By Pepper Parr
August 27th, 2024
BURLINGTON, ON
The room was packed – someone forgot to leave the air conditioning on which led to Lisa Kearns’ admin assistant running out for bottles of water twice – the second time she included popsicles.
Nick Carnecelli over looking the lake from the top of the Berkely
The ward 2 residents were in the room for an update from their ward Councillor on the development application that has been filed for what is known as 2030 Caroline – a development that has been put forward by Inaria Inc., an Ontario corporation that appears to be linked to Nick Carnicelli’s Carriage Gate company.
Carriage Gate built the Berkely, the Gallery, on Brant opposite City Hall, The BeauSoleil on Pearl and has plans for a development at the east end of the “football” – that location where Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road converge.
One of the high end homes that Carriage Gate built in their early years
Over the past decade Carnicelli has become the biggest developer in the city as well as being the developer with the tallest building under construction, at least at this point. Prior to this the company was the builder of quality high end homes. That business began to come to an end when the land for that kind of home wasn’t available.
The development that has the neighbourhood upset is the 29 storey tower at the north end of the block development bordered by Caroline, John, Elizabeth and Maria.
It was a contentious project from the very beginning; one that has gone through several stages starting with the 17 story Berkeley. To the north of that building there was to be a six level above grade parking lot that everyone understood was going to be public parking. To the north of that the original plan was to have a six storey medical building to replace the one that was at Pearl and Lakeshore. It was torn down to make way for the Beausoleil.
The audience wanted to know where their Councillor stood on the development. Kearns explained that she was not permitted to have a public point of view on any development until council had received all the reports and after the Standing Committee. She could express an opinion when the matter was before city Council when a decision was to be made.
The room was packed and the air conditioning didn’t seem to be working. Cold water and popsicles were handed out.
Any comment made about a development before it was before a Council meeting at which a decision was to be made would be seen as prejudicial to the developer’s interests.
Block was assembled – development was to be in phases
Rendering of the development from the north – 29 storey tower, then the six level parking garage and then what is now the 17 storey Berkely
Kearns took people through the various stages – changes kept being made and understandings proving to be something that couldn’t be relied on.
This is what Council approved at a Standing Committee in 1997
Approved by Council in 1997
A block that was zoned for 2 to 4 stories underwent a massive change when the block was assembled. That was to be expected.
The change with the parking lot and then the change from an original six storey medical building to a 29 storey tower was more than the community wanted to see take place.
The next step will be for the developer to arrange for the holding of a Statutory meeting. Kearns said the public would get at least 10 days’ notice.
The residents had almost as many questions about parking and grid lock than on the actual development.
The would be followed by a staff report on the development that would then go to a Standing Committee – where residents have 10 minutes to speak. After that the results of the Standing Committee go to Council where a decision gets made. The Standing Committees are now folded into a Committee of the Whole – at which the Mayor presides.
This change has not served the public very well. The three Standing Committees are squeezed into two long days
We are seeing changes within the Planning department on how they work with a developer. The 120 day window within which the city has to respond to a development application has tightened things up for the city. If the city fails to give the developer approval within the 120 days the developer has the right to take a failing to deliver a decision complaint to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Burlington has not done particularly well at the OLT.
If this is what the developer takes to the Ontario Land Tribunal it will require expensive legal talent to get something the community can live with. The six level parking garage has a green roof – will it be considered an amenity?
Jamie Tellier, Director of Community Planning discussed with members of the Pipeline to Permit committee how he was working with the developers of the Grahams Lane development to bring about some significant changes to the original plans.
Tellier suggested that this was an approach he would try with every development that was submitted.
This kind of approach might be the best hope when a completed application get to the Planning department.
Related news story.
Is Kearns planning for a different future in 2026
Wow. We certainly fell for MMWs save the waterfront campaign. During the beginning of her reign in 2010 she facilitated a meeting between two developers. These developers joined forces,then went on the build the Pearle Hotel and the Bridgewater condo development. So she’s supposedly against massive condos on the lake but she is directly responsible for the now largest condo development on the lake. So duplicitous and dishonorable. Time to decide which businesses are an asset to burlington. Also time to give some members of this council their walking papers.
The other thing I forgot to mention is that this development has no affordable housing included.
Once again I got this information from the City Planner in charge of this file.
The one important thing that residents should be aware of is that the 6 story parking garage will NOT allow public parking. This above ground garage is for the residents of the Condominium and their guests ONLY.
I checked this out with the City Planner on this file.
A developer once told me that what determines how many units can be built is the underground parking. In this situation the developer will provide only 2 levels of underground parking and the parking garage will house the other unit owners. This above ground parking saves the developer a lot of money and allows him to build a 29 story condominium in a small area.
Originally when the medical building and above ground parking garage was to be built the public was led to believe that this would provide more parking spaces in the area. Once again” smoke and mirrors” – The public would only be allowed to park in the parking garage when the medical offices were closed – basically after 6pm and some weekends. This was not public knowledge.
How does the city continue to let this type of development to occur? As we know Carriage Gate never paid the ridiculously low penalty of $300,000.00 for failure of completing the development of the medical building and parking garage.
Now the parcel of land supposedly belongs to another company. Could it be under the umbrella of Carriage Gate????
Traffic is terrible now, can you imagine what it will be?
Councillorn Kearns well covered the process. However she failed to mention;
1. You don’t have to live within 120 metres to delegate, only to receive notice.
2. The Ward 2 Councillor emphasised several times, in the presence of the Ward 2 resident Mayor; delegations get 10 minutes at COW Stat Public Meeting and 5 minutes at following Council. However, failed to warn of the Mayor’s right to call a Special Council meeting as she did Aug. 7 for two Ward 2 Developments (with no preceding town hall) and three in total, that gave delegations only one 5 min delegation (a 66% reduction of the norm). The Mayor peppered (no pun intended) her comments August 7th with “The people’s voices have been heard.” Yeah Right!!!!!!
We are expecting to see at least one complaint arise out of this faux pas in terms of satisfying The Planning Act stat meeting requirements, an even maybe an OLT appeal or two Especially when the 120 metre folks were informed they would have a 10 minute delegation at the Stat meeting.Staff advised mailed public notice recipient’s the norm of 10 minutes but Mayor was very clear when it came to show timr:. “You have 5 minutes.”
Councillor Kearns could take the lead in putting this right by introducing Motions of Reconsideration at the September Council Meeting but we all know what will freeze over first before that ever happens through any of this Group of Seven.
Lesson learnt never deem any Burlington Stat Planning Act mailed public notice as being accurate. Thoroughly check out all information received.
Absolutely right not many, if any happy campers. Can you blame them waiting 14 years for an 8 floor much needed Medical Centre and finding out no go. Even the deficiency fine has never been paid., nor is it likely to be.
Edited
This is a classic bait and switch on the Burlington community. The Berkeley would NEVER have been approved and built if it was attached to a 29 story condominium facing Caroline Street. If there was never an intention to build the six story medical building, this is a fraud on the community, or at best a deceptive marketing practice for a disingenuous development application. Either way it should be disqualifying. If our municipal leaders and planners had any wherewithal or functional knowledge, the original proposal would have been approved sine qua non, in its entirety, and we wouldn’t be having these discussions now. Once again, elected amateurs and overpaid bureaucrats are playing checkers, while the local developers are playing chess. It’s an embarrassment to us all.
Wow thanks for the “approved sine qua non” every piece of information we have under our belts helps us collectively work for change to what we have had for the past 14 years. Keep us informed Peter on anything like this
I’m sure somebody here will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the specific location has now technically changed ownership. So the sins of the past owners cannot be laid upon the new owners. Yes, it’s a shell game but unfortunately it’s a game that we cannot win.
“We cannot win” …… That’s the difference between you David,clearly a defeatist on holding municipal politicians’ feet to the fire regarding what they told us we would get from them vs. those taxayers who see those like Churchill as their mentor. We’ll cheer on those like Blair Smith, Lynn Crossby, Penny Hersh and tons more Gazette commenters over those with a defeatist attitude any time a defeatist rises up like a wet blanket on a cold but beautiful winter evening.
Anne & Dave. You misconstrued what I said. The reference to not winning was made solely as respect about trying to impose or collect a fine against a previous owner. It’s not legally possible. And anyway was the fine against the previous owner uncollectible for legal reasons?
Holding municipal politicians feet to the fire as you call it in this area activity is misguided because I believe those promises were made under the assumption we were on a level playing field, which clearly in retrospect was never the case.
I’m not a defeatist at all. In my professional life prior to retirement I was known as the “English Terrier” because of my tenaciousness and ability to get desired results . I am a realist. You and those you name are not in my opinion realists.
Oh really David and I guess we all should accept your view of those we named as excellent examples of those who never give up working hard for the common good.
Anne and Dave Marsden. Thank-you for your most recent comment but I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.
The fine, which was baked into the deal agreed to by the previous owner and the City was, I believe, found to be legally unenforceable and uncollectible from the previous owner when it owned the lot. There is no legal standing to collect from the new owner the fine imposed on the previous owner, even if it had originally been deemed legal. If you bought a property and the previous owner had not paid the property taxes, are you responsible for paying the back taxes. Again my comments here are specific to this lot. Please do not imply anything from them to any other area of City planning or operations.
Last Word !
Thanks Anne 🙂
BTW, we should ask who the “new owner” is or was. Nice way to skip paying a fine and claiming one doesn’t have to honour any agreements by selling it to someone else – after the profitable condo was built of course. Who that someone is – and what connection they may have to the “seller” is rather relevant. I did hear who it was but I’ll try to confirm.
In my opinion, choosing to side with the developers on this particular file and make excuses for them is an example of being unrealistic.
P. Clark is bang on.
My understanding is the fine was, prior to the sale of the property to the new owners, found to be illegal and unenforceable . Note “prior”. I am not familiar with the reasoning but I am sure someone here can provide clarity. Again it is my understanding the make up of the ownership corporation that now owns these lots does contain one or more shareholders that also were shareholders in the corporation that was the former owner..But having one or more common owners between the former owner corporation and the present owner corporation does not necessarily allow for the transfer of liabilities. The purchase and sale agreement may well have stipulated the purchaser did not assume any liabilities and that any liabilities remained with the vendor.
Respectfully and for your edification
UNREALISTIC definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
If you say that someone is being unrealistic, you mean that they do not recognize the truth about a situation, especially about the difficulties involved
The Last Word
Editor’s note: The amount wasn’t a fine. It was an agreement to pay a certain amount if certain conditions were not met.
The City Solicitor, Nancy Shea Nicol at the time this event took place, would have had one of her staff writ or revise the agreement that was presented. That they didn’t foresee any possible change of ownership of the property was just plain sloppy and negligent legal work.
Also – what I see as realistic and what you see as realistic is probably not the same. There is nothing that requires anyone’s opinion to be realistic. It is the facts that matter.
Editor
Was not the fine or penalty or whatever is the correct terminology found to be unenforceable prior to the change of ownership of the lot?
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the reason for its unenforceability is due to the City not being able to apply a condition to an application for development of a specific lot which restricts the use of or encumbers another lot which is not a part of the application. If this is incorrect please does somebody know the reason for its unenforceability?
In this instance if the fact is the condition in the agreement is legally unenforceable it would be unrealistic to think or say that it is enforceable.
Editor’s response: I’ll take this to be your last word on this issue.
Thank you
What pieces of the Lakeshore have been “saved” under the reign of MMW?
The Waterfront Hotel lot (potentially)?