They've done it again - failed to communicate and left the public wondering what had happened.

SwP thumbnail graphicBy Pepper Parr

October 9th, 2019



Figure this one out.

There is a development proposed for some of the property on the land between Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road – referred to as the “football”

CORE rendering

The first of two 24+ storey structures planned for the “football”.

The development is controversial.

The city sent out a notice with the following note:

updated supporting documents
Application received – September 13, 2019

Then there is a list of the supporting documents.

Core site

The property to the right of the CORE development (outlined in blue) also has a 24+ development proposal,

• Arborist Report
• Architectural Plans
• Construction Management Plan
• Construction Management Plan 2
• Construction Management Plan 3
• Environmental Site Screening Checklist
• Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report
• Geotechnical Investigation
• Grading and Site Servicing
• Heritage Impact Statement
• Landscape Concept Plan
• Noise Impact Study
• Pedestrian Wind Study
• Phase I ESA
• Phase II ESA
• Planning Justification Report
• Reliance Letter
• Remediation Plan
• 7th Floor Amenity Plan
• Shoring and Excavation Plan
• Site Plan
• Sun Shadow Analysis
• Survey
• Transportation Impact Study
• Urban Design Brief
• Waste Management Plan

No mention of which document was updated or what part of the document was revised.

The Planner on the file, Melisa Morgan, will know what and where the updates are – could she not have shared this information?

This sort of thing happens again and again – and is accompanied by that bit of tripe that talks about an engaged city.

Related news stories:

CORE public presentation

Old Lakeshore Burlington Inc.  development.

There are other options.

Salt with Pepper is the musings, reflections and opinions of the publisher of the Burlington Gazette, an online newspaper that was formed in 2010 and is a member of the National Newsmedia Council.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 comments to They’ve done it again – failed to communicate and left the public wondering what had happened.

  • Terry Rose

    This is identical to what happened with Amica (1157-1171 North Shore Blvd) when they submitted a revised proposal on August 19. The revised proposal documents appeared alongside the original documents BUT not a single comment from the Planner. To their credit, the applicant (Amica) included some commentary and a table highlighting some of the differences. But only a thorough scrutiny, document-by-document, drawing-by-drawing, will show up the many omissions and inconsistencies. There is no way the Planner would have time to do this; the traffic study alone is over 600 pages. The review time has been cut to 120 days so now it is even more problematic. When does a revised proposal trigger a second Statutory Meeting? And who makes that determination?

  • Penny Hersh

    I have been told that the City when it receives all the “studies” that are asked for with regard to wind, noise etc. as mentioned above it then contracts this work out to other companies to examine what has been submitted.

    My question – Who decides who gets this work and is there a system of checks and balances to ensure that the company the City is using is not simply an arm of the developers companies that provide these studies?

    The reason I ask is because there never seems to be any issue with the developers studies?