29 Storey Pearl and Lakeshore Proposal Ignores Entire Planning Context

 

opinionviolet 100x100By Roland Tanner

February 23, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

If the new 29 storey proposal for Lakeshore and Pearl is ultimately approved at the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT), and forced on Burlington in a form anything like this first proposal, ECoB Engaged Citizens of Burlington, believes we are seeing an Ontario-wide collapse in the ability of municipalities to govern their own planning and development.

The public meeting held for the Carriage Gate development at 2069-2079 Lakeshore Road and 383-385 Pearl Street on January 29th was one of the most heated yet held in Burlington. Over two hours, residents at a packed Art Gallery of Burlington submitted the numerous objections and reservations they had with the proposed 29 storey development. No citizen spoke in favour of the development.

While ECoB continues to stress that it does not oppose reasonable development or intensification, it absolutely believes developers have an obligation to work within the in-force and provincially-approved planning context established by democratically elected councils.

Residents have recently expressed their preferences in unambiguous terms about over-development in downtown. It is therefore dismaying to see proposals coming to City Hall at a rapid rate which don’t just exceed planning maximums, but completely ignore the entire planning context that Council has established over the last decade and a half.

Pearl and LakeshoreThis new proposal from Carriage Gate (the developer behind the 421 Brant St development which led to the creation of ECoB) suggests a level of massing, setbacks and overall height that massively exceeds both the in force Official Plan and the ‘Grow Bold’ Official Plan introduced by the last council. Regardless of one’s opinions at the 2018 municipal election, this development completely disregards all attempts by Council to moderate development downtown.

Here are just some of the concerns raised by residents, which, according to how the planning process is intended to work, should be addressed before this proposal comes to council for approval.

Increase on already excessive ground-level windspeeds on Lakeshore/Pearl
Loss of commercial space.
Lack of justification for exceeding proposed Official Plan by 12 storeys.
Traffic impact.
Dramatically lower parking provision than required by by-laws.
Need for City Planning Department to respond in time on all applications to avoid automatic appeals.
Practicalities of reversing delivery and garbage trucks.
Lack of respect for residents in proposals which ignore all City Planning objectives and maximums.
Need for 3-D models
Need for any Chapter 37 benefits to be honoured and not reneged on.
Possibility of impact of failure to provide Chapter 37 benefits promised on other developments.

Pearl Street Cafe was a recent Carnacelli property acquisition - part of a small land assembly that reaches down to Lakeshore Road.

Pearl Street Cafe was a recent Carnacelli property acquisition – part of a small land assembly that reaches down to Lakeshore Road.

ECoB believes this proposal is the most obvious case yet of over-development in downtown Burlington. While we hope, and aspire, to work collaboratively with developers to make their proposals align better with residents’ objectives, there seems little way in which this development, even if scaled dramatically back, would reflect the democratically expressed preferences of the residents of Burlington.

We believe this development is likely to be a test case, not just for the new council, but for the role of municipalities and local democracy in Ontario. The outcome will tell us much about the power of municipalities versus the power of developers to demand, and receive, approval for developments which bear no relation to legally adopted and provincially endorsed Official Plans.

Roland Tanner is an academic, a community activist, a member of the Shape Burlington Report committee and a candidate in the last municipal election. He is also vice chair of ECoB and has a very dry sense of humour

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7 comments to 29 Storey Pearl and Lakeshore Proposal Ignores Entire Planning Context

  • Alfred

    What part of “Planning for the City of Burlington” rules start at Queens Park don’t you understand. Thats why it’s called the Planning Act of Ontario. Not the wild west of Burlington. Do you want to spend more of your tax dollars on lost LPAT. appeals.Changing councilors and planning staff is going to change nothing. If the newly hired, ignore mandated instructions from the Provincial government which they must apply in decisions, they should be fired.

    • Don Fletcher

      My understanding is that provincial plans & policies deal with the planning “whats” at a macro level, while the city deals with the planning “hows” at the micro level. Surely, the Province of Ontario has not produced “mandated instructions” for a development at Pearl & Lakeshore! If we just lay down, then the developers will have their way in the planning vacuum.

    • Tom Muir

      You are wrong Alfred. The Province mandates nothing in the way of specific quantified demands that must be met and cannot be resisted.

      They provide general directions and targets for more people per hectare in their policies and planning statements.

      The Planning Act also specifies that the local or city Official Plans are the key guiding document. That’s why it is stated that the current in force OP is the main document that is to be enforced.

      That doesn’t mean it can’t be changed to meet various targets that may be more permissible of density. But this is not arbitrary and to be determined by ridiculous developer open-ended demands that are far above any provincial target or City OP.

      LPAT decision criteria are based on three policy sets – the PPS, the Growth Plan, and the City in force OP. No provincial policy absolutely overrides the City OP.

      That’s a constructed vagueness that is your concoction and is one that is exploited by developers (and you apparently) to get rich.

      You sound like one of them, or someone who gains, with what I see as flim flam that you try to pass for sensible and absolute orders to planning.

      There is a consistent pattern in this misleading assertion in your comments that I have seen.

  • Perry Bowker

    Looks like the province is about to mission the LPAT as a new, streamlined OMB to ride roughshod over any municipality that gets in a developer’s way. Where is our new MPP in all this? Might she stand up for Burlington, or is she just a pop-up vote for Ford’s latest whim?

  • Don Fletcher

    Whatever our OP permits on this site is what should be allowed.
    Nothing more.

    How do we make this happen?
    Our current council and the majority of residents are intent on promoting responsible and respectful development, and our Planning Department should fall in line soon. I think that the City needs to press hard now to remove the Anchor Mobility Hub & Urban Growth Centre designations from Burlington’s downtown. Updating the OP must follow.

    Until then, the City & residents must find a way to join forces to stop such aggressive applications, whatever that takes. There is no Ontario government dictated, natural gas power plant in SE Oakville, so this kind of resistance is possible and can be successful.

    This is a hill that we should be prepared to die on!

  • Gary Scobie

    Excellent explanation of the situation we find ourselves in, Roland. The LPAT appeal case for 409 Brant Street (across from City hall, including Kelly’s Bakeshop) is waiting for a legal case in Toronto to be decided before proceeding further. I believe this will be the first real LPAT case Burlington fights to control the further over-development of the downtown, so it will be a major test in itself.

    The 2069 Lakeshore Road application you speak of is at a much earlier stage, so it too is very important as a test case for the new Council and Planning Dept. staff to establish a line in the sand that we will not cross. And that line will have to be defended too if LPAT gets involved later.

    How both of these developments are handled is absolutely important to our downtown’s future. The new Council will have to show citizens that it is not the old Council and that the Planning Dept. is not the old Planning Dept. Pay close attention to these two files.

  • Dennis Walker

    Roland
    Thank you for your clarity and the identification of the larger issue of local control (or more accurately and simply put -democratic control ) of our own city.
    I for one would be supportive of the city using whatever resources are required to fight this proposal. Let’s draw the line right here.
    A special tax levy devoted to this task would receive my full support.
    Thank you
    Dennis Walker