Statement from the Office of the Mayor doesn't tell the whole story and doesn't give credit to those who got a better development for the community

News 100 redBy Pepper Parr

September 10th, 2020



A statement came out of the Mayor’s office on Wednesday commenting on an appeal that had been made by a developer that was before LPAT – the Local Planning Act Tribunal.

The development was the one First Capital had for the Appleby Mall where they wanted to build two towers – one 17 storeys and the other 12 storeys that were going to be very close to the Pinedale Street sidewalk.

In the Statement the Mayor said:

At the City Council meeting on Aug. 24, 2020, Burlington City Council approved the recommendation to accept an offer to settle the issues in dispute between First Capital (Appleby) Corporation and the City with respect to First Capital’s appeal currently before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The settlement between the City and First Capital resolves the issues in dispute between the City and First Capital on the basis that First Capital and the City will seek LPAT approval of a revised development concept for the property at 5111 New St. The City and First Capital will request the LPAT withhold a final order approving the development until the City and First Capital are satisfied with technical studies that are required to support the revised development concept.

Appleby Mall rendering 2 structure proposal 16 & 11 floors

The rendering of what was proposed at the first round of plans for the project. while the structures have a brutish look to them – they are quite close to towers that are not much lower less than a block away.

The revised development concept proposes 368 dwelling units in both apartment and townhouse forms located on a portion of the site of the former Appleby Mall that currently contains a parking area adjacent to existing retail/commercial uses. The revised development concept reduces the building heights of the original proposal from 12 and 17 storeys, down to a 9 storey and two 12 storey buildings that follow the Official Plan. The revised development concept also: increases setbacks from Pinedale Avenue; reorients and redesigns the buildings to achieve compliance with the City’s Urban Design Guidelines; introduces townhouse units at the base of the buildings; and provides enhanced landscaping, among other things.

Nice bit of news for which council is prepared to take most of the credit. In the Statement there are congratulatory comments from the Mayor and the ward Councillor about some help from a community organization.

Appleby Village site set up

Configuration of the new residential buildings went through a number of changes. At one point they were going to face Appleby. The large shape middle right is the Fortinos location along with a number of commercial retail units.

The City and First Capital will attend at the LPAT hearing scheduled to commence on Oct. 26, 2020 to seek approval of the Official Plan amendment, Zoning Bylaw amendment and revised development concept by the LPAT.

That is not the full story.

The proposed development goes back to the flooding that took place in the east end of the city in 2014.

First Capital was doing a major re-development that changed most of the property allowing for some intensification.

During the flood it was learned that there were serious problems with the storm water management infrastructure that required the Region to do serious upgrades that put the development on hold for a number of years.

During that time people in the community began to organize and oppose the development

END of part 1.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 comments to Statement from the Office of the Mayor doesn’t tell the whole story and doesn’t give credit to those who got a better development for the community

  • Jeremy Skinner

    Anne & David Marsden: Thank you for your interest in the Appleby Village development.

    Did you receive an invitation by mail from Aird & Berlis (First Capital (Appleby) Realty’s legal representative) in late March or early April of 2018 to attend the first LPAT Prehearing Conference held in Rm 247 at City of Burlington City Hall on the first of May 2018 commencing at 10:00AM?

    Unfortunately, once the developer sought an appeal through LPAT, the application was removed from the City’s hands. This is because LPAT is a higher level of authority (Provincial) having jurisdiction in planning matters than the City. Three Registered Parties (the developer, the City and Loblaw (representing Fortinos) and 82 Registered Participants were an outgrowth of local resident response to the appeal. Appleby Village Homeowners Assoc (AVHA) was formed on the 26th of June 2018 and was comprised by a majority of the Registered Participants, AVHA sent a proposal complete with 8 conditions in an attempt to influence a revised development plan.

    The developer subsequently came up with a revised plan which was more to the liking of the Registered Participants represented by AVHA, Loblaw and the City and then sought to settle. High LPAT representation costs motivate the developer to seek settlement whenever possible. On the flip side, the Registered Participants, Loblaw and the City obtained certainty over what the LPAT member would otherwise have decided upon.

    The short street running parallel to Appleby Line is named Timber Lane.

    Not sure that I understand the thought about no left turns.

    Matters related to how the Traffic within Appleby Village interacts with surrounding street traffic will be discussed at Site Plan Review. AVHA has already outlined our concerns about how best to accommodate along with traffic calming on both Pinedale Ave and Timber Lane such as by introducing trees on the boulevards between the street curb and the sidewalks and/or painting bicycle lanes on these streets.

    You may wish to contact me at if you wish more information. I am the appointed spokesperson for AVHA.

    • Thanks for this Jeremy. No, we did not receive any invitations despite believing we had signed the list that would provide such an invitation. The community has done a great job here and we are sure will keep on top of any issues with regard to pedestrian safety that spiked our interest. We need more people like you to organize individual Burlington communities to take positive steps towards the city we want. The practiced spin that comes from Council leaves many believing their interest is the well-being of the city when it is not always the case.

      Anne is an appellant at LPAT on the downtown ICB land studies/policies. Our position was the City caused the problem we have on Brant and James height wise by initially calling a bus stop a mobility hub/MTSA and then failing to take the action our MPP said she would support us on back in 2018 to have it removed; after it became clear that we did not have a leg to stand on height-wise with the downtown MTSA as part of our official plan. Our LPAT appeal is a jurisdictional one in terms of the City did not follow the Municipal Act and Procedural By-law rules and, therefore, there was no jurisdiction for the Council decisions. We cannot afford representation and know we put ourselves at risk, but feel obligated to do what we can for the City we love that has been a good home to us since we came to visit relatives in Hamilton from UK (1971). Nowhere else in the wide world we have seen over the years matches it. Council failed to listen to the community at the January 2020 meetings and is just now beginning to deal with the MTSA and moving the UGC.

      We are shocked to discover through Anne’s participation as an appellant that the City is going to outside legal representation on matters they should be able to handle themselves at a time when we have a large budget shortfall. If city legal counsel cannot handle simple matters like the Airbnb injunction, which was a slam dunk, or respond to an LPAT appellant motion record (both outside counsel) we need to be asking why? We will be in touch by e-mail with any questions we have on the pedestrian safety. Keep up the good work and encouraging others to do what they can. The victory is always sweeter when we have played a part in it.

  • Thanks for this. Looking forward to Part II. We were on the list of those notified of meetings at the beginning but somehow got took off the list! One of the biggest issues we heard coming from these meetings was the increased traffic especially as the development is on a route used by students walking to Frontenac School (Pinedale Avenue). Our community advocacy on health, safety and access was why we had been alerted to the community issues on a Ward other than our own. We did not see anything that addressed this issue in the Mayor’s announcement but believe access to the development has been moved to the short street at the East of the parking lot that runs parallel to Appleby Line, Timber Lane. If that is the case that is a lot of traffic for a very small street that leads on to a student pedestrian route. With a No Left Turn it appears this could turn Timber Lane into a parking lot and without a No Left Turn still increase the Pinedale Avenue traffic. Do you have any information on the community satisfaction with the traffic issues?