By Pepper Parr
January 17th, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The meeting took place on December the 18th.
It was requested by a group of Aldershot citizens who wanted more information on the developments taking place in their community. Much of the agenda was put together by the then Director of Planning Mary Lou Tanner.
Planters along Plains Road have given what used to be a provincial highway a much more suburban look. The level and form of development taking place in their community has many concerned.
Main Agenda Topics –
1. An overview of Mobility Hubs with a focus on employment-commercial areas (City staff)
2. Overview of employment lands in new Official Plan – Mobility Hub/Aldershot and residential/height mixed use focus (City staff, All)
3. Identification of issues-concerns with employment-commercial space (Tom, Greg, Dayna, Stephen, All)
4. De- commercialization and the loss of walkable necessities of life – inherent contradictions with the plan, and related issues.
5. Encroachment
Mary Lou Tanner
The then Director of Planning, Mary Lou Tanner (she became the Deputy city manager on the 22nd of December) provided the first three agenda items which led at least one person in the group to think there would be “would have a discussion all around, but we did not”.
Six mobility hub planners attended but according to people who were in the room not one of them said a word, except on small items of clarity with few words.
When the “meeting ended they took another way out of the room, avoiding us. There was no mention of a response to our issues and questions.”
The group had questions about
Community feedback;
What is an acceptable retail mix and
Why doesn’t the City enforce a minimum?
Transit integration and “walkability”
New OP
How is growth being measured?
How does that dictate plan direction?
The group was concerned over reports that the city is well over track to meet the region’s goals. What are the population targets for the next 10 years and does this tie in with unit construction?, they asked.
“Is it valid/legal for current planning decisions to be swayed by potential OP changes that are not on the books yet?
“How are mobility hub changes being factored into new OP?”
It was what most of citizens taking part thought was going to be a civil meeting with an open and transparent exchange of ideas.
But there was a bump that changed the tone of the meeting.
At one point, one of the Aldershot residents, appeared to have looked at Tanner in a manner that was uncomfortable to her and she let loose saying:
“Don’t you ever look at me like that again.”
Latest parcel of Aldershot available for development, 103 Panin Rd, East of Cama Woodlands Nursing Home, NW of Waterdown Rd and 403. 10.5 million for 14.5 acres… according to today’s Woolcott Re/Max flyer, this one has “strong potential for development WITH possibility of medium to high density.” This property appears to lie outside the boundaries of the Aldershot “mobility hub”, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that changes to allow for higher density.
Remember, according to COB PB-76-17 Appendix A1(the BrookMcIlroy memorandum) our illustrious planning department intends to drop 27,200 new residents into the small confines of our Aldershot “mobility hub”.
27,200.
If one in three of those residents have a car, that’s 9,000 extra automobiles transiting Plains Rd. on a regular basis.
Look at the designated mobility hub. 27,200 new residents and their cars in this small area (and countless others in the new developments on Plains Rd east of Shadeland).
https://www.burlington.ca/en/your-city/resources/Grow-Bold/Mobility-Hubs/H-Aldershot-MH-compressed.pdf
Aldershot has been a developer’s wet dream for too long. We’re full. If you’re happy with the direction this is heading, re-elect the two Ricks.
Time to stop the feeding frenzy.
Excellent info Michael, and totally agree – time to stop the frenzy.
“open and transparent exchange of ideas.” See, that’s where the citizens have it all wrong.
Smoke and mirrors. Citizen engagement is farcical and sad. The twenty year old feeding frenzy of development in Aldershot has no coherent plan behind it, only a pattern of unfettered greed. A plaza owner jacks the rent, small businesses leave, the property falls into disuse and is gobbled up and converted into 4-6 story high condos and nail salons. Wash, rinse, repeat. These deals are done long before the public is invited to comment. We’ve been watching it for twenty years.
Drive the Plains Rd “corridor” and look around. Every remaining property under three stories high and older than 30 years is up for grabs and will eventually be squashed by developers. Somehow this mess will all be tied together by a public transit “vision” that remains unarticulated by our political masters.
Misleading photo choice by the way – you found one small stretch of Plains Rd that isn’t currently under “urban intensification.” And back when the road was a provincial highway there was a beautiful canopy of maples and oaks and cottonwoods, not a few planters with ditch lilies and overpriced installation art in them.
Urban intensification is the election issue of 2018. We know where the two Ricks stand on this. I intend to vote accordingly. Time to put the brakes on “The Big Move” and “Grow Bold.”
In fairness to Mary Lou Tanner:
1) The meeting was called by Her to engage with us.
2) The “Don’t you ever look at me like that again.” which was a little shocking – was quickly smoothed over and she apologized immediately for and was un-related to any meeting content. I didn’t witness the action in question and it was not related to me, but it seemed smoothed over in a professional way.
3) The meeting broke up when Mary Lou had another meeting booked and she left other staff to chat with us for a moment. I consider this a professional plus as she let us with other staff to talk.
4) The meeting agenda was not really followed; We got into a general conversation and we just never got back to the agenda.
5) Mary Lou did clearly express her perspective on issues in a direct matter – though I disagree with some of the logic here – it was a useful meeting and I thank her for it.
It appears that the Tanner and Ridge (based on your previous article) are trying to intimidate residents who criticize their policies and attitudes. It won’t work of course but gives further support to replacing them as soon as possible. Apparently, they seem to be under the illusion that the residents are there to serve them, not the other way round. Truly pathetic–a new low!!!
Agreed – “replacing them as soon as possible” can’t come soon enough!