By Pepper Parr
July 2nd, 2021
BURLINGTON, ON
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns reports that her “office regularly receives ongoing concerns and questions about the progress on this property.”
She is referring to the property bounded by John, Caroline, Elizabeth and Maria that currently has a 24-story condominium. The original development plan was to include an above ground parking garage and a medical office at the north end along Caroline.
The tower on the left has been constructed and is occupied. Some of the underground work for the garage is completed. The medical building is reported to be part of an application for additional height.
“I agree with residents that this matter has gone on much too long” reported Kearns in her most recent Newsletter.
“Since the onset of my term as Ward 2 Councillor, I continue to advocate on behalf of the community to have this project move forward. In response to many inquiries, see the following chart recently received from the City’s Legal Department. As soon as my office is in receipt of information of progress on this site, we will be sure to share with residents.”
This development was problematic from the day it got to the city Planning department. The council at the time had concerns about the development being completed and put in a clause that would ding the developer for $300,000 if the developer failed to deliver on schedule.
Much of this was well before Kearns began to care a hoot about what happened in the ward.
In the data the Councillor refers to there is a chart with questions and answers reported to have come from the legal department.
Never seen responses like this from the Office of the Solicitor for the Corporation of Burlington.
In a September 2017 news story the Gazette reported:
“… John Street construction site is to include a public garage and a medical centre – they will follow the construction of the condominium. Medica One or the Carriage Gate project – pick the name you like best – will go up at the top of John Street and consist of a medical offices building, an above ground garage and an apartment/condo complex. It will bring significant change to the intersection and drive redevelopment of the plaza to the immediate north, A transit hub a couple of blocks to the south then makes a lot of sense.
The city expected all three projects to rise at the same time – and were worried enough about the construction actually taking place that they had the developer commit to coughing up $300,000 if the project doesn’t proceed by March of 2020.
City hall does appear to fully appreciate the market forces the developer has to contend with. The utility poles will disappear – all the cable will be underground. Getting that decision in place was no simple matter.
A portion of Mario was closed during construction of the Berkley. Not many developers get that kind of leeway.
.
Carriage Gate, the developer, has had their share of grief with both the city and Burlington Hydro over the existence of utility poles on John Street. A hydro line had to be pulled in from Lakeshore Road to the site – an expensive job. There was much discussion over whether or not all the hydro wires would be underground.
The developer was prepared to pay for the cost of burying the cable in front of their project but wasn’t prepared to pay for the cost of burying the cable for every foot of the distance from Lakeshore Road.
And they didn’t like the price for doing the work that Burlington Hydro had put on the table.
It’s getting resolved – with the developer trying hard to keep the lawyers out of the room.
When completed John Street will take on a much different look. Other developers have already begun to acquire and assemble property on the street.
As construction continues the planners are looking for ways to improve the look of the rest of the street and bring more activity to the area.
Not much has changed.
Related news stories:
Do you think that the City would not have gone after the developer if they could?
I have been told that the 2 existing sites to the Berkeley condominium have been sold.
Perhaps this is a question that Councillor Kearns needs to be answered?
Well the City should be going after them, if they felt that the original agreement was binding. If it wasn’t binding, why did the City enter into it? If it was binding, then they now need to enforce it. Either way, this is on the City! And why are Ward 2 residents continually arguing amongst themselves while the developers and the City carry on?
And if the properties have been sold, which i believe i heard too, then the City should learn from this and close this loophole which it probably is, and which CG probably knew they could use when they entered into the ‘agreement’. Why are the builders always two steps ahead of the City???
Maybe the City will file at the OLT. I thought you would know that these sorts of discussions are undertaken by Council in camera. So even if Councilor Kerns knows anything more, she is obliged not to say anything.
For those of us who have been following this sorry saga for years and years, as Councillor Kearns says, it is one that has infuriated us and highlights much that is wrong with development here. It’s part of why many of us got involved as much as we did, this, the Adi tower/OMB ordeal and the twin towers across from city hall. Thank you Lisa for posting the chart because we are so tired of hearing how the City can’t ever say anything. I wrote long ago to Heather McDonald asking about this $300k. Still waiting for a proper answer so I guess this chart is the answer. I recall how frustrated Lisa was about this long before she was councillor also.
This site has been an eyesore in my opinion since it began. I can’t imagine the owners whose balconies face a gravel pit still, all these years later. They agreed to provide affordable units in exchange for height and got the height but we didn’t get any affordable units. For years we walked by staring at an ugly chain link fence where the lovely medical centre was supposed to be. Now it’s a worse looking black wall. Such disrespect for the community in which this developer has multiple applications for more towers. Why would we believe either anything they promise or anything in the artist renderings? The artist rendering for this site sure didn’t look like what we got. And the much-touted main floor retail are still empty.
David,
At Council meetings when the subject of failure of this developer to follow through on their Section 37 Agreement it was explained that there was no legal recourse should the developer chose not to honour the agreement.
Perhaps you should check with the planning department on this issue regarding this particular development?
I think your are correct about no legal recourse. Tge recourse would seem to be OLT (formerly LPAT). OLT is not a legal recourse, i.e. via the courts of justice. Maybe you would like to check with either the planning department or Weir Foulds LLP.
Anyone who takes the time to know Lisa Kearns will know that she cares more than a “hoot” about all things in her Ward. We can only hope the eyesore at the corner of Caroline and John will become more than a repository for Faux Chess Board Wall Art.
Well, until the city and the landowner CAN agree on the validity and the enforceability of the terms of the site plan agreement, this developer should be held from moving ahead on other applications. That’s one way to police them. If they can’t stick to this agreement after 13+ years, (AND they have already asked for concessions on the recently completed Maria St building as well), should anyone trust them??
Well said and amen! This particular developer seems to attract issues like a magnet. He also seems to have very deep pockets and many useful associations that allow him to skate from one mess to another. Time to hold him to account. Time well past actually.
$300,000.00 penalty for not completing a development as promised? This is “chump change” to a developer. It is not even half the cost of one condominium unit. A penalty that Carriage Gate seems to have no intention of paying.
A parking garage as part of a “Zoning and Section 37 Agreement”. Residents have been told that Section 37 Agreements are simply agreements. There is no legal obligation to ensure that the developer will follow through after they receive the additional height, etc. that they wanted.
What department in City Hall, and members of Council thought that this an “iron clad” agreement?
City Hall and Council then decided to permit Carriage Gate to develop the site of “The Gallery” condominiums that are now being built on Brant /James Street.
It will be interesting to see if the Section 37 agreements in lieu of additional height etc. on this site actually come to pass?
There is a saying ” The Best Predictor of Future Behaviour is………Past Behaviour “
Ms Hersh.
How familiar are you with section 37 and its new regime.
I am not familiar at all. Here is a 101 from Weir Foulds LLP. https://www.weirfoulds.com/community-benefits-charges-the-new-section-37 which seems to suggest agreements are agreements. And so LPAT seems to be the venue to resolve this.
“Much of this was well before Kearns began to care a hoot about what happened in the ward.”
This is an unnecessary disrespectful remark made at Councilor Kerns, and is the type of comment you do not tolerate from Gazette commentators. Please be more respectful.
It woukd seem Councilor Kearns is asking all the right questions of City staff but is getting fobbed off by them. Surely if we are confident in the enforceability of contracts signed it is now time to litigate.
Edited: The writer is comfortable with the words used.