By Pepper Parr
November 28, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
The first the Gazette heard of the status of the 2100 Brant development that is currently at a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal was a mention at the final city council meeting of the current council.
The discussion took place in a Closed Session so there was no information to report.
Then we got a document that had a letter from the National Homes legal counsel. A portion of that letter said:
Please also be advised that we will be asking the LPAT to convert this PHC to a SETTLEMENT HEARING to approve the settlement which National Homes (Brant) Inc. and the City of Burlington have reached. The settlement is reflected in the planning instruments (the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision), all of which are attached to this letter. If you have a concern with the PHC being converted to a settlement hearing please contact the undersigned prior to Tuesday, December 18, 2018.
Also, part of the document we got was an outline on where things were in terms of what the developer was asking for.
Vacant for years, the land had been donated to the Catholic church and then bought by a developer who had big plans – too big for the neighbours
The development application was at LPAT because the city had failed to respond to the development application within the 120 day timeframe required.
The application was to permit the development of 233 townhouse consisting of 27 dual frontage townhouses, 123 standard townhouses and 83 street townhouses at a density of 43.4 units per net hectare.
The documentation on this development is complex and constantly changing.
Residents from the Havendale community put together a very well written and data supported response to the delegation.
Area resident’s point out that “a lame duck outgoing Council exacting some final tribute likely instigated by the retiring ward Councillor. There are so many planning failures and empty information boxes on so many critical things in the OMB/LTAP Notice that it is a repugnant rip off of the democratic and due public process in the planning and normal sequence outlined in the Planning Act.
Traffic issues with just the one street running through the development that exist onto Brant and Havendale
“There will be no staff reports on important matters such as: stormwater and groundwater flows in this escarpment location and how they are to be managed to achieve pre-development runoff rates, and to prevent impacts downstream; a full staff recommendation report with comments from various City departments and the public on the amendments and 19 or so variances requested; a Committee meeting with delegations and debates, and a vote; a following Council meeting with delegations, debate, and a vote; and then an opportunity for appeal.
“All of this democratic process and more is being arbitrarily taken away in this move by a defunct Council.
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident said “I was told that the planner in charge of the file, Lola Emberson, wrote the basis for the amendment – there is no signature or otherwise identification – and that she agrees with it. Frankly, it looks more like it was written by the developer consultant than an objective planner. It’s a disgrace for a professional and objective planner, working for the residents of the City, to sign off on such a deficient basis for an approval of all the amendments wanted.
The lack of a park within the development is a major issue.
“Anything built on such a vacant site as this application would meet the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) targets for intensification, including a reduced build that would address and meet the existing OP and substantial resident comments and submissions suggesting revisions to the application that would satisfy all the PPS and intensification needs.
“It is notable that this appeal by the developer was made possible by the City neglect to make a decision on the requested Official Plan amendment within the 180 days’ timeline.
“This City neglect to make decisions on requested amendments extends also to amendments on zoning by-laws within the 120 day timeline on several other applications, appears to be a policy-like decision to sidestep the normal democratic public process, described above, for the planning process.
Traditional look to the built form.
“The developers love it as it removes any negative public and planning objections from the process of deciding the application. The public is effectively shut out of any due process, rights of appeal, and the City Council cannot do anything of its own volition without going through the OMB/LPAT. In the end, only one or two LPAT Chairs make the decisions.
“There is another appeal by National Homes on their 484 and 490 Plains Rd application for zoning by-law amendments based on the City failure to make a decision within 120 days. Again, this appeal is designed to sidestep the democratic due planning process, and is facilitated by the City planning and legal staff in an apparent deliberate fashion in ignoring the lapses of the mandated timelines for making decisions. There is a pre-hearing conference meeting set for December 19, 2018, one day after the meeting for 2100 Brant St.
“It’s the same developer, and similar logic, so it is a logical question as to whether this application can be approved without due process, just like the 2100 Brant St application.
“We ought to be concerned that such a planning ruse like these appeals can be used throughout the City planning and development process to undermine public participation in a democratic way of transparent decision-making based on a discussion of the merits and demerits of applications.
Muir said: “And we should definitely be concerned that the existing planning, legal and senior managers have seemingly organized themselves in such a way as to allow this failure to occur. All I have heard in my complaints to city planning is a litany of possible things that could have happened to allow such a failure to occur, from inadequate staff for processing applications and studies submitted by the developers.
Tom Muir has pointed out many of the problems with a development he feels is being rushed.
Muir believes “This is a management and policy failure that must be fixed right now.
All this will land on the desks of the new city council that will roll up their sleeves and figure out how development applications are going to be handled.
The Planning department is swamped with applications. There are a reported 26 planners on staff who have to manage the reported 30 development applications in the pipeline.
It is close to an untenable situation and must be emotionally draining for the planners, who for the most part are young, well educated and personally motivated to do good work.
Not sure I agree with your assessment of the Planning Department (PD) as an – “untenable situation and must be emotionally draining for the planners, who for the most part are young, well educated and personally motivated to do good work”.
If anything is “untenable” it is the whole process ESPECIALLY those departments that should be providing data that supports the Council in their decisions INCLUDING the PD and going all the way up to the City Manager, James Ridge.
They should ALL line up and be counted – in the last election we’ve just got rid of most of the DEADHEADS in Council (one remains) NOW is the time to clean the supporting departments. So many times we use the easy way out and provide, as you have, very political excuses – there IS an issue in the PD and it’s been there for YEARS as exemplified by the current status of the OP and to suggest it is a result of the “emotional draining of well educated and personally motivated planners” is somewhat naive and totally misses the target.
.
The PD are responsible for timely deliverables but they so often seem to use the excuse of overwork for missed time frames, a position that all too often favors the DEVELOPERS. Who is responsible for ULTIMATELY policing the PD Department
If they are, as you say, they are “well educated and personally motivated planners” then they need professional guidance, a career path, and MOST of ALL leadership – perhaps this is what is lacking, BUT there is something missing – maybe there needs to be an independent audit of the PD to recommend changes (possibly personnel) that will make the whole process more efficient and hence responsive
This is a prescription for disaster if ever there was one.
If the Planning Department officials can’t or won’t do their job properly then the issue needs to be addressed. Public sector employment should not be a sinecure. If they can’t do their job properly they need to be terminated.
Of course the buck stops at our planning department …. It is that départements responsabilité to get things to council on time…..thats my understanding… .
The buck stops at the City Manager.
If I’m reading this article correctly and especially Tom Muir’s comments, Burlington’s planning department seems very intent on making sure that appeals to OMB/LPAT will fail, ensuring the development goes ahead. If this is the case, a wholesale housecleaning is in order at City Hall, including other major players in the bureaucracy who may be complicit in this fiasco.
If there is another credible explanation, it should be provided ASAP by the “planning” department. Planning to fail is not acceptable and neither is incompetence.