By Pepper Parr
January 1, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON.
The Gazette got a call from a reader about some work being done on the lot that is the east of Emma’s Back Porch. Huge concrete blocks were being moved around and every tree on the property had been cut down.
The property is accessed from Old LAkeshore Road. It was once the location of an gas station. Might that mean there are environmental clean up issues?
There were a lot of stumps left – they were apparently going to be coming out later.
The work was being done at a time when city hall was closed – convenient?
Our first guess was that the ADI Group saw an opportunity to put a sales office on that piece of land; I would be in a direct line of site from where they plan to build a 28 story condominium.
There was some speculation that the property next to Emma’s Back Porch might be the site for a possible sales office for the ADI Group that has an application in for both an Official Plan Amendment and a significant upgrade to the zoning for the site. The circle indicates where the proposed ADI Group project is to be built.
ADI managed to get a zoning variance to set up their sales office on Brant Street but they are limited to three years at that location – and they are going to need more than three years to sell out a project that doesn’t yet have a name.
A comment from a city hall staffer said: “The property belongs to Mr. Vranich, who also owns the Waterfront Hotel. We met with him last week on another matter and he mentioned to us that he would be “cleaning up this site” and referenced tree removal from private property.
The Conservation Authority is going to want to have a conversation with the owner of the property – and perhaps explain what “top of bank” actually means.
“He also explained that he and Mr. Jackman owner of the Emma’s property plan to clear the brush and trees along their shared property line. We advised him that he can clear trees from his private property, but should speak to the conservation Authority about trees near the stable top of bank. We also advised that he cannot remove trees from City property without a permit.”
“He does not have a building permit so he should not be excavating and has no site plan approval or (to my knowledge) site alteration permit, so he should not be altering the grades on the site. I will visit the site and see what he is doing, and will provide you with an update.”
The “top of bank” issue – which falls into Conservation Authority will fall into one of those “I didn’t know that” or “the workers did more than they should have”.
All kinds of tree trunks and brush have been pushed over the top of the bank. It was that need to set back any structure a specific number of metres from the top of the bank – a definition every planners knows about – that made any plans Tim Horton’s had for any construction on the site.
It was also the issue that basically ended what IKEA wanted to do on that North Service Road site. Tuck Creek ran down the east side of that property and that limited what IKEA could do.
This is what the site looked like a few years ago – before the pier was completed.
The Gazette got out to the site and took some pictures and talked to a couple of sources and were told that the owners of the property had cleared the site and planned to create a parking lot – which they hoped to be able to rent out to the trades that will be working on the Bridgewater project.
Plausible – the concern is – why was all this being done at a time when there was no one at city hall that could slip on over to the site and check out what was being done.
When the Conservation Authority people get back to their desks on Monday – they will have a lot of questions to ask.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward said she wasn’t aware of any development plans for the property – those things are always run by the ward Councillor
This is a small story worth following.
BurlingtonGreen is extremely concerned about private property tree protection and has made a number of submissions to Burlington Council advocating in favour of a Private Property Tree Bylaw. The issue is part of our Greenprint for the Future campaign to protect trees, green space, farmland, natural habitats, and ensure sustainable transportation options in our community. In addition to gathering research and documenting evidence, we are actively soliciting public input and urge all Gazette readers and the public to add their voice to this and other important issues by completing a quick and easy survey here https://questionpro.com/t/ALOB4ZR0Xo. (you may have to copy and paste link in your address bar to access survey link).
You can learn more about our Greenprint for the Future program at http://www.burlingtongreen.org. Thank you
There is a difference btw ‘private property owners’ and ‘developers’. It’s the developers that are the major issue when it comes to tree cutting. They are acting in their own self-serving interests which is monetarily driven. I get it, it’s a business but we all have to live in this community and it should not be dominated by cement and steel monstrosities that may over power the beauty that is home to this community. It’s not all about tax-dollars (and their possible fiscal misuse). The correct balance of buildings/design/green space/etc will enhance Burlington and the land-owners’ property values.
Governments control what happens on private property; it is part of their responsibility. They don’t have to buy real property to enforce zoning and other regulations – that’s just silly.
The purchase of land at Walker’s Line is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed in this thread.
How about responsibility over site control of filling 100 acres at the airpark over a five year period? Where was the city on that one? How can we trust the city to do anything about a few stumps, notwithstanding it is of business to only the private property owner?
What continues to resonate in the downtown ward is clearly this city has no economic development capability and no sense of vision, or, how to protect waterfront lands in a pragmatic manner. The Walkers Line enrichment of a private property owner has everything to do with how the regime at city hall manages our money and the best interests of the citizens.
One small story raises many issues of and greater and more relevant concern, especially when we are talking about wasting 7 million dollars without justification.
What needs to be enforced is government accountability, and not treating private property owners with unsubstantiated accusations of wrong doing in a public forum.
There is nothing illegal about cutting down some scrub brush trees on private property. The city and anybody else that is so concerned about the site improvement activities should have purchased the property when it was up for sale a few years ago.
Here is what people should be complaining about; why did the city make a decision to not buy this prime waterfront property 3 years ago for about $900K, but, decides to buy an acre of commercial land for $7M and pay for the build of a new office building for a private property owner at Walkers Line and QEW after IKEA failed to relocate? Is that the city’s vision? Is that what is considered as being economic development in this city? Is that why our taxes are about to increase? And people are worried about a few stumps?
Stay off private property; its trespassing. But, question what the city is or is not doing with taxpayer money.
This is why a city tree by-law is needed for all Developers!!! Set a precedent and go to court and hold ADI to the official plan height recommendation for that development. Backdown and be “bullied” for the next four years until a new council (with a backbone) is elected.
This is where Burlington Green needs to focus some resources.
Where is Burlington Green?? This is again another reason why a tree by-law for Developers is paramount!! Let’s play hard ball and hold them to the original site-plan official height. Go to court. Set a precedent and stand up for what is right. Do it now or put up with this kind of ‘bullying’ for the next 4yrs.
Underhanded, sly and devious, work like that being done when it is well known all government offices are observing holidays is inexcusable, a blatant and deliberate act to do what a developer wants without city hall being able to stop them . It is time fines for any unauthorized ground work performed by investment land owners, especially developers receive a severe penalty. Someone, somewhere would have deliberately conspired to do that work at a time when City Hall was closed. It is time our Mayor and ALL of Burlington’s councilors take this type of disrespect seriously and put forth measures to insure that this kind of action is dealt with severely. Never mind the “I didn’t know excuse” to bad. Fine them and make it hurt their pocket books big time because right now they are laughing in our face. I can just hear the “so what are they going to do about it once it’s done”.
An obvious conclusion is that Burlington has absolutely no control over the construction industry, which apparently has no respect for Burlington’s City Council, and it’s not a new problem. Perhaps we could ask Hazel McCallion for advice?
There should be a larger fine for working without a permit and not obeying the law. I believe the provincial act that governs construction too close to the water does have large penalties though. Lets hope that the owner who ordered this gets fined even though he tries the ingnorance excuse – he is responsible for his employees.
Is there any possibility that this piece of land could become an outdoor patio for Emma’s?
It seems that Mr. Vranich prefers “the beg for forgiveness instead of ask for permission” approach to development. After all, the trees are gone and the area is cleared.