By Pepper Parr
October 6th, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Was it a sign, a fence or hoarding around a construction site.
City lawyers say this is a sign and not a fence or a construction site hoarding. Will now work with the developer to bring them into compliance.
The city by law enforcement officer needed to know just which it was before she took any action on the huge sign that sits on Lakeshore Road at Martha where the ADI development Group has submitted an application to put up a 28 storey structure that was rejected by the planning department but never actually voted on by city council. It is now before the Ontario Municipal Board which will hear the ADI argument for the right to build the structure at a December meeting.
The by law enforcement officer had to respond to a complaint – but needed to get a ruling from the city’s lawyers.
It is a sign say the lawyers – now what?
This isn’t construction site hoarding and it doesn’t look like a fence – so the bigger part was declared to be a sign and has to be brought into compliance with the bylaw – six square feet.
Well as a sign it is too big – they are allowed to put up a sign that is not larger than 6 square metres. The sign is apparently close to 16 square metres.
The options for the city?
Fine the developer and force them to reduce the size of the sign. The city can do both but the understanding the Gazette took from our discussion with the bylaw enforcement officer is that they would probably not do both. The intention is to work with the developer and bring them into compliance.
Why the velvet glove treatment? ADI has run rough shod over every process and procedure the city has in place. They appear to see rules as things that are made to be broken or severely bent.
As the saying goes.
The law is equal for everyone, but for developers is more equal.
Please see roll over and play dead – my basketball net got removed due to aggressive by law enforcement – basically told me – get rid of it or get the fines added to my tax bill.
Appears the city is unwilling to take any action even on the most minor of issues with ADI
Peter
At the time the “Brown Building” was constructed in was the architecture of the day for it’s type.
Yesterday best in some eyes has become todays slums.
Although ugly is a matter for the individual eye, you are correct in that there have been many changes to the development’s we see today.
Fast forward 50 or 60 years and I am quite certain todays buildings will be seen as having several shortfalls and certainly ugly to some.
The question for today’s developments, as it was 50 or 60 years ago, is if they represent what the city of Burlington sees as appropriate in terms of location, size, needs of the city and fits into the long term plan.
Our mayor and council opened the door for the OMB to determine what we get when they failed the city by not voting on the Martha St. proposal.
Older buildings and signs are just side shows while we wait for the city to negotiate an agreement with ADI or have the OMB decide for us.
The discussion of the “Brown Building” is an important reminder that we have to live with the final outcome for a very long time.
Some slum – the building is exceptionally well maintained and home to people who are certainly not welfare cases. This kind of jabber jabber is judgmental and implies that people who live in subsidized house are not as good as the rest of the citizens – there is a snobbish attitude that brings shame on the writer.
Perhaps we can do some research and find out just where the writer lives – those who live in glass houses usually harm themselves when they throw stones.
The issue is about a sign for a new development being proposed. Nothing else, no big deal. The ward councilor is causing all the anxiety and is making people upset for no good reason.
It is highly unlikely that the city would allow for the development of ugly energy inefficient and functionally obsolescent buildings be constructed like that brown building ever again.
Reply to Stan S
So we have a building that you believe is not astatically pleasing.
That makes it “Welfare Looking” or “Ontario Government Housing left over from the 60’s” or even makes it “Look like a Slum”
Don’t know where you live however, if you drive around Burlington you will see many building’s of this type and age housing thousands of families.
According to your view of what they represent Burlington has a serious problem.
Perhaps you are correct, the solution would be to allowed developers to build anything as long as it is astatically pleasing.
If they build them tall enough they may even obscure your view of the slums.
Reply to Stan S
I have read many descriptions of building and have never come across the term “Welfare Looking” to describe one.
Perhaps you could explain the term and where you got it from.
Look at the brown building on the left. It looks like onario government housing left over from the 60’s. It looks like a slum.
Gotta feel sorry for city staff who have to continually deal with the adverse side effects created by a rogue councillor who frustrates the smooth management of development files. Only in Burlington, embarrassing.
And the name of the department is being changed to “By Law Ignore, Roll Over, and Play Dead”.
In the photo above I see an old dreary, welfare looking building to the left, a nicer one in behind and a big paring lot. The ADI sign to me is a bright spot promising a refurbished downtown. Where would we be if builders were not interested? Without financial motivation there will not be the well designed builds we need to be a top rate city. People set up these arbitrary numbers of floors they will “tolerate” without any knowledge of urban planning or the economics that drives it.
Glad to see that the City will take a negotiating approach rather than “going nuclear” as indicated by the Ward 2 councillor.
Well “going nuclear” is just her way to “change the conversation” from the real issue. How sad.
The city by law officer is doing what the city by law officers do.
They respond to complaints and if something does not comply they try to work out the issue.
Nothing different in this case.