By Pepper Parr
March 31, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
City council last night had to go into a closed session before they could actually get their Standing Committee going.
They had been advised that the ADI Development group had taken the application to build a 28 storey building at the intersection of Lakeshore Road and Martha that had been hotly contested to the Ontario Municipal Board because the city had failed to do anything with their application.
Councilor Paul Sharman, chair of the committee, told the audience that a summary of a planning report would be read but the city would not be voting on the matter.
Many thought the situation was unbelievable – “was this deliberate” one woman asked as she was leaving the Council chamber.
Hans, you sound like a real gentleman.Respect is something that is earned by the way you respect others. The ADI property is zoned for 4 stories yet the official plan says 8 stories. The Planning Act And PPS. Mandate municipalities to have their zoning by-laws be consistent with the official plan. The City of Burlington has deliberately under zoned these properties. The reasons are as follows 1.Since the applicant has to apply for a rezoning to get more than 4 stories the City can force the applicant to design the building the way they want or deny the application. 2. The City can now extort money from the developers for additional height to the building, it’s called community benefits. I don’t know what the going rate per floor is but it sounds to be quite a bit. So I ask you was the respect in this case earned? Sometimes the OMB is not a bad choice. There is always 2 sides to every story.
Albert,
Thanks for your thoughts. Maximizing infrastructure utilization is a good goal as long as it doesn’t result in other problems, like the floods of last August. Most systems require slack capacity in order function effectively and to avoid problems, so “maximizing” may be ill advised. Some developers appear to be trying to leverage the province’s “intensification” policy to create unsuitable projects and then force municipalities to accept them. I understand that Kitchener-Waterloo is experiencing similar problems with developers, who don’t seem to have much respect for municipal planners.
Hi Hans. Let me explain how a reasonable person could see this as being good for Burlington and Yes Mother Earth. I don’t like high rise buildings and I don’t want to see Burlington turn into Little New York City. But some folks want and like this kind of stuff. Practical people say that the infrastructure is paid for, maximize it. Elderly folks and the young as well don’t want to cut grass. People feel safer living close to others. urban sprawl is reduced, land consumption is reduced. Prices are a fraction of houses. Lot price in Burlington Approx: $600,000. Cuts down vehicle use, fuel cost. This is the new face of housing I don’t like it but I think it’s getting rammed down our throat by the Province. The environmentalists just love it. While the children get to play in the hallway. Nice..
Let’s get back to the ADI issue and their proposed 28 storey building shall we? How can any reasonable person think that this would be good for Burlington?
The facts presented regarding the outrageous wastage of taxpayers’ money on the Walkers Line debacle will pale
compared to the millions that will swirl down the drain when the games begin at the OMB with ADI. Is this deemed to be acceptable because Meed Ward and Goldring “received the largest percentage of votes in their respective elections”? This brings a whole new level of meaning to the words “blind trust”.
I’m still waiting for the facts about Walker’s line to be presented. Can you help with this, please?
I’d rather trust the vote, and the expressions of residents that overwhelmingly rejected the ADI proposal, than the blind non expression of an non-alternative that you don’t even give us a clue about.
What exactly do you propose for an alternative way to decide how to govern ourselves, and make such decisions?
Do you forget all the wars fought for the vote and the freedom of individuals to collectively decide our fate?
Are you tacitly suggesting we have another form of dictatorship to decide things like the ADI issue?
Come on, you really have to provide a little bit of rationale to make your comments sensible in our political reality, and not just a personal quibble.
The Walkers Line facts are already out on public record. The city paid in excess of $7M to acquire 1 acre of land that could have been acquired by dedication as part of the development of the new 6-storey office building. There was an allocation of about $1.7M for tenant relocation, and the rest went to paying for the construction of the new building. The difference between this deal and the pier, is the citizens own the pier versus a private entity owning a brand new office building paid for by the taxpayer. The reason the mayor will not speak to this, is because it was a bad deal that never should have happened after IKEA failed to relocate; council does not want you to know about it. The property owner was enriched because the mayor approved the deal without justification; good for the property owner, bad for your tax bill.
Editor’s note: The Gazette has reported on this issue – several times.
What do you mean by he public record? I’m not satisfied that the Gazette qualifies for this, particularly as sole source.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m as interested in getting to the bottom of this as anyone.
I just want to see the evidence. Are there no public accounts for the city that identify the trail of this, and any justification posed? Do we not have an auditors report?
Are there no legal accountability mechanisms?
This should not be just forgotten with no action of pursuit.
Peter Rusin,
Since you practically advertised for ADI (“…the sales office… is anticipated to be very nice and another place to visit in the downtown…”) in your comments, I wonder if you are on the ADI payroll, or would like to be.
The Mayor and Councillor Meed Ward received the largest percentages of votes in their respective elections, which indicates a vote of confidence in their judgment from a majority of the citizens of Burlington. You received very few votes. The voters want the City to oppose the ADI development. You should try to get over that fact and be a more gracious loser.
We came out stating that winning a seat was a long shot; nobody is that stupid to actually believe they can win in a municipal election with a few weeks of campaigning, especially in a city fully entrenched with the status quo. One of the reasons I entered the election was to bring public attention to the issues of bad governance, including a few council members who are incompetent in dealing with development and land use planning, which ends up costing every taxpayer in this city.
The Mayor may be good at taking the bus to work, and showing up at ribbon cuttings and fundraising events, but, he continues to drop the ball on significant development projects and intensification challenges. The Mayor spent over $7M of the majority electorate voters’ tax money to enrich a commercial landowner at 1100 Walkers Line; go ask the people who voted for Goldring if they knew anything about that deal; go see another nice new place to visit at the new 6-storey office tower paid for by you and those that elected this council.
As for Meed Ward, she will cost this city more millions if she continues with her political posturing instead of doing her job in an accountable manner.
Be accountable yourself by going to Committee and Council with a transparent explanation of your allegations about the $7M and a facts of posturing and incompetence.
I have suggested this several times, but you seem to just take cheap shots from your desk.
Council will not speak to the details regarding the $7M enrichment deal on Walkers Line.
But you can speak to them and present your case. If they refuse to speak, and account for themselves, then that is a form of them speaking.
You just have to make a plan to do so, draft a submission, and take anyone else who can speak.
We should all know by now that Mr. Rusin will never have a good word to say about Mayor, Ward 2 Councilor Meed Ward, and in his comment above, he rakes the whole Council. He is a developer through and through, and talks only generalities about how development is always good, no matter what the citizens think or the OP says.
On the other hand, Gloria Reid offered her view of some facts of the history of the ADI application, and who did what and when at the meeting noted. It seems pretty clear that nobody of any note wants the ADI development approved – the citizens don’t, the mayor doesn’t, Councilor Meed Ward doesn’t, other Councilors are not publically supportive, and the City Planners have drafted what Gloria called a landmark report. This is all due process, except for the fumble at the end.
I’m somewhat surprised and not happy that the city Council did not express its will and decision in the legal time frame – this should not have happened as everyone involved knows this timeline.
However, my own view is that it wouldn’t matter materially in terms of the OMB appeal by ADI. They had that option in any case, and their preemptive strike isn’t really any different in effect.
As more due process, the Ward Councilor took her rightful place in the lead of the report discussion, direction to the City solicitor to prepare for the ADI appeal, and the Committee unanimously approved the motion.
Like it or not, this is the way things are supposed to work, given the circumstances. I fully support the idea of a transparent OMB appeal rather than a back room negotiation with ADI along the lines suggested by Mr. Rusin. We need to fight for the kind of development our OPs have evolved over time, and that the citizens expect will be adhered to.
Mr. Rusin, I wish you would couch your constant political and personal criticisms in terms of some facts about how this reality works, and certainly appears to work in the Burlington form of democracy.
That is not how things are supposed to work. Only in Burlington it seems that the majority of this council are incompetent when it comes to managing development files.
You can pay my share of the OMB costs, and the lost opportunity costs associated with not being able to proactively deal with development.
All that this city has done is react after the fact; a landmark report? really? Watch what happens to that report at the OMB.
The OMB route is not the right approach; being proactive and being on the ball is the right approach, not dropping the ball over and over again.
There is no other municipality in the GTHA that conducts itself in this manner. Where is the accountability if there is no competency?
Mr. Rusin.
Tell us please how things are supposed to work? I thought the Planning Act governed things.
How do you use the laws to do things your way?
How do you know how all the other municipalities work, and how is that?
As well, how is it different than in Burlington, and please make this comparison based on factual examples?
You are entitled to your sweeping negative opinion about the planning staff report, but again you do not provide any details to support this.
You don’t know what will happen to it at the OMB.
I like what I read in the report. The site is much too small for the density and massing.
It is too high for the OP. Aren’t OPs a requirement of the Planning Act?
It seems to me you would substitute a crap shoot and wheeler dealer approach, for a formal legal structure to development planning.
The ADI proposal is generally lacking and deficient on a number of counts. It is not good planning for that site and neighborhood locale.
The citizens overwhelmingly don’t want it, and turned out in large numbers to express that view. The Ward Councilor represents them as she is supposed to. You are the only one I see that incessantly criticizes her for doing her job. She is accountable to her people. You are not accountable to anyone.
ADI is disrespectful and arrogant from what I have seen. They have adopted a strategy of confrontation and bully tactics.
For that matter, you display similar traits.
Please answer my questions
The OMB will be serving the Meed Wardites some very expensive medicine when the Board So Orders a decision probably in the neighbourhood of 24-storeys, based on all the factual evidence so far. It is unfortunate that the quantum of costs, including the usual OMB hearing related costs, is shared by every taxpaying citizen in this city, not just the downtown core resistance group. It should be that those opposed and/or incompetent in dealing with such matters in a proactive and accountable manner (ie. Mayor and Ward Councillor) be on the hook personally for the costs.
An update of potential interest on ADI; ADI is currently fitting up some space at the corner of Pine Street and Brant Street to function as the new condo building sales office. It is anticipated to be very nice and another place to visit in the downtown very soon.
You offered just more assertions – I don’t think they measure up to serious opinions – and invective, and didn’t answer my questions.
You are no help to anyone who is interested in having a fact-based dialogue.
Tell us what the factual evidence so far is that you refer to as supporting the Board So Orders a decision?
If this result you say happens, then it will be a mockery of Official Planning, and destroy any notion that citizens have any say in anything similar brought down the pipe.
I suggest the city develop a multi-faceted mega-nuclear offense strategy to oppose this ADI appeal, because we cannot afford to lose.
Make sure Appeal to Cabinet is in the arsenal.
If we are going to lose, make it a very big and bloody fight, no holds barred, as we’ll save in the future because there will be no use defending ourselves if we can’t win with maximum effort.
You can’t blame council or the Planning Staff or the ADI Group for all this chaos. Until the Provincial Government passes down laws and regulations that are crystal clear. Mandating what the City Planners and Council must and must not do. They have to give guidance on Maximum heights. Define intensification and make it clear to the citizens what they can expect to see happen in their City in the future. There is too much room for discretion and subjectivity. 10 Planners, councilors, builders, and citizens can interpret the present rules 10 different ways. Council has to educate those in low rise established neighborhoods. That they are not exempt from milder forms of intensification and that they are part of the urban areas, whether they like it or not. The word compatible drives me nuts. It seems as if it means something different every time it is used by Planning trying to justify something. 20 story building across the street from single family homes on Maple according to them very compatible. Ramming 60 townhouses on Guent in a single family zone amongst homes with large lots. Very compatible. Small builder tries to put small subdivision 4 units of the same size as neighbours in South Burlington near Lakeshore deemed incompatible denied. Only in Burlington
That is the reason why the council should have been all over this file well in advance of any development proposals. Other municipalities seem to manage their intensification development files just fine, not like in Burlington.
Well, I’d like to offer another view of the City’s handling of this proposed development. The response from day one of many if not most of the residents of the downtown has been concern about the over-development this proposal presented. Given that, the City worked hard to ensure that those concerns were heard. That takes time. When I watched the video of the meeting today here were my takeaways.
Although ADI was within its legal right (a bit more that 180 days had elapsed since the full application package was received by the City), ADI surely had to know that the very comprehensive staff report was coming to debate and vote and they chose to take a public position by Council out of the City’s hands by appealing a day (or so?) before the Council meeting.
Once ADI filed the appeal, the City is legally barred from further debate and must now follow the legal process.
Council decided to go ahead with getting the staff report and delegations “on the record”. Many delegates praised the report for its educational value and for its clarity on the City’s position on intensification (it is a landmark report and well worth the read).
Marianne Meed-Ward then moved to endorse the report and direct the City Solicitor to report back to Council with a strategy for the appeal. The motion was unanimously passed. Marianne Meed-Ward also made some brief comments praising the staff report and reiterating key principles on intensification contained in the report.
To me, this is staff and Council doing the job they were elected to do. I will be following the OMB appeal with interest as I think any responsible developer would have tried to work with the City and its residents rather than completely ignoring them and doing a “legal end run” at the earliest opportunity.
The City started to handle the file when it was already too late; the city became reactionary when it should have been leading. The Mayor was asleep at the switch, and the Ward Councillor seems to never get passed her desperate need for political posturing.
The Mayor and the Ward Councillor should have been all over this proposal well before the developer put forth any plans; that is what they were elected to do…especially to manage important high profile matters in a competent and accountable manner; something they should have been working on for a year or two prior to any development plans being proposed to the public.
This is another costly file that could easily have evolved into a positive and collaborative process for the benefit of all citizens and not just a few, and at what will be an excessive cost both financially and politically, had the people who were elected done the job they were elected to do.
I would have liked Council to vote unanimously to accept staff’s refusal of the ADI Development as presented. It was well known that the ADI group would go directly to the OMB, this seems to be the way they choose to do business when they know their proposal for development will not be accepted.
Letting the clock run down does not really show residents that Council has the will to do all that it can to stop this development from moving forward in its present state. The end result would have been the same – it would have gone to the OMB, but Council would have been perceived as being pro-active.
I think Mr Rusin’s comments pretty well sum up this fiasco. Sadly, the reference to the Ward 2 downtown core
councilor couldn’t be closer to the truth.
ADI showed the same lack of respect for residents at their Dundas development where Councillors Sharman and Lancaster could have been stronger opponents.
City staff are either the developers friends – or have been acustomed to a council that would not defend its own residents on the Ghent development. It was Councillor Sharman that told residents they had the option to go to the OMB
Our city is not just open for business but 4 sale to the highest bidder.
Hans Jacobs makes some excellent point however it has been a very long time since a council in Burlington actually took a stand.
I am not trying to be negative however I see no staffer or united council that will stand against the developer.
It’s way overdue for the City to demonstrate that it won’t be pushed around and to do whatever it takes to take back control of development. Otherwise, we might as well just get rid of the Planning Department.
I recall that, when the feds wanted an airport built at Pickering, Bill Davis said the province would not build the roads that would be needed and that killed the project. Maybe Burlington needs a similar strategy. What would Hurricane Hazel do?
Hazel worked collaboratively with the developers for the benefit of the city, same as most other municipal leaders in the GTHA.
This city council demonstrates gross incompetence when dealing with the development challenges facing this city; that’s different than not being pushed around.
Ask the mayor and the Ward 2 councillor for a business case, or, cost/benefit analysis on this file, because people should know how this council manages the city’s piggy bank. You won’t get one, because they wouldn’t know where to start; but, that should be part of the overall decision making equation.
However, there is some sort of new results based budgeting that measures performance at city hall; wonder how a development file like this fits into the spreadsheet and who takes the hit on non-performance in such matters? because there will be a loss once the dust settles and the OMB demonstrates a real world reality.
The OMB route is not the way to go; that’s what you get with amateurs that will only cost all of us millions in exchange for the selfish and irresponsible political posturing in the downtown core.
People need to know that this application would never have gone to the OMB had this council managed the file properly. People also need to know that this type of mismanagement will end up costing the city millions in the fight as well as in lost revenue and community benefits.
Apparently the Mayor is running some sort of seminar on intensification in April; how can he speak to that topic if he can’t even manage this ADI file to any reasonable degree?
Being proactive and engaging the development community in a skilled and competent manner with assertive leadership would have resulted in a proposed development that would satisfy good planning policies and be of benefit not only to the downtown core, but, to all citizens.
This council is grossly incompetent when it comes to managing development and intensification, in particular the Ward 2 downtown core councillor who thinks that blind resistance to any type of new development is the right approach. The ADI developers wont even talk to her, which is atypical in other parts of the GTA where there is competent political leadership and understanding on how new development is good for building a strong community.
The council’s management of this file is not good for anybody. It is intolerable to witness council allowing this matter go straight to the OMB, and unacceptable for incoherent political influence to continue without any respect for financial accountability.
Your comments are always the voice of reason. Well said and well informed.
Well once again what do you expect from this council? If nothing was done with the application the ADI group has done something about it. The woman asking if it was deliberate has a real good point, it seems the city doesn’t know what to do with ADI group. I would like to know what this will cost the taxpayers?
Thanks for the article Pepper!