all the numbers pulled up from the departments and worked into a number that gets cleared at the Executive level within city hall.
By this time the first cut of the budget is pretty clear in the minds of the people that do the number crunching.
The million or so that is going to have to be put into Transit is something they are probably still digesting.
 The processes that a budget has to go through involves some complex procedures – the theory is that any new spending has to be supported by a business case. The 2018 budget timelines call for a December approval of the Capital Budget and a January approval of the Operating Budget.
The people over at Finance tell us that in future years “we will be targeting more aggressive timelines which would bring both the Capital and Operating Budgets forward together in advance of year-end (excluding election years).
The timeline of the budget process for 2018 looks like this:
A Committee of the Whole meeting: Capital Budget Overview: November 9, 2017
Capital Council Information Session: November 16, 2017
A Committee of the Whole Capital Budget Review: December 1, 2017
A Committee of the Whole Operating Budget Overview: December 1, 2017
Council Capital Budget Approval: December 11, 2017
Operating Council Information Session: December 12, 2017
COW – Operating Budget Review: January 18, 2018
Council Operating Budget Approval: January 22, 2018
The 2017 budget hit the people of Burlington with a 4%+ tax increase. The budget for 2016 wasn’t any better.
The long term thinking in 2016 was for there to be some pretty stiff budget increases that would in 2019.
 The actual tax rate was always higher that the projection. The city of Hamilton kept their 2017 tax rate to less than 2%.
In 2016 the Mayor asked the city manager to look for new revenue sources. There was talk then about a Storm Water Management tax – that didn’t’ fly for a number of technical regions.
 The Joseph Brant Hospital now faces the lake. The city is still paying down our part of the $60 million that we had to put up for the new and re-developed Joseph Brant Hospital. (Burlington actually had to come up with $120 million – half through a tax levy and the other half was to be raised by the Hospital Foundation.) When that special tax levy was put in place the understanding was that it would end when the hospital was paid for – that isn’t going to happen. The Finance people have built that special tax levy into their regular revenue.
When the $60 million cost was put on the table the then city manager Jeff Fielding said it was the largest sum of money the city has ever had to budget for – he might have added that it was going to be funds the city could look forward to spending forever.
By Pepper Parr
September 13th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
While the citizens of the city are asked to sit in on public sessions to discuss how we are going to Grow Bold and where all the high rise condominiums and apartment buildings are going to be located – the cranes towering above the city swing in back and forth and up and down with huge buckets of concrete as the development projects underway rise floor by floor.
 The Bridgewater as it will look from Lakeshore Road. That space on the left is not what the final view will look like. The Bridgewater on Lakeshore Road is now well above grade, the Paradigm on Fairview has three of the five towers on that development well underway – with sales reported to be very brisk.
The Berkeley on John Street is also well above grade.
The Molinaro project on Brock Street is getting ready for public review and the Carriage Gate project that is to be built opposite city hall is waiting for whatever the recommendation from the Planning department is going to be.
There are another couple of dozen projects that are in various stages of development; one a three tower structure on Brant Street at the Ghent intersection.
While all this happens the school board heads toward the actual closing of two of the city’s seven high schools and the city works at deciding when they should be pumping more money into transit.
The project that is going to have a significant impact on how people enjoy the waterfront is Bridgewater. The three structures are going to change how the way Lakeshore Road works and how people get to enjoy some of the eastern part of the downtown core waterfront.
The space between the 22 storey condominium and the eight storey hotel is going to be all people will be able to see from Lakeshore Road.
The opening between the two buildings is a bit bigger than we expected – but it isn’t wide open.
The public will be able to walk from Lakeshore Road through what is going to have to be well graded land. The original plans call for a reflecting pool in the middle.
Add to all this the development thinking being done on what will happen to the existing Waterfront Hotel and the plans the owner has to develop that property by demolishing the current structure and putting up a building that will be in the 20 storey plus hotel and a possible two other structures.
All this is putting some oomph behind that Grow Bold phrase.
 Aerial view of the hotel part of the Bridgewater project that will be on the corner of Lakeshore Road and Elizabeth and the Waterfront Hotel property to the west.  Bridgewater project from what will become the bottom of Elizabeth Street overlooking the lake.  The existing Waterfront Hotel wants to redevelop their property and put a much taller building on the site and add an additional stricture. There are issues to be worked out regarding the land south of the hotel that is to a large degree made up of landfill.
 An aerial view of the Bridgewater construction project. The red line between the buildings is the width of the opening the public will b able to walk through to get to the waterfront.
By Staff
September 12, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
This is a photo op that will have gladdened the heart of Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon.
Anything to do with cycling and sharing the road in a responsible way gets her attention.
The announcement earlier today at the Appleby GO station that the province is going to install secure bike storage at GO station and car pool lots making it easier for cyclists to commute to and from work, school, and appointments.
 The construction of new, secure bike storage lockers at GO Transit stations and car pool lots across southern Ontario. This investment is part of Ontario’s Climate Change Action Plan and is funded by proceeds from the province’s cap on pollution and carbon market.
Eight bike lockers will be installed at each of 15 commuter parking lots across the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area, Niagara, and Simcoe Region for a total of 120 bike lockers. Work will be finished by the end of March 2018.
In addition, 28 bike rooms will be installed at 26 GO Transit stations in the Greater Toronto Area over the next four years as part of Ontario’s GO RER program, expanding storage capacity while enhancing security. The first locations, which will be complete by spring 2018, include: Appleby, Markham, Mount Pleasant, Bronte, Unionville, and Stouffville.
 Minister of Transportation Steven De Luca and Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Eleanor McMahon were in Burlington today to launch the new Commuter Bike Parking Program, which will help encourage people to take their bikes as part of their daily commute.
Eight bike lockers will be installed at each of 15 commuter parking lots across the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area, Niagara, and Simcoe Region for a total of 120 bike lockers. Work will be finished by the end of March 2018. In addition, 28 bike rooms will be installed at 26 GO Transit stations in the Greater Toronto Area over the next four years as part of Ontario’s GO RER program, expanding storage capacity while enhancing security. The first locations, which will be complete by spring 2018, include: Appleby, Markham, Mount Pleasant, Bronte, Unionville, and Stouffville.
Locations:
GO stations: Burlington and Appleby
Car pool lots: QEW at Guelph Line and Hwy 403 at Hwy 6/Plains Rd
No mention of any fee for use – they will all be in place before the June election – which is more than can be said for the Burlington GO station upgrades.
No report on whether or not the two politicians rode their bikes to the event.
This just might give cyclists a reason to use New Street now that it is still on its Road Diet.
Ontario is investing approximately $2.5 million from its carbon market to fund this project.
About 1.5 million people in Ontario ride their bikes at least once a week during the spring, summer and fall, and many cycle year-round.
The Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling Program is a commitment under Ontario’s five-year Climate Change Action Plan which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, 37 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by 2050.
 By Ray Rivers
September 8th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It’s not like they need the money. Canada’s airline industry has never looked better financially. So why do they book more passengers on flights than they have seats. And more often than not, somebody ends up being bumped – having to give up his/her seat either voluntarily or by force. It is only fair and reasonable to expect that once you’ve bought a ticket and hold a reserved seat, you have a legal contract with the airline.
It’s just greed. Once all the seats are taken and fares paid, overbooking is just plain old double dipping – collecting the airfare twice on the same seat. And the airline just hopes that the overbooked will not show up for their flights. And when they don’t make it, the airline gets two tickets for one seat – not a bad deal for them.
 Removing a passenger from an aircraft because she would not give up her seat. And yes, sometimes the airlines offer to compensate those willing to be bumped and who have agreed to take another flight – but if you are heading to a wedding, or a conference where you’re speaking, or even a holiday with booked rental car and hotels… well that may not be possible, at least not without a lot of extra bother and expense. So what happens when there are no volunteers and not enough seats? And whatever happened to stand-by?
And sometimes the airlines don’t even offer compensation. I was on a flight to Whitehorse when an attendant came to my seat and demanded I get off the flight and catch another one. I could have argued with her but I didn’t relish the thought of being dragged out of the plane by my heels. They did eventually give me a discount coupon for my trouble, after I had complained vigorously later, but I shouldn’t have had to go through all of that.
 Passengers lined up fora flight – the air line business has been more profitable than ever. So it is a good thing that the government is doing something. They are introducing a so-called passenger’s bill of rights. And the government is also using that opportunity to allow foreigners to buy up more of our Canadian owned airlines – up to 49%. One might wonder how that has anything to do with passenger rights anyway. And why an industry rolling in cash needs more foreign ownership to share it with.
Greater foreign ownership will come with a price, even though 51% control will rest with Canadians. More American ownership, the most likely scenario, would herald more flights through their US ‘hubs’, you can bet, to improve profitability. Unlike Canada which is a virtual string of population east to west, the US airline industry finds it more efficient to shuffle widely dispersed passengers from their departing cities through their various airline hubs. Trying to get from Buffalo to a Latin American destination once had me flying to Boston, back to Chicago and then to Houston and changing airlines twice before getting to my last stop.
 Up, up and away for passengers booked. So expect more Canadian flights going from Halifax to Toronto via Boston and so on. Don’t forget your passport and be prepared to face that lovely full-body search a couple more times, even if you are technically in transit. I’ve been there, trust me. And it may cost you a little less up front for all the aggravation. Then, what are the dangers of broadening foreign ownership as we navigate the current re-invention of NAFTA?
Canada’s airlines have always been pretty much regulated and the industry has always amounted to not much more than a monopoly-and-a-half (Air Canada and Canadian Airlines/West Jet), excepting the tour flights and bush pilots. The Mulroney government, back in the ‘80s decided to open the industry up to competition by partially deregulating, hoping more carriers would enter the market to reduce passenger fares and improve service. But after this attempt at deregulation the industry was still a monopoly-and-a-half.
 A West Jet flight over Montreal The legislative changes also cover aspects governing efficiency and safety for rail services, speeds up responses to complaints by airline passengers and ensures that parents can sit next to their children on a flight. Perhaps the final version can mandate better seat belt security for children as well.
Calling this an airline passenger’s bill of rights sounds flash, trendy and very liberal, but it is a long time coming given what has been happening in other western nations. And given that air travel in this country is a largely regulated natural monopoly, it is unfortunate that regulators had not acted on this years ago.
 Ray Rivers Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington in 1995. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Bill Of Rights –
Bill C-49 –
More Bill or Rights – Child Airline Seats – Air Canada Finances – More Air Canada –
 By Pepper Parr
September 3, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Construction cranes in the downtown core – a welcome sign of growth to some, and intensification that isn’t welcome to others.
The provincial government has said we are going to grow and that the population of Burlington is going to rise – those are facts that we have to live with.
While construction crews put rebar in place and pour concrete the citizens gather in meetings across the city to give their views on the Grow BOLD initiative the city has undertaken to create four mobility hubs in the city around which the growth is to be contained.
There is a public that is concerned about what is going to happen to their community and a Mayor who does his best to soothe the concerns and explain that intensification will only impact 5% of the city.
 In the meantime the Bridgewater project rises out of the ground – a 22 story condominium; an 8 story hotel and a seven storey condominium tucked in behind the hotel – and the Berkeley on John Street become visible as it rises to the 28 storey height that was permitted.
That John Street construction site is to include a public garage and a medical centre – they will follow the construction of the condominium.
 Medica One or the Carriage Gate project – pick the name you like best – will go up at the top of John Street and consist of a medical offices building, an above ground garage and an apartment/condo complex. It will bring significant change to the intersection and drive redevelopment of the plaza to the immediate north, A transit hub a couple of blocks to the south then makes a lot of sense. This rendering is from the Caroline – Elizabeth Street intersection. The city expected all three projects to rise at the same time – and were worried enough about the construction actually taking place that they had the developer commit to coughing up $300,000 if the project doesn’t proceed by March of 2020.
City hall does appear to fully appreciate the market forces the developer has to contend with.
 The utility poles will disappear – all the cable will be underground. Getting that decision in place was no simple matter.  Maria Street, currently closed to the public, will be the entrance to the Berkley condominium. Carriage Gate, the developer, has had their share of grief with both the city and Burlington Hydro over the existence of utility poles on John Street. A hydro line had to be pulled in from Lakeshore Road to the site – an expensive job. There was much discussion over whether or not all the hydro wires would be underground.
The developer was prepared to pay for the cost of burying the cable in front of their project but wasn’t prepared to pay for the cost of burying the cable for every foot of the distance from Lakeshore Road.
And they didn’t like the price for doing the work that Burlington Hydro had put on the table.
It’s getting resolved – with the developer trying hard to keep the lawyers out of the room.
When completed John Street will take on a much different look. Other developers have already begun to acquire and assemble property on the street.
As construction continues the planners are looking for ways to improve the look of the rest of the street and bring more activity to the area.
There are parts of John Street that are really the back alley of some of the properties on Brant Street – the top end of John Street isn’t even a street – it is designated a lane-way that leads to a supermarket.
 By Pepper Parr
August 30th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The A team in the Administrative offices at the Halton District School Board has been meeting to ensure that everything is in place for the Tuesday re-opening of schools for the approximately 64,000 students, more than 4,200 elementary and secondary teachers and the 221 principals and vice principals who keep order and ensure that the educating gets done.
Director of Education Stuart Miller listening to students. Bateman parent Denise Davy. who pushed hard to keep the school open, watches how Miller handles himself, Director of Education Stuart Miller goes through his check list – will there be enough bus drivers in place? Burlington appears to be Ok – Oakville is where the problem exists.
The high school closing decisions made late in June don’t impact the system this year – that’s a bridge to be crossed next year. The Board administration has however begun the process of putting together the team that will oversee the transition from a five high school organization to a five school set up.
 Board of Education Superintendent Terry Blackwell Miller told the Gazette that Terry Blackwell has been tasked with overseeing the transition from seven to five high schools. That is going to keep her hoping as she deals with what Gerry Cullen comes up with on the building facilities side and what Superintendent Zonnefeld does with the CPP program that Bateman has been running. There are a couple of hundred parents very anxious about what is going to be available to their children and how their integration to a new school is going to get managed.
Zonneveld has said that much of this work is going to be on a case by case basis – there is not that much commonality with these children. Each of those students face challenges that are unique to them.
The people who look after the actual structures have begun their work – figuring out just what is going to be needed at Nelson high school when the bulk of the Bateman students start showing up on September of 2020.
 The trustees are where the buck is supposed to stop – The trustees appear to have decided they didn’t want to take the opportunity for a retreat during the summer break and take a look at how they did their jobs during the past school year. Many in Burlington expect to solve that problem come the municipal election in 2018.
Organizationally the Board administration has a number of key committee: An Administrative Council; an Executive Council
Superintendents are either corporate or academic; both types participate in the weekly Admin Council meetings. Senior managers are also available for specific issues as required. Miller leads these discussions, as he does with Executive Council.
There is a weekly School Operations committee– Associate Director of Education David Boag runs this show.
The corporate side also has their weekly Business Operations meeting. Whatever comes out of these operating level meetings works its way up the Administrative Council meetings and then on up to the Executive Council
The decisions made at the Executive Council are done within parameters the trustees have set. When the tasks aren’t exactly within the guidelines Miller puts it in front of the trustees for clarification or additional authority.
From time to time a requirement crops up that calls for a change in the work load for a Superintendent.
When the decision was made to form a Program Accommodation Review (PAR), Superintendent Podrebaac was tapped to lead that task.
 Superintendent Podrebarac strives to hear a parent with a viewpoint. Scott Podrebaac has a much different view of parent participation than he had before he took on the task.
Miller told the Gazette that Terry Blackwell has been tasked with overseeing the transition from seven to five high schools. That is going to keep her hoping as she deals with what Gerry Cullen comes up with on the building facilities side and what Superintendent Zonnefeld does with the CPP program that Bateman has been running. There are a couple of hundred parents very anxious about what is going to be available to their children and how their integration to a new school is going to get managed.
Zonneveld has said that much of this work is going to be on a case by case basis – there is not that much commonality with these children. Each of those students face challenges that are unique to them.
On top of all this is the request parents from both Bateman and Pearson made to the province for an administrative review of the process that resulted in the decision.
Administrative Reviews seldom result in much in the way of change – however in this situation the province put a halt to all the PAR’s that were taking place 22 days after the HDSB had come out with its decision.
That fact might cause the pooh-bahs at Queen’s Park to stretch the decision to put all the PAR’s on hold and have it include the Halton Board.
 Burlington MPP Eleanor McMahon, centre, is good before a camera. It is a stretch but the province is gearing up for an election that is ten months away and while the Burlington seat should not be at risk many in the community feel MPP Eleanor McMahon could have been a lot more proactive.
McMahon has not given her views on the decisions made – she certainly has views but the public is never going to hear them. There is a Minister of Education who will do that kind of talking – McMahon is a member of Cabinet and Cabinet solidarity is a must for political party government.
 A room full of parents, many with different agendas pack a room during the public information sessions that resulted in a decision to close two of the city’s seven high schools. Will this many show up to vote in 2018? Expect either Bateman or Pearson parents to ask some penetrating questions during the public election debates.
There are a lot of balls in the air on the educational front. The bright spot is the hundreds of children who will walk into a school on Tuesday to start grade 1.
Wish them well – they are the people who are going to ensure that you have a decent federal pension.
By Pepper Parr
August 25th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
He has a team of 12 people; all with the title of Superintendent and an Executive Director who heads up the Human Resources department.
While the recommendations that come from the board staff are under the signature of Stuart Miller, Director of Education, these are staff decisions.
 Director of Education -Stuart Miller Parents unhappy with the decision to close Bateman and Pearson high schools tend to go after Miller. He doesn’t take to the criticism all that easily; he takes it home with him. But it is for the most part a team decision.
Miller is the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Education Officer and the Secretary to the Board. He doesn’t have a very large personal staff – just two people.
The Board announced earlier this week that Colette Ruddock has been appointed Superintendent and will oversee the north Oakville family of schools with additional responsibility for the student health portfolio.
Colette’s began her career with Halton in 1993 and has worked as a Vice-Principal and Principal in seven different schools. She has also served in the role of Education Officer with the Ministry of Education where she played a key role in Teacher Performance Appraisal processes, New Teacher Induction programs as well as School Board hiring practices.
She is proficient in French with numerous experiences in a French Immersion settings and has taken a leadership role in our recent elementary French Immersion delivery model transition planning. She is a student-focused leader who has strong instructional leadership skills and recently received the EQAO Bette Stephenson Recognition of Achievement Award for the use of data and evidence to improve school achievement at E.J. James Public School.
Ruddock is an addition to the team of Superintendents that deliver on the direction Stuart Miller provides.
She is the newest member of a team that has had a full calendar year – and it isn’t over yet.
 David Boag Miller is backed up by David Boag, who is the Associate Director responsible for Student achievement, School operations and school accommodation and program viability.
Boag is a softer personality than Miller His task is to ensure that the quality of the programs offered is maintained and grown. He has to follow the direction given by Miller who is the Chief Educational officer.
The bulk of the team of Superintendents are focused on the academic side with Gerry Cullen handling the physical side of the schools buildings.
 The Board of Education doesn’t get a lot of attention – until there is an issue that reaches into every household – then the public turns out with questions. The Board of Education doesn’t get a lot of public attention. It is seen as a quiet operation that runs smoothly for the most part. But, Miller will tell you that the Board is the largest employer in the Region and is a part of every community. The Board is literally a part of every household that has children.
 Joey Edwardh, who holds a doctorate and runs the Community Development Halton organization with Stuart Miller, Director of Education. These two could be collaborating much more than they do When the weather is iffy – it is Stuart Miller who is up at 5:00 am talking to the team that he works with and deciding if schools are going to open.
He is very much a hands on personality – sometimes to his detriment.
He has been an educator all of his professional life which is one of the problems the Board has to contend with. The administrative offices for the Region wide Board are in Burlington on Guelph Line. Being “in touch” with every community is not a simple matter.
The Halton District school Board has organized its Superintendents so that the workload is spread amongst all of them – when they gather as the team that oversees what happens in the schools there is representation from men and women who are in daily contact with the schools in Halton Hill or Oakville.
Each of the Superintendents came up “through the system” they know the schools they are responsible for like the back of their hands.
 Terri Blackwell Terri Blackwell is one of the 12 Superintendents of Education. She reports on and oversees the School Councils, Parent Involvement Committee (PIC), Research in schools and is responsible for:
Elementary schools: Alexander’s, Alton Village, Brant Hills, Bruce T. Lindley, Burlington Central Elem, Central, CH Norton, Charles R Beaudoin, Clarksdale, Florence Meares, Kilbride, John T Tuck, John Wm Boich, Lakeshore, Orchard Park, Paul A Fisher, Pauline Johnson, Rolling Meadows, Tom Thomson.
Secondary schools: Burlington Central HS, Dr Frank J Hayden SS, MM Robinson HS, Nelson
 Gerry Cullen Gerry Cullen is the Superintendent of Facility Services. He isn’t an educator – his role is to ensure that the facilities needed to get the educating done are operational on a daily basis.
Cullen will oversee the merging of the Bateman student body with that of Nelson high school where he will go through a budget of $12 million making changes to Nelson so that school can accommodate the students from Bateman once it closes.
Cullen’s workload includes:
Construction (capital projects including design and construction of new schools, renovations, additions and portable classroom moves); Rental of school space (Community Use of Schools); Maintenance (upkeep of buildings, renewal of large maintenance programs such as roofing, window replacement, energy and environmental conditions of buildings.); Operations (cleaning, cafeterias, security, snow clearing, garbage/recycling, play structures and portable inspection.
 Rob Eatough Rob Eatough is the Superintendent of Education who handles equity programs, Communications (Internal/External)
He oversees:
Elementary schools: Dr Charles Best, Frontenac, Mohawk Garden, Pineland, Ryerson, Sir Ernest MacMillan, Tecumseh.
Secondary schools: Robert Bateman HS, Lester B Pearson HS.
With the planned closing of those two high school in the next two years Eatough will be looking at some re-assignment.
 Julie Hunt Gibbons Julie Hunt Gibbons, Superintendent of Education oversees Secondary curriculum and school program; Student success and pathways destinations.
That puts the program at Bateman high school on her desk – one of the more delicate tasks this Board now faces.
She is responsible for:
Elementary schools: Brookdale, Eastview, Gladys Speers, Oakwood, Pine Grove, WH Morden.
Secondary schools: TA Blakelock HS
Jacqueline Newton Jacqueline Newton is a Superintendent of Education who opened the Hayden high school in Alton. Her focus is Innovation/Ingenuity in schools.
During the PAR – Program Accommodation Review process the board completed in June, many thought that Newton was going to be a leader in thinking through some of the innovative ideas the PAR committee thought were possible to keep Pearson and Bateman open.
 The PARC wanted to look for innovative ways to keep their schools open – the problem was that the public and the Board staff didn’t see innovation through the same lens. Public sector and private sector people have different perceptions as to just what innovation is. What the public didn’t understand was that Newton’s focus was on innovation within the educational structure. Her role was not to look for innovative changes to the structure; a significant difference.
Members of the PARC saw innovation from a private sector perspective where the demands for change have an impact on the profitability of a corporation.
Profitability is a foreign concept for educators. Our schools are paid for out of tax dollars that are collected – those tax dollars aren’t earned.
Newton oversees:
Elementary schools: Anne J MacArthur, Boyne, Brookville, Bruce Trail, Chris Hadfield, Escarpment View, EW Foster, Hawthorne Village, Irma Coulson, JM Denyes, Martin Street, PL Robertson, Robert Baldwin, Sam Sherratt, Tiger Jeet Singh, WI Dick.
Secondary schools: Craig Kielburger SS, Milton District HS
 John Pennyfather John Pennyfather, Superintendent of Education oversees School health protocols, Social justice and the Our Kids Network
He is responsible for:
Elementary schools: Abbey Lane, Capt R Wilson, Emily Carr, Falgarwood, Forest Trail, Heritage Glen, Joshua Creek, Montclair, Munn’s, Oodenawi, Palermo, Pilgrim Wood, Post’s Corners, River Oaks, Sheridan, Sunningdale, West Oak.
Secondary schools: Abbey Park HS, Garth Webb SS, Iroquois Ridge HS, White Oaks SS
 Scott Podrebarac Scott Podrebarac is a Superintendent of Education and is a different man today than he was when he was asked to lead the PAR last October. He is a very genial man who found himself working with a process that was new and over time found to be flawed. He didn’t create the process – but he had to work with it.
He was given a group of parents that never managed to coalesce into a group working as one. The parents representatives from the seven Burlington high schools chose to defend the turf of the schools they represented.
They were a group that knew very little about each other and brought more agendas into the PARC process than there were schools.
 This wasn’t what Scott Podrebarac, on the left, expected from the public when he took on the task of shepherding the PAR process. It would be interesting to see what a report from Podrebaac on the PAR process the Board went through would look like.
The Ministry of Education that created the process came to the realization that the process was flawed and decided that it would not be used going forward. That decision was made 22 days after the Halton trustees decided to close the two high schools.
Podrebarac oversees the Early years/Kindergarten program and the Safe schools programs.
He is responsible for:
Elementary schools: Centennial, Ethel Gardiner, George Kennedy, Glen Williams, Harrison, Joseph Gibbons, Limehouse, McKenzie-Smith Bennett, Park, Pineview, Robert Little, Silver Creek, Stewarttown.
Secondary schools: Acton HS, Georgetown District HS.
 Tina Salmini Tina Salmini is a Superintendent of Education who oversees the Elementary curriculum and school program; New Teacher Induction Program (NTIP), Leadership training and Library Services.
There is a lot more to that work load than meets the eye. The changes in the way libraries work today is massive – technology now drives so much more of it.
Salmini is respobsible for:
Elementary schools: EJ James, James W Hill, Maple Grove, New Central
Secondary schools: Oakville Trafalgar HS
Gord Truffen Gord Truffen Superintendent of Education oversees Information Services (IT); International students and is responsible for:
Elementary schools: Aldershot (elem), Glenview, King’s Road, Maplehurst
Secondary schools: Aldershot HS.
It doesn’t look like much of a workload – which is a little misleading.
Truffen is probably the Superintendent most in touch with what takes place in the private sector. Given a little more rope and a mandate to pull more private sector practices into a system that lives in a bit of a bubble
Truffen could make the Halton Board considerably different.
 Mark Zonneveld Mark Zonneveld is a Superintendent of Education who is responsible for Special Education/Student Services. He oversees the Syl Apps school and Section 23 programs.
Section 23 programs serve students who require their educational needs to be met outside of the regular school system, in specialized settings. A student in a Section 23 Program is a client of an agency funded by the Ministry of Child and Youth Services that provides services in one of the following categories: Care – hospitals, maternity homes; Treatment – children’s mental health centres and group homes. Corrections – open custody and closed custody situations.
More importantly he is handling the transition of students from Bateman into Nelson and the movement of the International Baccalaureate program from Bateman to Central.
It is a job that calls for compassion and sensitivity – something many of the Bateman parents didn’t feel existed at the Board level.
Zonneveld’s challenge is to show that both exist in the operation he runs.
Superintendent Cullen has to build the space that will be needed at Nelson for the Bateman students; Zonneveld has to tailor programs for those students.
 Lucy Veerman Lucy Veerman is the Superintendent of Business Services. She is the Board’s “bean counter”. The PAR process was a bit of a rude awakening for Veerman. Parents, especially those from Centreal high school were looking at the numbers very closely and they didn’t like a lot of what they saw. Veerman had to defend numbers that make sense to educators but not a lot of sense to parents who are not familiar with public service accounting.
Veerman is responsible for Accounting, Budget, Planning, Purchasing and Transportation.
 Debra McFadden Debra McFadden is the Executive Officer, Human Resources. She oversees the hiring and development of the teachers. She is the Board’s Chief Negotiator and is responsible for all Labour Relations including Human Resources Strategy and Policy
That’s the team that is going to take the system of high schools in Burlington through a very difficult phase in the next two years.
It is a young team – there are not a lot of people who are going to be retiring soon; just a couple.
The strength of the high school system and how well it serves the needs of the public is critical. Good high schools attract families to a community.
There was a time when parents would lie about where they lived to get their children into one of the elementary schools in the south east part of the city – it’s reputation was that good. The leadership of a school can make a huge difference.
The leadership of a Board administration can make a big difference.
And the leadership from the trustees can and should make a difference.
Corporations that are looking for a new location or the setting for an expansion want to know that a community has a solid educational system.
One can’t say that the high school system in Burlington isn’t solid – one has to say that it is going through a process of transition – which we all hope they get right the first time.
The first reaction we are going to see from the public will be in the 2018 election – just over a year away.
Has the Board of trustees understood what the public that put them in office wants? Part of the answer to that question is – which public put them in office? With the voter turnout as low as it has been in Burlington one has to ask – who elected these people?
By Staff
August 16, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
The province is increasing GO train and bus service across the network to help manage congestion and provide convenient and frequent service for commuters and families.
Effective Sept. 2, the province will also increase GO bus service on some of the most in-demand routes that serve customers in Burlington, St. Catharines, Guelph, Mississauga, Oakville, Hamilton and Richmond Hill.
These improvements will help commuters and families in communities across the region connect to jobs, school and recreational activities with a modern, integrated transit system. The service changes include:
Six new weekday bus trips on Route 12 Burlington-Niagara, increasing bus service to every half hour between Burlington and St. Catharines, including an earlier morning trip from Burlington to Niagara College that will arrive in time for morning classes
These service changes are part of the GO Regional Express Rail (RER) program. GO RER includes electrifying core segments and expanding the rail network, and bringing more two-way, all-day service to commuters and families, increasing the number of weekly trips from about 1,500 to nearly 6,000 by 2025. It will provide faster and more frequent service across the GO rail network and is the largest commuter rail project in Canada.
For those wondering what the province did with the proceeds of th sale of a potion of Hydro One – look no further than this:
The province is investing $21.3 billion to transform the GO network from a commuter transit system to a regional rapid transit system.
The GO RER program involves more than 500 separate projects across 40 municipalities.
 By Pepper Parr
July 17, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Getting Brant Street to the point where it is actually as vibrant as the politicians will tell you it is – that is a challenge.
 John Street – one east of Brant that doesn’t have a clear profile or purpose and is actually a lane-way at the north end. An even bigger challenge is getting John Street – the first street to the east of Brant, from what is part street and part lane-way into a street that has an identity and can become the location for the expansion of commercial traffic in the downtown core.
The Gazette had been trying to arrange for a walking tour with someone from the Planning department – schedule conflicts and staff changes get getting in the way.
We finally found a bright weekday morning with just a hint of a rain threat to walk the street with Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner and Charles Mulay, the staff planner responsible for the development work that takes place in that part of the city.
When we first wanted to take a close up look at John Street the Bentley project had yet to put a shovel into the ground and the proposal for a 28 storey condominium on the corner of Brant and James Street that stretched over to John had yet to be presented to the public.
It was beginning to look as if there was perhaps some life ahead for the street.
At one point there was a fire station on John Street in a building that has excellent lines and a solid structure and is directly across the street from an upscale furniture store.
Other than that – the street is a mish mash of parking spaces and alley ways that becomes a lane-way just north of Caroline.
Tanner, who describes herself as a “policy wonk” who tends to look at the bigger picture, notes that there has been some land assembly talking place on the street then adds that no one has walked into city hall with a proposal.
We started the walk at city hall and crossed over to James and headed north.
 Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner realizes that many of the commercial units on Brant back door on to John Street and have residential properties on the second level. The issue from a planning perspective is the number of small commercial operations that have residential on the second floor which provides revenue.
Tanner explains that these smaller operations are not in a position to spend significant amounts to upgrade their parking spaces and give the street more pedestrian traffic appeal.
The Carriage Gate project across from city hall that has been announced and is now in the hands of the Planning department who will report to a council Standing Committee sometime in the fall with a recommendation.
In the discussion and debate on that project to date there didn’t appear to be a lot of concern over the height the developer was asking for – parking and the number of parking spaces in the building were the issue heard most often,
Ward Councillor Marianne Meed Ward isn’t interested in anything much over 12 storeys but she doesn’t appear to be leading a very big parade on this one. Her following is focused on the ADI Development Group project that is looking for 26 storeys (the number of storeys kept changing) at the intersection of Martha and Lakeshore Road and is now arguing the merits of that development before the Ontario Municipal Board – that hearing begins on Monday the 17th.
The plans Carriage Gate have submitted to city hall for the yet to be named project, includes side-walks that are close to six metres wide – the city requirement is for three metres on all three sides of the structure.
 Elizabeth Interiors, no longer operational as a commercial business on Brant is opposite where a 28 story structure has been proposed. Someone has planned a future for the space  The Elizabeth Street parking lot has been looking for someone to put it to better use than just a parking lot. Nothing so far.  Wellington Tower, a Regionally owned and operated residence was once the location of a much larger transit terminal. South of James Street, on John Street, there is the back end of Elizabeth Interiors, two city owned parking lots; Wellington Terrace which is a Regionally operated rent controlled building.
Immediately south of Wellington Towers is a block that has been assembled and waiting for future development – don’t think in terms of six to twelve storeys for that block.
On the east side of John Street at Lakeshore there is a nice collection of small shops with a low rise residential building. The street is not likely to have anything in the way of a grand entrance off Lakeshore Road – at least not within the next 15 to 20 years.
 South end of John at Lakeshore. More density on the south is probable. The Bridgewater development is to open in 2019, whatever is going to be done with the proposals to increase the density of the Waterfront Hotel property will have to be worked through – once those two are settled what happens to Lakeshore and John Street is anybody’s guess – the current city council will not be in place when that happens – it is that far forward.
Realize that the land for the Bridgewater project was assembled in 1985 and approved as a legacy project for the city in 1995. Shovels went into the ground in 2016.
The city is in the process of getting public input on the new Official Plan which is to reflect the already approved Strategic Plan.
With that process underway the GROW Bold initiatives – there are four of them – are making the rounds.
Two of these will have a huge impact on the downtown core – Downtown with the John Street terminal being ground zero and the Burlington Go station mobility hub study.
 The city has approved four mobility hubs around which most of the intensification will take place. The thinking the city has people doing is for a city of the future – decades away. What the city wants to do is set out what can be built where giving the public a sense of what their city will look like and the development community rules they can work within. What has to be appreciated with the GROW Bold work is that these are long, long range looks at where the city wants to be in 20 to 30 years. Some of these are so far off into the future that many of us aren’t going to be around to see them actually happen – if they happen at all.
 The No Frills supermarket at the top of Brant Street. Which gets us to the other end of John Street where the No Frills supermarket is located. There is a graphic that shows the No Frills property as a park.
 That patch of green is where the No Frills supermarket on Brant is now located – the long term plan is to turn it into a park – where will people buy their food> It is a long term plan. That one had a lot of people scratching their heads.
Sometime before Tanner took over as the Director of Planning the thinking was that the actual supermarket could/should be moved closer to Brant Street with the parking at the rear of the building and some high rise residential built above the parking space.
That idea seems to have been replaced by finding another location for a downtown supermarket – heaven knows where. Given the number of people/jobs the city is required to add to the population between now and 2031 there is going to have to be a supermarket somewhere.
 This part of John Street is close to industrial and is actually not a street – but a lane-way that isn’t particularly inviting.  A city owned parking lot that is waiting for a developer to take an interest in the property. It will be a critical part of any revision of John Street.  The Bell Telephone switching station and the Bank of Montreal parking lot are a development challenge. The bank has an upgrade planned – how extensive an upgrade isn’t known yet. Working from the No Frills south on John there is a large city owned parking lot on the east side and a hodge podge of the back end of a number of retail – hospitality operations. This part of John is actually a lane-way.
Given the proximity to the downtown core – which officially ends just north of the Accura dealership, and the value of those properties planners point out that the current use for much of John Street doesn’t align with their value.
The Bank of Montreal property has been waiting for an upgrade to the branch that has a tired worn look to it.
The Bell Telephone building at the west corner of John and Caroline has four storey solid brick walls that are, in the words of Director Tanner, “about as forbidding as a space can be”. That building houses all of the switches that control telephone lines for much of the city – that building isn’t going anywhere in the near future.
The development community looks for opportunities to do some land assembly along John Street and the city waits.
Part of Burlington’s problem is the city has been waiting for some time to see the kind of development proposals it likes the look of – while the developers look very carefully at what the market is prepared to absorb.
There is no land on which to develop those single family homes that define Burlington – 78% of the people in the city live in homes they own. City hall understands that any growth has to be UP and not OUT, which means high rise structures.
Given the cost of land those structures have to go very high if there are going to be any three and four bedroom units for families. Is Burlington a city where people are going to have balconies instead of back yards? That is the issue that has to be worked out and at the same time meet the provincial requirement that we add to the population.
 The Bentley, now under construction on John Street south of Caroline. It is a three stage project with a parking garage and a Medical Centre on the north side. The Bentley, currently under construction on the east side of John Street between Pine and Caroline, has been some time getting to the point where shovels were in the ground. The Mayor was once heard to grumble publicly that it was taking forever to get an approved project to the actual construction point.
And the city is now very unhappy to learn that the condominium, first part of a three stage development, is going forward and selling quite well – again according to the Mayor – but the eight storey garage and the proposed medical centre on the north end don’t have construction start dates.
Carriage Gate, the developer will mention that working with Burlington Hydro is not exactly a picnic. The demands that organization makes on the developers is not fully understood by the tax paying public. Hydro is owned by the city.
The tension between the development community and the way it works with the Planning department and how the developers have to keep their ears close to the ground to assess what the public will accept and how city council is likely to respond the complaints.
Tanner will tell you that the city, for the most part, has developers that she can work with. Getting city council to accept what she brings to them is another matter.
So far Carriage Gate has not had the hue and cry that the ADI Development Group is coping with. Council seemed happy with what the Bentley was going to do for the city – but they certainly didn’t make it easy for the developer.
 High end furniture store gave this part of John Street a bit of a Niagara-on-the-Lake feel.  What was once a city fire department and then a high end furniture store is no vacant. The building gives the street a sense of place and quietness. Across the street from the Berkeley project on John Street there is a collection of the small parking lots that take away from any sense of a street. Elizabeth, one block to the east has a much stronger sense of being a street with buildings that work and sight lines that go right through to the lake.
John Street seems to have been forgotten – with no vision or long range plan. The focus has always been on making Brant vibrant – which it is when there is a festival taking place in Spencer Smith Park.
 The building on Caroline between Brant and John isn’t going to take this form for much longer. when the Carriage Gate project is complete that will drive additional development in the immediate area. The land on Caroline between Brant and John is so ripe for development – someone has to have done some land assembly with these properties.
 Smith’s Funeral Home – a property with a lot of room for parking.  Almost across John Street from Smith’s is one of the finer Burlington homes from another era. Opposite the Bentley is the Smith Funeral home operation with a lot of parking space – which is directly opposite where the eight storey parking garage is going to be built. One would like to think there would be some way of creating a contractual relationship that would reserve some of that parking garage for the funeral home when there are funerals so that they can realize the value of their property holdings between Brant and John Street.
The Bentley is scheduled to open in 2019 – give it a year and see what kind of a change that project brings to the street and the city and John Street may take on whatever it is going to have in the way of character.
The next block south of Pine has some very interesting opportunities. The two furniture stores (one closed recently) are fine buildings. The immediately south of Pine on the west side is marred by the parking spaces.
What an outstanding fine restaurant that location would make.
 Buildings that will at some point be assembled and put to a better land use than what is in place today.  The parking spots take away from the presentation of the retail location. The planners think here are solutions to the look that parked cars give the entrance. Further south there is a collection of small properties that need some help. Ripe for assembly if that hasn’t already taken place.
The city has been looking for someone to come forward with development proposals for the two parking lots that are south of James. There was a time when many thought the DeGroote School of Business was going to be located on the Elizabeth Street Parking lot – but that one got away.
City council has been hungering for some Class A office space – without parking there isn’t much hope for that happening. And underground parking is far too expensive to be viable.
 The city once thought McMaster University was going to put a faculty on this lot – that didn’t work out. City council has been far too many hours talking about what can be done with this property. The towers in the east end along the North Service Road at Burloak with the acres of outdoor parking and rents that are acceptable preclude any significant office space being built downtown. The only hope is for the city to get the province to move a couple of hundred civil servant to the city and put up a structure that will have a limited amount of parking space. That will get people on the street.
John Street needs help – but the city planning department has so much on its plate with the total re-write of the Official Plan and then getting the community input on the four mobility hubs completed so that the Planning department can put a plan in front of city council.
 Time line for the completion of the Grow Bold initiative that will set out where the city wants development to take place in the next 25 years. What has to be fully appreciated is that the Grow Bold work is intended as long term thinking. The Planning departments want to have a set of rules, expectations in place for the public who will know how and where their city is going to grow and for the development community to know what they are going to be able to take to city hall.
The size of the work load for the Planning department is close to over whelming. Once they have done their work city council gets to make some decisions.
 Is there a new city hall in the works? Eventually but not for a couple of decades. When the city had decided on what the development vision is actually going to be and the majority of the citizens have bought into it – then maybe the elected officials will decide we need something more appropriate to our needs. And what about city hall itself? It gets referred to as “iconic” – a much over used word. The building does not meet the current space needs of the city. The Sims building across the street from the south side city hall has two floors of office space occupied by the city and there are small offices with city staff sprinkled through the city near city hall.
Tanner likes the city hall but admits that it needs some work – there is nothing majestic about the place; looks a little haphazard as if it isn’t quite sure what it wants to be which is probably a pretty accurate description of the city.
The public is going to have a lot of information put in front of them in the next six to nine months. If the taxpayers don’t like the look of what is put in front of them – they can elect a different city council. Next municipal election is in October of 2018 – fifteen months away.
By Pepper Parr
July 11th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
Lester B. Pearson parents filed a request for an Administrative Review of the decision to close their school made by the Board of Education on June 7th. The Gazette will publish their request.
Bateman high school parents have also requested an Administrative Review which they have, so far, decided to not release to the public. The Gazette has asked the Save Bateman Committee to re-think that decision.
 When Bateman parents learned that there school had been recommended for closure they became very active but were not able to develop the momentum to persuade the trustees that they had a strong case for being left open. We believe that the document is important and should be part of the public record.
The Bateman committee did release the following statement:
“The Save Bateman Committee has filed an administrative review with the Ministry of Education as part of their continuing fight to keep the Burlington high school open.
“The committee compiled a 60-page report which exposes the numerous ways in which the Halton District School Board failed to follow its own review process. It also highlights the severely problematic Program and Accommodation Review (PAR) process which lead to the Board’s Trustees’ flawed decision to close Bateman.
“Bateman parents are asking Education Minister Mitzie Hunter to overturn the decision to close their school and to make her June 28th call for a province-wide moratorium on school closures retroactive.
“With the province finally admitting that their process was flawed, Bateman parents say they must overturn any decisions that were made under that process.
“Trustees voted only 22 days before the Minister’s announcement in which she admitted the process was flawed. It’s just not acceptable that decisions made under that flawed process can stand,” said Bateman parent Lisa Bull.
“The Bateman committee say they have uncovered a litany of problems with the process, including that it did not consider the unique needs of Bateman’s diverse population, especially the special need students. They say there were also breaches to the trustees’ code of conduct in regards to the texting incident that occurred between trustee Leah Reynolds and city Councillor Marianne Meed Ward on June 7th.
“The board also failed to fully explore a collaboration with the Halton Catholic School Board and failed to encourage community partnerships, which are both requirements by the ministry. Despite the fact ward five trustee Amy Collard presented several examples of potential partnerships, including Halton Multicultural Council, Centre of Excellence for Skills and Development and Halton Industry Education Council, they were not pursued.
“The biggest concern for Bateman parents has been that the needs of special education students were not considered in the review. The voices of these students and their families were not listened to around issues such as the risks associates with transitioning medically fragile and developmentally delayed students.
“We want the Ministry to know that we are not simply self-entitled parents who want to keep our kid’s school open,” said Bateman parent Denise Davy. “This decision does not make financial or educational sense because the process to close our school was defective.”
The HDSB has 30 days to respond to the review request and if the it has enough merit to justify the hiring of an independent facilitator to conduct a comprehensive review of the board’s process.
 Bateman parents demoonstrate. Throughout the Program Accommodation Review Bateman has been behind the curve. The parents paid no attention to the issue; there were just three members of the public at the meeting the Board of Education held at Bateman high school.
The sense many had was that Bateman had not been recommended for closure so there was no issue for them.
 Bateman parents at the public meeting held to explain the PAR process – four parents were in the room. Those who had taken the time to inform themselves could see that Bateman was very much at risk. Bateman parents got involved when the Director of Education changed his position and recommended that Bateman be closed rather than Central high school which was part of the original recommendation.
The Bateman parents were stunned and needed a bit of time to get their act together and tell their story. The unfortunate part of all this is that Bateman had a great story to tell – few, other than the parents with children in some of the programs, particularly the CPP. Were aware of what was taking place.
When Bateman parents did their delegations the public got to see just how effective and relevant those programs were. By that time however Central had cemented the gain they got when the Director changed his position and there wasn’t enough time for Bateman to get their story out.
That the trustees did not manage to grasp the significance of what gets done at Bateman is a part of the larger tragedy.
Reviews to change a decision made by elected officials are hard to overturn. It is easier to elect different trustees.
|
|
