By Pepper Parr
March 1st, 2026
BURLINGTON, ON
Councillor Kearns decided to hold a public meeting to explain what Development Charges were all about.
During her Public Information Session Saturday afternoon Councillor Kearns covered what Development Charges are all about. She also talked about the Housing Accelerator Fund HAF) and the City’s Housing Strategy.
Lot of detail that will follow.
There is a Council meeting on Monday at which a decision has to be made on what the city wants to do with the almost desperate request from the West End Housing Building Association (WEHBA) for a stay of development charges for a two-year period.
The WEHBA people contend that there shouldn’t be any damage to the city financially if the waiver is granted; the city’s financial people see it differently.
Kearns explained what has been done so far on that issue and sets out what the public can expect at the Monday meeting.
Bit of background first: On February 7th,Staff was directed to:
Direct the Commissioner of Development & Growth Management and Chief Financial Officer to initiate a temporary Development Charge bylaw amendment for a two-year residential Development Charges exemption on all units that pull a building permit and demonstrate active construction within the two-year period, as outlined in Option 1A in report DGM-03-26”. Planning Don’t support.
Council was unable to make a decision and the matter got moved to February 10th.
Feb 10th: Direct the Director of Community Planning to initiate an amendment to the City’s Affordable Rental Housing Community Improvement Plan (ARHCIP) considering options 2a) and 2b) contained in development and growth management report DGM-03-26
- Amend the ARHCIP to develop a new, temporary DC exemption program with defined criteria related to tenure and level of affordability. By virtue of the fact that the current ARHCIP relies on the Provincial definition of affordable, these affordable units are also legislatively exempted from development charges. An amendment would need to establish a new set of “affordability” criteria.
The City received feedback at the time of the ARHCIP that the provincial definition presented challenges and other definitions were highlighted for consideration (CMHC Apartment Construction Loan Program). This approach represents an opportunity to work with the development industry to consider options to expand the scope of eligibility for a temporary time period. Estimated Cost – less than or equal to the cost of DC option a) above, however the cost range is unknown and would rely on establishing new criteria.
- b) Amend the ARHCIP to adjust one or more of the existing approved programs to address opportunities to expand the scope of eligibility for a temporary time period. An opportunity to review the existing programs in light of changes to date may identify non-DC exemptions that are more effective to act as stimuli to development given the wide range of factors in play today. Estimated Cost unknown at this time would depend upon the nature of the amendments to the existing programs. Planning supports this position.
On Monday March 2nd, Councillor Kearns will table a new motion to:
Direct the Director of Community Planning to report back on the optimized use of available Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) dollars to enable housing starts that are guided by the City of Burlington Housing Strategy and implemented through the Affordable Rental Housing CIP (with amendments as needed). Council will have to decide to Support/Don’t Support?
Kearns made mention of Mayor Meed Ward’s motion, supported by Councillors Sharman and Galbraith to refer DGM-03-26 regarding Options for the temporary elimination of Development Charges to the Commissioner of Development & Growth Management and the Chief Financial Officer to report back to Committee of the Whole on April 13, 2026 with a potential Community Improvement Plan funded from a source other than property taxes, such as the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund. Council has to decide to either Support/Don’t Support.
Council is tied with Kearns, Nisan and Stolte on a reform side and Mayor Meed Ward and Councillors Sharman and Galbraith on the other side
Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna
No one knows at this point where Councillor Bentivegna is going to decide to land. His vote becomes critical.
Astonishing that the most inept member of this Council is going to determine the direction the city takes.
Throughout this process, Bentivegna has shown that he struggles to understand just what the issues are, once using the phrase “honkey dory”, to describe where his thinking is.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mayor Meed Ward does not seem to know that in the late1990 ‘s only developers were allowed to meet with the City and Region in what at the time was referred to as the DC Committee. It consisted of of them all, and also lawyers, consultants, and staff.
At an OMB Hearing at the time on Eagle Heights, the residents absence was revealed, and part of the Hearing Chair decision was that a new Committee structure had to be struck and residents were required to be members.
I was a Participant at the hearing due to membership in the Eagle Heights citizens committee, and submitted a paper to the Hearing, so I was there, and with several other citizens, demanded membership for residents be established.
The Mayor is fabricating blame on residents. She does not know what she is talking about.
The average new house in the GTA pays $381,000 of fees and taxes. See the link below. This is just crazy. Anyone that thinks this isn’t the reason housing is so expensive should give their head a shake. We limit the supply of new housing through zoning and forcing development through a ridiculously long, bureaucratic approval process and then we tax and fee the crap out of it. What happens when we have no housing and no new property tax revenue? Pretty sure that is a recipe for even higher property tax increases.
https://storeys.com/taxes-ontario-home-prices-rescon/
It is reported that Counsellor Galbraith has land for development.
His voting on a DC motion would be a conflict of interest because he could accrue a future benefit. This is what a reasonable person would conclude. There is no ambiguity.
This is an immediate conflict of interest.
Galbraith should recuse himself from discussions and voting.
This is the members directory for WE HBA. How can anyone look at this list and not cry foul. Developers building mcmansions. Trusts & mortgage companies. Commercial developers who own and lease out numerous properties. \
https://members.westendhba.ca/directory/FindStartsWith?term=%23%21
Enough with the corporate welfare. Every single person reading this should be sending an email to MMW & this council saying no to it. There are 70,000 homeowners in Burlington. Do any of you want to be making any of these companies richer? Bc I most certainly do not
Once again no indication of the root cause of the high price of residential houses in Burlington. If one does not understand the root cause how can you possibly propose a solution.
So it would seem development charges is the root cause? We eliminate development charges on all, or selected developments, for a preset period of time, presto the affordability crisis is solved.
Really, that is what we’re being told, and those are the only options, this is light weight thinking.
Interesting, this is the list of the members of the “Pipeline to Permit Committee” at the City of Burlington, link can be found below:
The committee is made up of Council, stakeholders and community members.
Co-Chairs: Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and Deputy Mayor for Housing Shawna Stolte (Chair duties to rotate each meeting)
Deputy Mayor for Business and Red Tape Reduction Kelvin Galbraith
Deputy Mayor for Strategy and Budgets Paul Sharman
One representative from non-profit housing association
One representative from Halton Region housing division
One representative from Conservation Halton
One representative from West End Home Builders Association (WE-HBA)
One representative from Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
One Planning Professional from a consulting firm, that does business in Burlington
Three public member representatives
Link: https://www.burlington.ca/en/council-and-city-administration/pipeline-to-permit-committee.aspx
Excellent question. Instead we are using strong mayor powers and having special meetings to cater to developers? This is not the mayor we thought we elected way back when. And the excuses and spin don’t hold water at all. Time for a major change — we need real leadership and way less ego.
Lynn Kirouac’s question on why Galbraith is allowed to even participate in these discussions let alone put out a statement with the other two developer-friendly colleagues is one we should all be asking.
Editor’s note: At this point Councillor Galbraith does not have a conflict. At some point in the future he will probably have a conflict and he will recuse himself as he is required to do.
Should he find himself recusing himself too frequently he may well find that his constituents will decide they want a council member who can serve all their interests.
Owning property does not mean one cannot or should not be a member of a city council.
Sorry I thought I sent this as a reply to Gary Campbell — that’s who I was referring to when I said “Excellent question.”
And I believe personally that Galbraith has a conflict regardless. There was a time long ago when a ward 2 councillor cancelled plans to put a porch on her house because she found out that she would need a variance and of course she could have applied for one. However she said that would not look right nor be appropriate in her mind as a councillor so she gave up on the porch. It’s called integrity.
No actually I believe that Lynn is correct. Galbraith has an existing agreement to develop the property. He is therefore a developer. He should recuse himself. Moreover, the principle has always been “if there could be a perception of a conflict of interest, then a conflict of interest should be called.”
Maybe we should all influx Angelo with notes saying to leave things as they have always been …
This is another example where the size of council is too small. As previously noted in comments, this is too complex and critical an issue to Burlington to have it decided by six councillors and the mayor – particularly where the mayor, despite claims of being collaborative and respectful, is the exact opposite. Developers have long had too close a relationship with elected officials at the municipal and provincial level. Perhaps Galbraith’s potential conflict should be brought to the attention of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario.
According to CMHC, under the Housing Accelerator Fund action plan summary report for Burlington, the city is eligible for $21.1M and as of the report’s effective date of February 25. 2025, Burlington had received an advance of $5.3M (rounded). Where is the transparency regarding these funds and if they have been spent or put in reserve. A copy of the CMHC report is available on line.
The reality is that despite the mayor’s belief that she can solve this problem, it will be interesting to see how she resolve the fundamental affordability challenge. According to the Bank of Canada’s deputy governor in a speech in November, he stated that “to make things more affordable, we need to raise income. And the way to grow our income is by increasing productivity”.
Not sure how this challenge is going to be resolved in two years by the mayor and company.
Bentivegna will look at what he needs to do to get re-elected.I would think that the constituents of Millbrook are ready for a change,.
We really need some new councillors or change the size of council to increase the chances of more brain power.At least 12.
I totally agree with Gary. Why change anything?
We were told at the information session yesterday that the City had already given the developers a break and had reduced the fees. This was accomplished by staff efficiency.
The Ontario Government has also given the developers a break. In the past development fees had to be paid as soon as shovels hit the ground. Now the developers do not have to pay these fees until the units are occupied.
After attending this session I cannot believe that it will result in increased housing in the areas the city needs to be eligible for Government grants. There are definite types of development other than multi-residential (condos) that have to be built. I also question if developers are willing to build” rentals”and “affordable” units.
When it comes to rentals I would like to remind people that a developer can indicate that they will build rental units. If the developer registers these units as condominiums even though they start out as rentals at any time the developer can choose to sell these units.
I don’t know if there is any legal way of making certain that these types of rentals need to remain in place for a long period of time.
When we are told that a request had gone out to the Provincial and Federal Governments to provide assistance I have to remind council that there is only one taxpayer – US.
Do you remember that Council voted 5-2 to approve the development on 2026 Old Lakeshore Road? The hotel/condo development with 24 hr. valet parking with a total of 82 parking spaces for 152 hotel suites and 50 “rental” condominiums.
There were a few conditions attached to the developer for this approval. I heard that some councillors felt that if they didn’t approve this it would go to the Land Tribunal.
Guess what the developer has appealed this decision and the City will have to defend it. Have to wonder how the City could possibly win because the vote of 5-2 shows the Tribunal that a greater percentage of Council was in favour of this development?
Why should we be helping the developers when they don’t think twice of appealing to the Land Tribunal?
Developers will not develop new buildings until they get rid of the glut of condos that have not been sold.
So why should we subsidize developments that are currently in construction with no development fees? They have already factored them into the price of their units. Doubt the owner will get this reduction.
The only one to benefit will be the developer and it will not result in new housing builds
I can’t help wondering why Councillor Galbraith is allowed to vote on this. He has had longstanding agreements, prior to being elected, with a builder (EMSHIH) who is developing land beside his own property which they also agree to develop. Much of his election funding came from builders (he had more campaign funding than anyone, including the mayor). It all seems to be quite a cozy relationship. Kelvin recently sent his Ward 1 constituents a monthly newsletter in which I am sure his heart bled for the builders as he talked about the how and why of waiving the development charges. He seems to think the province will bail Burlington out for some of the waived DCs and the rest will come from the city’s reserve fund. Never once did he mention the apparently deep pockets of the taxpayers who will be expected to replenish the reserve fund and will never live in these new homes. Allowing him to vote on this topic seems to be a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
Lynn,
I totally agree with your comment!
Other residents have also pointed out that our Ward 1 Councilor, Kelvin Galbraith has had a ongoing conflict when it comes to developers in Burlington.
“He can’t have his cake and eat it too”.
He should be recusing himself from voting on this item in the Agenda:
refer DGM-03-26 regarding Options for the temporary elimination of Development Charges
The problem is that the example has been set from the top of the house. I believe that Galbraith’s COI is just about as clear cut as it could be. But so is the Mayor’s when it comes to her participation in votes and discussions concerning the benefits and responsibilities attached to heritage properties. Her house on Martha is a heritage property. She is personally connected to that program.
You are correct, Galbraith obviously does have a conflict of interest in discussing, influencing, and particularly voting in this matter. His pecuniary interest is triggered by him being a Counselor, and a property owner directly. With Emshih, he has an indirect pecuniary interest through his letter of agreement with him, a business agreement with Emshih, a pecuniary interest not allowed by the MCIA Section 2(iii).
At any council meeting with this item on the Agenda, he is required to declare an interest, and recuse himself and this is stated as an Agenda item.
If he does not declare then he should prove that he has declared he sought advice from the Burlington Integrity Commissioner. If there is no such proof of advice of no interest and conflict, then residents can ask the IC what they have to say on this matter.
This is a pretty obvious concern of a difference in Galbraith conflict of interest from any other Councilor. If he does not declare and explain a refusal of failure to, and resident can complain to IC. I wrote a case law rationalization of the idea of how can he not have a subjective conflict of his direct and indirect (Emshih agreement )pecuniary property interests.
I will be watching closely to see how he manages this matter.
A good summary of where things stand. I must admit that I erred. I called the Mayor’s motion an example of the misdirection that I have previously termed the “Meed Ward Ricochet”. There are elements of it but really it is more representative of another classic feature of the Mayor’s persona – the “Meed Ward Doubledown”. As many have noted, MMW is never wrong – only “wronged” by the unnamed cohorts of the disrespectful. Here she claims to be the victim of deliberate misrepresentation. It promises to be high theatre on Monday.
As far as Bentivegna’s position is concerned, I really don’t believe that there is much doubt. As the Editor correctly notes, Mr. Bentivegna finds complex issues to beyond his grasp so he almost always dives into the Mayor’s tent, particularly recently, as the safest and most comfortable place to be.
Whatever the outcome, this division and conflict within the Council is a good thing. Persistent and continuous alignment, as the Mayor claims to be the case is, in fact, very damaging. As Winston Churchill once observed “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things”.
Why can’t we just leave it the way it has always been??