Statutory meeting on a project no one wants - held when few will be able to attend - a virtual event - the developer gets to hide behind a camera - you may not get to actually talk to them

By Staff

October 4th, 2024

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The development planned on Caroline a block to the east of Brant Street will be the subject of Statutory meeting on November 5th, 2024.

Rendering of the tower that will be located on Caroline one block eat of Brant Street.

Development applications have been submitted for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by  Inaria Burlington Inc., for a 28-storey mixed use building with 302 residential units and a 6-storey above grade parking structure with a green roof adjacent to an existing 17-storey residential building bounded by Caroline Street, Elizabeth Street, Maria Street, and John Street.

This proposal has a background that is both disappointing and not what the public has a right to expect from the developers that want to change the skyline of the city.

Link here for background on this one.

The city has scheduled this event for 9:30 in the morning – not very convenient for those who work full time and are doing the event virtually.  The days when the public could meet the developers at city hall and ask questions.  This format lets the developer hide.

Why this Council tolerates this form of engagement is truly disturbing.

You might want to reach out to Mark Bales at 905-637-8888, ext. 214 or by email at: mark@carriagegate.ca

Note that Bales is a senior staff member at Carriage Gate, the people who built the tower opposite City Hall and are now putting up a 29 storey Tower on Pearl Street and have a development that is proposed for the eastern end of the football.

Currently under construction at Pearl and north side of Lakeshore Road

Developer has situated the tower at the convergence of Old Lakeshore and Lakeshore Road

 

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

6 comments to Statutory meeting on a project no one wants – held when few will be able to attend – a virtual event – the developer gets to hide behind a camera – you may not get to actually talk to them

  • David Barker

    David, Wayne, Stephen, Gary, Jim.

    The terms for holding mandatory statutory meetings in relation to development applications are I believe set out in the Ontario Act. Such meetings it would seem are not under the control or management of the municipality but controlled and managed by the applicant. So the host of the meeting would be the applicant not the municipality. The applicant gets to set the date and time that the statutory meeting is held. Have I got it wrong?

    Editor’s note: The developer is required to arrange for a Statutory meeting. The City Clerk has the authority to determine the date and time. Past practice has the developer and the city cooperating on the date – city planning staff are involved in the meeting. The Clerk has the authority to determine the time – and in this case a council member has asked that the 2030 Caroline Statutory meeting be in the evening.

    • Anne and Dave Marsden

      Editor: don’t think there was too much co-operation between Applicant and City on the Graham’s Lane Application et al or compliance with the Procedural Bylaw which requires the Statutory Public Meeting to be “hosted” by the Committee of the Whole with delegations having 10 minutes to speak. Instead of the Norm the Mayor, not the Clerk, insisted that a Special Meeting of Council “host” the Statutory Meeting and limited delegations to one 5 minite delegation rather than 10 mins at Stat meeting and 5 mins at Council. A 66% reduction in public engagement with no apparent reason except that is the way the Mayor dictated it would happen when she used her Municipal Act power to call a Special Meeting at any time and called a Special meeting of Council rather than the City of the Whole to deal with the Application. The MA does say subject to Procedural By-law but that was set aside.

      As well those requiring notice of the meeting were informed through the Notice they had 10 minutes to delegate at the Stat meeting but the Mayor who chaired the Stat Meeting said 5 mins only and delegations were cut off at the 5 min mark.

      The lengthy report of the City’s proposals for this Graham’s Lane Application was posted with very little time to review leading to difficulty in determining what a 5 min delegation should address. The Applicant asked for a deferment of consideration of the Application due to insufficient time to consider the City proposals. If agreed to, this would have taken the Application back to a Committee of the Whole and the 10 minute stat meeting delegations.

      Council refused the deferment. We believe the Applicant has appealed to The OLT where the city should get hammered yet again as it is obvious to all this was Mayor My Way decision making and not best interests of the city or compliance with legislation.

      Do you believe this was a co-operative venture between Applicant and City or do you like many believe the city tried to ram this through during the month of August when the public are used to an August break from meetings and are busy with school holiday responsibilities with family?

  • David

    I bet the Mayor wished she had not listened to the ‘heritage advisory committee’ and gone with the ‘Heritage District’ designation over on her side of Brant St.

  • wayne sloan

    continued inefficiency, lack of transparency, and failure to address community needs effectively, are continued trademarks of this “grou” leaving residents frustrated and disillusioned.
    The failures of this “group” continue to lead to poor public services, decreased trust in leadership, economic stagnation, and worsening quality of life for residents.
    hopefully the citizens make themselves aware of the failures of this non-performing “group” and when given a chance, bring in leaders who prioritize accountability, transparency, and effective governance, ensuring better outcomes for the community.

  • Stephen White

    Engaging the community at times and on terms that are convenient for City residents seems to be an ongoing conceptual problem at City Hall. Not everyone has the luxury of working in the rarefied confines of City Hall where work starts at 8:30 and ends at 4:30. Not everyone works from home. This is a commuting community largely due in no small measure to the fact that we’ve lost a huge chunk of our commercial and industrial sector and people have to travel elsewhere to work.

    Council also wonders why no one shows up for budget meetings. While it’s nice to hold them across the city maybe more focus should be given to holding these events at different times to accommodate the diversity of residents who live here.

  • Gary Scobie

    This meeting being a Statutory Meeting, should be both in person at City Hall as well as virtual. If it is indeed true that it is only virtual, then it is an insult to citizens who wish to delegate in person. I would one of those citizens.

    I hope you have been misinformed, but guess I will have to check myself with City Hall next week how this meeting is being run. Virtual only would be a step backwards in progress in attempts to open transparency and ease the engaging with citizens.

    Editor’s note: The event is a regular Council meeting that will take place at City Hall and will be virtual as well – which is the way this Council has chosen to operate. I perhaps could have made that point clearer and will revise the article.

Leave a Reply