 By Pepper Parr
January 29, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The dialogue on the matter of lowering the city flag in front of city hall has gone on long enough.
A citizen made a request, got a very insensitive response from the office of the Mayor. Later that day the Mayor asked her Council members to join her in a minute of silence to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the liberation of the death camps in Auschwitz.
 It was a dignified statement made more poignant when the Mayor presented the Key to the city to Gordon Schottlander, a 95 year old veteran of the D-Day landings on the Beaches of Normandy in France.
Victoria AlSamadi, Mayor’s Chief of Communications & Strategic Advisor wrote the citizen who made the original request saying:
I wanted to reach out on behalf of the Mayor, and team, regarding yesterday’s International Holocaust Day and your request to see the flags at City Hall lowered.
Please know that the Mayor and team consider it an important day of remembrance and pause – to ensure we never forget what happened and so that this never happens again.
We take every opportunity to oppose discrimination on any ground. It’s a significant date for the world, for humanity, and also personally for the Mayor, as we acknowledge the murder of six million Jews for no other reason than being Jewish as well as millions more. The crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis touch people of every background, religion, race, sexual orientation and disability, as well as our veteran community who found a way to help end the war so we can live in peace and acceptance of all people.
The Mayor has recently been invited to participate in a trip to Auschwitz to learn more and honour the victims of this heinous act of evil and she is working toward booking that in the near future.
In planning for this event, we decided to recognize this important day via social media posts as we have come to see over the past year that this is the most effective way to reach the largest audience and spread important messages in a timely and impactful manner for the Mayor. As you may know, there was also a minute of silence at council last night.
We also had planned (and will) lower the flags on April 21st, for Yom HaShoah, the day of Remembrance for Holocaust victims marked by many Canadians. Going forward, as a result of the additional request to lower the flags for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we will do that next year and in the future.
We realize how important adding a flag lowering to this occasion is to the community and are committed to doing this going forward to ensure our community sees every manner at our disposal being used to mark this day.
I assure you that we welcome all residents to partner with us and request the flag to be lowered ahead of all dates of importance to our community. If you or any other citizens have occasions you would like to see the flag lowered in the future, please do reach out to us at mayor@burlington.ca and we will make it happen.
The communications advisor should have quit when she was ahead.
Did the Mayor just announce that there will be another trip out of the country?
Related news stories:
The request
The response
 By Pepper Parr
January 29th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
It took more than nine years but the city now has a private tree bylaw.
The property rights advocates went crazy when the idea first came forward. They put up some impressive arguments but the current city council was determined to have a bylaw to improve the size and health of the urban canopy.
 A dream street – this is the look city council would like for the city – however the tree canopy is not his healthy. As of Jan. 27, 2020, anyone within the City’s urban boundary will need to apply for a permit and on-site consultation to remove a tree greater than 20 cm in diameter (8”) measured at 1.4 m from the ground, or if you would like to remove more than five trees between 10 and 20 cm (4-8”) measured at 1.4 m from the ground in a calendar year. Heritage trees and endangered species are also protected.
Permits are also needed for any activity that may injure or damage a tree.
Council collectively saw this as taking exciting and important steps to battle climate change through preserving and growing the City’s tree canopy.
The permit application can be found online at burlington.ca/privatetree.
 The Urban boundary is the line of small black squares. A private tree task-force is being assembled with a goal of creating an incentive program for homeowners to plant trees on their private property. Details of the task-force and the incentive program are still being finalized and will be shared once ready.
To read the full bylaw, including information on permits, protected trees, exemptions and fines, visit Burlington.ca/PrivateTree.
When do I need a permit?
Property owners will need to apply for a Tree Removal Permit when removing:
• A tree greater than 20 cm diameter measured at 1.4 m from the ground
• More than five trees between 10 and 20 cm measured at 1.4 m from the ground
• Any size of tree that is a designated Heritage Tree*
• Any size of endangered, at risk, or threatened tree species*
• If the tree is dead**
• If the tree is diseased with no chance of recovery**
• If the tree is within 2 m of an occupied dwelling**
* Additional permits and regulations apply
**Permit is still required; fees and compensation are waived.
When do I not need a permit?
• Removing trees of less than 20 cm in diameter measured at 1.4 m above the ground (no more than four per year)
• Tree maintenance (pruning)
• For emergency work, such as utility repairs
• Trees at high-risk of injuring a person or damaging property
• If the tree is located in a nursery or orchard
• If the tree is an invasive species*
Replacement Trees
Trees that are injured or removed under the Tree Removal Permit will need to be replaced. The tree’s diameter, measured at 1.4 m above ground, as well as the overall condition rating will impact the total number of cm required to be replaced. Generally, one replacement tree is required for every 10 cm diameter removed. The on-site consultation will determine measurements and replacements.
If there is no room for the replacement trees to be planted on the property, there will be a charge of $400 per replacement tree. This money will be used toward the Private Tree Incentive Program where private homeowners will be encouraged to plant trees on their property.
Fees and Fines
• Tree Permit, Development Related Application: $680/property
• Tree Permit, Non-Development Related Application: $390/property
• Cash-in-Lieu of Replacement Compensation (Cash-in-Lieu): $400/tree
• Private Tree Bylaw fine: $680/tree
Public Information Sessions
Public information sessions are being planned to help educate residents and homeowners about the bylaw. When details are confirmed, information will be posted on burlington.ca/privatetree, on the City’s social media as well as other methods.
For more information, including the online application form, go to burlington.ca/privatetree.
 For Mayor Marianne Meed Ward this was an essential piece of municipal legislation – she had a council that let her have it. Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said: “This is a significant step for our City in protecting and growing our tree canopy. It’s taken us nine years to get here, and I’m pleased we have unanimous support for this bylaw. I’m proud of our Council, city staff and our citizens for putting in the hard work to make this bylaw a truly made-in Burlington model.”
 Steve Robinson, Manager of Forestry had to both revise and defend the plan – it was not an easy task. Now he has to make it work. Steve Robinson, Manager of Forestry added: “Increasing the City’s tree canopy will require a two-pronged approach: preserving the valuable resource that we have, and adding to it for future growth. This legislation will discourage tree removal by regulating the removal of healthy mature trees, and also provide incentives to homeowners to plant more trees. Once we have the incentive program finalized, we will share the information.”
Related news story.
Councillor Sharman’s take on the bylaw which he voted for.
By Pepper Parr
January 28th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Senior public officials around the world are going public and doing their best to assure people that the coronavirus is under control when it isn’t but we do know that huge efforts are being made to get it under control.
Public confidence comes from public leaders – which appear to be in short supply at the Regional level.
 Citizens in the United Kingdom wearing masks.  Citizens in Germany wearing masks. The Gazette was in touch with one of the Regional communications advisers on the payroll arranging to interview the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) Dr. Meghani.
She was unavailable. We will come back to that.
We were asked what we wanted to talk to the good Dr. about (Huh!)
The communications adviser was typing most of what we said and sent us the following:
1. Is Halton Region Public Health working with the school board to issue communications to parents? What information will be shared with parents?
• Halton Region Public Health has been in communication with local school boards. We are continuing to work closely with superintendents to ensure that school administrators and families have up-to-date and accurate information.
2. Is coronavirus a public health concern in Halton?
• Halton Region Public Health is coordinating with local hospitals and communicating with key community partners such as physicians, long-term care homes and local school boards. We continue to work closely with provincial and local health counterparts to monitor the situation and assess potential health risk.
• While the risk to individuals in Ontario remains low, residents are encouraged to tell their health care provider if they have travelled to an affected area of China, and develop flu-like symptoms.
3. What should Halton residents know about coronavirus?
• Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that can cause symptoms similar to the common cold, but in some cases can cause severe respiratory illness.
• The best way to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses, such as coronavirus is to:
• stay home if you are ill;
• cover coughs and sneezes with your sleeve;
• wash your hands with soap and water or with alcohol-based hand rub; and
• clean and disinfect objects and surfaces.
• Symptoms of 2019-nCoV infection include fever, cough and breathing difficulties. If anyone has these symptoms AND has travelled to Wuhan, China in the 14 days prior to illness onset, OR has had close contact with a person who is suspected or confirmed as having novel coronavirus infection, they should contact Halton Region Public Health immediately by calling 311, 905-825-6000 or toll free at 1-866-442-5866.
• While the risk to individuals in Ontario remains low, residents are encouraged to tell their health care provider if they have travelled to an affected area of China, and develop flu-like symptoms.
 Regional Medical Officer of Health. Dr. Hamidah Meghani Confidence in the leadership is critical when there is concern, fear, edginess about an issue. One can’t but know that there is a serious problem. A large part of China is in lock-down and we know that this virus is spreading.
People want to know what is being done to protect them; a memo doesn’t really cut it. The MOH can do better.
Related news stories:
The MOH knew how to communicate in the past.
 By Pepper Parr
January 28th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
In the world of politics keeping clear communications paths is vital.
It means being nice nice to people you may not have a lot of time for.
A number of people have commented in the Gazette and asked: why doesn’t the city do whatever has to be done to move the boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) which is a boundary the city must have – province says so. However, it appears where that boundary line is drawn is something the city can influence.
When the UGC was created Burlington either didn’t realize they could influence the boundaries or was satisfied with what the province handed down.
As you can see from the map below – that boundary covers all of lower Brant Street which many people don’t believe that’s where the city’s growth should take place.
 The precincts that are shown are out of date. The city council elected in 2018 took a much different view and made some tough decisions. They drafted and passed an Interim Control Bylaw which froze development within the UGB – which really upset the development community.
Council also decided to re-write parts of the adopted but not approved Official Plan. That process is close to complete.
Burlington MPP Jane McKenna has written the Mayor offering her services to help with anything the province needs to do. In her letter to the Mayor there were some less than parliamentary comments. The two women have never really gotten along all that well.
Mayor Meed Ward responded to MPP McKenna in a letter dated January 13th.
It starts out politely enough.
Read on.
Dear MPP McKenna,
Thank you for your interest in the Official Plan Review matters detailed in my January 2020 newsletter. We’re honoured to count you among our readers and subscribers!
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward in front of city hall. We’re gratified that you have found the information useful, as have so many of our residents, and that the newsletter has prompted further dialogue about issues in our city, which is one of its purposes.
Please allow me to take the opportunity afforded by your correspondence to summarize the journey we have been on, where we are at, and next steps in the process of reviewing our Official Plan and vision for downtown.
Our current Official Plan was created in 1997 and has been updated more than 100 times since. Our current plan has enabled the city to be recognized at the Best City in Canada, and the Best City to Raise A Family, as well as achieve – 12 years early – our city-wide population of 185,000 by 2031.
We are also well on our way to surpassing our population and growth densities for the downtown of 200 people or jobs by 2031.
Nevertheless, in 2016, the previous council chose to develop a new Official Plan rather than continue to update the existing one. That led to the 2018 Adopted Official Plan, which the current city council is in the process of revising to better respond to the community’s vision for our city, particularly downtown.
To support the review of both the current and the Adopted Official Plan, council initiated two studies in early 2019: the Scoped Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan related to the downtown policies, and an Interim Control Bylaw to conduct a land use study to consider the role and function of the downtown bus terminal and the Burlington GO station on Fairview Street as major Transit Station Areas and as well to examine the planning structure, land mix and intensity for the lands identified in the study area.
That work kicked off last February, and the one-year Interim Control By-law expires March 5th of this year.
Given the MTSA and UGC currently exist in Regional and Provincial policy and did so at the time we began our review, our work to update our Official Plan was required to conform to the existing designations.
 The transit station on John Street, which was once up for demolition as a cost saving measure, is defined as a Major Transit Service Area. Nevertheless, council and the community are keen to discuss the appropriateness of the designations. As a result, last year, council also directed staff to, at the conclusion of our studies, to review the designations for the MTSA and UGC downtown.
The ICBL land use study has just been completed, with the report released to council and the community in late December 2019. Discussion of this matter is happening at committee on January 14, 2020. The scoped re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan policies is expected to be completed and considered by council in April 2020. After completion of both studies, staff will report to council in May 2020 on any proposed changes to the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station Area designations applicable to the Burlington’s downtown and the Burlington GO that could be recommended as a result of any proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments arising out of the studies.
Over the past year, the City has consulted with the Region on the status and process steps related to the ICBL land use study and the scoped re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan policies. The City will continue to work closely with the Region of Halton and the Province on any further changes that might be proposed regarding the Urban Growth Centre and Major Transit Station designations as the result of the report directed to be brought forward to Council following completion of the studies. It is expected that the process to seek any changes to provincial legislation will be complex. While a formal request to Province would ultimately be required, there would be several steps that would first need to be completed including reporting back to City and Regional Council for required approvals.
The sequencing of steps is to ensure that our discussion on all planning matters, including these designations, is grounded in good planning analysis, policy and principle. This will be particularly important should the City ultimately seek any amendments to the provincial Growth Plan.
 Burlington MPP Jane McKenna was first elected to the provincial legislature in 2010 , lost the position to Eleanor McMahon in 2014 and regained the seat when she defeated McMahon in 2018. We believe the analysis provided by both studies will be immensely helpful to the Province, Region and City of Burlington as we move into the next step of discussions together about the MTSA/UGC designations downtown.
We welcome and will need your involvement and assistance in this next step and appreciate the offer in your letter to work with myself, the city manager and council on these matters.
I look forward to the next step in this journey and am grateful for your continued assistance in these matters.
Signed The Mayor of Burlington.
When it comes to pecking orders – MPP’s trump Mayors. The city is required to work with the local MPP. Meed Ward does not have the best of relationships with the current MPP nor did she have a particularly strong relationship with the former MPP, Eleanor McMahon. Based on this observer’s experience the chemistry between the Mayor and the MPP’s just wasn’t there.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
 By Staff
January 27th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The information set out below is provided to media by the Halton Regional Police who are committed to road safety through prevention, education and enforcement initiatives.
The Gazette takes the position that an informed society can make informed decisions. Which leads us to a bit of a predicament: for those who are found not guilty of an offence or for whom the charges are dropped there is no public record because the police do not report on what happens to a case that they turn over to the Crown prosecutor.
That is why we stopped publishing the information the police provide.
The police would prefer to have the information published and suggested we work with the Crown prosecutors. Our editorial resources are stretch to the limit as it is. We just don’t have the time to chase after Crown Prosecutors.
We are going to take different approach and put a statement at the top of each media release that will read as follows;
If you have been named in a police report and after going through the judicial procedure and were found not guilty of what you were charged with, or the police dropped the charge, be in touch with the Publisher of the Gazette and we will pull the original report and publish the results of the trial if you wish.
On January 24, 2020 just before 7:00 pm, Halton Police officers investigated a collision in the area of Royal Windsor Drive and Ford Drive in Oakville. As a result of an investigation, Michael Borre (25) of Lindsay was charged with operation while impaired and blood alcohol concentration 80mgs or more, within two hours.
On January 25, 2020, just before 5:00 am, Halton Police officers responded to a citizen-initiated complaint in the area of Upper Middle Road and Trafalgar Road in Oakville. As a result of an investigation, Zivko Kovacevic (42) of Oakville was charged with blood alcohol concentration 80mgs or more, within two hours.
On January 25, 2020, just before 10:00 am, Halton Police officers conducted a traffic stop in the area of Queen Street and Wellington Street in Acton. As a result of an investigation, Donald Reavely (48) of Kitchener was charged with blood alcohol concentration 80mgs or more, within two hours.
On January 26, 2020, just before 1:00 am, Halton Police officers conducted a traffic stop in the area of Wilson Street and Rebecca Street in Oakville. As a result of an investigation, Donna Hoffman (64) of Toronto was charged with blood alcohol concentration 80mgs or more, within two hours.
On January 26, 2020, just after 1:00 am, Halton Police officers were conducting a R.I.D.E. initiative in the area of Guelph Line and No.15 Side Road in Milton. As a result of this initiative, Laiju Kazhuthamalayil Paulose (37) of Scarborough was charged with blood alcohol concentration 80mgs or more, within two hours.
On January 26, 2020, just after 9:00 pm, Halton Police officers were conducting a R.I.D.E. initiative in the area of Mill Street East and Main Street North in Acton. As a result of this initiative, Kyle Gorda (32) of Burlington was charged with dangerous operation, operation while impaired and blood alcohol concentration 80mgs or more, within two hours.
On January 26, 2020, just after 10:00 pm, Halton Police officers conducted a traffic stop in the area of Mountainview Road South and Sinclair Avenue in Georgetown. As a result of an investigation, Thomas Diardichuck (45) of Georgetown was charged with blood alcohol concentration 80mgs or more, within two hours.
On January 26, 2020 just after 11:00 pm, Halton Police officers responded to a collision in the area of River Glen Boulevard and Towne Boulevard in Oakville. As a result of an investigation, Kelly-Ann Cassidy (22) of Oakville was charged with blood alcohol concentration 80mgs or more, within two hours.
Members of the public are reminded that driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is a crime in progress and to call 9-1-1 immediately to report a suspected impaired driver.
The Service’s Twitter and Facebook accounts should not be used for this purpose as they are not monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Please be reminded that all persons charged are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
 By Staff
January 27th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Penny Hersh, a citizen, wrote the Mayor’s office asking if the city’s flag could be lowered today to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the German death camp where a reported million Jews were put to death.
The request was denied. “We can unfortunately not lower the flags every year in remembrance as there are just too many international remembrance days.”
 Despite the cruelty some managed to survive – but antisemitism is still rampant in this world The liberation of Auschwitz is not just another Remembrance Day.
Hersh pointed out to the Mayors office that the flag was lowered for the citizens of New Zealand who died when there was a mass shooting on the Muslim Community.
There appear to be some “tin ears” in the office of the Mayor who reported that there would be a mention in the Mayor’s social media.
It’s not quite the same.
There is however, an opportunity to do the right thing at this evening’s council meeting: A moment of silence for the six million that are no longer with us because they were Jews.
 They were children whose playmates were ushered into a gas chamber to die of Zyklon B poisoning.
By Pepper Parr
January 27th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
How did city council spend an afternoon and well into the evening hearing what Director of Community Planning Heather MacDonald had to say about the process being used to review the material prepared for the Scoped Review of the Downtown portion of the adopted but not approved Official Plan and get to the point where they received and endorsed the document?
Staff presented its report, explained what they did to get input from the community; council then asked Staff and the consultants that were hired to come up with ideas as to how the downtown could be developed – those ideas then had to be codified – put into language that became the rules used when development applications were being considered by the planners.
 The cover of the report sets out the challenge: pictures of the Burlington that is – with a building site ready for a construction crane. Getting input from the community was no small matter. Planner Alison Enns went more than that country mile coming up with ideas that were interesting, innovative and did aide in getting a clearer picture of what the public wanted.
This time Planning Staff did the work – the public could have done more. Burlington has a small stable of people who delegate and comment – that stable could be a lot larger.
Enns is reported to have spent her Christmas holiday writing and revising so that documents were ready in time.
The Planners were first asking that the report could be received – it could have been deferred.
They then wanted endorsement of the report – which Enns explained wasn’t approving everything in the document but it was telling the planners that they were going in the right direction.
However before the endorsement was recommended by the Standing Committee there were a number of amendments that came from Mayor Meed Ward and ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns who had spent all of the weekend prior to the Thursday meeting going over the recommendations in the SGL report; combing through them precinct by precinct and writing up the changes they wanted to make.
The Staff report they were working with was titled: Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown: Preliminary Preferred Concept“, January 2020.
The first step was to:
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation, and Mobility to consider the following during the development of policy modifications to the adopted Official Plan:
appropriate built form;
enhancement of transition provisions in the Downtown East Mixed-Use Precinct, to ensure an appropriate interface with the areas to both the east and the north;
enhancement of provisions to protect the existing character and streetscape of the Downtown East Mixed-Use Precinct, with particular attention to the pedestrian experience on Elizabeth Street;
appropriate built form in the V2 area of Village Square Precinct, with appropriate performance standards to avoid or mitigate potential impacts from new development on the existing low-rise buildings on Martha Street and existing low-rise buildings west of Pearl Street;
policy or mapping-based solutions to acknowledge, protect, and enhance existing community institutions or other private organizations that provide public services or amenities; and
Recognize the need for a transportation corridor through the Mid-Brant Precinct without presupposing that it must be a road, to allow consideration of the appropriate function of the new transportation corridor during the block planning exercise; and
 Upper Brant Mixed Use precinct. The numbers refer to the different height limits that were being proposed. The hope was that there be some form of parkland as well. Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility to consider, during the development of policy modifications to the adopted Official Plan, enhancement of transition provisions in the Upper Brant Mixed-Use Precinct north of Ghent Avenue to ensure an appropriate interface with the established neighbourhoods to the east; and
In order to send the recommendation to council the Standing Committee first had to pass them.
Direct the Director of Community Planning to prepare detailed modifications to the Adopted Official Plan to implement the recommended concept as discussed in community planning department report PL-02-20 and in the report titled “Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown: Preliminary Preferred Concept“, January, 2020, prepared by SGL Planning & Design
CARRIED
Amendment
Moved byMayor Meed Ward
Endorse the recommended concept in PL-02-20, Appendix A, subject to the following modifications:
Exclude from endorsement, subject to the considerations in 2, the recommended concept for the lands identified as:Village Square Precinct V2 sub area; and
 Mayor Meed Ward worked through a weekend with ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns on crafting amendments to a staff report on what the changes to the approved but not adopted Official Plan would permit.  Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns worked with the Mayor during a weekend to craft amendments to a Staff report. Baggy gym pants were the dress of the day according to Kearns. Downtown East Precinct located east of Elizabeth Street and south of Lions Park, and the block bounded by John Street, Maria Street, Elizabeth Street, and James Street; and
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation, and Mobility to consider the following during the development of policy modifications to the Adopted Official Plan:
appropriate built form;
enhancement of transition provisions in the Downtown East Mixed-Use Precinct, to ensure an appropriate interface with the areas to both the east and the north;
enhancement of provisions to protect the existing character and streetscape of the Downtown East Mixed-Use Precinct, with particular attention to the pedestrian experience on Elizabeth Street;
appropriate built form in the V2 area of Village Square Precinct, with appropriate performance standards to avoid or mitigate potential impacts from new development on the existing low-rise buildings on Martha Street and existing low-rise buildings west of Pearl Street;
policy or mapping-based solutions to acknowledge, protect, and enhance existing community institutions or other private organizations that provide public services or amenities.
CARRIED
Amendment
Endorse the recommended concept subject to the following modification:
 Mid Brant precinct Recognize the need for a transportation corridor through the Mid-Brant Precinct without presupposing that it must be a road, to allow consideration of the appropriate function of the new transportation corridor during the block planning exercise.
CARRIED
Amendment
Moved byMayor Meed Ward
Direct the Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility to consider, during the development of policy modifications to the adopted Official Plan, enhancement of transition provisions in the Upper Brant Mixed-Use Precinct north of Ghent Avenue to ensure an appropriate interface with the established neighbourhoods to the east.
CARRIED
There was concern over what was going to happen to the heritage structures in the Downtown which resulted in a Heritage study staff direction. They resolved that as well.
 The red sites are designated heritage properties. The blue are on the municipal registry Moved by Mayor Meed Ward
Direct the Director of Community Planning, in consultation with Heritage Burlington, to assess the heritage value and appropriate protections (including possible Heritage Act designations) for the potential built heritage resources and potential cultural heritage landscapes identified by ASI in their September 2019 “Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment of the Downtown Mobility Hub”, with funding source to be determined, and report back to Council with the assessment and associated recommendations by Q4 of 2020.
CARRIED
The concern over the development that was taking place at the Lions Park. staff direction
Moved by Mayor Meed Ward
Direct the Executive Director of Legal Services, working with the Executive Director of Environment, Infrastructure, and Community Services, to report back with options for the future of Lions Park.
With the recommendation motions put on the table, voted upon (all the votes were unanimous) the city was days away from having a bylaw that significantly modified an Official Plan pushed through by the previous council, despite a clear signal from the community that the plan did not meet the desires of a very significant community voice.
Was that group of people a majority? The election results suggest there was a majority – there was certainly a group of people who paid attention and advocated for a change.
Appeals are possible of course and something might come “out of the blue” at the Special Council meeting to take place on the 30th of January, but in the words of Standing Committee Chair Shawna Stolte “we are bringing it home” and those of the Mayor who said “we are close but we are not there yet” the city had an Official Plan that they believed met the immediate future needs of the city, gave the development community enough for them to be able to work with the city and was defensible should it get taken to the a Local Planning Area Tribunal (LPAT)
Some would say when and not should.
There are reports of up to three appeal applications to LPAT for non-decision on the part of the city.
By Pepper Parr
January 23rd, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
How many times does the Mayor have to travel abroad to represent the city?
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward is the Mayor of a mid-sized city.
She is not yet the Premier of the province nor is she representing Burlington at a federal level.
 Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward with Richard Rohmer, Honorary Lieutenant General Richard Heath Rohmer OC CMM OOnt DFC CD QC), during the D-Day celebrations. The trip to Normandy to celebrate the D-Day landings had merit.
 Burlington’s Mayor leading a parade in Itabashi Japan. The trip to Japan to celebrate the xx year relationship with the city of Itabashi was a little excessive; the trip to Apeldoorn in May is one of those “nice to have’s” the Mayor complained about when she was a citizen banging on the doors of the council chamber to be let in.
Being a Mayor with provincial pretensions calls for an ability to judge the difference between personal ambitions and the needs of the city you lead.
The plans for a side trip to France while she is in Holland can’t be justified no matter how hard you try.
Our Mayor is not listening to the genuine concerns of a lot of people.
She could be in the process of losing the connection she has to her base.
In October of 2018 Marianne Meed Ward was the best choice of what was available for the job of Mayor – her “tribe” expects her to grow into the job.
Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.
By Pepper Parr
January 21st, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Weren’t we supposed to be the good guys – the number one (#1) mid-sized city in the country. The greatest place to live play and work.
Then we learn that Halton has the highest per capita emissions in the GTHA when industry sources are excluded. This is despite the fact that Halton’s per capita transportation emissions are at the GTHA median, and the region’s percentage of long car-based commutes is not as high as in Durham or York.
 These are the root causes of our green house gas emissions. Natural gas — captured in the buildings sector data — is responsible for a large portion of Halton’s emissions. This natural gas is primarily used for water and space heating, so the warmer winter (with less heating demand) in 2017 is partially responsible for the large overall decrease in emissions that Halton is showing from 2015 to 2017
 Let’s let Chair Gary Carr explain that one!
Burlington city council did the right thing by declaring a Climate Emergency – other municipalities followed but other than assuring that there is an “environmental lens” made a part of every Staff report Burlington can’t claim they have done very much.
Halton’s Pathway to Carbon Neutrality
All the municipalities in Halton declared a climate emergency in 2019, suggesting that the region plans to accelerate climate action.
Halton’s emissions from natural gas are high compared to most other parts of the GTHA. Although this is due in part to industrial consumption of natural gas, undertaking energy efficiency retrofits will have to be a critical part of Halton’s plan to reach net-zero emissions.
Further, green standards for new buildings should be developed to ensure that the region can continue to grow while still reducing emissions.
SCALABLE SOLUTION FROM HALTON, FOR THE GTHA
Oakville-based company BerQ RNG produces renewable natural gas from Ontario’s food waste. In 2019, TAF invested $1.15 million in a 15-year project with BerQ to install and operate new refining equipment. Not only will this investment reduce carbon emissions by displacing fossil fuels, it will demonstrate the business case for renewable natural gas.
When industry and commerce see an opportunity they move and basically take over. Unfortunately there are all kinds of places where there isn’t a profit to be made – which results in little getting done.
We all know that plastic packaging is hurting the environment. Why then, we ask, doesn’t the federal government declare that in xxx years – let’s say five – plastic can no longer be used to package foods. That leaves the packaging industry five years to re-tool and re-think the way food is packaged. The federal government could also put up millions (they did that to buy a pipeline) and let those smart minds out there come up with solutions.
It can be done – all it takes is political will and the courage to make hard decisions.
We’re not banking on it though – are we?
However, we did it with seat belts and cigarettes.
By Pepper Parr
January 19th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Burlington has twinned itself with two cities: Itabashi in Japan and Appeldoorn in the Netherlands.
The relationship with each city is robust with delegations from Burlington going to Holland and Japan and delegations from those countries visiting Canada.
It is a satisfying relationship for everyone and the cost is minimal.
 Canadian soldiers storming the beach of Normandy on D-Day Mayor Marianne Meed Ward spent the 75th Anniversary of D-Day on Juno Beach in France. Prior to her leaving for the trip she learned about the very significant role Burlington plays in Courseulles-sur-Mer. The Juno Beach Centre was designed by an architect from Burlington and paid for with funds raised in Burlington.
The Mayor of Courseulles-sur-Mer is reported to have asked Mayor Meed Ward if they could twin with Burlington. It sounded like a nice idea with much merit. Far too many Canadian men lost their lives storming the beaches of France on D-Day. It was the event that turned the tide of WWII. Twinning with Courseulles-sur-Mer would be very fitting.
It raises the question, however, of just how many countries does Burlington want to twin with. There has to be a limit somewhere.
The Mundialization Committee is working through a number of ideas including the creation of a second category which would be a “friendship” relationship that would involve a lot less interaction and probably not include visits to France. (Link to that report below.)
The Mundialization Committee has not made any decisions; the Mayor is going to be in Holland for the 75th Anniversary of the end of the second world war and has plans to make a side trip to France to follow up on the idea.
I have a very serious concern over the creation of a “friendship” relationship with Courseulles-sur-Mer while we maintain a full blown boisterous relation with a city in Japan.
Canadians died on the beaches of France defending democracy.
Canadians died in the Pacific in a war we fought to bring an end to; a nation that attacked Pearl Harbour and wanted to conquer America.
Perhaps the status of Itabashi could be downgraded to one of “friendship” and Courseulles-sur-Mer brought in as a twin.
It might be awkward from a diplomatic point of view but to put that small sea-side community whose beaches our men died on to defend democracy as a “friend” while Itabashi has a full blown twinning relationship is just not right.
 Juno Beach Centre at Courseulles-sur-Mer, a beach where many Canadian men died during the D-Day landings. Canadian troops liberated Apeldoorn in World War Two; an event that is celebrated by both countries every November 11th.
Japan and Germany have come along way from being what they were in the 1940’s but we don’t celebrate the wars they started.
Related news story:
Council to decide how many locations around the world the city will twin with.
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 Staff
January 17th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The people in the Mt Nemo community have shared some news.
A restaurant on Guelph Line that has been doing great business, bus loads from Burlington arrive for lunch in the good weather, at times it is difficult to place a reservation,
The Wundeba was a very welcome addition to restaurants out of town.
The news from the community was disturbing. The details are set out below.
Philippe St-Cyr
5123 Mount Nemo Cres Burlington, Ontario, L7M 0T7 Canada
Sjonum Sristi Awalia 5123 Mount Nemo Cres
Burlington, Ontario, L7M 0T7 Canada
Site
4448 Guelph Line
Burlington, Regional Municipality of Halton
1. Authority to Issue Order
I have authority to issue orders under the EPA and the OWRA to further the purpose of the EPA and OWRA, namely to provide for the protection and conservation of the natural environment.
This Order is being issued pursuant to section 16(1) of the OWRA and section 157(1) of the EPA.
I reasonably believe that the Company has contravened or is contravening these sections of the OWRA and the EPA as outlined in the Suspected Violations/Offences section of this Provincial Code Act applies.
Description of Site and Orderees
The Site is located at the address municipally know as 4448 Guelph Line, Burlington, Ontario. The Site is operating as Wundeba Restaurant and is located in a rural area, on the west side of Guelph Line, south of #2 Side Road, Burlington. Residential properties are located south and north of the Site and a retirement home is also located to the north of the Site. A. pond is located on the southern portion of the Site which has been designated by Conservation Halton as part of the Grindstone Creek Headwaters Wetland Complex, a “Provincially Significant Wetland .”
The Company was incorporated in Ontario on February 13, 2012 and has as its registered mailing address: 5123 Mount Nemo Crescent, Burlington, Ontario, L7M 0T7. The Company purchased the August 2014 and therefore is responsible for compliance with conditions of the ECA.
The Directors are named as Orderees because they have management and control of the Company and the Site. In the Ontario public corporate records, the Director’s names are listed as: “Sjonum Sristi Awalia” and “Philippe St-Cyr”. The Ministry of Transportation Drivers License information records the Director’s names as: “Awalia St-Cyr, Sjonum S” and “St-Cyr Diotte , Philippe”.
 Can’t miss the place on Guelph Line. Historical Information re: Environmental Compliance Approval# 5131-757NNN In 2007, the Ministry received an application from the engineering firm of Kenneth Youngs Engineering which had been retained by the previous owner of the Site- Frank Moser Investments Incorporated. The engineering firm submitted an application to the Ministry to replace the two existing Class IV septic systems. Both were old clay tile drainage systems which were failing.The Ministry’s engineering assessment report which supports the current ECA, concluded that the holding tank was the only feasible option for the Site as follows:
The Consultant has carried out the design for a replacement sewage works using tertiary treatment and shallow buried trenches and concluded that housed on the type of soil, size of lot, setback requirements for wetland and building/parking requirements, there is not adequate space to construct an on-site sewage disposal system even with tertiary treatment.
ECA # 513l-757NNN was issued to Frank Moser Investments Incorporated on July 26, 2007. The ECA lists the equipment that has been approved for the handling and storage of sewage at the Site as the 40,000 litre storage tank and related equipment. This is the only equipment that is documented on the ECA for installation and use at the Site.
Summary of Events
The following provides a summary of the significant events relating to the Site and the ECA.
On August 9, 2011, the Ministry received a letter by Kenneth Youngs Engineering Incorporated signed by an engineer confirming that the 40,000 litre storage tank, alarm system and works had been installed in accordance with their submissions.
On February 9, 2015, the Ministry received a letter from a representative of 1866252 Ontario Limited advising the Ministry that the Company was the new owner of the Site as of August 8, 2014 and requested that the ownership of the ECA be transferred to 1866252 Ontario Limited.
On July 21, 2015, the Ministry forwarded a letter to 1866252 Ontario Limited acknowledging receipt of $10,000 for financial assurance which is required by condition 8 of the ECA.
On May 30, 2016, the Ministry forwarded a letter to 1866252 Ontario Limited acknowledging a change of ownership of the Site from Frank Moser Investments Incorporated to 1866262 Ontario Limited. The Ministry’s letter also provided notification of any environmental approvals which were in effect at the Site and listed Environmental Compliance Approval# 5131-757NNN.
On May 18, 2018, the Ministry received a complaint that employees of Wundeba Restaurant were pumping sewage from a holding tank, onto the ground. The complainant described strong odours and provided photos. It appears from the photographs provided, that employees had pumped septic waste out of the 40,000 litre holding tank and onto the ground.
On May 31, 2018, Provincial Officers Nick Fowler and Carly Munce conducted an inspection of the Site. During the inspection, Officer Fowler was advised by an employee that since purchasing the property, the new owners had re-routed the sewage works. Sewage from the washrooms was now being directed to a septic system and not to the 40,000 litre holding tank. Only sewage generated in the kitchen, was being directed to the holding tank.
On June 13, 2018, Provincial Officer Nick Fowler issued an Onsite Sewage Disposal Site Inspection Report which detailed the Company’s non-compliance with the ECA and required them to enter into a service agreement with a Ministry-approved sewage hauler, by June 22, 2018.
He also requested that the Company decommission the unapproved septic system and reroute the septic system back to the approved, 40,000 holding tank by July 13, 2018. These actions have not been done.
As a result of his inspection, Provincial Officer Nick Fowler issued two Provincial Offences Act notices on the Company. One notice was issued for a depositing waste without an Environmental Compliance Approval, which is a violation of section 40 of the EPA.
The second offence notice was issued for a violation of section 186(3) of the EPA for failure to comply with conditions of the ECA. Specifically, the company failed to provide pumping records which were requested during the May 31, 2018 inspection.
On June 27,2018, I met with Philippe St-Cyr as requested. Mr. St-Cyr stated that they only pump grey water from the kitchen, onto the ground from the holding tank. He agreed that they would cease pumping sewage onto the ground. He also stated that he was not aware of the ECA and that since it was issued to the previous owner it was not applicable to 1866252 Ontario Limited. I stated that the requirements of the ECA are the responsibility of the Company that has care and control of the Site and are in effect at this time. I stated that non-compliance with the conditions of the ECA and pumping sewage out of the septic system and onto the ground were chargeable offences. We discussed the septic systems which were installed at the Site. However it wasn’t clear what equipment had been installed. I requested that an assessment be done of the septic systems at the site. We discussed the possibility of submitting an amendment application to this Ministry requesting approval for the septic system which was in use.
On July 06, 2018, as a follow-up to tour- meeting, I forwarded a letter as an attachment to an email to Mr. St-Cyr. I requested that a service agreement be entered into with a Ministry-approved septic hauler who would regularly inspect and pump out the holding tank as required. This requirement to obtain a service agreement from the hauler is required by condition 5.2 of the ECA. I also requested that a Qualified Person be retained to inspect the system to ensure that it was operating in accordance with the ECA and any unapproved system had been decommissioned by August 09, 2018.
 The patio at the rear and the lower level are great places to be on a sunny day. Site is great, food was good when we were last there. Obvious management problems. Unfortunate. On July 13, 2018, I received an e-mail from Mr. St-Cyr confirming that a Ministry-approved septic waste hauler had been retained to inspect the storage tank bi-weekly and pump it out as required. He disagreed with the purpose of the assessment of the on-site system, which he believed was to assess the functional operation of the system in use and not to assess the environmental compliance of the septic system. He stated that he would like to apply for approval of the septic tank, distribution box and septic bed which is in use at the Site.
On August 07, 2018, 1 received the following report:
Inspection Property: Wundeba Restaurant, 4448 Guelph Line, Burlington, Ontario ESSE Canada, July 31, 2018.
The report assessed the components of an unapproved septic system, which is currently in use at the Site. The components include a septic tank, distribution box and septic bed. It didn’t discuss the 40,000 litre storage tank which is in use, or compliance with the ECA which is in effect for the Site. ·
On August 20, 2018, I mailed a letter to the Company, providing my comments on the July 31, 2018 report. I stated that the approved 40,000 litre holding tank had not been mentioned in the report and the septic system that was described and is in use, has not been approved by the Ministry.
I again requested that the following actions be completed:
1. Retain the services of a Qualified Person to ensure that all sewage from the Site is directed to 40,000 litre holding tank and that the unapproved system is decommissioned. Decommissioning the unapproved septic system would only require that the septic tank be decommissioned and provided a guidance document to decomnssion the septic tank.
2. Provide confirmation that the above acti1ns have been completed. Confirmation was to have been received by October 01, 2018. To date these actions have not been done.
On July 31, 2018, Philippe St-Cyr forwarded an email to me with an amendment to the July 13, 2018 report. The report did discuss the 40;000 litre tank which is installed and in use at the Site.
On September 06, 2018, I received a letter from Mr. St-Cyr. The letter discussed his understanding of what was agreed upon at the June ·27, 2018 meeting at the district office. He believed that the purpose of the assessment was to identify the components of the septic system in use and to determine if they were functioning properly. He also stated that the septic system was in use when the Company purchased the Site and had not been altered. He requested again to submit an amendment application.
On September 12, 2018, I emailed a letter to Mr. St-Cyr. This letter provided an overview of the relevant environmental history of the Site. I also provided a link to the Ministry’s approval applications and guidance documents which are available online.
The letter concluded with the following action item:
Retain the services of a Qualified Person to prepare a report to assess the options to handle the sewage at the Site. The report shall provide recommendations which are in compliance with relevant provincial environmental law and any other regulatory requirements. The report shall include an implementation schedule and a copy forwarded to the undersigned provincial officer by October 17, 2018.
On October 16, 2018, I received an email from Philippe St-Cyr in response to my September 12, 2018 letter which stated that the new owners of the Site, have not re-routed any septic system.
The email concluded with a request to submit an application to amend the current approval. The assessment which I requested in my September 12, 2018 letter, has not been done. On October 31, 2018, the Ministry received a phone call from a resident complaining about strong odours from sewage being pumped out onto the ground at the restaurant.
On November 05, 2018, Provincial Officer Nick Fowler and myself conducted a Site inspection. We noted that the lids on the 40,000 litre tank weren’t secure as required by the ECA. While onsite, we had a brief discussion with Philippe St-Cyr. He again requested to submit an amendment application to approve the septic system that was in use.
Scott Thompson
Provincial Officer
Badge Number: 386
Date: 2018/12/20
District Office: Halton-Peel District Office
In a related matter:
The family who owns Wundeba, the restaurant that was raided along with a home in the Mount Nemo area of Burlington last week has released a statement.
After Halton Regional Police Servcices (HPRS) arrested Mohan “Jarry” Ahlowalia for several charges related to human trafficking, his family—the owners of Wundeba—issued a statement claiming the allegations are baseless.
“It is easy and enticing to follow the media and believe everything it says. However, when you and your family are targetted by it, you can really start understanding the meaning of ‘fake news’ and how it can lead you to think a certain way about a situation and can appreciate that what is portrayed in the news is sometimes, and probably more often than not, a fabrication to make their media more exciting,” the statement reads.
By Pepper Parr
January 17th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
They were close to bringing it home.
Standing Committee chair Shawna Stole, who proved she could manage a committee very well, told her colleagues that “we are close to bringing it home” as they worked through the final steps of recommending that the Preferred Concept presented by the consultants be endorsed.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward It had been a long day and the group of seven were getting a little giddy. Mayor Meed Ward blurted out “Good Grief” when she spotted something that surprised her. That’s not a phrase heard often from this Mayor. “Awesome” is usually her preferred word.
 Ward 4 Councillor Paul Sharman, aka The Grinch A little later Ward 4 Councillor Paul Sharman said that he would vote for the several amendments the Mayor had put on the table. Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns, who had worked long and hard with the Mayor during the previous weekend on the amendments turned to Councillor Sharman and with a wide smile said: Are we seeing the heart of the Grinch get a little bigger.
This city council is certainly a very different group than what the city had from 2010 to 2018. There are certainly philosophical differences and personalities at times get little awkward but they are getting important things done.
Five people with no previous experience have taken their seats at the Council table and shown that the voters got it right. Some are doing much better than others, some may have chosen the wrong place in which to serve the public – but collectively – the city is getting real value.
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 Roland Tanner
January 14th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Glenn Nicholson delivered this delegation on behalf of Roland Tanner who was out of the country.
EcoB’s position with regard to the ICBL study is as follows. While there are elements within the report which we support, there is a key area where we believe the staff recommendation is in error.
 Roland Tanner, co-chair of ECoB taking part in one of the Action Labs that were part of the public participation events that were part of the Taking a Closer Look at the Down Report. Firstly, we would like to recognise the good work in the staff recommendations in their acknowledgement that the Burlington Go Station area needs improved zoning and height regulation. While we believe the Go Station is a far more appropriate location for a dense Urban Growth Centre neighbourhood connected to mass rapid transit, we do not believe this is an argument for bad development. For the Go Station area to become a vibrant new neighbourhood it is essential to have excellent zoning that insists on commercial space and retail and places reasonable limits on height. It is an opportunity for a truly complete community properly connected to transit. We support the staff recommendations in this specific regard.
Secondly, however, we do not support the recommendations regarding the downtown MTSA.
We acknowledge that current debate around the downtown MTSA revolves around which change is possible in which order. What these recommendations state is that we pass a new Official Plan and put in place zoning that builds the MTSA into all our city planning documents, at exactly the same moment as city planning staff have acknowledged that the John St bus terminal simply does not, never has, and never will function as a MTSA.
The staff solution to the assessment that the John St Bus terminal is not an MTSA perhaps makes sense from the perspective of municipal procedure, but it makes no sense from the perspective of logic or reality. The city must come into compliance with the Region, says the ICBL report, even if though, to put it bluntly, the Region is not in compliance with the laws of physics. The staff recommendation is therefore to continue to build the MTSA language into our planning documents, but to redefine MTSA, in this one instance, to mean what we want it to mean.
EcoB does not think this recommendation makes sense. To be flippant, if something does not look like a duck, or walk like a duck, or quack like a duck, and a consultant agrees that it is not a duck, and never will be a duck, is it really so unreasonable to insist that we stop calling it a duck immediately? If it’s instead large and grey and has a trunk and is a completely inappropriate resident of the local duckpond, does it make any sense to redefine the word ‘duck’ to describe something that everybody can see quite clearly is an elephant? We don’t think so.
 Debate centered to a large degree on the John Street bus terminal that most people didn’t think should have the status of a MTSA Major Transit Station area. Others want significant funds spent on upgrading the site. All the city has seen in the last six months is upgrade to the transit shelters. A better way to square the circle of legal requirements and practical reality would be to make a clear statement that Burlington does not believe downtown is or can be an MTSA, and that zoning and density targets should reflect the impossibility of major mass rapid transit ever coming to downtown Burlington, regardless of higher level designations.
Because the fact downtown is not an MTSA gets to the core of the entire debate we have been having in recent years. Places to Grow and the subsequent growth plans were all predicated on the sensible objective of placing people near mass transit. Oakville asked its Urban Growth Centre to be placed in midtown because its downtown could not support mass transit. Our council did not, no doubt still thinking in a car-centric manner of the proximity of the QEW exit, and not of what the province was actually trying to achieve.
Places to Grow and successive provincial governments asked cities to place intensification near transit. That is the alpha and omega of planning logic over the last 15 years or more. Rightly. Burlington has gone down a road of saying transit existed where it does not and cannot exist. Yes, even if shuttle buses can be provided, as they should, from downtown to key areas and transit hubs across the city, that will still not make downtown a major transit hub. Because of this fatal misdesignation, we are in fact concentrating development in a place the Province was at pains to avoid – somewhere separated significantly from a major transit node.
Surely the time to stop pretending downtown is an MTSA is now. Right at the moment when staff have acknowledged it is not – in any practical way – an MTSA. Not in two or five or more years when we can persuade the Region to change. And not after playing games with language which developers and LPAT are unlikely to respect or acknowledge and might well appeal.
In short, building more inaccurate language into our documents must be an error, and we urge council not to accept the staff recommendation on this matter.
Since every element of the logical basis for downtown designation for major intensification was based on the concept of mass transit, and since we have now established that logic was at fault, we therefore ask council to consider a formal motion to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing making a public request for:
A) His clear guidance on how the downtown Urban Growth Centre can be urgently moved or modified, because of the faulty logic by which the UGC was first established.
B) How the province can work with the Region to speedily correct the error that was made when it designated John Street as a Major Transit Station Area.
 Burlington MPP Jane McKenna is said to have a simple answer on how to resolve the MTSA concerns. We have already received multiple indications from MPP McKenna that the Mobility Hub designations are within council’s remit to designate or undesignate, and we believe Council should do so as soon as practically possible.
Time is of the essence, and we cannot rely on the tortuously slow process of multi-year municipal planning revisions to deliver these essential corrections to the mistakes of earlier councils.
 Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith
January 14th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
“This is the “as written” rather than the “as delivered” version of WeLoveBurlington’s delegation. There are some inaccuracies in the “as written” version, a result of late changes in the staff/consultant presentations that were presented just before the delegations, to which the delegates had no opportunity to respond and which caused last minute ‘on the fly’ changes for us and others. As such, it is a resounding QED (Quid est demonstratum = which is proven) for WLB’s principal complaint of a flawed and disrespectful public engagement process”.
Good morning Chair, Councillors, Your Worship.
I am Lynn Crosby and with me is my colleague, Blair Smith. As you know, we represent the advocacy group, WeLoveBurlington.
We stand before you, as we did on December 5th, to ensure that citizens are heard. We are honouring a commitment – both to ourselves and to the other advocates for citizen empowerment and strong local voice. We question the timing and basic process of the course that brings the 243-page Integrated Control By-Law Land Use report before you for approval today – just 14 working days after it was first released on the Friday before the Christmas holidays. Also the 319-page Preliminary Preferred Concept Report to be presented to Council two days from now, and released only 3 business days ago. The reports are highly interdependent and the almost concurrent timing of both is very unfortunate. Is this truly enough time for even an engaged and well-informed citizenry to properly review, assess and comment? We believe not.
 Lynn Crosby watching council while her delegation partner reads. The ICBL Report is exceedingly long and dense. A great deal of the necessary detail and the associated import is carried by and buried within the appendices; the degree of cross-reference and referral needed does not produce ease of understanding nor transparency. Nor does the staff report provide a clear and readily understandable summary of what it all means.
There has been no engagement exercise or review of the ICBL Land Use policies – no opportunity for the public to examine and respond. Why hasn’t the public been engaged on this as they were on the concepts? Why hasn’t this crucial meeting been actively promoted? Isn’t the Statutory Public Meeting the opportunity in the planning process to address the issues, allow the public to debate and obtain public input? Why is this meeting focused on approval rather than information collection and exchange?
This report accepts the same limiting factors and planning constraints identified in our earlier delegation:
· The urban growth centre designation for downtown
· The anchor mobility hub designation for the DT and
· The major transit station area designation for the current John St. bus station
Although important qualifications are made, no consideration has been given to our earlier recommendation – to shift the focus and effort to first eliminating these constraints, or attempting to, before establishing the amendments to the Official Plan.
Where is the “strategy” for approaching the Region or Province to relocate the Urban Growth Centre? Why is that not before us today? We believe that that is the first order of business and last month we were told by Ms. MacDonald that it would be coming. We are in a good position to ask for the Province’s assistance in this regard. As noted in the staff report (p.4), “Local Official Plans address much more specific planning issues within a city and provide greater detail and clarity on how a broad provincial direction is addressed at a local level.” In other words, the province is predisposed to leave issues of detail, such as the location of the UGC, to local decisioning.
 MPP Jane McKenna One year ago, our MPP Jane McKenna stated publicly in the Burlington Post, and again in her newsletter, that she often hears this request from residents and that she approached the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. She reported at length and concluded that …
“The City of Burlington council is free to remove these mobility hub designations from the local official plan. If city council voted to change the boundaries of the downtown Burlington urban growth centre this could be accomplished by Halton Region as part of the next official plan review. This must take place prior to July 1, 2022. Burlington could then, in turn, amend its official plan to reflect the new boundaries.”
We would like to openly acknowledge Ms. McKenna’s effort. WLB has not always been a cheerleader for our local MPP but here she did what she was elected to do and she did it when it could have made a difference. The citizens of Burlington expected and still expect that these conversations would have been undertaken by the City and that we would be well on our way to having the designations removed and the UGC moved. That this much time has elapsed without any such attempts is disappointing. We don’t accept that it’s now too late since you don’t want to extend the ICBL because you fear developer appeals if you do.
Respectfully, this is a situation created by you; we ask you to now fix it. If developers appeal, let them. In the meantime, you have the time needed to get the vital missing components done and in the proper order. As we have stated and continue to state, you only have one chance to protect the downtown and the waterfront and that chance is now.
The revised Land Use policies being recommended for adoption this morning, as Official Plan Amendment 119, are conveyed as appendices D and E. If accepted, we believe that OPA 119 will lock us into a downtown over-intensification scenario. There are technical planning considerations and policy issues that speak against the direction proposed for the downtown. They include the absence of all the planning components for which the Adopted OP was originally considered to be “non-compliant” by the Region, including the lack of a Transportation Plan or Mobility Hub Plan. Why do these gaps still exist? Why does the ICBL Land Use Study not address them?
There was a time when Transit staff suggested the bus terminal be torn down – now the building is being described as vital if transit is to grow or the defining of the building as Major Transit Station Area as a major mistake. How can the downtown be designated as an MTSA when it is recognized that the anchor DT bus terminal currently does not function as a major bus depot and is unlikely to do so barring substantial and unplanned future improvements?
How can the downtown be designated as an MTSA when it is acknowledged that it “is not located on a priority transit corridor nor is it supported by higher order transit nor by frequent transit within a dedicated ROW”?
Shouldn’t the land use implications of designating the downtown as an MTSA be identified and isn’t this designation, since MTSAs are focal points for higher intensity and mixed-use transit supportive development … likely to result in over-development?
Can we be confident that with these amendments, but leaving the mis-designations and the UGC as is, that building heights can be effectively limited and those limits defended? We’re looking to the downtown of the future but also to developments that are already in process, such as those proposed for Lakeshore and Pearl or James and Martha? This question is critical to the entire exercise.
Significant details and implications are carried by the maps and are not immediately transparent. Map 3 should be amended to remove the Major Transit Station “dot” reference since it is easily missed and accepts the mis-designation of the John Street bus terminal as an MTSA.
Maps 1 and 2 amend the existing OP with what the Dillon report refers to as the “revised” DT Urban Growth Centre boundaries. Set aside the question of whether it should still be located in the DT at all, were the UGC boundaries revised and what were the revisions? On what basis and why was this not presented to the public and Council first?
 Weeks after being sworn in the new Council posed for a Christmas photo – there was nothing festive about the questions asked by delegations. We would like to echo something raised this morning but that has been frequently voiced at Statutory Meetings, the Action Labs and Ward Meetings. All of you ran, implicitly or explicitly, on a platform that became a populist groundswell that defeated the incumbent Mayor, two sitting members of Council and caused two more to seek alternative career or life opportunities. When not a fully expressed component of your own platforms, you nevertheless benefited from the anti-intensification message that resonated with exceptional force. The citizens of Burlington now expect you to honour this mandate. At the very least, please defer approval of the recommendations before you today until a much more complete engagement process with Burlington citizens has been conducted.
Why are we rushing as staff led Council to rush in 2018? As we noted previously, and as confirmed by the Region, there is no clock ticking. We urge you to take the time to address all the building blocks of a new Official Plan. Indeed, if the recommendations of the ICBL Report are approved today, then Thursday’s Preferred Concept meeting becomes ‘pro forma’ and meaningless. Which process is being respected today – a sense of false urgency to the Region – or that which provides for meaningful citizen engagement?
 Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte chaired the Standing Committee today. She had to tell two very strong delegations that there were no questions for them. It appeared she did so reluctantly. We do not believe that what is before you today hears either the voice of the people or the direction of the Council they thought they elected. We recognized in our previous delegation that many of the errors made concerning the future of Burlington’s downtown go far back and are not yours. But that excuse stops today. The direction going forward is clearly yours and yours alone. It will be your lasting and irrevocable legacy. We ask you to consider your legacy carefully, step up and defer the decisions being asked of you this morning.
We acknowledge and appreciate the work of staff in creating the Preliminary Concept Report to be presented on Thursday. However, what that concept allows or does not allow for the downtown doesn’t matter if it won’t be enforceable because you approved this report today with the mis-designations and UGC location unchanged. Thursday’s report would then be irrelevant and we would see little point in debating its merits. We delegated today because this is the crucial moment. This is the final chance any of us have to protect our downtown and waterfront. We ask that you don’t let us down.
By Pepper Parr
January 12th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
We now have a sense as to how City Manager Tim Commisso approaches issues and works through them.
 Tim Commisso – he works well on his own. Speaks softly. In an exclusive interview Commisso told the Gazette that he has been a strategic plan advocate since the mid 80’s and adds that “a strategic approach provides direction from which a work plan can flow.”
It was that plan that resulted in the Vision to Focus (V2F) approach council has in front of them.
The 25 year Strategic Plan doesn’t do much for anyone as a standalone document. It is only when a city council decides what it can achieve during its term and decides what it wants to focus on that the document becomes relevant.
Burlington already had a Strategic Plan when Commisso arrived – he will undoubtedly provide counsel to council on where they might want to revise the city plan going forward, but for now he has determined, with Council, what is going to get done during their term of office.
The four pillars on which the Strategic Plan are built are:
A City that Grows
• Promoting Economic Growth
• Intensification
• Focused Population Growth
A City that Moves
• Increased Transportation Flows and Connectivity
A Healthy and Greener City
• Healthy Lifestyles
• Environmental and Energy Leadership
An Engaging City
• Good Governance
• Community Building through Arts and Culture via Community Activities
Given what the Strategic Plan calls for, the V2F sets out the five focus areas it will spend their time and money on during their term of office.
The five focus areas are as follows:
• Focus Area 1 – Increasing Economic Prosperity and Community Responsive Growth Management
• Focus Area 2 – Improving Integrated City Mobility
• Focus Area 3 – Supporting Sustainable Infrastructure and a Resilient Environment
• Focus Area 4 – Building more Citizen Engagement, Community Health and Culture
• Focus Area 5 – Delivering Customer Centric Services with a Focus on Efficiency and Technology Transformation.
 When you get the look from Tim Commisso – pay attention. Strategic Plans were once four year documents prepared by Staff and Council. In the past, at least for Burlington, the document was completed, accepted by Council and that was basically the end of it until the next Council was in place. Tim Commisso was part of the city of Burlington administration that operated that way for a period of time.
He apparently grew and is firmly committed to, and actively working within, the current V2F document Staff created.
How he does that is of interest.
Commisso was invited by newly minted Mayor Marianne Meed Ward to serve as an interim City Manager. She had dismissed James Ridge, the former city manager, within 48 hours of having the Chain of Office placed upon her shoulders. Commisso had worked for Burlington in the past so knew where the bodies were buried and the lay of the land.
He may not have been fully aware of just how bad morale was within the Hall; one of the early reports he was given set out what he was up against and what he had to work with. Hunan Resources Director Laura Boyd wrote a report that identified a lot of dysfunction within the Hall and poor pay scales didn’t help.
Commisso is not a young man, it became evident quite quickly that his style was going to be to identify just where the talent he needed was and then shape that talent and look for people to fill the gaps. There are a number of gaps.
 Jamie Tellier explaining a site plan.  Heather MacDonald talking to a citizen at a public meeting. Site Planning co-coordinator Jamie Tellier explains what is going to be built where on the JBMH campus.
The first major move the public saw was the news that the Deputy City manager no longer had a position. Commisso had reorganized the senior staff level putting Heather MacDonald, who had not much more than a year with the city, in as an Executive Director handling Planning, Regulation and Mobility and Alan Magi in as Executive Director of Environment, Infrastructure and Community Services.
Commisso centralized a lot of the departmental work and has it working within what was named the Office of the City Manager. At one point there were 24 direct reports to the city manager; Commisso has whittled that down to 17. His approach is to look for the best people he can find and give them every opportunity to grow and become leaders.
That kind of development takes time; Commisso has a five year contract which he intends to complete.
Burlington’s recent experience with city managers has been less than three years into the five year contract and they were off to somewhere else. Can Commisso build the organization he thinks the city needs in that five year period of time?
Jeff Fielding, a former city manager, tried hard to create a more effective senior staff – he left for Calgary a truly frustrated man. The Mayor’s Chief of Staff at the time once said that city hall had a toxic culture.
Commisso is fully aware of just how deep the dysfunction runs but it isn’t something he will talk about. He does talk about improving the culture and improving the level of customer service. He created a Customer Centric Services unit and is moving City Clerk Angela Morgan to serving as the Executive Lead of the Customer Experience; welcome news to many that have had to work with the Morgan.
The relationship between media and a city manager is not supposed to be smooth – just as long as there is respect both sides can do the job they are in place to do.
Commisso is not comfortable with the way the Gazette names staff – we call it transparent accountability. In the past the Gazette has been frank and forthright with some of its articles; we have also been very direct when we say the Finance department is the best run department in the city with some exceptional people doing excellent work under challenging conditions.
The recent appointment of Sheila Jones as Executive Director of Strategy, Risk & Accountability was one of the best decisions Commisso has made – if he continues to make that kind of quality decision Burlington will become a city where people want to work.
 Commisso pays close attention to situations that he feels warrant some scrutiny. We suspect that Tim Commisso has not had media that truly does the job that is required. Municipalities have a daily story to tell – using media releases that contain a paragraph that touts how great the place is – is tiring, trite and sophomoric. When you have to sing your own praises the praise is faint.
Commisso doesn’t say very much. He listens, makes notes; from time to time he will tap someone on the shoulder and say a few words. He doesn’t speak unless he feels he has to and even then he doesn’t tell people what to do but suggests what can be done.
When city council raided the reserve funds Commisso actually squirmed a bit in his seat. The treasurer looked like she was about to go into septic shock. Reserves are there for very good reasons; something that didn’t appear fully evident to the Mayor.
To be fair to both the Mayor and Council, the list of Reserve funds and their purpose is far from clear. Expect Commisso to clean that up.
This year getting an Official Plan that meets the wishes of the public as this city council interprets them and producing something that will pass muster at the Regional level is critical.
Winding up the Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) that froze development in the Urban Growth Centre until March 5th is his most pressing issue. Both matters come before Standing Committees meetings this week.
Commisso is a strong advocate of clear processes – identifying and limiting risk are touch stone points for him. The risks within an Official Plan that is badly outdated and an Interim Control Bylaw he dares not extend are major risks that have to be managed.
The ICBL was put in place before then Deputy City Manager and former Director of Planning, Mary Lou Tanner was removed from the city payroll. The bylaw was perhaps a good idea at the time – it was the one way the city could put a halt to the development applications that were coming in daily and it may have been the only legislative tool the city could use. Planning Staff couldn’t handle the volume and the mission, as the Planning department saw it at the time, was not the mission the new council believes they were elected on.
Commisso appears to be a quiet man making it difficult to get a good read of him. The picture, released by the Mayor’s office, of Tim doing a dance on the streets of Itabashi during the Twin City trip is one we promise to use sparingly. The Mayor is at the head of what appears to be a parade with the Mayor of Itabashi and other dignitaries and Burlington’s city manager prancing along behind her; it is not an image that squares all that well with the Tim Commisso one sees at council meetings
Among the tasks Commisso mentioned on his to do list is a friendlier, more welcoming city hall. He is waiting for permission to use federal/provincial funding to improve the look and feel of Civic Square.
 Commisso was involved in the early thinking about the Pier – one wonders if he ever thought the city would have something like this? Commisso has been around municipal politics for a long time. While with Burlington, from 1988 to 2008, he served as manager of budgets, deputy treasurer and director of parks and recreation. He had lead responsibility for a number of major projects including the waterfront renewal as well as downtown revitalization strategies and corporate strategic plans.
Commisso learned that Thunder Bay, his home town, was looking for a new city manager in 2008; applied for the job and came out on top of the interview list. He retired from Thunder Bay in 2015 after seven years of service and sometime later took up a position with MNP, a national accounting/consulting operation with more than 5,000 people on the payroll in offices across the country.
Sometime in December of 2018 Marianne Meed Ward invited him for coffee and as Tim said “little did I know what the conversation was going to lead to”. He started as interim city manager, did the job keeping things afloat at city hall after the very abrupt dismissal of James Ridge, while the new city council went about looking for a new city manager.
Sources told the Gazette at the time that their conversations with Commisso suggested that he wasn’t certain he was going to apply for the job. He did and he got it.
The municipal world is almost the bottom rung on the public service organizational ladder. Boards of Education are below us.
 At some point, perhaps not in this term of office Civic Square is going to get a do-over. Why not replace city hall, an inefficient structure that no longer meets the city’s space needs. Funding from the federal and provincial levels is a constant flow of ideas the higher order of governments come up with and expect the municipal sector to make happen – the time frame for getting in on a funding opportunity is usually very short. Every municipality makes a point of having projects that are shovel ready or things they want to do that can be revised quick-quick. The federal or provincial governments provide the money, which comes out of the same taxpayer’s pocket, and on occasion require a contribution from the municipality.
Keeping on top of these opportunities is vital. The Region has an enviable reputation for being the place the provincial government goes to when there is an idea they want to pilot.
 Senior communications manager Kwab Ako-Adjei adding to his photo data base. Commisso looks like the kind of city manager who would staff his office with people who can read an application document quickly and thoroughly and find a way to make it relevant to Burlington. Kwab Ako-Adjei and Helen Walahura are in place to do just that kind of thing. Kwab more so than Helen.
The high hurdles are right in front of Commisso. He has to aide a city council that has yet to find its pace. The members of council get along quite well but there are tensions; mild at this point. The individual values and visions are beginning to come to the surface – each member has a stronger sense of where they have support and who they can look to for help.
Early in their first year most of the newly elected five were asking to meet with Commisso to learn what their jobs were. Commisso was in that awkward position of instructing the people who gave him his marching orders. When the Gazette mentioned this to Commisso he suggested that we had mis-characterized what he was doing. It was our view that Commisso had a conflict of interest and that everyone would have been better served if he had used some of the slush fund he had to hire a retired, respected city Councillor to meet with the newbies and guide them through the early stages. It will be difficult for the five to call Commisso to account should such a moment arise.
Commisso is happy as a clam with this latest job. He loves the energy of what he calls the council team. His respect for them is genuine; he no doubt sees their strengths and weaknesses and probably sees himself being in a position to help this group grow to the point where he can, at some future date, turn the wheel over to someone else – his job will have been done – well done.
 By Pepper Parr
January 9th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward today tweeted that “The Third Party Advertiser who targeted my 2018 mayoral election campaign with negative advertising was arrested over the Christmas holidays, and will make his first court appearance Tuesday, Jan. 21 at the Milton courthouse, 491 Steeles Ave. E.”
Meed Ward reports that: Sean Baird has been charged with:
Uttering a Forged Document – Contrary to section 368(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada;
Fraud over $5000 – Contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and
Corrupt Practice (four counts) – Contrary to the Municipal Elections Act.
She adds in her Tweet that: Court dates and schedules can be checked through this link up to a week in advance: https://www.ontariocourtdates.ca (agree to terms on the main page and select Milton).
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward. “We will continue to share public information with the community when we learn about it as this case moves through the court system. I am thankful to the police investigating and laying charges in any matter that has the potential to undermine elections, the foundation of our democracy” said Meed Ward.
What is both interesting and disturbing is that the Gazette has been communicating with both the Ontario Province Police, who are believed to have carriage of this case, due to the investigative work done by the Anti Rackets Branch (ABR) and the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) who are still doing local investigations.
The ABR appear to have lost their tongues; the person we talked to said someone would get back to us.
We heard from the HRPS asking what we knew. We referred them to the Gazette where we have reported consistently on this case well before the Mayor made it a police matter.
Everything you want to know is still on the web site.
The disturbing part of all this is that the Mayor is releasing information that should be public knowledge. The first bit of information on Baird and the Provincial Police came out in an OPP media release saying they were looking for Baird.
Is the Mayor of Burlington now the mouth piece for the OPP? How long has the Mayor had this information? And who gave it to her?
There is an interesting cast of characters on the stage. A former Mayor, a former Member of Parliament and a former candidate for Mayor and Regional Chair.
The question is – who put Baird up to creating numbered corporations and what is he prepared to tell the police? Or was a developer with a development application before Local Planning Act Tribunal (LPAT) the cheque book behind all this?
By Staff
January 7th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
 Samantha Allen – safe and sound The Halton Regional Police Service advised media that Samantha Jean Allen, 29 was located safe and sound on Monday, January 6th, 2020.
The Police Service had asked for public help in locating the young woman who had been missing since December 13th.
All is well – with perhaps some explaining to do.
By Greg Woodruff
January 6th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
That headline is a strong statement but the 92 Plains Rd development is a case in point:
Planning department Staff did not come back to Council with a recommendation on the development application which gave the developer Chelten Developments Inc. an automatic Local Planning Act Tribunal hearing.
Tom Muir, also an Aldershot resident, has raised the issue of the Planning department repeatedly letting this happen: no accountability ever occurs. The current council has done nothing to address this issue. I’ve asked several times if Staff are attending LPAT hearings and if residents can get a heads up on what they are going to present. They don’t respond.
Currently, residents have no idea what the staff might present until the development application has already been settled and heading to LPAT. Council has done nothing on this practice.
 The development was originally for four stories of housing – the application was revised to six. In the 92 Plains case, Tom Muir was able to get participant status at the hearing with a couple of other residents. Muir submitted several well-reasoned arguments as to process and development compatibility. He was doing the job Staff should have been doing. Some Planning Staff did attended the hearing but said nothing at that time.
Staff, who are paid by the residents through their taxes, should be on the side of truth or basic reality and represent the interests of the residents, assuming this is the will of council.
Because of the structure and process used by LPAT only people with accepted professional designations can give testimony. Staff have those designations. The developers have planners with the required designations. Staff chooses to be mute so the developer’s “land use planner” is then the only “planner” presenting evidence.
Muir, who consistently provides reams of evidence, which gets put into the file but is never heard at the hearing, because he is not a “land use planner”. If Burlington staff said the exact same words it would be “testimony” and the tribunal would have to take these points into consideration. However, since they don’t, the developer’s testimony is “uncontested”. The LPAT makes their decision based on what they hear and because there was evidence and testimony from just the one land use planner the LPAT Commissioner has to side with the evidence presented by the developer’s representative.
An LPAT decision made without any input from residents or council becomes just an elaborate farce.
It’s hard to tell if the LPAT system works or not; the negligence on the city’s part is staggering. Not only do they bungle the application by letting it go to LPAT because there was no decision within the required time frame. City staff doesn’t even say anything at the LPAT hearing. They could defend the settlement by backing up participants when the developer’s land use planner makes misleading statements.
 Woodruff: This requirement was to take a point in the far end of the go station parking lot, not the entrance which is 600 m away. That staff offers nothing at LPAT matters immensely because there is no evaluation of anything. The developer can just say anything true or not, real or not. For example, the developer said the development was within 500 m of the GO station. This requires them to take a point in the far end of the go station parking lot, not the entrance which is 600 m away. Would this have made any difference?
No one knows because the staff presented nothing. What residents present doesn’t matter. This because we are not “land-use planners” and cannot afford one.
Now we can get into an interesting discussion. Is the the city just insanely incompetent or is it deliberately “throwing the game”. The take-home point is “engagement” or “consultation” has nothing to do with what gets built. You either get planning staff to defend residents or we don’t have any say on development at all.
I have seen nothing that leads me to believe staff is doing anything differently than they were doing in the last administration. Nor, have I seen anything from the current council that directs staff to behave differently. Thus we are currently getting what we were getting from the old council.
That the LPAT system certainly sucks does not let the council off the hook. They don’t appear to be even trying to work the system. If the city was doing all that could be reasonably expected to give at least lip service to will of residents. However, the current new council is just working the will of the old council.
Putting the development in context. Content taken from the developers application:
In 2008 the City of Burlington released its “Intensification Study” which intended to provide preliminary residential and employment intensification estimates to 2031 in support of the Sustainable Halton Plan. Within the study, Plains Road is identified as an “Urban Growth Corridor”
Staff outlined that there was potential for approximately 3,750 dwelling units and 7,500 residents along these particular growth corridors. The available GO Stations were an important component of the corridors, and these areas were identified as being suitable for higher intensity development. These figures were based on an estimate that indicated that future developments or redevelopments would be made up of 60% residential, 30% mixed use, and 10% retail/service commercial.
The owner has proposed to redevelop the subject site for a six storey, 49 unit apartment building with ground floor office/commercial uses.
The proposed building will front onto and have pedestrian access to the pedestrian network on Plains Road East. Vehicular access to the subject site and development will be maintained along Plains Road East.
The proposal will also be accessible via a mixture of public transit modes; the Aldershot GO Station is located within 500 m of the proposal (walking distance). Burlington Transit route 1(1x) provides east and west services along Plains Road, and is accessible just west of Birchwood Avenue, and immediately north of the subject lands on the north side of Plains Road East.
 Greg Woodruff taking part in a Mayoralty debate broadcast by TVOntario
Take home points:
1) We need Council to change direction and insist that Staff defend the plans Council passes.
2) Tom Muir has basically done the work the planning department should have done.
3) Presently unelected LPAT Commissioner and developer consultants are deciding if we get to keep trees, stores, grass and sunlight in our community.
Greg Woodruff is an Aldershot resident who works as a web site developer. He ran for the Regional Chair in 2010 and for Mayor of Burlington in 2018.
By Pepper Parr
January 2, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The doors to city hall were open this morning – it isn’t certain that a full complement is in place to get the wheels turning.
 Joan Ford, City Treasurer, led a team that brought forward a budget that was given a solid work over by Council – her team responded quickly and found ways to meet the 2.99% this council wanted. Many appear to be adding a couple of days to that magnificent period of time from the Eve of Christmas to the beginning of the New Year and returning to their desks on the 6th. There are a number of people, especially those in Planning and Finance who worked long hours responding to questions from council and revising documents – sometimes on the fly, who deserve any additional time they were able to get over the holidays.
The Clerk’s department has had its hands full; they will be dealing with a significant shake up at the leadership level – will the new Clerk come from within or will Burlington look for a seasoned Clerk elsewhere. There are a number of women in that department who could take on that job – the City Manager is one who could nurture one of several women who have shown considerable promise. A change in attitude within the department will be welcome for those who happen to deal with the Clerk’s office on a frequent basis.
Some members of council were making the best of that opportunity.
 135 pages long and dense + the appendices. The Mayor has said she would be burrowing down and working her way through the several documents that were part of the Land Use Study that was brought about when the Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) was passed last March. The document and its appendices are not for the faint of heart; it will be interesting to hear what Council has to say when it meets at a Statutory Meeting January 14th.
Those who do read the document might well ask if the will of council has been fully discerned by the consultants who wrote the report and the Planning staff team that sent the report to Council.
 The Taking a Closer Look at Downtown report was a blurred image to many. They get another chance on January 16th to put up a clearer picture. Two days after the Land Use Study Statutory meeting council will see the second version of what might be included in the Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan report that didn’t get a round of applause from Council when they reported to Council in December.
At the risk of appearing petty we wonder just how many members of Council reported the gifts they received from developers, National Homes appears to be the one looking for “por favour” from Council – they have two applications that are both at LPAT with settlements that have yet to be given the LPAT seal of Approval.
 Kearns chose to share the gift she got with her colleagues. Several of the Council members said that they didn’t accept the gift – instead passed it along to a community organization – except for Councillor Kearns who, after explaining in some detail that she does not accept gifts, went on to say that she shared the gift with others on the 7th floor – which is where we house Council members.
Roland Tanner, who actually reads critical documents that come out of city hall, pointed out that the Code of Good Governance , a document signed by every member of Council, as well as being the subject of a half day Workshop, states quite clearly what is to be done with any gift that gets sent along to a Council member.
One of the requirements is to report receipt of the gift to the Clerk, who is required to report annually to the public on who was offered what. We will watch for that report.
The October 2018 municipal election gave the city a new set of wheels to move forward on; the electors chose the candidate for Mayor they believed could best bring about the change they wanted. There was no doubt about that vote.
The five newcomers have had the time they needed to get to know and understand each other; appreciate the different strengths and weaknesses and create some common cause.
In the first six months of 2020 they are going to have to make some very significant decisions – the response to the Land Use Study, getting a rejigged Official Plan in place and sending a stronger message to Staff on just what the will of council is and making sure they understand just what that will is and that it is adhered to – we aren’t there yet. Several news stories and opinion pieces we will publish in the days ahead make that point quite clear.
 Proposed for the eastern gateway to the downtown core. The city and its bureaucrats need to make it as clear as possible to the development community that Burlington is not a community where anything goes.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward: Much more than a pretty face. Mayor Meed Ward has shown that she knows how to take the gloves off and land a solid punch on the nose – when the Grow Bold mantra had lost favour and whatever charm it had, the planners were a little slow in getting the message. Meed Ward made the course correction that was necessary when she said: would “provide absolute clarity to staff and to the community that the City of Burlington staff are not to use the adopted 2018 plan in evaluating current/new development applications. Multiple analyses by staff in assessing development applications, downtown in particular, have made it clear we do not need to over intensify in order to meet our obligations under the Places To Grow legislation.”
 It is going to be an interesting six months – far too early to suggest that the year will be: a great one for the city – although the potential is certainly there.
That phrase on the city crest Stand By is perhaps the appropriate phrase for the year.
And lastly – do the police have Sean Baird in custody ? And if not – why not?
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.
Related news stories:
Mayor shows how to get a message to Staff
The gifts that shouldn’t have been accepted.
Come home Sean.
 By Pepper Parr
December 23rd, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
First published before Christmas; the location of the full report is shown at the end of the article.
In March of last year the city brought in an Interim Control By Law which put an immediate 12 month hold to any development proposals in the Urban Growth Centre, a boundary imposed on the city by the province,
The reason for the bylaw was the rate at which development proposals were flooding into the Planning department; the city was beginning to lose control over what got built where and was working with an Official Plan that was badly out of date and a zoning schema that needed updating.
The 2014-2018 City Council had passed a new Official Plan months before its term expired. That “adopted” went to the Region for approval. While the “adopted” plan was being considered at the Region the city held a municipal election – we had a new mayor and five new members on a 7 member city council.
Shortly after the council was sworn in the Regional government returned the “adopted” Official Plan to the city asking for what were some minor changes and added that the city could make additional changes if they wished.
The new City Council, with a new Mayor, took that opportunity to re-write the “approved” Official Pan. That re-write is currently taking place. In the parlance that is used by the planners these days the land use study will “inform” the re-write of the “adopted” Official Plan
While all that is going on the Planning department was told by Council to bring in consultants to help determine what should be done with the Urban Growth Centre (UGC)
 This map does not appear to be identical to the map we saw when the Interim Bylaw was being put in place. Waiting for some comment from the Planning department
The decision to impose an Interim Control Bylaw came out of the blue as far as the public was concerned.
For the Planning department and the senior levels of the city administration it was a move that had to be made.
Development applications were flooding into the Planning department – staff were overwhelmed and the city was in the process of losing the control it did have over what was developed, how high the towers were going to be and where they would be located.
The decision meant real financial hardship for at least one developer and a retirement home operator.
Heather MacDonald, Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility was given a lot of latitude and the funding needed to source a consultant – she was permitted to sole source for this task rather than have to go out to the market. Her budget was $600,000
It is a building that at one point was recommended for closure by the Transit department. It became a huge stumbling block for the city during an appeal the ADI Development group made on the site for the 24 storey Nautique. Heather MacDonald, said in announcing the release of the report “The recommendation to implement an ICBL was brought forward by City staff in response to two primary concerns, including growth pressures that continue to emerge for the lands in the study area and a need to review the role and function of the John Street Bus Terminal as a Major Transit Station Area (MTSA).
With the findings of the study in hand, the city has called for a Statutory meeting January 14th at which the public can delegate and Councillors can ask questions. Expect this to be a contentious meeting. Staff will listen, take notes and use what they hear at the Statutory meeting to prepare the recommendations that will be included in the Staff report they bring to Council later in the year.
Many were concerned that the report could not be produced in the one year time frame – MacDonald surprised many when it was delivered two months early.
The 135 page document with graphics galore needs time and consideration.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said she: “I will be reading the staff report and accompanying appendices overt the holidays and will have more to say in January. I welcome the public participation. This is another step in the process to get the community’s vision reflected in our downtown. We are well on track to completing this work when the one-year deadline on our ICBL is up
The purpose of the ICBL Study was to:
- Assess the role and function of the downtown bus terminal and the Burlington GO station on Fairview Street as Major Transit Station Areas
- Examine the planning structure, land use mix and intensity for the lands identified in the Study Area; and,
- As required, provide recommendations to the City on updates to the Official Plan and Zoning bylaw regulations for the lands identified in the Study Area.
In the report the consultants said:
“There is a strong policy basis for Burlington’s Downtown John Street Bus Terminal as an MTSA and hence the numerous policy documents at the Provincial, Regional and City levels which identify an MTSA in the Downtown. Lands within the Downtown Burlington are identified as an MTSA in the Big Move, Halton Region Official Plan and the City’s adopted Official Plan (but not within the in force Official Plan). Furthermore, a number of long range plans identify potential for transit improvements along Brant Street to enhance connectivity between the Downtown and Burlington GO MTSAs. The Province’s RTP 2041 includes a “Priority Bus / Priority Streetcar” corridor on Brant Street between Downtown Burlington and the Burlington GO Station; and Halton Region’s DMTR reinforces this opportunity, identifying the link between the Burlington GO Station and the Downtown as a Priority Transit Corridor.
The consultants added:
 Tough to describe the John Street bus station as a Major Transit Station Area. There was just an estimated 320 boarding/alightings in the am peak period. “From a policy perspective, the Downtown Burlington John Street Terminal is clearly understood to be a Major Transit Station Area. From an operational perspective the John Street Terminal is estimated to have 320 boarding/alightings in the am peak period, with potential to grow to 1800 boardings/alighting in the future. However, in comparison to the characteristics of typical major bus depots, the John Street Terminal has a number of limitations which underpin its lower ridership levels, including:
- Limited number of major trip generators in the Downtown;
- Limited connectivity to Burlington GO Station;
- Limited station infrastructure; and,
- Limited number of convergence and limited number transfers.
“With the above-noted limitations in mind, it is important to recognize that not all MTSAs are equal. The various density guidelines (e.g. Growth Plan density targets, Mobility Hub Guidelines and MTO’s Transit Supportive Guidelines) reinforce the notion that there is a hierarchy when it comes to transit, with facilities which operate in dedicated right-of-ways, such as subways, LRTs and BRTs, having the greatest potential for ridership compared to bus services which operate in mixed traffic. And while the current ridership levels are low, despite the fact that the Downtown is the City’s densest area, the John Street Terminal functions as a relatively important transfer point in the context of the City’s system.
“With this in mind, the station alone is not understood to be a significant driver of intensification, however, certain forms of intensification, such as employment uses or other major trip generators would help to reinforce the function of the MTSA. Furthermore, future improvements to services and infrastructure could help to improve ridership.”
 Shovels are in the ground. A development the city did not want, a development that began the high rise fever and alerted other developers with just what they could get away with in Burlington. That, unfortunately, was just the argument that the ADI Development Group used to convince the then OMB to approve their Nautique appeal. The idea that transit will be used by people who live in the downtown core suggests a huge failure to understand just how transit is used in this city.
Put a free bus running up and down Brant Street and people will use the service – you don’t need an MTSA to make that happen.
During a Standing Committee the public was led to believe that the Region could, if asked, declare that the John Street terminal was not a MTSA. The consultant also said that the province has never refused to permit a change in the boundaries of an Urban Growth Centre – but added that no one has never asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs to change a boundary.
This may be one of those occasions where that phrase GROW BOLD, would apply.
The Land Use Study has a number of graphics that give credence to that “a picture is worth more than 1000 words” phrase.
Two that will interest many follow.
 Top graphic is what the heights on Brant street now look like as you look eastward. Bottom graphic is the opposite direction.
 This is the elevations looking north from the lake.
 Where the height is located. We will return to a very important document – one that the Gazette believes has to be revised if the intentions of a majority of the current council are to be achieved.
The full report can be found HERE
Appendix B is the consultants report.
|
|
