 By Pepper Parr
November 4th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The Gazette suspended the privilege David Barker had to comment in the Gazette’s Comments section.
We did so late in September. There are yards and yards of paper with comments and the back and fourth email from Barker.
A day or so after suspending Barker I received the following:
From: david barker [mailto:caboman09@gmail.com]
Sent: October 2, 2021 8:37 PM
To: Pepper publisher <publisher@bgzt.ca>
Subject: Re: WE no longer publish
Rookie
What a complete dork you are! Such a pompous old fart, unable to publish any criticism. Very self-important. You certainly live up to the nickname given to you by those at city hall. LOL.
Please investigate all you like the heritage grants were awarded to me by City Council. Another rookie mistake on your part. The advisory committee has no authority to approve or award heritage grants or loans. Only City Council has that power. I am 100% confident neither the committee nor I have done anything untoward. For the record, and as shown on the official record (meeting minutes) on two occasions I recused myself from any discussion; and on the third occasion I did not attend the meeting, being out of the country.
Rookie mistake after rookie mistake. Possible indications of onset of senility or just plain incompetence.
I shall be reporting a complaint against you personally and the Gazette corporately to the National NewsMedia Council relating to your inappropriate censorship and your harassing language via email.
I already have screenshot copies of the published editor’s notes to my comments going back more than a year. So delete away. But I suggest you keep copies because they will be called for by the National NewsMedia Council. You cannot delete your rude, abrasive and uncalled for language in emails I received from you.
Silly old man
I have no comment to make.
 David Barker is a retired insurance executive and a Member of the Heritage Advisory Committee and the owner of a fine house that has been designated as historically significant
 By Staff
November 3rd, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton Regional Police Service has announced a new annual collaborative anti-hate campaign called #NoHaltonInHalton. The inaugural campaign will run November 8 to 12, 2021.
 Two young men captured on video putting up hate notices at city hall. It does happen in Burlington. In an effort to stop hate and promote respect, equity and inclusivity in our community, the Halton Regional Police Service has partnered with the Halton District School Board, the Halton Catholic District School Board, Conseil Scolaire Catholique MonAvenir, Conseil Scolaire Viamonde, Crime Stoppers of Halton, and other community stakeholders, to run this anti-hate campaign in over 180 schools and learning facilities across the region.
Eliminating all forms of hate in Halton region, and better supporting victims and communities impacted by it, is a key priority for the HRPS and its campaign partners. Of the hate and bias motivated incidents reported across the region last year, 42 per cent directly involved or impacted schools or school aged youth. The #NoHateInHalton campaign is one of many strategies and initiatives that supports the Service’s ongoing commitment to bring anti-hate awareness and education to school-aged youth and the broader community of Halton.
 Video of a person walking away from a location where hate literature had been distributed, This year’s campaign will aim to bring attention to the following topics within schools:
– Eliminating hate and bias motivated incidents,
– Encouraging individuals to report an incident that is motivated by hate or bias,
– Building a sense of community within schools across the region,
– Encouraging students and staff to work collaboratively to eliminate hate within the schools and support impacted individuals and groups, and
– Reducing the stigma that is often associated with victims of hate and bias-motivated incidents and removing any barriers to reporting those incidents.
Posters will be posted at learning facilities across the region to heighten awareness of the campaign. Stickers featuring a QR code to Halton Crime Stopper’s website, where incidents motivated by hate or bias can be reported anonymously, will also be posted in high schools to help reduce any barriers to reporting incidents.
This campaign will also bring awareness to supports available to victims or those negatively affected by hate or bias motivated incidents. The campaign will also address factors that lead to individuals exhibiting hateful behavior and the impact of hate on community safety and well-being.
Members of the community can engage with this anti-hate awareness and education campaign by joining the conversation on social media with a post about how they are embracing respect and inclusion with #NoHateInHalton.
Members of the community can also visit the Hate and Bias Motivated Crime webpage on HaltonPolice.ca for information about Hate and Bias Motivated Crimes and the Halton Regional Police Service’s commitment to eliminating these types of incidents from our communities.
Every person has the right to feel safe in our community. Victims of hate or bias motivated crimes are encouraged to contact the Halton Regional Police Service. The following is a list of valuable support services and resources in Halton Region for victims of hate or bias motivated crimes:
 By Pepper Parr
November 3rd, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
He was far from perfect but he ran Ontario the way it was supposed to be run – something that is sadly missed today.
Compared to what we have today – at both the government and opposition levels he was a giant.
 Bill Davis had problems learning how to balance a budget; never really did learn. If you’ve got nothing better to do on Thursday – give listening in some thought.
That the event is going to be live at the Roy Thomson Hall is a good sign – if we continue to behave the way we have been behaving that light at the end of the tunnel will continue to get brighter.
A memorial service to celebrate the life of the Honourable Premier William G. Davis, PC, CC, O. Ont, QC, will be held at Roy Thomson Hall at 11:00 a.m. on November 4, 2021. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, Premier of Ontario, Mayors of Toronto and Brampton, along with family members and friends, will pay tribute to the former Premier at the event.
Tickets are still available for members of the public to attend and join family, friends, and dignitaries in honouring the life of Premier Davis.
 He turned “bland” into an art form. Premier Davis passed away on August 8, 2021, at the age of 92. As the 18th Premier of Ontario, Premier Davis had a lengthy career in public service, leading the province from 1971 to 1985. During his tenure, Premier Davis is credited with creating Ontario’s community college system, the province’s first Ministry of Environment, and the province’s public broadcaster, TVO.
Members of the public who wish to attend the memorial can register to reserve a seat through Roy Thomson Hall. The event will adhere to current COVID-19 health and safety measures, including vaccination requirements.
 They aren’t making them like this anymore. Gone perhaps but never to be forgotten. For those unable to attend in person, the memorial will also be livestreamed on the Government of Ontario Youtube channel and will be available with closed captions. For members of the media, broadcast cameras will not be allowed inside the hall, the livestream feed can be used instead. Reporters wishing to attend must reserve a seat through the online booking system as well. Members of the public are also invited to share their messages of sympathy in the online book of condolences.
Additional Resources
Registration to attend the Premier Davis Memorial at Roy Thomson Hall
Online Book of Condolences
 By Staff
November 2nd, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Did the GO train schedule screw up impact you this past weekend – Oct. 30 and 31?
Metrolinx explains what happened.
There is never a good time to shutdown the busiest commuter rail line in the country.
This past Saturday (Oct. 30) was particularly rough with the combination of Halloween festivities, sporting events, and concerts all drawing people to downtown Toronto.
So, what happened? During a routine track inspection, GO Transit crews discovered a section of the tracks between Port Credit and Clarkson GO stations was unstable, so much so that trains could no longer pass through the area safely.
The transit agency made the difficult decision to shut down that section of track.
 This huge hunk of equipment was brought in to smooth and stabilize the tracks which then had to be tested to ensure the tracks were stable. It could have been worse and happened during rush hours. Making the fix
Behind the scenes, transit experts at Metrolinx drew up a plan to keep people moving and got started immediately on the repairs. Extra GO buses were called in to shuttle people between Port Credit and Clarkson, and Lakeshore West train service was reduced to hourly to avoid further delays.
The team initially estimated it could take up to 24 hours to complete the repairs but crews worked through the night – during the rain – on Saturday to get the repairs done as quickly as possible, in hopes of reducing the impact to people on Sunday.
Once the initial repairs were made, a large machine known as a DynaCAT was brought in to smooth and stabilize the tracks. Finally, GO had to run a test train over the repaired section at slow speeds to make sure everything was good to go.
In the end, the teams got the job done in time for regular GO train service to resume on Sunday morning.
By Staff
October 31st, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Is former Mayor Rick Goldring getting ready to jump back into the political ring again? He recently wrote an Opinion piece for the Local News (he was the founder of that online news source).
 At this point the structure on the left has been approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal. He came out pretty strongly against the Mayor Meed Ward about the Ontario Land Tribunal decision to permit the building of a 29 storey tower at Lakeshore and Pearl. But he doesn’t tell the whole story.
His opinion.
“This week, the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly the OMB — Ontario Municipal Board) ruled in favour of the developer Carriage Gate Homes for a 29-storey mixed-use condominium development on the northeast corner of Pearl and Lakeshore. The City of Burlington press release, along with the comments from
 Meed Ward with then Mayor Goldring: the two never did get along all that well. the mayor and ward councillor, had a strong tone of indignancy as result of the decision. It makes good politics to blame others and not look in the mirror to consider whether the mayor and council could have approached this differently. Now council will have a closed session meeting in early November with City of Burlington planners and lawyers to hear what options they have in an attempt to remove seven storeys from the development. (The mayor and council have already voted to accept a 22-storey building on the site.)
“I am reminded of the Nautique development application immediately to the east of the Carriage Gate site.
“Adi Development Group originally submitted an application for 28 storeys in 2014; they then reduced the height to 26 storeys and in 2016, council, with yours truly as mayor, rejected the application. Adi appealed the council decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and won the appeal in 2018. Council then asked for a review of the OMB decision to no avail.
 The ADI Group had better legal talent in their corner and they were tougher. The city missed several opportunities to put forward a stronger case. “When I look back on the process of the Nautique development application, council, led by me, made mistakes. The best way to deal with the situation politically is to fight the developer and application and that is just what we did, but that approach invariably does not (and did not) end up in a winning situation for the city.
“We would have been much better off to negotiate with the developer from the beginning. We could have saved the city time and money and we could have saved the developer time and money by reaching a compromise much earlier in the process. However, that approach is not good politics. Politically, it is better to fight and lose than compromise and look like you are acquiescing to developers.
“Based on previous development applications that resulted in 17-storey buildings (360 on Pearl and the Berkeley), the right approach with Adi back in 2014 was to push to compromise at 17 storeys (between the 28 that Adi wanted and the four to eight allowed in the Official Plan). This would have been defensible at the OMB even if Adi did not agree.
 This small bus terminal on John Street that the Transit people wanted to demolish at one point has had a massive impact on the kind of development taking place in the downtown core. “Fast forward to 2021, the current council will most likely decide to keep fighting the Carriage Gate 29-storey development when they already have approved 22 storeys, and for what purpose? To look good politically with an election coming next year? After all, looking good is much more important than making thoughtful decisions.”
What Goldring didn’t comment on was the way that OMB hearing went.
The ADI Group took their case to the OMB because the city failed to make a decision within the required time frame. How the city missed that deadline was never explained at the time.
Between the time that ADI filed their appeal and when the appeal was actually heard the ADI Group bought the small property to the north of the site they had acquired.
 The dark shaded area was the area that ADI owned and made an application to build on. They later bought the house in the area to the north (marked as a 4 storey) and added it to their plans – making it a new development. The city had a chance to insist that ADI file a new application – but they let that opportunity get away. And that purchase made it a totally different application – which had not been presented to the city.
The city could have advised the OMB member of that fact – but they chose not to do so and they were out-maneuvered by a lawyer who saw a loophole and made it work for her client.
That loophole was the transit station, smaller than some washrooms in the larger monster homes that got defined as a Mobility Hub (that’s what they were called at the time). The words Mobility Hub were replaced with MTSA (Major Transit Station Area).
The blame for the Nautique rests on the Goldring Council. It looks as if Goldring wants to place a layer of blame on Mayor Meed Ward for the Carriage Gate property at the corner of Lakeshore and Pearl – to be known as BeauSoleil.
Cute isn’t it.
By Staff
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Following the Province’s announcement to lift capacity limits in select settings where proof of vaccination is required, the City of Burlington will begin to move towards gradually increasing capacities for recreation facilities and programs. Visitors and participants are asked for patience as the City works toward returning to pre-pandemic capacity as programming is expanded where possible. To accommodate the changes, some programs may have to change times, dates or locations.
Some drop-in programs will see an immediate increase in capacity. Pre-registration is still required for all drop-in programs.
Capacities for registered programs and community rentals at rinks, pools, meeting rooms and community centres will also begin to increase gradually.
All current regulations around proof of vaccination, screening, masking and physical distancing remain.
For more information on what to expect when visiting City of Burlington recreation facilities and programs, visit burlington.ca/coronavirus.
 City Hall
Service Burlington is open at City Hall. Residents can visit Service Burlington Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. for:
• Parking permits and ticket payments
• Property tax payments
• Freedom of Information payments
• Garbage tag purchases
• Dog licenses
• Property information requests
• Recreation services payments
Marriage licenses and Commissioning services are also available at City Hall by appointment. Make your booking online at burlington.ca/marriagelicences or burlington.ca/commissioning.
To connect directly with a member of the Service Burlington team, call 905-335-7777 or email city@burlington.ca.
Hours are Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Building and Bylaw Department Changes
The Building and Bylaw Department has seen a drastic increase in building permit and bylaw inquiries/complaints over the past 18 months. To help streamline the work, anyone looking for services regarding building permits, building inspections, licensing services or bylaw enforcement, can contact the City the following ways:
Service Area Contact them when…
Building Permits • Inquiries and complaints (e.g., permit application status, permit pickup, etc.)
• Telephone: 905-335-7731, ext. 7470
• Email: buildingpermits@burlington.ca
Building Inspections • Inquiries and complaints (e.g. illegal construction, construction sites, unsafe buildings, etc.)
• Telephone: 905-335-7731, ext. 7470
• Email: buildingpermits@burlington.ca
Licensing Services • Inquiries and complaints (e.g., business licenses, pool/sign permits, lottery/liquor licences)
• Telephone: 905-335-7731
• Email: bylaw@burlington.ca
Bylaw Enforcement • Inquiries and complaints (e.g., property standards, nuisance/noise, lot maintenance, etc.)
• Telephone: 905-335-7731
• Email: bylaw@burlington.ca
By Pepper Parr
October 28th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington has a Heritage Advisory Committee that has a colourful checkered past.
There was a time when it was a disaster.
Anyone who felt there was a chance their house would be designated had been led to believe by some in the real estate sector that the resale potential for their house was going to plummet.
There was a lot of ignorance and some pretty stupid people who did all kinds of dumb things to ensure that their house was not designated historically significant.
 Jim Clemens: the Chair of the Heritage Advisory Committee who put it on a sound footing after years of dysfunction. That began to change in 2013 when the membership of the Advisory committee was changed and a new chair working with an informed and realistic board took over.
When the bulk of their work was done city council, they came as close as they could to giving standing ovations.
Heritage now had a sound footing and was in a position to approve and recommend grants to people who wanted to improve their homes to make them worth designating and keeping them up to standard once they were designated.
The Advisory Committee could recommend that property owners be given grants of up to 25% of the total eligible restoration project costs to a maximum of $15,000.
It was city council that made the grant award based on the Advisory Committee recommendation.
A recent award to a resident was placed in the Consent section of the Standing Committee Agenda.
Consent items get little in the way of attention unless a member of Council asks to have it pulled so it can be discussed in open session.
The Gazette has a practice of going through everything on the consent agenda, if only to keep an eye on what Council is up to.
The item that caught our eye was detailed in the Staff report of September 7th, 2021 which was set out as a report responding to an application for a grant from the Community Heritage Fund.
 By any standard this is a very handsome house. The Staff report said:
The subject property known as 2411 Lakeshore Road is located on the north side of Lakeshore Road, between Market Street and St. Paul Street. It currently supports a three-storey residence in the Queen Anne style, as demonstrated by the characteristic architectural features including the irregular façade, multiple surfaces with intricate decorative wooden elements, multiple rooflines and gables, verandah, tall windows, bay windows, and tall chimneys. The subject property also contributes to the character of Lakeshore Road through its setbacks, historic architecture, mature trees, and massing.
The property at 2411 Lakeshore Road was designated under Part IV, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in 1995 through By-law 8-1995. The by-law also designates four other properties in the immediate area.
In 2019, as a condition of approval of the current property owner’s application for consent to sever the westerly portion of 2411 Lakeshore Road, the designation by-law was updated to come into conformity with a 2005 amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act.
Background on the Community Heritage Fund and Grant Application
The Burlington Community Heritage Fund (CHF) was established by Council in 1985 to encourage the preservation of structures designated under the Ontario Heritage Act by providing financial assistance to property owners in the form of loans and grants. It was also an objective of the CHF to encourage the designation of properties of cultural heritage value or significance under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The CHF was amended in 1993 and 2014 and now provides grants of up to 25% of the total eligible restoration project costs to a maximum of $15,000, subject to specific guidelines. Loans may be provided for up to 50% of total eligible restoration project costs to a maximum of $15,000.
The requested grant on the agenda at the September 7th meeting represents 25% of the total project cost of $3,616.00. The property owner originally obtained quotes from two tradespersons to complete the work and elected to retain the more economical option.
Staff support the applicant’s request for a grant from the CHF in the amount of $904.00 as it aligns with the CHF eligibility criteria by constituting “work which conserves or enhances elements specified in the by-law”.
There was a sentence in the Staff report that made mention of previous grants made for improvements to the same property.
 Funds were provided to replace some of the decking on the western side of the house. The Gazette decided dig a little deeper and learned that the recommendation was made for a grant to an individual who was a member of the Heritage Advisory and that this grant was not the first but the fourth grant made. Technically this item was not a grant but it was a decision that we believe was necessary for the Committee of Adjustment to proceed.
The very first was recommended on July 10th, 2019
From the Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes:
David Barker declared an interest in Item 7.1 b. – consent and minor variance application for 2411 Lakeshore Road – as he is the owner of the property. He refrained from discussion and voting on this item.
From the minutes:
Consent and minor variance application for 2411 Lakeshore Road
Danika advised that 2411 Lakeshore Road is designated by By-law 8-1995 which protects heritage attributes on the front (south) and side (west) elevations of the building. The owner proposes to sever the westerly portion of the property to create an additional lot, allow variances to support the severance and demolish the existing detached garage located on the proposed severed parcel. Danika provided an overview of the variances for the retained and severed parcel and asked the Committee to consider whether they would have an impact on the heritage value of the property.
Members discussed and feel there are no issues from a heritage perspective. Motion – Heritage Burlington supports the requested consent and minor variances for 2411 Lakeshore Road under the assumption that any new development on the proposed severed lot is sited behind the existing heritage home.
– CARRIED
Danika is the Staff planner assigned to the Heritage Advisory Committee
The second application made by David Barker was on October 9, 2019. From the Heritage Advisory Committee minutes:
 A garage was demolished and a severance of the western section applied for – granted by the Committee of Adjustment. Declarations of Interest:
Consent and minor variance application for 2411 Lakeshore Road
Danika advised that 2411 Lakeshore Road is designated by By- law 8-1995 which protects heritage attributes on the front (south) and side (west) elevations of the building. The owner proposes to sever the westerly portion of the property to create an additional lot, allow variances to support the severance and demolish the existing detached garage located on the proposed severed parcel. Danika provided an overview of the variances for the retained and severed parcel and asked the Committee to consider whether they would have an impact on the heritage value of the property.
Members discussed and feel there are no issues from a heritage perspective. Motion – Heritage Burlington supports the requested consent and minor variances for 2411 Lakeshore Road under the assumption that any new development on the proposed severed lot is sited behind the existing heritage home.
The third application made by David Barker was on September 16th, 2020.
Regrets:
David Barker, Trisha Murray, Alan Harrington and Rick Wilson did not attend the meeting.
From the Minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting
Grant from Community Heritage Fund for 2411 Lakeshore Road
Danika provided an overview of the original application, received in September 2019, for a grant from the Community Heritage Fund to financially assist the owner of 2411 Lakeshore Road in replacing rotten deck boards on their porch verandah in the amount of $375. Since that time, the applicant has advised that the scope of work increased to include the replacement of additional deck boards.
Based on final cost receipts, the applicant has now applied for an additional grant in the amount of $673.15.
Committee discussed and supported the application. Motion – Approve the grant application for 2411 Lakeshore Road for an additional amount of $673.15. – CARRIED
 The house has kept much of its rural roots with the deck on the side probably leading into the kitchen. This house should be on the next Heritage Tour On September 7th, 2021 a fourth application was made in the amount of $904.00
The minutes of the meeting note that:
David Barker declared an interest in Item 7.1 b. – Heritage permit and Community Heritage Fund applications for 2411 Lakeshore Road – as he is the owner of the subject property. He refrained from discussion and voting on this item.
The minutes of the Standing Committee reported that:
Grant from Community Heritage Fund for 2411 Lakeshore Road (PL-45-21)
Moved by Councillor Stolte
Approve the grant application for restoration work to front verandah, including sanding, filling and painting to the support columns and sun motif, at 2411 Lakeshore Road in the amount of $904.00 to be funded by the Burlington Community Heritage Fund.
CARRIED
 Mayor Meed Ward lives in a house that she had designated long before she became Mayor. On the vote Mayor Meed Ward commented that “it was great to see residents of designated homes investing in the upkeep of their property” adding she wanted to see more of this – we do have a grant program that will help so keep those applications coming.”
The item that was voted on was in the Consent section of the Standing Committee agenda. These items, as noted earlier, seldom get any attention.
Our issue is not with the grant – it is with the way council chose to handle the matter.
To be fair, the work done with the funds that were awarded was sterling. The house on the north side of Lakeshore Road between Market and St. Paul is a handsome addition to the inventory of historically significant houses.
Mr. Barker is known by every member of Council. He is an active participant in civic matters. He has contributed opinion pieces to the Gazette.
Where we have an issue is with a member of an Advisory Committee benefiting financially as the result of a decision made by the committee. Recusing oneself from the discussion and not voting isn’t enough.
Also, where was Council on this? The Staff report made mention that Barker had been given grants in the past.
However, Council members didn’t apparently read the report.
Someone (Who?) put the item on the consent agenda aware that the item would not have been given any attention.
While the sums involved are small there is a large matter of principal.
 David Barker delegating before Council The Gazette believes there are some gaps in the Governance protocols and will be asking Integrity Principles, the council advisors on matters of protocol and governance, to look into this matter with the suggestion that changes be made to ensure that an individual does not personally benefit financially from an Advisory Committee they serve on.
A reasonable question to ask is: Should Mr. Barker resign from the Heritage Advisory Committee or at a minimum should the rules be changed to prevent this from happening in the future ?
Colourful background
By Ryan O’Dowd: Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
November 5th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
One year ago Anita Ceh had a life-changing hike at Mount Nemo.
Anita and her friend, Jennifer, met in the parking lot last October to walk a Mount Nemo trail. Anita has always been active but doesn’t consider herself much of a hiker, favouring more leisurely walks – what followed was anything but. Mount Nemo’s cliffside trail looms large on the escarpment skyline and looks out over rural parts of the city adorned with autumn foliage of golds and reds. Anita doesn’t remember how long they walked before the fall.
Anita jumped across a small gap in the trail and she immediately knew something was wrong. The earth gave way and Anita lost her footing, she grabbed hold of a tree on the other side of the clearing but too much ground had given way, soil and stone gobbled up by the jagged mouth of a deep crevasse. Her grip couldn’t hold. The tree slipped out of her grasp and Anita’s friend tells her she grabbed at the edge of the ground, but the cliff face crumbled too.
After losing purchase on the cliff face Anita curled into the fetal position to protect her head and neck. She doesn’t remember the fall.
Anita fell fifty feet into the gaping crevasse. She remembers coming to, here and there, as emergency responders fastened ropes to a stretcher for a vertical elevation because the crevasse was too narrow for any other kind of evacuation. Although Anita’s recollection of her time caught in the crevasse is spotty, Jennifer Massel , who found a passerby to call 911, tells her they communicated the whole time. Jennifer never thought Anita was going to die, Anita says the firefighters thought differently.
 Meeting with fire fighters a year after a 50 foot fall into a crevasse on Mount Nemo. Anita Ceh is in the leather jacket, and friend Jennifer “They thought they’d be bringing a body up,” said Anita. “And so I don’t know how I survived, I guess determination, divine intervention. I’m not a religious person, but I have to believe that there is somebody watching over me.”
Anita spent seven weeks in the hospital, much of it she described as lost time in a brain fog. Anita worked as an x-ray technician, she remembered seeing the terrible x-rays of badly injured patients during her career and never imagined she’d be one of them. The brain fog was mostly lifted by the last two weeks of her hospital stay and Anita, grateful to have survived, grew restless and frustrated with her hospital stay, eager to return to her life.
Now she has.
“Amazingly, I’m feeling really good,” said Anita.
Following her long hospital stay, Anita walked around with a cane for two weeks due to a fracture in her spine. She attributes ditching the cane to her stubbornness and is back to being active now. She left the crevasse with a “fair bit of hardware” in her shoulder and wrist. Anita has started riding her bike again, one of her favourite ways to stay active, but she’s more cautious than before.
Despite how foggy the incident at Mount Nemo has become it weighs heavy on Anita’s mind.
 Mt Nemo has dozens of hidden crevasses – wiser to walk along the well marked trails. “I kind of was concerned about going back to Mount Nemo because of post-traumatic stress, which I know I’m suffering from now. But I want to go back and see, and have a look at the crevasse.”
One year after the event Anita had the opportunity to meet the firefighters who saved her life. Anita said she got the idea to meet the first responders again from a friend who told her they’re always appreciative of the gratitude. Anita was emotional speaking about the firefighter’s heroism.
 Acting Platoon Chief Jason Laporte standing with Anita Ceh, (on the right) and her friend Jennifer “I have such respect for them, I always have, but when you actually have to be saved from such a dangerous situation you realize they risk their lives to save our lives.”
Acting Platoon Chief Jason Laporte mentioned it is a rare opportunity to reconnect with someone they helped during an emergency but says when it happens it’s “one of the most rewarding parts of the job.”
The Burlington Fire Department is using a mobile application called what3words to help emergency responders find callers in remote areas without a known or specific address. Residents are encouraged to download the free app to mobile devices so public safety telecommunicators can quickly identify your location, down to a 3-meter square area, during an emergency.
When the passerby called 9-1-1 for Anita they were unsure how to describe the location, but eventually were able to coordinate with first responders. Burlington Fire Chief Karen Roche pointed out what3words will help responders and citizens in emergency situations.
“We’re thankful the 9-1-1 caller was able to help us locate her. Every second we spend trying to search for a caller could mean their chances of a positive outcome is reduced. The faster we can get to the person, the better the outcome. Downloading the what3words application on your mobile device helps us help you,” said Roche.
 By Staff
October 27th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) has made an arrest and laid multiple charges after a human trafficking investigation in Oakville.
 Frank Yeboah of Burlington: charged with Trafficking in Persons On Monday October 25, 2021, investigators arrested 25 year-old Frank Yeboah of Burlington. He has been charged with the following:
- Trafficking in Persons
- Adult Procuring
- Sexual Assault (x2)
- Extortion
Yeboah was held in custody pending a bail hearing in Milton.
Police believe there may be additional victims and ask that anyone with information contact the Human Trafficking Unit at 905-825-4747 ext. 5331.
The Halton Regional Police Service firmly believes that every person has the right to feel safe in our community.
Victims of violence and/or sexual assault and witnesses are encouraged to contact the Halton Regional Police Service. The following is a list of valuable support services and resources in our region for victims of violence and/or sexual assault:
- Halton Regional Police Service Victim Services Unit 905-825-4777 ext. 5239 or by email at VictimServices@haltonpolice.ca
- Nina’s Place Sexual Assault and Domestic Assault Care Centre 905-336-4116 or 905-681-4880
- Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services (SAVIS) 905-875-1555 (24-hour crisis line)
- Radius Child & Youth Services 905-825-3242 (Oakville) or 1-855-744-9001
- Kid’s Help Phone 1-800-668-6868 (24-hour crisis line)
- THRIVE Counselling 905-845-3811 or 905-637-5256
Signs / Indicators of Human Trafficking
- Not being allowed to speak for themselves;
- Not having control of their own money or cellphone;
- Suddenly having a new or second cell phone with a secret number;
- Being controlled by others and escorted at all times;
- Not being allowed to contact family or friends;
- Withdrawing from family and friends;
- Providing rehearsed answers to casual questions;
- Being secretive about their activities;
- Showing signs of abuse, such as bruising, cigarette burns, fractures, etc.
- Having a new boyfriend, girlfriend or friend who they won’t introduce to friends/family; and
- Having new items (clothing, jewelry etc.) outside their financial means.
What Should I Do if I Think Someone is a Victim of Trafficking?
If there is immediate danger or if you suspect someone is being trafficked, call 9-1-1.
You may also call the Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-833-900-1010.
The Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline is a confidential, multilingual service, operating 24/7 to connect victims and survivors with social services, law enforcement, and emergency services, as well as receive tips from the public. The hotline uses a victim-centered approach when connecting human trafficking victims and survivors with local emergency, transition, and/or long-term supports and services across the country, as well as connecting callers to law enforcement where appropriate.
 By Pepper Parr
October 25th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The cat is out of the bag.
 Ouch! Financial people are expected to put forward a budget asking for a 5.45% increase over last year.
That didn’t come as a big surprise.
In the media release from city hall they explained that “This represents a 5.45% increase to the City’s portion of the tax bill.”
The statement is totally true.
 In the beginning she was all about transparency and accountability. Something changed. The media release also said: “When combined with the estimated regional and education tax levies, the overall projected tax increase for a Burlington homeowner in 2022 is 3.18% or $24.76 per $100,000 of assessment. For example, homeowners with a home assessed at $500,000 would pay an additional $123.80 per year or $2.38 per week.
That statement is totally true as well. The point that never gets made is this: The city collects taxes for the education sector and the Regional government but has absolutely no impact on the amount taxes levied by the Boards of Education and a minimal impact on the Regional taxes levied. Burlington has just 7 of the 24 votes at the Regional level.
The combined tax level tends to make the Burlington 5.45 % look better, the reality is that the city is taxing its citizens at a level well above inflation. Two percent increases are not going to be seen for a long time.
 Citizens looking over a budget document that they have next to no chance of changing. Better that they be given a piece of cake. As for the public having any impact – the numbers are all but cast in stone well before the public gets to see them. For Mayor Meed Ward to say she wants the public to “ assist City Council in the budget process” and “to share their input and tell us what services are important to them.”
To what end? Adding insult to injury this Mayor does not appear to be doing anything to find ways to let tax payers meet in a live setting and express their views. She would rather have you “join in the conversation at the November 22 virtual town hall that she will be hosting.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
 By Pepper Parr
October 20, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
This Background piece is on the long side. It is the first time we have seen such a comprehensive engagement plan with so much detail and really relevant information. While we are surprised we also want to thank the Communications people for being this candid.
Burlington is in the next phase of city-building as it approaches full build-out of the urban area. The undertaking of area-specific plans (ASPs) for Burlington’s Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) represents the City’s continuing implementation of its vision for appropriate intensification and the protection of established neighbourhoods by focusing future population growth to key areas, and in particular, a focus around higher order transit.
 Way back in the beginning the GO stations were called Mobility Hubs and at that time the bus terminal in the downtown core was included a Hub. That mistake made it possible for a developer to put up a 26 storey tower which opened things up for other developers. This is a big big deal – it involves something in the order of 20,000 people and or jobs in what will be a small village of its own. It will take decades to get through it all and it may well change in some form going forward.
The city has put together an Engagement Plan – it runs 13 pages long – with a lot of surprising information.
Area Specific Plans for the properties within each MTSA have to be created.
This work started out as a Mobility Hub study which was placed on hold in Q1 2019 to allow for a shift in focus to emerging planning priorities, including the Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review, the scoped re-examination of the adopted Official Plan and the Interim Control Bylaw Land Use Study.
There are a number of key differences that resulted in significant changes to the scope and considerations of the work that had to be done including the completion of all required technical studies, further public and stakeholder engagement and the completion of three (3) area-specific plans, as well as the associated implementing Official Plan and Zoning By-Law amendments and other implementation strategies which may be required to get everything before Council.
 Citizens will show up for a meeting if you make it interesting enough and promote it effectively. We will have to wait until we are out of Covid19 rules for events like this to take place The Engagement Plan highlights the points in the process at which engagement will take place, who will be engaged, and the level of engagement. The plan also clearly defines which aspects of the process the City and public can influence throughout the discussion.
Decision Statement
At the beginning of an engagement process, it is helpful to know, “what is the decision to be made?” A decision statement clearly identifies:
• what decision needs to be made;
• who is the decision maker; and
• when the decision is required.
The decision statement for the MTSA ASP project is as follows:
“By June 2022, Burlington City Council will vote to adopt amendments to the Burlington Official Plan, 2020 to incorporate Protected Major Transit Station Area (MTSAs) area-specific plans to guide development and investment around the Burlington, Appleby and Aldershot GO Station Areas.
“Amendments adopted by Burlington City Council will then be forwarded to the Region of Halton for approval.”
Summary of Stakeholders
A stakeholder is anyone who has an interest or concern about a specific topic. To identify the stakeholders for the MTSA ASP Project, a mapping process will be used to confirm all the people who are affected by this work, those who have influence or power over the work and those that have an interest in its outcome, based on the stakeholders previously identified through the Mobility Hubs Project. It is expected that various individuals and groups will be identified across the following categories:
• Residents and resident groups (including newcomers, young families and young people) • Community organizations; special interest, advocacy, and activism groups
• Government and public service providers (internal and external) • City Advisory Committees and arms-length city agencies
• Indigenous Communities • Development industry
• Businesses and business groups • Major facilities1 within or adjacent to study areas
• Private and non-profit community service providers • Elected officials
• Media
Once the stakeholders and interested or affected individuals and groups have been confirmed, the engagement milestones in this plan will be refined to reflect the tactics and level of engagement required for each party throughout the MTSA ASP Project.
Objectives of Engagement
The following objectives provide a clear understanding of what the public engagement will strive to achieve through the community discussion about the MTSA ASP Project:
• Provide relevant information about the project, decision-making process, and how the public can provide input and feedback;
• Work with City communications and engagement staff, as well as consultants, to provide a coordinated approach to engagement, communication and evaluation of the MTSA ASPs and their implementing policies.
• Provide multiple channels for people to provide meaningful input virtually and, if possible, in-person at appropriate decision points;
 The Getting Involved web site has loads of information and is the place documents are stored for quick retrieval. It takes some practice to get the hang of it all – but it works. • Create an ongoing record of what is said during engagement opportunities and make it available to the public throughout the process, so they can track the progress of the project, including reports back to the community that highlight how feedback was or was not incorporated into the final recommendations to Council;
• Gather meaningful input from members of the community whose voices are historically underrepresented in conversations about city issues;
• Establish a project page on getinvolvedburlington.ca as the main online platform for up-to-date information about the project and upcoming engagement opportunities;
• Use clear, plain language in the delivery of the Engagement Plan to inform the public about what can and cannot be influenced through the MTSA ASP Project.
Project Stages and Engagement Milestones
At a Special Meeting of Council on June 8, 2021, City Council [modified/endorsed] the work plan for the MTSA ASP Project. The key project stages and associated engagement milestones are presented below. For each project stage, the engagement plan identifies where public input will take place, who will be involved in the engagement and what level of engagement will occur.
The strategies that will be used for public involvement in the MTSA ASP Project reflect the feedback provided to the City in the May 17, 2021 Council Workshop. Relevant feedback from related projects has also been considered, including the new Burlington Official Plan, the Scoped Re-Examination of the Downtown and the Interim Control By-Law Land Use Study. These strategies will be further refined by the MTSA ASP Project Steering Committee.
Policies and Factors That Cannot be Influenced
In every public engagement process, it is important to be aware of the things that cannot be influenced: either because they are beyond the City’s control (for example things that are required by regional or provincial policy or law), or because they are outside the scope of the project as set out in the Council-approved work plan. In discussing the Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) Area-Specific Planning (ASP) Project, the following aspects are considered ‘givens’ and will not be included in engagement activities:
1. Planning policy at the local municipal level is informed by legislation, policies and plans such as the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan, Halton Region Official Plan, Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan and others.
2. City Council can adopt proposed amendments to the Burlington Official Plan, but Halton Region is the designated approval authority. Halton Region may modify City-proposed amendments prior to approval and, if appealed, the approved amendments may be subject to further change through the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, (Now named the Ontario Land Tribunal) except for PMTSA policies and zoning regulations protected from appeal under the Planning Act.
3. The proposed Area-Specific Plans and associated implementing mechanisms will be prepared for the Burlington Official Plan (2020), not the Burlington Official Plan (1997).
4. This study is focused only on the Downtown Burlington Urban Growth Centre/Burlington GO MTSA, Aldershot GO MTSA and Appleby GO MTSA. MTSA boundaries and the corresponding minimum growth targets are being set by Region of Halton through its Municipal Comprehensive Review. Draft Halton Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 48 proposes updates to the Regional Structure and includes formal boundaries for each of the MTSAs within Halton Region. Once approved by the Province, these boundaries and targets cannot be appealed.
 5. Urban Growth Centres (UGCs) are strategic growth areas that are planned for greater population and job growth and higher rates of development than other areas in the City and Region. Provincial policies set out minimum density targets for these areas, which are implemented through the Regional Official Plan, and then through the Burlington Official Plan. Draft ROPA 48 includes an adjusted boundary for the Burlington Urban Growth Centre (UGC). If approved by the Province, the adjusted UGC boundary will center around the Burlington GO Station Area.
6. In 2017, a new policy framework for “Protected Major Transit Station Areas” (PMTSAs) was established in the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990. PMTSAs are a municipal tool used to support Higher Order Transit infrastructure around Major Transit Station Areas by establishing minimum density targets and transit-supportive land uses which are protected from appeal. In accordance with Planning Act section 16(16), once identified in an upper-tier municipal official plan and approved by the Province, PMTSA policies cannot be appealed.
Similarly, once implementing policies and zoning have been enacted at the lower-tier municipal level, the prescribed policies cannot be appealed.
PMTSAs may also require Inclusionary Zoning to support affordable housing objectives. Specifically, official plan policies may authorize Inclusionary Zoning by authorizing the inclusion of affordable housing units within buildings or projects containing other residential units, and by providing for the affordable housing units to be maintained as affordable housing units over time.
7. This project will refine and build upon the draft precinct plans developed through the former Mobility Hubs Study in 2018. However, as these plans were released as preliminary and were neither endorsed nor approved by City Council, they are subject to change based on further public engagement and the completion of technical studies.
8. Certain aspects of this project will be informed by the outcome of various technical studies, many of which are required by legislation and policy. These technical studies are undertaken in accordance with established criteria and completed by qualified experts.
9. The Burlington MTSAs are complex, previously developed areas with multiple landowners. The City does not have control over the speed of change related to development. Property owners decide when and if they will develop or redevelop their property.
10. The implementing Official Plan Amendments must be adopted by City Council by June 2022.
11. The implementing Zoning By-Law Amendments must be approved by City Council by December 2022.
 Kwab Ako-Adjei, Director, Corporate Communications & Engagement at City of Burlington, has set out a demanding criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the Engagement Plan. Burlingtonians haven’t seen an approach like this before. How the City Will Collect and Respond to Feedback
Throughout the engagement process, City staff will diligently collect and record all input provided by stakeholders. All input will be recorded by theme into response tables, showing in detail how the comments were considered and how they did or did not shape the study process, the Area Specific Plan and their associated implementing Official Plan amendments recommended to Council, and why.
Evaluating the Engagement Process
Throughout the MTSA ASP Project, City staff will capture interim feedback on the engagement process through measures such as feedback/satisfaction surveys. This will allow for ongoing and incremental evaluation of engagement efforts and will support an iterative process where feedback may influence the engagement process throughout the project.
To assist in measuring how the public participation contributed to the final project decision to be made, the following will be used to evaluate the overall public participation process.
1. Once the project is complete, measure the degree to which community members felt they:
a. Understood the project’s process and its limitations
b. Understood how the feedback they provided influenced the outcome of the City Council approval.
2. Evaluate each form of engagement. How did each of the engagement approaches used help to achieve the engagement objectives?
3. Analyze how the feedback received about the forms of engagement informed new or alternative approaches to the overall public participation process as the project moved forward.
By Pepper Parr
October 22nd, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The Gazette is a member of the National Newsmedia Council. In a recent report from the Council they set out how editorial choices get made and how differences are resolved. We strive to follow those guidelines
Over the past two months, the NNC received more than 50 complaints, and dozens more phone calls, from people who expressed their concerns about a front-page layout of an August 26th edition of the Toronto Star. Readers were incensed over the front-page presentation of a story featuring strongly-worded tweets about people who chose not to get the COVID vaccine. The front-page tweets were, in many readers’ words, “divisive and hateful.”
That day’s edition of the Toronto Star featured an article about public attitudes towards unvaccinated people, citing a poll that suggested many vaccinated Canadians had “no sympathy for those who choose not to get the COVID-19 vaccine and then fall ill.” The article pointed to strongly worded tweets from people who felt similarly, and the tweets were prominently displayed on the front page of the paper.
One tweet included on the front page read, “I have no empathy left for the willfully unvaccinated. Let them die.”
While the Toronto Star’s public editor published a column about the issues with the front-page display in the following days, the significant outcry from readers underscores the need for clarity and consideration when presenting complex issues, particularly when they are given the weight and focus of a front-page display.
In this case, the NNC heard from many complainants who were concerned that the comments expressed harmful views, sowed further division, and were not clearly identified as tweets from individuals.
Take, for example, some of the criticism we heard from complainants:
“This is a prime example of the divide the media has caused…This newspaper is fanning the flames of hatred and division.”
“To see such words of hate plastered across a front page is not only outrageous and unacceptable but also utterly irresponsible in these volatile times.”
“We are already so fractured as a society that this headline does nothing but fuel the divide.”
“Everyone has a right to their opinion but a newspaper has an even greater responsibility to the community to ‘draw a line’. That front page article is down right scary and absolutely promotes hate, discrimination, misinformation and fear towards fellow human beings.”
One individual pointed out, “There are others who by means of exemption are unable to be vaccinated either due to religious beliefs or medical conditions,” and “Being that it is the front page, many people will see these hateful remarks and have no context unless they read the article.”
Even among those who recognized the comments as tweets, many felt it was difficult to discern this fact and that the comments were given undue weight. As one complainant put it, “The newspaper quotes someone from Twitter…and promotes it on their front page in a way that suggests they agree with it. The fact it comes from another person is in very small characters, and the text is placed without quotation marks.”
In addition to the general outrage over the front-page display of the story, some complainants took the opportunity to express their views on vaccination. A number of complainants simply wanted an apology from the news organization about how the newspaper chose to highlight these tweets.
Most complainants immediately contacted the NNC with their concerns. Some told us they even reached out to their local police with concerns about hateful language and were referred to the NNC.
The NNC reviewed each of the complaints and listened to their phone calls. As is our process, we encouraged them to try to resolve the matter, first, with the news organization directly and allow reasonable opportunity for the news organization to address their concerns.
On August 28, the public editor of the Toronto Star published his findings in a column in response to reader concerns. The Star had received thousands of messages from concerned readers who found the front-page display “confusing, hurtful and inflammatory.”
As noted in the column, “Many readers thought the statements were the Star’s view, like a front-page editorial; others thought it was the headline to the story.” The public editor noted that there were no quotation marks around the tweeted comments, that the tweets lacked context, and the source of the comments was not clearly identified.
The column included comments from the editor of the Toronto Star, who acknowledged the “power” and “responsibility” of a front page. She apologized for the fact that the particular front-page display did not meet their usual standards.
As noted in the column, the public editor found that “greater care should have been taken” in this case, and that “The Star wound up stoking the very divisions it sought to write about.”
Throughout the pandemic, the NNC has received a number of complaints and phone calls from people concerned with polarization and ‘divisiveness’ in reporting on COVID, and especially, COVID vaccines. In many of these cases, people want to see another side of the story reflected, even if the evidence does not support it.
Whether covering vaccine hesitancy or people’s response to vaccine hesitancy, reporting on unfounded, offensive, or even extreme views can be newsworthy and serve important journalistic purposes, so long as those views are treated with appropriate care. That means providing appropriate attribution and context, including verifiable evidence and information about sourcing.
In this particular case, the NNC recognizes that the complaints were primarily directed at the front-page layout of the story, and not the story itself, which in fact aimed to provide context and shed light on the attitudes expressed in the strongly-worded tweets.
In reviewing complainants’ concerns and the news organizations’ response to the matter, the NNC agreed with the news organization that the comments should have been more clearly labelled. It also agreed that in this case, the display of the tweets on the front page fell short of journalistic standards around context and attribution.
At the same time, the NNC found that the public editor’s findings and thorough report on the matter both acknowledged and addressed reader concerns about the lack of context, inadequate labelling, and divisive nature of the comments.
While apologies typically fall outside the mandate of the NNC, we would note that the chief editor’s comments and apology for the front page’s shortcomings, as quoted in the column, go a long way to addressing reader concerns, particularly of those who wished to see recognition of the wide-reaching impact of the newspaper’s front page.
In light of the published findings by the Toronto Star public editor, the NNC considered this matter resolved due to corrective action.
By Pepper Parr
October 20th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
To get some sense as to where your ship is going – you want to know something about the person at the wheel and the decisions they make.
Same rule applies to the Mayor of Burlington.
There have been some very good decisions. The decision to have the Urban Growth Centre moved north was a good decision.
 A smart lawyer and a planning department that didn’t understand just what the concept of Mobility Hubs (now called MTSA’s) was all about. The Mayor was dead on about the bus station that was declared a Major Transit Service Area – as soon as she had all the information she saw the obvious.
The disturbing part of that was that the council that served from 2010 to 2018 neither knew or weren’t told by the planning department that the designation given that bus station was an error. Instead they left it in place and the result is the 26 storey Nautique that is now under construction.
Someone in Planning should be wearing that one.
Meed Ward understood the mood of the electorate and chose limiting development and making sure that the development that was coming was the right kind in the right place.
She basically chased the developers out of the downtown core.
Admittedly there are a number (about four with several pieces of land within the football that have not been dealt with) of development along Lakeshore Road and within the football that are a problem.
 Mayor Meed Ward does not appear to be ready to take a position on the re-development of the Waterfront Hotel site. Is this one of those “right things in the right place”? And of course there is the Waterfront Hotel development that could take the growth of the city as we know it today in a much different direction.
Perhaps it is time to think in terms of how Burlington could adapt to the change and make it work for them. We don’t see the city planning department getting in front of issues and being proactive.
The decisions in front of the Mayor now that are a concern are:
The Holiday market, which is now a done deal that got through Council under the shadiest of circumstances;
The park within the Molinaro development at Brant & Ghent;
The Waterfront Hotel site and the redevelopment of that property; and
her enthusiasm for the Holiday market scheduled for December 9th to 12. The Mayor buys into the claim that 1000 people will take part. What that market will do to the merchants in the downtown core who are struggling to stay above water is something they Mayor doesn’t seem prepared to take into account.
Very recently the Molinaro Group took part in a Statutory meeting in which they revealed their plans for a half acre park that would be created at the east end of the development at Brant and Ghent.
 Traffic for the towers on either side of Brant would exit and enter via Ghent. The half acre park is shown on the far right. Title to the land would be registered with the Condominium Corporation . The plan was to create the park, then turn it over to the condominium corporation that would eventually be set up to represent the interests of the condominium unit owners.
The idea that the unit owners will go along with their owning and maintaining a park that would be open to the public is a real stretch.
Anyone who has served on a condominium board would tell you that this is one of the craziest things they have ever heard of.
 This is described as a half acre part which was described as bringing some of Spencer Smith Park north The Mayor seems to think that the city would get another park at no cost and residents of a condominium will cover the costs of keeping it operational.
 Renderings on what a park could look like. Will the information about the park for which unit buyers will have to be clearly set out in the sales literature? Will it be clearly set out in the condominium agreement – those things run to several hundred pages which only the lawyers read.
The Mayor does not appear to have taken a position on the proposed redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel site. One has to ask: Where is the claim that this Mayor wants the right development in the right place ?
There was a time when Meed Ward was all about Truth to Power – now that she has the power Truth seems to have been mislaid. Growing from a really ballsy ward councillor who brought about some significant changes to the way the city operates, we appear to have a Mayor who has lost the wind she used to have in her sails.
She has pulled together a large part of her re-election team and she is in campaign mode.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman – considering his options? And at this point there doesn’t appear to be anyone willing to run against her – except for Councillor Sharman who is probably considering his option.
Go for it Paul!
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
October 15th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
There they were. Three Mayors: ours, the Mayor from Barrie and the Mayor from Mississauga.
Talking to the media and voicing their complaints.
No masks, sitting at what looked like a safe Covid19 social distance, not much different than the way they would sit in a non-pandemic environment.
The complaints about the province were the same – the only thing different was that we currently have a Premier who now knows he can do whatever he wants – and has a court decision to back him up.
Cutting the size of a city council down to about half of what it was “during” an election lets you know that Doug Ford isn’t going to listen all that closely to complaints from municipal politicians.
Mayor Meed Ward had a venue to die for; the set up at the Pearle Hotel and Spa was something to experience. Being the politician she is Meed Ward would make the best of it all.
What most people don’t understand is – why can the Mayor hold an event and talk to the media the way she would in normal times but people in Burlington cannot delegate to their council in a similar live setting.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward – doesn’t appear to be prepared to meet her constituents in conditions that allow for real engagement. Basically because she can. She has said on any number of occasions that holding council meetings in a virtual setting works for her and it appears to work for a majority of city council.
It is less than a pleasant experience for those delegating virtually, fumbling their way through the technology that works – sort of.
The human interaction is missing. The buzz that exists in a room when people can talk to each other and exchange opinions; support each other as they ask questions.
 Gary Scobie with his eyes focused on members of Council as he delegates to the elected. Democracy right in front of your eyes  Jim Young reminding council that the power they have was given to them by the people who elected them. Much is lost when people like Gary Scobie, Jim Young or Tom Muir arrive at the podium putting fact after fact on the table. This city misses the likes of Vanessa xxx standing at the podium and setting the record straight.
It is time for Burlington’s city council to put at least put a toe in the water and begin to loosen its pandemic bonds.
Related news story:
Mayor takes off the masks and meets with media with looser social contact rules
By Ryan O’Dowd: Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
October 15th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Ontario’s Big City Mayor(OBCM) caucus met in Burlington for the first time since the pandemic began yesterday. The housing crisis, municipal finances, COVID-19, and what the OBCM will ask of provincial candidates this election featured on the agenda. Rocked by the pandemic the OBCM issued a stern call to action for long-term stable funding for municipalities from the federal and provincial governments.
 Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward with Barrie Mayor Jeff Lehman and Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie. Barrie Mayor Jeff Lehman, Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie, and Guelph Mayor Cam Guthrie joined Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward to speak to the media about the meeting’s content.
The OBCM presented a united front on the lifting of pandemic restrictions, agreeing decisions on this matter should be made uniformly across the province citing citizen movement between regions under different levels of lockdown as a primary concern. They reiterated that lifting restrictions must be based on science rather than political pressure.
Mayor Guthrie wanted to see more action from the federal and provincial government to assist municipalities through pandemic recovery, accusing them of finger-pointing responsibility to each other. Guthrie pointed out the municipal government is the only sector of government legally not allowed to run a deficit. Guthrie felt municipalities have had to ask the government for assistance too often without action.
“Municipalities are ready, we already know what our impacts are from the pandemic, and we know what we need. So we ask respectfully the provincial and federal government to put the fingerprinting away and get to work on trying to help to make sure municipalities are made full, especially when it comes to the impacts financially, the deficits that we’re all facing. We thought we would only have those deficits within the 2020 year and here we are in the 2021 year.
“Our budgets are staring us in the face the next couple of months,” said Guthrie.
Mayor Crombie brought up a request for a new model of funding for municipalities, saying “we’re still asked to build 21st-century cities with 19th-century tools.” She pointed to municipalities as the only sector of government that had to lay off staff as among the reasons long term sustainable funding is required. The OBCM members in attendance voiced their support for this request, a request Mayor Guthrie said has been discussed for some time.
Facing public transit ridership slashed by over 50% Mayor Lehman lamented the difficult decisions facing municipalities under the current funding model in deciding what services to cut.
“Ridership numbers are a big gap from where we were two years ago, and that’s going to require some changes to be made faster and that’s the kind of support that we will need now, it’s less about emergency funding week by week now it’s about how we recover strong; that will be addressing deficits that make cities make critical choices in terms of cutting services,” said Lehman.
Mayor Meed Ward put the figures of the municipal deficit strain in sobering terms for Burlington residents.
“In Burlington, the combination of lost revenues and added expenses for us is close to $5 million. If we had to make that up just through taxes, that is close to a quarter percent tax increase before we do anything else that is just to dig ourselves out of a hole. So when we look at all the other needs that we have in the community and inflationary pressures, we would be looking at outrageously high taxes – close to 10, or 15%, if we had to make it ourselves and clearly that it’s not palatable or acceptable or sustainable for anyone,” said Meed Ward.
Ontario’s Big City Mayor caucus features mayors of Ontario’s 29 cities with a population over 100,000 which means they represent nearly 80 percent of the province’s population.
Housing crisis considerations were discussed ranging from homelessness to the middle class, with what was labeled an increasingly clear gap between supply and demand in Southern Ontario. Rental costs were included in the discussion, where Burlington ranks the fifth most expensive city in Canada to rent, one-bedroom apartments averaging over $1800, as per the latest available data from realtor.com. The kind of policy-based action used to combat the housing crisis will grow clearer with requests put to provincial candidates this upcoming election.
 Few municipalities have the breath taking views. Discussions were had about bail reform and addressing what OBCM called the catch and release policy which has seen repeat offenders commit violent acts. It was a topic brought up in the meeting by former provincial leader of the opposition Mayor Patrick Brown, who did not appear for media availability, the present members voiced support for change.
The meeting was hosted at the new Pearle Hotel and Spa, an impressive venue at the waterfront.
By Pepper Parr
October 14th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
She is back – we missed those regular updates.
The Mayor does her version of a tell all – see it for yourself right here:
Later today she will be holding a media event at one of the smartest locations in the city -The Pearle Hotel and Spa on Elizabeth street.
The sweeping staircase is spectacular. And the outdoor space is something you have to experience.
 By Ray Rivers
October 13th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
OPINION
 City Council passed resolutions to phase out natural gas Burlington is one of over 30 municipalities, comprising 60% of Ontario’s population, which have passed resolutions for Ontario to phase out natural gas electrical production by 2030. They get it. Fires, floods, droughts, insects, storms – climate change will affect us all. This week, Canada has been accused of being one of the top 10 countries by most responsible for bringing climate destruction upon the world. On a per capita basis, we rank No. 1.
Nature Climate Change, has published a new scientific report examining 100,000 events and concluding that 80% of our global land mass and 85% of the world’s population has already been affected by global climate change. The World Health Organization, the UN and health care practitioners have pointed out that air pollution from burning fossil fuels, which also drives climate change, is causing more than seven million premature deaths each year, that’s 13 deaths every minute – and almost twice what we have seen with the COVID pandemic.
Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to ban burning coal for electricity production, in part to clear the air of smog pollution, but also to reduce the province’s carbon footprint. By 2014, the government had shuttered the largest greenhouse gas (GHG) point source on the continent, reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the province by the equivalent of removing seven million cars off the road.
To replace coal, the province began the process of developing wind and solar energy projects to complement its nuclear and hydro resources. Gas powered electricity was included only as a transitional source while the province fully developed its renewable sources, and to assist with peak power demands
 He marches to his own drummer – to a tune that sounds out of key. That all came to a stop with the election of a new government to Queen’s Park in 2018. Premier Ford did everything he could to reverse Ontario’s transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. He fought the imposition of a federal carbon tax; shut down Ontario’s emissions trading system at a cost of billions; more recently he has acquired new gas plants at a cost of $3 billion; and he has expanded natural gas infrastructure committing thousands more to the continued use of that fossil fuel.
Almost on day one Ford killed every single new renewable project he could, and even stopped those in process – some 700 in total at a cost of hundreds of millions to Ontario ratepayers. His intention was clearly to cripple the province’s renewable energy systems so that when the nukes go down, as they eventually will, natural gas powered electricity will be the only way to keep the lights on.
Natural gas is misnomer. Methane, its real name, is just another fossil fuel, and no more natural than coal or oil. However coal or oil don’t impact our climate unless they are burned. Methane, is a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG) on it’s own, as much as 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide. And methane is released at all stages of its lifecycle, from the well head to the home consumer.
As this is being written Canada is joining other nations in promising to reduce domestic methane emissions by 30%. But what are the chances of that if gas consumption is increased? Ontario will fail to meet the premier’s 30% emissions reduction target if fossil fuel use is expanded. And that would imperil’s Canada’s Paris commitment of a 40% GHG emissions reduction.
 When the lights went out. So when all those municipal resolutions requesting the province phase out gas production started arriving on his desk, Mr. Ford turned to the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages the overall provincial supply of electricity. However the IESO is not as independent as their name implies and answered the premier’s call with the exact answer he was looking for. They scribbled two phrases on the back of their provincial pay packets. Phasing out gas by 2030 might mean power shortages and it might mean higher costs.
 But this impact assessment, as they called it, is a sham. Real experts, people like Prof. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, considered the world’s leading climate technology expert, tells us that gas power plants now cost twice as much as solar power. He should know, his team of engineering scientists and PhDs have been advising governments on renewable energy in over 140 countries, including the White House. And Canada’s ever increasing carbon tax will make the gas alternative even less competitive by 2030.
This is not the first time an arm of government, even one which calls itself independent, has let the government politicos hold the pen. And scary stories of lights flickering out and hydro bills leaving us without bread on the table could never be more timely with Halloween just around the corner. But this is very much a trick and no treat.
 Wind farm in Eastern Ontario 2030 is only about a decade away. According to the Canadian Wind Energy Association, more wind energy had been built in Canada between 2009 and 2019 than any other form of electricity generation. Over that period wind energy alone went from scratch to meeting the needs of over three million Canadian homes. Does anyone really believe that only gas can keep the lights on? And the cost of wind energy has fallen 70 per cent in the last nine years,
That this IESO report lacks vision is undeniable. And it is shameful that the body which manages energy supply in Canada’s largest province could produce such a rubbish projection. That is what’s really scary – that the folks in charge of our energy supply haven’t a clue about all the technological progress occurring in renewable sources of energy and energy storage systems. And that the IESO has apparently never heard of global warming.
And even when they decide – or are told to – proclaim gas as Ontario’s future energy source, the IESO picked the wrong gas. They barely mention hydrogen gas, particularly for energy storage to back up wind and solar when the weather is uncooperative. The federal government and the oil and gas industry is pouring vast sums of research money into developing green, and even blue, hydrogen resources. And work is progressing on how to adapt existing pipelines for its safe transmission.
 Smog Burlington and the other municipalities deserve better than the slam dunk, shut down they have been handed by the IESO and the premier. Under the IESO plan, methane to produce electricity will skyrocket from 7% to 30% by 2030. The City of Ottawa has rejected the IESO report and demanded they go back to the drawing board. This will also impact the air quality of people living everywhere in the province, since methane burning also yields significant amounts of smog pollution.
What is really scary about this IESO report is that while most countries are trying to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, the Ontario government is planning a major expansion of its carbon footprint – possibly expanding GHG pollution from the gas plants by more than 300% by 2030.
Even as global leaders sit down to discuss how they can further reduce GHG emissions, Ontario’s premier is thumbing his nose at those efforts. He is swimming against the tide to defy world opinion and federal climate policies. And he is ignoring the will of all the people he claims to represent in this province who, who unlike him, seem to care about the future of this planet.
 Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Ontario Coal Phase Out – Methane Emissions – IESO Study –
Ontario Energy Policies – Wind Power Cost – Australia Battery Storage –
Climate Change Impacts – Canada Methane Commitment – 7 Million Deaths –
 By Pepper Parr
October 12th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The City of Burlington’s loose-leaf collection program starts on Monday, Nov. 8. Residents are encouraged to check the leaf collection schedule and zone map and rake leaves to the curb, or edge of pavement if there are no curbs, before their pickup date.
Each collection zone will have only one pick-up.
Collection Schedule:
• Zone 1: begins Nov. 8 (1 week)
• Zone 2: begins Nov. 15 (1 week)
• Zone 3: begins Nov. 22 (2 weeks)
 Map of loose leaf collection zones.  This crew will probably not be clearing the leaves from your property. They were working along New Street when this picture was taken. Residents planning on using the service are reminded that this program is weather dependent. Freezing rain or snow can cause delays or even cancel the program. Always be prepared to bag your leaves for Halton Region’s Yard Waste Pick-up or mulch them to help your lawns and gardens grow.
If the collection is delayed or cancelled due to weather or other circumstances, residents can call 905-335-7777 for updated information. Updates will also be posted on burlington.ca/leafcollection as well as the City’s social media channels.
To ensure the safety of collection crews and avoid damaging equipment, please keep the loose-leaf piles free of debris and sticks. Leaves mixed with debris and waste will not be collected. Please help prevent flooding by keeping catch basins and ditches clear of leaves.
 The time frames for getting all the leaves off the streets is tight. They want to wait until all the leaves are down and the snow hasn’t started. To ensure a successful pick-up, residents can:
 • Rake leaves to the edge of the curb or roadway in a loose pile
• Remove basketball nets, cars and other obstructions from the road during pick-up dates
• Clear leaves from sidewalks and walkways
• Avoid placing garbage bags, bins, blue boxes or green carts on top of loose-leaf piles
• Give crews room to remove the leaves when driving
After the collection program is complete, any remaining leaves should be placed in yard-waste bags for curb side collection by Halton Region.
As a greener alternative, residents can mulch their leaves with their lawn mower to help feed the soil for the spring.
Related news story:
The evolution of leaf collecting in Burlington
By Pepper Parr
October 11th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Jeremy Tellier is one of the more entertaining members of the Planning Department in Burlington. That isn’t to suggest there is no depth to the man – he has his facts down solid and understands the short, intermediate and long term impact of decisions that are being made. His client relationship skills are second to none. It is his delivery that makes him special.
 Thus it was one day last week that Jeremy was taking Council through an ask to hire more than a dozen new staff members for the planning department.
The budget impact? None basically.
Tellier set the scene when he put up a graphic that set out what the city is heading into.
 Jamie Tellier started his Staff report to Council last week with a stunner of a document. “The technical issues and complexities are beyond anything that we’ve seen before, and that leads to increased time and effort to process those applications” said Tellier.
“I apologize for repeating myself because I know you’ve heard it before, but I’m gonna say it again, greenfield development is effectively over, our growth is going to occur from within, through intensification.”
The delivery of development services, depends on people power; … “the report before you lists the services that are needed to increase our capacity in critical areas, and enable staff to meet the legislative timelines that we have to deal with, as well as deliver on Council’s Land Use objectives and customer experience expectations.
We were already taking into account phasing and timelines of major projects, we really tried to just focus on those projects that we’re likely to obtain building permits in the short term. “What we’re going to do is take a more granular look at the extent of development that is in the planning pipeline, regardless of phasing and timelines. We think this is everything that we’ve got,
 “This is a slide that’s gives you the snapshot of all the development activity in the planning pipeline for active major applications for residential development. Site plan applications that have not yet been received, meaning they are in pre-consultation or about to come in for pre- consultation. You can see site plans that are currently in the review process.
All in all we have 47 active applications in the planning pipeline that amount to approximately 19,100 residential units.
Now the table on the bottom we broke up that total units into building typology just to help understand some of the distribution.
We don’t expect 19,100 units to be built in the next couple of years, this, is everything we know of that is in our planning pipeline at various, various stages of planning approvals, we expect to spend the next decade on this working from a true planning and building to occupancy perspective.
This is easily a decade of construction activity in the city.
 This slide is a snapshot of the planning pipeline for active major applications for employment development. the point of this slide is to show that more jobs are coming to Burlington.
None of this work has even made its way into building permits yet.
This slide shows building permit activity and construction costs over the past few years. The number of permits issued is still less than what we’ve seen in previous years. While we may have less applications coming in than we’ve seen in previous years. They are increasingly large and complex, hence these high construction values that you’re seeing on a chart, and this is a great reflection of the capacity issues that we’re experiencing across all of development services.
 The previous slides were just the planning pipeline, none of that has made its way into building permits and none of that is even reflected in these charts because this is just what what is happening right now on the building permit side of things.
Staff anticipate this sustained development activity is going to require the following needed staff positions:
- Community Planning:
- (1) Coordinator of Business Services and Committee of Adjustment
- (1) Coordinator of Urban Design and Special Projects
- (1) Zoning Reviewer
- (3) Planner II
- (2) Senior Planners
- Engineering Services:
- (2) Senior Technician (Site Engineering)
- Transportation Services:
- (1) Supervisor of Planning (Transportation Planning)
- Building Permit Services:
- (2) Policy & Regulatory Services Clerks
- (1) Policy & Regulatory Services Supervisor
- (1) Building Permit Technologist
- (1) Coordinator of Building Permits (reallocated)
- (2) Senior Building Inspectors (reallocated)
Should Council approve the recommendation of this report, it is expected that all positions will be immediately posted for recruitment with a priority for Engineering Services to resolve urgent capacity issues on the Site Engineering team. It is noted that the Engineering Services Department intends to use consulting services in the interim to address the capacity issues in Site Engineering until the recruitment is complete.
To ensure cost recovery for development services, a planning application fee review is currently underway; we’re targeting completion by the end of this year. The last time we did this type of deep dive into our planning fees, was in 2012.
 This was one of the last greenfield developments in the city. There isn’t any more space in the Urban Boundary which is basically at Dundas Street Burlington has effectively built out to its edges, we now have to grow from within, and development is almost entirely in an infill context and development applications and an infill context are increasingly complex and require more staff effort, which then affects our cost to deliver our services. So full cost recovery for development services is critical for long term fiscal sustainability. In other words, we need to minimize our dependence on the tax base for the operating costs of development services.
Tellier used a couple of case studies to help understand the order of magnitude of revenues and fees that get collected through development services.
 “On the Molinaro property, the phase one development, consisted of two 20 storey towers and one 24 storey tower with 559 residential units. When you look at the table on the slide, what’s interesting is this development only required site plan approval.
“And you can see if we were processing the site plan under our current fee schedule like as of today, the fees would would come out to a little over $81,000 Just for the site plan application, and then the three building permits for the three towers – those permits worked out to over a million dollars in building permit revenues. Development Charges worked out to over $11 million, and in development charges Park dedication – over $3 million. And then lastly, the condominium application, a little over $3,000.
 “Here’s another example of a Carriage Gate Berkeley Medical One development this project consists of a 17 storey tower with 120 residential units, an eight storey office building, with a little over 10,000 square meters of retail and office area, a six story parking garage with 226 parking spaces. There are some section 37 benefits as a result of the rezoning. This development did require an official plan amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment – if we were processing this today, you would see the fees would be over $109,000 in revenues, just for the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment. And then you can see for site plan that if we were receiving that application and processing that today it would be a little over $43,000. What’s interesting here is the only part of this development, the apartment building, has been constructed. The parking garage, and the office building have not yet come in for building permits, and so that’s reflected in the building permit fees of $314,000, which have been collected,
“Same thing with development charges, a little over $2 million, and park dedication that’s $660,000, and the condominium application – a little over $3,000. The Official Plan Amendment and the site plan approval approved the entire development so the developer doesn’t need to come back to planning, if they wish to build what was previously approved on that site.
“In order to handle this flood of development application and stay within the time frames the planners have to work with everything is dependent on improving staff capacity across development services.”
That concluded the Staff presentation; it was on to questions from Council members.
 Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman Councillor Sharman was the first out the gate saying “You know, I’ve been trying to figure out how many applications we have in the pipeline, for a few years. We used to have a monthly development activity report by ward that was extremely insightful, we stopped doing that now my assumption was we stopped doing that because we had similar information on the Planning and Development website under development, or applications by ward… can we please get back to having a report?
Sharman added that “we also need the operations review meeting every month. What can we do to get that information, please?
Mark Simione responded: “Yes, we’re absolutely in agreement someone will provide that information. It’s simply a matter of acquiring the data that’s repeatable, verifiable and accurate. There’s no disagreement from staff we completely agree that this is a worthwhile project.
 Councillor Bentivegna had a question around the “new staff that we need for the next phase of our growth. I think the numbers when you add them up come to $1,000,007 per year needed to carry on. And from your case study, numbers, just using the Molinaro project on Fairview we’re looking at $15 million in terms of revenues from that one project.
“Are those dollars we’re receiving as part of the permit fees, will they be distributed to some of those departments or how are we going to deal with those extra expenses. If they’re not included into this, and maybe the city managers are willing to answer that or someone in financing. That’s my first question.
City Manager Tim Commisso spoke: I’ll be real brief. It’s of significant concern in terms of making sure that all the departments have the capacity so the reality is, that we are limited in terms of what we can collect fees for – I just want to acknowledge that that is on our radar.
Tellier added: “First and foremost is to recover the direct costs for development services, but understanding that there’s so much support from other departments, those indirect supports and development services from the departments I had mentioned in my presentation and I think they’re also identified in the staff report.
 Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns Councillor Kearns asked if: “This readjustment of the organizational design is based on what’s coming down the pipe, in terms of the mega projects for all intents and purposes. What about the smaller projects. The, you know, the trending areas in our city where it’s a knock down and build one home. The permits and so on. We’re doing this to speed up this service to improve the quality of the service all of all of the right things. When will we see the effects of increased or reduced times to get things approved, both for large operations, and for the little person who’s redoing their home, because right now it’s stressful. These are the sort of emails we’re getting at this point where it’s taken quite a long time, so can we comment on that please?
Heather MacDonald explained: “We’re not just looking at the big projects, we are definitely looking at infill projects as well, which are very complicated, often what I find more complicated than in dealing with Greenfield applications, because they are in established areas, and we are, you know, concerned about impact on the surrounding area. And also, sometimes dealing with applicants that are not the big developers are experienced developers so they that requires a lot more time and effort to work through the process.
“We have been through a couple of the pain points in the process for smaller applications, those being forestry and zoning, and in those two areas we’ve seen great improvement in how quickly we can process a couple of other pain points in the process that we need to, to address more fully, one being site engineering and that is definitely in this recommendation before you today for assistance in that area.”
You may recall, explained Tellier “that the first couple milestones was just trying to establish the structure and some stability in our department, we had a lot of staff that we had contracts upon contracts; it was a structure that didn’t quite align with the type of established work that occurs in established neighborhoods.
“We’ve reorganized the department into teams. We’ve re-arranged our structure and created stability. Now we’re at that third milestone of improving our capacity.
“That’s where we’re gonna start seeing the difference across all of development services exactly as Heather mentioned, when we think about forestry and site engineering and zoning and all the work to date that they do. In addition to that as we start thinking about the ability for us to work with our IT department so we can start improving our technology and our customer portals to empower customers, we’ll find some efficiencies there to help our customers succeed beyond what we can do right now.
“This is self financed within the system.”
Councillor Kearns had a final question: ” I just want to understand how we are working in two parallel tracks between designing and evolving the organization and then working within the actual budget process that does allocate FTP, some of which are revenue supported from tax and some of which are supported through the tax base.
“I’m just looking for that differentiation because what I’m not quite seeing now, and I’ll ask staff this separately is there an additional service level that’s being met, or is this to satisfy baseline so first? Why, designing and evolving the organization and not budget, and second baseline versus enhanced service.
Treasurer Joan Ford responded: “It’s all one. For purposes of this report there was a sense of urgency to try to get this in place. You are responsible for approving staff complement. So the HR positions, the complement falls with you. You can do it either at budget time or you can do it at any time .
“As has been indicated these positions are fee funded. And so, what we would do is we would include the HR costs in the budget, and we would increase the revenues to support those staff that have been approved. Once you approve this report.
“With anything there is risk. And one of the risks, is that the revenues may not be there in a given year to support the staff. We do have a reserve fund for both development application processing and building permit fees. As long as the revenues are there to sustain it. There shouldn’t need to be a huge draw from the reserve funds, but it is there, should we need it.”
Asked to move the report Councillor Kearns had one more question. “… back to planning staff and does this simply support baseline operations to meet all of the Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) that are in place, or is this providing an elevated level of service?
The answer was: “This will assist us in meeting legislated timelines that we are required to meet, and also to better meet customer expectations. This will also position us to be able to handle the increased activity that we expect. So it’s both. Really, we need the assistance and the increased capacity right now.”
Kearns again: “I do have a third question. I’m just wondering if it’s possible to put together a bit of a media release or a news release. I can say that my office has been inundated with requests around permit processing times, things of that nature and I’d like to have something available to respond to our community members that have reached out, letting them know that we’ve made this really insightful analysis and carried through with the request of staff to increase a compliment from, you know, what should be a revenue neutral perspective, and if not, we do have a backup plan through those reserves. Just wondering if it’s possible to have a bit of a communication put together for internal and external use.”
City Manager Commisso assured Kearns that they will work with communications and get something out – following Council.
Mayor Meed Ward closed adding: “Let’s get on with processing the applications, everyone wants to be in Burlington and why not, it’s the best city in the country, in the world, and you have a lot of work ahead of you, so we obviously need to help resource you to do that well and happy to do that.
“I’d say this is really critical to everybody. Like everybody on council we’ve all been getting emails and phone calls and, you know anxiety over timelines that have extended for sometimes many many many months. This is really important. Any comments I’d leave with you were similar to the ones I left at the budget meetings the last two weeks. That is with respect to new software, and improving processes, and recognizing the new software by definition requires us to redesign our processes. And the question is how quickly can we get into all that? My last comment is remember the Customer.
 Councillor Galbraith ward 1 Councillor Galbraith: “I’ll be quick. This is great. Anytime that we have revenue funded positions, I want to see it as soon as possible. I didn’t mention this, going back last year that if there’s a streamlined process for this, to bring it through us faster even, you know, skip some of the typical reporting cycles. I’m in for that, In principle, so perhaps that’s something that Sheila might be able to think about if that would be feasible or the planning team. And the other thing that I see from this report is how we are certainly open for business in Burlington construction value forecasted is going back up to new heights, and I’m good with that – it’s going to help the city. Overall, obviously we are shaping that growth as a council. So, thank you very much for the report very well prepared and looking forward to having the positions.”
 Ward 3 Councillor Rory Nisan Councillor Nisan added: “I just have a couple of comments as well. I’m very happy to see this report and obviously funded positions are much easier decision for council to to make, I know my office has certainly been inundated. There is a lot of construction activity at the moment, and projects that are in the engineering department and all departments within the city and I would like to receive less calls if I can, so happy to see that there will be more positions. I don’t think the construction activity is going to be less than any in the future. I think this is the right decision and the fact that it doesn’t require budget decisions is, a fairly easy one for me to make.
Counselor Kearns then commented: “Just a quick one and I just want to highlight that what we’re doing here is also improving safety within our community. The building department is responsible for all of those inspections to make sure that the Building Code inspections are carried out to the highest regard. I really look forward to getting this compliment up to full whack because we don’t want to miss those timelines and we want to make sure that we give that very very high level customer service.”
And that was it – no more questions; no more comments. The Chair called the vote – it carried and goes to Council on the 19th where it will be approved.
By Pepper Parr
October 9th, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
The pre-application presentation, that the city planning department requires of a developer before they submit an application, was put on by the owners of the Waterfront Hotel on September 8th. It was a virtual event.
There were something in the order of 125 people, many of them members of Council and staff as well as other developers and members of the public.
The purpose of a pre-application presentation is to give the public a look at what the developer has in mind and an opportunity for the public to comment.
The two towers will be mere yards away from the south side of Lakeshore Road steps west of Brant if the pre-application presentation reflects what actually gets built. The comments made by the public were to be captured by the developer and made available to the city planners. The developer is also required to tell how they reacted to the public comments.
With those taking part it is logical to assume that there isn’t going to be flood of comments.
Besides being ‘mind blowing’ at several levels whatever gets done with the Waterfront Hotel site is going to change for decades how the downtown works.
The design put forward was impressive – the two towers will change the skyline and change the relationship the public has with the lake and Spencer Smith Park. Few will see it as a positive change – but that is something the public will have to determine going forward.
Our concern is the difficulty media has had in getting information. Set out below is a graphic that was used to explain what will go where. It had a lot of information – the best we could capture from the presentation was on the small side making it difficult to fully understand how the first four levels of the site will work.
Due to the significant slope from Brant Street to what will be the southern level of the development foot print, understanding how those four levels, which will be a podium, on which the two towers will rise are going to be accessed is a serious problem.
 The rendering is a Preferred concept the city put out several years ago – it used John Street as the entry point to the development. The rendering also describes the east lawn as event space. Is that space part of the Hotel property or is it land reclaimed with land fill and under the control of Conservation Halton? We wrote to the planners working for the developer asking if they would send us a high resolution graphic that we could publish and explain to our readers.
We did not get a response – which seems to now be a pattern.
Recall that earlier we had been told that the pre-application was being recorded and would be available.
In a separate story – there is a link to that below – we explain how we had to badger both the developer and the city planning.
We took the poor quality graphic and had one of our people enlarge it – the quality isn’t all that good – it was the best we could do with what we had.
The people working for the developer clearly do not want the public to be aware of what their early stage thinking is.
There are two issues at work here. We have always lived by the maxim: an informed public can make an informed decision.
With that in mind we will explain what we know about the site.
The planners working for the developer are required to accept your comments and to make them available to the city planners.
The man who wants to hear from you is Evan Sugden – his contact information is
Evan Sugden
esugden@bousfields.ca
Bousfields Inc
1 Main Street East, Suite 200,
Hamilton ON, L8N 1E7
(905) 549-3005 ext. 259
In order to comment you need to know something about the development – with less than 125 people taking part in the virtual pre-application presentation, there isn’t going to be much depth or breadth to what they developer hears.
Spencer Smith Park and the waterfront part of the city is YOUR property – you have the right to have input – Mayor Meed Ward made sure that you had that right when she pushed for the use of pre-application presentation sessions and she made sure that the Mayor and the ward council member had the right to be part of the presentation. Odd that the Mayor didn’t say very much when she had the chance. She did say that the city had not received an application.
Now on to the graphic…
 The pink color are the residential units; blue is the hotel which is limited to the podium, the amenity spaces are in green. That upper level serves as a kind of bridge that connects at the podium level. The office functions are shown in purple. There are currently two levels of office functions. Commercial uses are shown in orange. There is a substantial grade stepping from Lakeshore down to the Waterfront Trail. In terms of unit break down, we have 23 units or Studios, 212 units as one bedrooms, 165 plus one bedrooms plus den and 139 as two bedrooms and some units of three bedroom for a total of 557 units between the two towers. Related news stories:
The pre-application meeting September 8th
An alternate idea that has gained some traction.
Getting the video of the pre-application meeting was easier said than done – both city and the developers planner had to be badgered.
|
|
