 By Pepper Parr
January 15th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
We goofed.
The annual delivery of the State of the City address by the Mayor to the Burlington Chamber of Commerce has always taken place at the Burlington Convention Centre – usually to a packed audience.
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward talking to a business person at her first State of the City address to the Chamber of Commerce. It was an occasion when those that matter in the world of business and those that matter in the world of local politics gather in one huge room and tell each other tall tales.
We assumed the venue would be the same this year.
We were wrong – the State of the City address will take place at the Performing arts Centre, around the corner from city hall.
The sit down breakfast will have to be a buffet in the Family Room with the address being given in the large theatre.
At this point we should perhaps say less until we have done a follow up.
Last year Mayor Meed Ward told Chamber members that her five priorities for the year ahead were:
Reasonable Growth, Not Overdevelopment
Get Traffic Moving, While Keeping it Safe
Reduce Flood Risk, Enhance Greenspace
Reduce Tax Increases, Keep to Your Priorities
Rebuild Trust, Create an Open Government
The political and commercial elites will gather in the Performing Arts Centre on the 30th to hear the Mayor talk about the State of the City.
 By Roland Tanner
January 14th, 2019
BURLINGTON, ON
Glenn Nicholson delivered this delegation on behalf of Roland Tanner who was out of the country.
EcoB’s position with regard to the ICBL study is as follows. While there are elements within the report which we support, there is a key area where we believe the staff recommendation is in error.
 Roland Tanner, co-chair of ECoB taking part in one of the Action Labs that were part of the public participation events that were part of the Taking a Closer Look at the Down Report. Firstly, we would like to recognise the good work in the staff recommendations in their acknowledgement that the Burlington Go Station area needs improved zoning and height regulation. While we believe the Go Station is a far more appropriate location for a dense Urban Growth Centre neighbourhood connected to mass rapid transit, we do not believe this is an argument for bad development. For the Go Station area to become a vibrant new neighbourhood it is essential to have excellent zoning that insists on commercial space and retail and places reasonable limits on height. It is an opportunity for a truly complete community properly connected to transit. We support the staff recommendations in this specific regard.
Secondly, however, we do not support the recommendations regarding the downtown MTSA.
We acknowledge that current debate around the downtown MTSA revolves around which change is possible in which order. What these recommendations state is that we pass a new Official Plan and put in place zoning that builds the MTSA into all our city planning documents, at exactly the same moment as city planning staff have acknowledged that the John St bus terminal simply does not, never has, and never will function as a MTSA.
The staff solution to the assessment that the John St Bus terminal is not an MTSA perhaps makes sense from the perspective of municipal procedure, but it makes no sense from the perspective of logic or reality. The city must come into compliance with the Region, says the ICBL report, even if though, to put it bluntly, the Region is not in compliance with the laws of physics. The staff recommendation is therefore to continue to build the MTSA language into our planning documents, but to redefine MTSA, in this one instance, to mean what we want it to mean.
EcoB does not think this recommendation makes sense. To be flippant, if something does not look like a duck, or walk like a duck, or quack like a duck, and a consultant agrees that it is not a duck, and never will be a duck, is it really so unreasonable to insist that we stop calling it a duck immediately? If it’s instead large and grey and has a trunk and is a completely inappropriate resident of the local duckpond, does it make any sense to redefine the word ‘duck’ to describe something that everybody can see quite clearly is an elephant? We don’t think so.
 Debate centered to a large degree on the John Street bus terminal that most people didn’t think should have the status of a MTSA Major Transit Station area. Others want significant funds spent on upgrading the site. All the city has seen in the last six months is upgrade to the transit shelters. A better way to square the circle of legal requirements and practical reality would be to make a clear statement that Burlington does not believe downtown is or can be an MTSA, and that zoning and density targets should reflect the impossibility of major mass rapid transit ever coming to downtown Burlington, regardless of higher level designations.
Because the fact downtown is not an MTSA gets to the core of the entire debate we have been having in recent years. Places to Grow and the subsequent growth plans were all predicated on the sensible objective of placing people near mass transit. Oakville asked its Urban Growth Centre to be placed in midtown because its downtown could not support mass transit. Our council did not, no doubt still thinking in a car-centric manner of the proximity of the QEW exit, and not of what the province was actually trying to achieve.
Places to Grow and successive provincial governments asked cities to place intensification near transit. That is the alpha and omega of planning logic over the last 15 years or more. Rightly. Burlington has gone down a road of saying transit existed where it does not and cannot exist. Yes, even if shuttle buses can be provided, as they should, from downtown to key areas and transit hubs across the city, that will still not make downtown a major transit hub. Because of this fatal misdesignation, we are in fact concentrating development in a place the Province was at pains to avoid – somewhere separated significantly from a major transit node.
Surely the time to stop pretending downtown is an MTSA is now. Right at the moment when staff have acknowledged it is not – in any practical way – an MTSA. Not in two or five or more years when we can persuade the Region to change. And not after playing games with language which developers and LPAT are unlikely to respect or acknowledge and might well appeal.
In short, building more inaccurate language into our documents must be an error, and we urge council not to accept the staff recommendation on this matter.
Since every element of the logical basis for downtown designation for major intensification was based on the concept of mass transit, and since we have now established that logic was at fault, we therefore ask council to consider a formal motion to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing making a public request for:
A) His clear guidance on how the downtown Urban Growth Centre can be urgently moved or modified, because of the faulty logic by which the UGC was first established.
B) How the province can work with the Region to speedily correct the error that was made when it designated John Street as a Major Transit Station Area.
 Burlington MPP Jane McKenna is said to have a simple answer on how to resolve the MTSA concerns. We have already received multiple indications from MPP McKenna that the Mobility Hub designations are within council’s remit to designate or undesignate, and we believe Council should do so as soon as practically possible.
Time is of the essence, and we cannot rely on the tortuously slow process of multi-year municipal planning revisions to deliver these essential corrections to the mistakes of earlier councils.
 By Pepper Parr
January 14th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Fifteen delegations; one lawyer threatening to sue, a private sector planner suggesting that the city planners might want to get some legal advice before they go much further was all part of the mix. The Council Chamber was packed – not even standing room.
One group of developers complaining that they have suffered a 40% drop in the value of their investment because of what they see coming in the way of changes being made to an Official Plan that has been approved but not adopted.
 Scott Snider – lawyer for a group of developers who he claimed were about to take a financial bath.  Councillor Paul Sharman Council Sharman gave a rather lame excuse for the serious failures of the 2014-2018 to do their homework and understand just what the province meant when the created MTSA’s Major Transit Station Areas.
The city had to spend more than half a million dollars on consultants who dove into the weeds and asked the necessary questions – they learned a lot and taught this council a lot.
The city’s solid core of delegations held Council’s feet to the coals and consistently reminded them why they were elected in 2018
The Interim Control bylaw will in all probability be lifted, and if not, several of the developments that were frozen will get an exemption from that bylaw. The Molinaro’s took a significant financial hit when the bylaw was passed.
 Patrick (Paddy) Kennedy and Justine Giancola from Dillon Consulting confer before answering a question at the Standing Committee that was debating the Land Use Study. The Land Use Study done by Dillon Consulting. while both dense and complex, has served the interests of the city very well.
It will take a little time for the flaws in the report to come to the surface – there are always flaws.
 Developers who invested heavily in land, especially at the Drury Lane end of this area – were shocked when they saw the height limitations that were going to be imposed. A group of developers were “shocked” (those were the words used by their lawyer) when they saw what the height limitations were going to be for land they had acquired. Those developers are not going to walk quietly into the night.
Council voted unanimously to receive and file the consultant’s report – but before Mayor Marianne Meed Ward put an amendment on the table – which got unanimous approval.
There is much more to say – a lot of detail – but it is late and I have to go home to let the dogs out for their evening constitutional.
At a Special Council meeting January 30th council will vote on what they spent the day talking about – expect the city to have made some good decisions.
Then the hard work really begins – they now have to deal with all those development applications that were stopped.
The developers, their planners and their legal counsel will begin figuring out how they deal with this new regime.
 By Pepper Parr
January 14th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
 The 30th of January is going to be a very full day for Mayor Marianne Meed Ward.
She is scheduled to deliver the Annual State of the City address to the Burlington Chamber of Commerce. That events starts at 7:15 am and is scheduled to end at 9:00 am. The event will take place at the Performing Arts Centre.
City Council is scheduled to hold a Special meeting of Council to decide how much of the recommendations that will come out of the meeting held being held today, Tuesday and the meeting on the “preferred concept” for the downtown on Thursday they want to make final. That meeting is scheduled to be called to order at 9:30 am
The final approval of the two issues: The Land Use Study that was brought about by the creation of an Interim Control Bylaw that stopped development in the Urban Growth Centre and the Take a Closer Look at the Downtown; a report that will put forward where development should be permitted and what the height levels will be.
It has been going to be one heck of a week for the Mayor – and a turning point for the city.
There is a group in the city running a betting pool – will the Mayor wear red?
 Lynn Crosby and Blair Smith
January 14th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
“This is the “as written” rather than the “as delivered” version of WeLoveBurlington’s delegation. There are some inaccuracies in the “as written” version, a result of late changes in the staff/consultant presentations that were presented just before the delegations, to which the delegates had no opportunity to respond and which caused last minute ‘on the fly’ changes for us and others. As such, it is a resounding QED (Quid est demonstratum = which is proven) for WLB’s principal complaint of a flawed and disrespectful public engagement process”.
Good morning Chair, Councillors, Your Worship.
I am Lynn Crosby and with me is my colleague, Blair Smith. As you know, we represent the advocacy group, WeLoveBurlington.
We stand before you, as we did on December 5th, to ensure that citizens are heard. We are honouring a commitment – both to ourselves and to the other advocates for citizen empowerment and strong local voice. We question the timing and basic process of the course that brings the 243-page Integrated Control By-Law Land Use report before you for approval today – just 14 working days after it was first released on the Friday before the Christmas holidays. Also the 319-page Preliminary Preferred Concept Report to be presented to Council two days from now, and released only 3 business days ago. The reports are highly interdependent and the almost concurrent timing of both is very unfortunate. Is this truly enough time for even an engaged and well-informed citizenry to properly review, assess and comment? We believe not.
 Lynn Crosby watching council while her delegation partner reads. The ICBL Report is exceedingly long and dense. A great deal of the necessary detail and the associated import is carried by and buried within the appendices; the degree of cross-reference and referral needed does not produce ease of understanding nor transparency. Nor does the staff report provide a clear and readily understandable summary of what it all means.
There has been no engagement exercise or review of the ICBL Land Use policies – no opportunity for the public to examine and respond. Why hasn’t the public been engaged on this as they were on the concepts? Why hasn’t this crucial meeting been actively promoted? Isn’t the Statutory Public Meeting the opportunity in the planning process to address the issues, allow the public to debate and obtain public input? Why is this meeting focused on approval rather than information collection and exchange?
This report accepts the same limiting factors and planning constraints identified in our earlier delegation:
· The urban growth centre designation for downtown
· The anchor mobility hub designation for the DT and
· The major transit station area designation for the current John St. bus station
Although important qualifications are made, no consideration has been given to our earlier recommendation – to shift the focus and effort to first eliminating these constraints, or attempting to, before establishing the amendments to the Official Plan.
Where is the “strategy” for approaching the Region or Province to relocate the Urban Growth Centre? Why is that not before us today? We believe that that is the first order of business and last month we were told by Ms. MacDonald that it would be coming. We are in a good position to ask for the Province’s assistance in this regard. As noted in the staff report (p.4), “Local Official Plans address much more specific planning issues within a city and provide greater detail and clarity on how a broad provincial direction is addressed at a local level.” In other words, the province is predisposed to leave issues of detail, such as the location of the UGC, to local decisioning.
 MPP Jane McKenna One year ago, our MPP Jane McKenna stated publicly in the Burlington Post, and again in her newsletter, that she often hears this request from residents and that she approached the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. She reported at length and concluded that …
“The City of Burlington council is free to remove these mobility hub designations from the local official plan. If city council voted to change the boundaries of the downtown Burlington urban growth centre this could be accomplished by Halton Region as part of the next official plan review. This must take place prior to July 1, 2022. Burlington could then, in turn, amend its official plan to reflect the new boundaries.”
We would like to openly acknowledge Ms. McKenna’s effort. WLB has not always been a cheerleader for our local MPP but here she did what she was elected to do and she did it when it could have made a difference. The citizens of Burlington expected and still expect that these conversations would have been undertaken by the City and that we would be well on our way to having the designations removed and the UGC moved. That this much time has elapsed without any such attempts is disappointing. We don’t accept that it’s now too late since you don’t want to extend the ICBL because you fear developer appeals if you do.
Respectfully, this is a situation created by you; we ask you to now fix it. If developers appeal, let them. In the meantime, you have the time needed to get the vital missing components done and in the proper order. As we have stated and continue to state, you only have one chance to protect the downtown and the waterfront and that chance is now.
The revised Land Use policies being recommended for adoption this morning, as Official Plan Amendment 119, are conveyed as appendices D and E. If accepted, we believe that OPA 119 will lock us into a downtown over-intensification scenario. There are technical planning considerations and policy issues that speak against the direction proposed for the downtown. They include the absence of all the planning components for which the Adopted OP was originally considered to be “non-compliant” by the Region, including the lack of a Transportation Plan or Mobility Hub Plan. Why do these gaps still exist? Why does the ICBL Land Use Study not address them?
 There was a time when Transit staff suggested the bus terminal be torn down – now the building is being described as vital if transit is to grow or the defining of the building as Major Transit Station Area as a major mistake. How can the downtown be designated as an MTSA when it is recognized that the anchor DT bus terminal currently does not function as a major bus depot and is unlikely to do so barring substantial and unplanned future improvements?
How can the downtown be designated as an MTSA when it is acknowledged that it “is not located on a priority transit corridor nor is it supported by higher order transit nor by frequent transit within a dedicated ROW”?
Shouldn’t the land use implications of designating the downtown as an MTSA be identified and isn’t this designation, since MTSAs are focal points for higher intensity and mixed-use transit supportive development … likely to result in over-development?
Can we be confident that with these amendments, but leaving the mis-designations and the UGC as is, that building heights can be effectively limited and those limits defended? We’re looking to the downtown of the future but also to developments that are already in process, such as those proposed for Lakeshore and Pearl or James and Martha? This question is critical to the entire exercise.
Significant details and implications are carried by the maps and are not immediately transparent. Map 3 should be amended to remove the Major Transit Station “dot” reference since it is easily missed and accepts the mis-designation of the John Street bus terminal as an MTSA.
Maps 1 and 2 amend the existing OP with what the Dillon report refers to as the “revised” DT Urban Growth Centre boundaries. Set aside the question of whether it should still be located in the DT at all, were the UGC boundaries revised and what were the revisions? On what basis and why was this not presented to the public and Council first?
 Weeks after being sworn in the new Council posed for a Christmas photo – there was nothing festive about the questions asked by delegations. We would like to echo something raised this morning but that has been frequently voiced at Statutory Meetings, the Action Labs and Ward Meetings. All of you ran, implicitly or explicitly, on a platform that became a populist groundswell that defeated the incumbent Mayor, two sitting members of Council and caused two more to seek alternative career or life opportunities. When not a fully expressed component of your own platforms, you nevertheless benefited from the anti-intensification message that resonated with exceptional force. The citizens of Burlington now expect you to honour this mandate. At the very least, please defer approval of the recommendations before you today until a much more complete engagement process with Burlington citizens has been conducted.
Why are we rushing as staff led Council to rush in 2018? As we noted previously, and as confirmed by the Region, there is no clock ticking. We urge you to take the time to address all the building blocks of a new Official Plan. Indeed, if the recommendations of the ICBL Report are approved today, then Thursday’s Preferred Concept meeting becomes ‘pro forma’ and meaningless. Which process is being respected today – a sense of false urgency to the Region – or that which provides for meaningful citizen engagement?
 Ward 4 Councillor Shawna Stolte chaired the Standing Committee today. She had to tell two very strong delegations that there were no questions for them. It appeared she did so reluctantly. We do not believe that what is before you today hears either the voice of the people or the direction of the Council they thought they elected. We recognized in our previous delegation that many of the errors made concerning the future of Burlington’s downtown go far back and are not yours. But that excuse stops today. The direction going forward is clearly yours and yours alone. It will be your lasting and irrevocable legacy. We ask you to consider your legacy carefully, step up and defer the decisions being asked of you this morning.
We acknowledge and appreciate the work of staff in creating the Preliminary Concept Report to be presented on Thursday. However, what that concept allows or does not allow for the downtown doesn’t matter if it won’t be enforceable because you approved this report today with the mis-designations and UGC location unchanged. Thursday’s report would then be irrelevant and we would see little point in debating its merits. We delegated today because this is the crucial moment. This is the final chance any of us have to protect our downtown and waterfront. We ask that you don’t let us down.
 By Gary Scobie
January 14th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
 Gary Scobie I am here today to speak in opposition to the sections of the Land Use Report that deal with downtown planning and the downtown Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). I support the recent letter to Council drafted by ECoB, Citizens’ Plan B and We Love Burlington citizens groups. I also support Jim Young’s recent article on his concern for a downtown maybe already lost.
Last time I was here in December, I disappointed some on Council.
I’ll warn you now that I’ll probably do that again today.
The MTSA is an outgrowth of both Urban Growth Centre and Mobility Hub designations from the first decade of this century.
It seeks to densify urban areas in Southern Ontario that satisfy or seek to satisfy the intermodal transit needs of citizens.
It has been known for quite a few years that the downtown Bus Terminal does not qualify even as an Anchor Mobility Hub, and the Dillon report finally acknowledges this clearly. I want to thank them for their honesty on this issue. I only wish that Planning staff had not chosen to disregard this acknowledgement and continue to plan as if the downtown is truly a Major Transit Station Area.
Repeatedly saying something that is untrue does not make it true and it certainly doesn’t help our case at the Local Planning Area Tribunal (LPAT) hearings.
The downtown MTSA, the Anchor Mobility Hub, and the Urban Growth Centre are the three cornerstones that legitimize the over-intensification of our downtown, notwithstanding that Burlington will reach its intensification targets before 2031 without their further help. They’ve already done enough damage. I want to offer some contextual comments before I return to the subject at hand, and request that you’ll let me do so. On November 13, 2017, I came before Council and referred to a recent Ryerson University report that worried about the average Toronto condo height increasing from 15 storeys to 21 storeys at that time. The authors were concerned about parking for residents and visitors, the increasing scarcity of parks nearby and the livability factors of these condo groupings. Were they indeed communities at all?
I asked Council that night if they had the ethical and moral courage to stop their quest to legitimize the Anchor Mobility Hub in the Official Plan and instead make it an election issue in 2018. I also asked that they not grant the developer the right to build a 23 storey high rise at 421 Brant Street, across the road from City Hall.
 Scobie on the decision to allow this 24 story structure: If you allow an OP with these designations, you will fail to save the downtown and that will be your legacy, If they failed to accede to my request and the requests of others, I said the future of high rise buildings along Brant Street would be set that night. November 13, 2017 would go down in our history as the day our Council gave its blessing to a future building spree along Brant Street and its environs to the lake never seen before.
Of course that last Council did not listen to me nor other engaged citizens and the die was cast. Their legacy was set as the Council that abdicated responsibility for future downtown redevelopment.
We’ve continued to follow that path through OMB and LPAT decisions on approving high rises since then. But downtown over-intensification did indeed become an election issue and the majority of this new Council did actively campaign to stop it and can thank that issue in large measure as the reason why you were elected. And it was clear what citizens then wanted you to do.
Today or Thursday or at the January 30th Council meeting, the fate of the downtown is going to be decided by this Council and I am apprehensive to say the least. I view this report and the one on the recommended downtown development concept coming on Thursday as key drivers of the stake through the heart of the downtown. If the recommendations are allowed to stand and they lead to amendments to the OP within the designation mandates of the Urban Growth Centre, Anchor Mobility Hub and Major Transit Station Area, then I believe that the downtown’s fate is sealed as no longer a pedestrian-oriented place of retail, commerce and government but as a sterile, shadowed, windswept, unfriendly place of imposing podiums and high rises of steel, glass and concrete. I see only a few buildings left harkening to our past, like City Hall, Smith’s Funeral Home and the Queen’s Head Pub.
I know there is to be a follow-up study on the merits of the three land-use designations I’ve mentioned. But it will be too late if the OP is already amended as above. If you then intend to re-amend it without the three imbedded designations, the time it will take to remove them with permission from the Region and Province and come up with replacement intensity limits of our own making is simply not available in the five weeks before the March 5th ICBL end. Even if you can do this, it will result in a re-amended OP that I believe will be treated with disdain at every LPAT hearing to come and will be appealed over and over again by developers as unprofessional, poorly executed and manipulative.
Tough words, and I feel bad using them. I campaigned hard in 2018 and supported a number of you in the election, believing that we could save the downtown. But there is only one way – removal of all of the designations, not conformity to them. By investing all of the time, expense and effort in conforming, and none on the removal, we have squandered precious time and resources. It’s not just that we’ve fiddled while the downtown burned; we’ve created a complete orchestral composition that no citizen wants to listen to.
And remember, this composition is being directed for Planning staff by our new Council. You are on the hook for the results.
I’m asking you to put this composition on the back shelf where it belongs. I’m asking you to instead create a new composition without the three designations for the downtown that gives us back control of the downtown’s re-development future, with our own vision of reasonable height and retention of and respect for much of what we value.
Keep the recommendations for the GO Station Mobility Hub intensification that make sense and update the Official Plan once and done with those and with new wordings for the downtown of your own making. Answer only to citizens who elected you to save the downtown from a complete transformation, not to provincial bureaucrats in Toronto who make sweeping generalizations and rules for every city as if they are all the same. Nor to the Local Planning Area Tribunal, nor to the developers. Stand up to keep Burlington’s downtown as one of the main reasons we continue to be judged an excellent city to live in and visit. Adding high rises and further congestion will not add to our score in these ratings. If you allow an OP with these designations, you will fail to save the downtown and that will be your legacy, so early in your term. I don’t want that and neither should you.
Scobie spoke with both eloquence and passion. No one on council asked him a follow up question
 By Staff
January 14th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
On December 25, 2019, while many members of the community were gathering with family and friends for the Christmas celebrations, Halton Regional Police Service officers were dispatched to a residence after receiving a call from a concerned party.
Through an investigation, the officers developed reasonable grounds to believe that a male had physically assaulted his female partner earlier in the day. During this assault, it is believed that the male party pushed the female, choked her, and threatened to kill her.
 Thankfully, witnesses stepped in and provided immediate assistance to the female by restraining the male and preventing the assault from continuing. The male subsequently significantly damaged the home, breaking a door frame, damaging furniture, breaking objects, and damaging walls.
Children were present in the home at the time of the assault.
The male accused was arrested and subsequently transported to Central Lock Up. Thereafter, the Halton Regional Police Service Domestic Violence Investigative Unit took carriage of the investigation. The accused was charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Utter Threat to Cause Death or Bodily Harm and Mischief Under $5,000 and held for bail.
Upon arrest of the accused, the victim was referred to the Halton Regional Police Service Domestic Violence Victim Coordinator within the Victim Services Unit. The Victim Services Unit connects victims to appropriate support services in the community, assists with safety planning and victim care, and, through the Victim Quick Response Program (VQRP), can provide immediate short-term financial support toward essential expenses for victims of violent crime.
In 2019, Halton Regional Police Service officers responded to 3,613 intimate partner domestic incidents. These calls for service resulted in 842 arrests and the laying of 1,548 criminal charges.
Every person has the right to feel safe in our community.
You are not alone. Victims of intimate partner violence or sexual assault and witnesses are encouraged to contact the Halton Regional Police Service. The following is a list of valuable support services and resources in Halton Region for victims of intimate partner violence and/or sexual violence:
Halton Regional Police Service Victim Services Unit 905-825-4777
Halton Women’s Place 905-878-8555 (north) or 905-332-7892 (24-hour crisis line)
Halton Children’s Aid Society 905-333-4441 or 1-866-607-5437
Nina’s Place Sexual Assault and Domestic Assault Care Centre 905-336-4116 or 905-681-4880
Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services (SAVIS) 905-875-1555 (24-hour crisis line)
By Pepper Parr
January 13th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
The Burlington Urban Design Advisory Panel is seeking architects, landscape architects, urban designers, and planners as members for its second term, 2020-2022.
 With decent weather it is hard to find a seat – design at its best. The mandate of the Urban Design Advisory Panel is to provide independent, objective and professional urban design advice to the Community Planning Department on tall and mid-rise buildings, five storeys or greater, and public development projects, studies and policy initiatives to help achieve design excellence in the city.
Burlington is at a unique time in its history. With very little green-field left for development of suburban-type neighbourhoods, the city can no longer grow out. Instead, it must grow from within its existing urban area.
Candidates for the positions on the Advisory Panel will be highly qualified design professionals and currently possess full membership for a minimum of ten years in at least one of the following professional associations:
Ontario Association of Architects (OAA);
Canadian Society of Landscape Architects (CSLA);
Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA);
Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) or
Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI).
Candidates will also have a broad range of professional design experience such as:
a. Domestic and international work portfolio;
b. Variety of project scales and types including tall, mid-, and low-rise buildings;
c. Demonstrated leadership in city building;
d. Construction techniques, financial management and feasibility;
e. Application of sustainable design methods.
The panel will meet once a month, during regular business hours. Each meeting will be approximately four hours long with a maximum of three projects reviewed per meeting. All members will receive a per diem for participation on the panel to cover expenses for a meal and travel, including mileage or transportation costs associated with travel to each meeting, site visits and parking.
There is additional information on the Burlington Urban Design Advisory Panel; please visit www.burlington.ca/UDP
Candidates should submit:
a. A cover letter and CV summarizing their qualifications, experience and interest in participating on Burlington’s Urban Design Advisory Panel;
b. Confirmation to have suitable flexibility to attend all meetings during their term; and
c. The ability to provide independent, objective, professional urban design advice to the City of Burlington Community Planning Department.
Submissions should be received by Friday, Jan. 31, 2020 via email to:
Todd Evershed, MCIP, RPP
Urban Designer, City of Burlington
todd.evershed@burlington.ca
905-335-7600, ext.7870
Selected candidates will be contacted in early February to arrange an interview with City staff, if necessary.
Some questions:
What impact has the Panel had on design in the city so far?
Have they ever submitted a report that suggest the development before them needs a lot of revisions or do they submit polite reports and wash their hands of it all?
 During the Sound of Music Festival Brant Street gets turned into a space where people can walk around and enjoy the space. There were once members of a previous council that wanted the street closed to traffic. The architecture of a community is what gives the streets life; a sense of place; a street that you want to walk along and spend some time on a park bench.
 Good design, stunning in many ways – just in the wrong place. The Gazette points to the wide space between the sidewalk edge and the edge of the buildings on the north side of Lakeshore Road between Locust and Brant and suggest this is superb design. And yet when the building was going through site approval the Director of Planning told the Gazette that convincing the developers that the wide patio was a good idea wasn’t an easy sell. Space at the tables is hard to find when the weather is fine – the buzz of the people enjoying themselves and looking out over the lake can’t be bought. Traffic is far enough away to not be objectionable.
This is what the Gazette hopes the panel will subscribe to – so far we’ve not seen very much in the way of positive critical comment from the panel.
There is some exceptionally good work being done. Say what you will about the Adi Group but they have done some fine work. Their Nautique, which is in the wrong place, is nevertheless good design. Their Moder’n on Guelph Line is another very good example.
By Pepper Parr
January 13th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
They didn’t get a raise in pay but they now have to work even longer hours – at least that is a recommendation that will go to a Council committee later this week.
The Procedural bylaw is getting an upgrade with the following change:
Adjournment Hours
All meetings will adjourn when Council, or Committee have completed all business listed on the agenda, or at 10:30p.m., whichever is earlier.
Where the business before Councilor Committee has not been completed by the adjournment hour, a motion may be passed by two-thirds vote of the members present to proceed beyond the hour of 10:30p.m. to continue any unfinished business.
Notwithstanding section 28.2above, no meeting will proceed beyond the hour of 11p.m.
Unless decided otherwise prior to the adjournment of the meeting, any unfinished business will be discussed at the next scheduled Council meeting.
Members of Council get a little longer to speak.
Each member will have a limit of three minutes to speak regarding Statement by Members. During this time a member will limit their comments to three items. Speaking items, and/or time may be extended by a majority vote of the members present. Discussion during this agenda item is non-debatable.
 Procedural bylaw changes mean those seats can be filled for an additional half hour if necessary. The witching hour used to be 10:00 pm – which could be extended for 30 minutes. Now the hour at which they are scheduled to adjourn is 10:30 – that can be extended for an additional 30 minutes.
There were occasions when members of council went on and on – telling those listening every blessed thing they were planning.
Much of this change has come out of a desire on the part of the Mayor for better Agenda management.
In previous municipal Council they were known to go on ’til well past midnight.
By Staff
January 13th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
This one almost got past me.
 The email was covered in red flags but because I was expecting something from my bank I assumed – could have been a fatal mistake. This is just the sort of thing that caught someone at city hall and – zap – more than half a million left a bank account. I had been communicating with my branch on a non-banking matter and was expecting responses from them.
I almost clicked on the attachments – which I suspect would have taken me down a rabbit hole – from which it would be very hard to get out of with all my money in my pocket.
If in doubt – don’t.
 By Pepper Parr
January 13th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
They are calling it the “preferred concept”, the recommendation as to what should go where in the city and how much density there should be.
The recommendations are part of the “Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown”, which was a Scoped Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan that was passed by city council in 2018 but not approved at the Region.
The Taking a Closer Look is the second of two reports the city needs to approve before the Adopted, but not yet approved, Official Plan can be put in place.
It is all complex and demanding on the public that has to keep up with it all.
The recommendation is the result of a number of very lengthy reports, all kinds of attempts at public engagement; some successful – others suffered from a lack of poor public participation.
Getting 25+ people to go on a walking tour is hardly representational.
There is a lot yet to be learned on how to get people out to meetings – staff from the Planning department certainly did their best.
Action Labs, Food for Feedback, and a willingness to meet almost anyone for a briefing.
Will it be enough?
The questions will be put to council on Thursday.
A graphic of all the precincts in the downtown core:
The planner and their consultants have created eight precincts and attached height limitations to each of them.
Each precinct, its boundaries and the height permitted is set out below.
  
By Pepper Parr
January 12th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
We now have a sense as to how City Manager Tim Commisso approaches issues and works through them.
 Tim Commisso – he works well on his own. Speaks softly. In an exclusive interview Commisso told the Gazette that he has been a strategic plan advocate since the mid 80’s and adds that “a strategic approach provides direction from which a work plan can flow.”
It was that plan that resulted in the Vision to Focus (V2F) approach council has in front of them.
The 25 year Strategic Plan doesn’t do much for anyone as a standalone document. It is only when a city council decides what it can achieve during its term and decides what it wants to focus on that the document becomes relevant.
Burlington already had a Strategic Plan when Commisso arrived – he will undoubtedly provide counsel to council on where they might want to revise the city plan going forward, but for now he has determined, with Council, what is going to get done during their term of office.
The four pillars on which the Strategic Plan are built are:
A City that Grows
• Promoting Economic Growth
• Intensification
• Focused Population Growth
A City that Moves
• Increased Transportation Flows and Connectivity
A Healthy and Greener City
• Healthy Lifestyles
• Environmental and Energy Leadership
An Engaging City
• Good Governance
• Community Building through Arts and Culture via Community Activities
Given what the Strategic Plan calls for, the V2F sets out the five focus areas it will spend their time and money on during their term of office.
The five focus areas are as follows:
• Focus Area 1 – Increasing Economic Prosperity and Community Responsive Growth Management
• Focus Area 2 – Improving Integrated City Mobility
• Focus Area 3 – Supporting Sustainable Infrastructure and a Resilient Environment
• Focus Area 4 – Building more Citizen Engagement, Community Health and Culture
• Focus Area 5 – Delivering Customer Centric Services with a Focus on Efficiency and Technology Transformation.
 When you get the look from Tim Commisso – pay attention. Strategic Plans were once four year documents prepared by Staff and Council. In the past, at least for Burlington, the document was completed, accepted by Council and that was basically the end of it until the next Council was in place. Tim Commisso was part of the city of Burlington administration that operated that way for a period of time.
He apparently grew and is firmly committed to, and actively working within, the current V2F document Staff created.
How he does that is of interest.
Commisso was invited by newly minted Mayor Marianne Meed Ward to serve as an interim City Manager. She had dismissed James Ridge, the former city manager, within 48 hours of having the Chain of Office placed upon her shoulders. Commisso had worked for Burlington in the past so knew where the bodies were buried and the lay of the land.
He may not have been fully aware of just how bad morale was within the Hall; one of the early reports he was given set out what he was up against and what he had to work with. Hunan Resources Director Laura Boyd wrote a report that identified a lot of dysfunction within the Hall and poor pay scales didn’t help.
Commisso is not a young man, it became evident quite quickly that his style was going to be to identify just where the talent he needed was and then shape that talent and look for people to fill the gaps. There are a number of gaps.
 Jamie Tellier explaining a site plan.  Heather MacDonald talking to a citizen at a public meeting. Site Planning co-coordinator Jamie Tellier explains what is going to be built where on the JBMH campus.
The first major move the public saw was the news that the Deputy City manager no longer had a position. Commisso had reorganized the senior staff level putting Heather MacDonald, who had not much more than a year with the city, in as an Executive Director handling Planning, Regulation and Mobility and Alan Magi in as Executive Director of Environment, Infrastructure and Community Services.
Commisso centralized a lot of the departmental work and has it working within what was named the Office of the City Manager. At one point there were 24 direct reports to the city manager; Commisso has whittled that down to 17. His approach is to look for the best people he can find and give them every opportunity to grow and become leaders.
That kind of development takes time; Commisso has a five year contract which he intends to complete.
Burlington’s recent experience with city managers has been less than three years into the five year contract and they were off to somewhere else. Can Commisso build the organization he thinks the city needs in that five year period of time?
Jeff Fielding, a former city manager, tried hard to create a more effective senior staff – he left for Calgary a truly frustrated man. The Mayor’s Chief of Staff at the time once said that city hall had a toxic culture.
Commisso is fully aware of just how deep the dysfunction runs but it isn’t something he will talk about. He does talk about improving the culture and improving the level of customer service. He created a Customer Centric Services unit and is moving City Clerk Angela Morgan to serving as the Executive Lead of the Customer Experience; welcome news to many that have had to work with the Morgan.
The relationship between media and a city manager is not supposed to be smooth – just as long as there is respect both sides can do the job they are in place to do.
Commisso is not comfortable with the way the Gazette names staff – we call it transparent accountability. In the past the Gazette has been frank and forthright with some of its articles; we have also been very direct when we say the Finance department is the best run department in the city with some exceptional people doing excellent work under challenging conditions.
The recent appointment of Sheila Jones as Executive Director of Strategy, Risk & Accountability was one of the best decisions Commisso has made – if he continues to make that kind of quality decision Burlington will become a city where people want to work.
 Commisso pays close attention to situations that he feels warrant some scrutiny. We suspect that Tim Commisso has not had media that truly does the job that is required. Municipalities have a daily story to tell – using media releases that contain a paragraph that touts how great the place is – is tiring, trite and sophomoric. When you have to sing your own praises the praise is faint.
Commisso doesn’t say very much. He listens, makes notes; from time to time he will tap someone on the shoulder and say a few words. He doesn’t speak unless he feels he has to and even then he doesn’t tell people what to do but suggests what can be done.
When city council raided the reserve funds Commisso actually squirmed a bit in his seat. The treasurer looked like she was about to go into septic shock. Reserves are there for very good reasons; something that didn’t appear fully evident to the Mayor.
To be fair to both the Mayor and Council, the list of Reserve funds and their purpose is far from clear. Expect Commisso to clean that up.
This year getting an Official Plan that meets the wishes of the public as this city council interprets them and producing something that will pass muster at the Regional level is critical.
Winding up the Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) that froze development in the Urban Growth Centre until March 5th is his most pressing issue. Both matters come before Standing Committees meetings this week.
Commisso is a strong advocate of clear processes – identifying and limiting risk are touch stone points for him. The risks within an Official Plan that is badly outdated and an Interim Control Bylaw he dares not extend are major risks that have to be managed.
The ICBL was put in place before then Deputy City Manager and former Director of Planning, Mary Lou Tanner was removed from the city payroll. The bylaw was perhaps a good idea at the time – it was the one way the city could put a halt to the development applications that were coming in daily and it may have been the only legislative tool the city could use. Planning Staff couldn’t handle the volume and the mission, as the Planning department saw it at the time, was not the mission the new council believes they were elected on.
Commisso appears to be a quiet man making it difficult to get a good read of him. The picture, released by the Mayor’s office, of Tim doing a dance on the streets of Itabashi during the Twin City trip is one we promise to use sparingly. The Mayor is at the head of what appears to be a parade with the Mayor of Itabashi and other dignitaries and Burlington’s city manager prancing along behind her; it is not an image that squares all that well with the Tim Commisso one sees at council meetings
Among the tasks Commisso mentioned on his to do list is a friendlier, more welcoming city hall. He is waiting for permission to use federal/provincial funding to improve the look and feel of Civic Square.
 Commisso was involved in the early thinking about the Pier – one wonders if he ever thought the city would have something like this? Commisso has been around municipal politics for a long time. While with Burlington, from 1988 to 2008, he served as manager of budgets, deputy treasurer and director of parks and recreation. He had lead responsibility for a number of major projects including the waterfront renewal as well as downtown revitalization strategies and corporate strategic plans.
Commisso learned that Thunder Bay, his home town, was looking for a new city manager in 2008; applied for the job and came out on top of the interview list. He retired from Thunder Bay in 2015 after seven years of service and sometime later took up a position with MNP, a national accounting/consulting operation with more than 5,000 people on the payroll in offices across the country.
Sometime in December of 2018 Marianne Meed Ward invited him for coffee and as Tim said “little did I know what the conversation was going to lead to”. He started as interim city manager, did the job keeping things afloat at city hall after the very abrupt dismissal of James Ridge, while the new city council went about looking for a new city manager.
Sources told the Gazette at the time that their conversations with Commisso suggested that he wasn’t certain he was going to apply for the job. He did and he got it.
The municipal world is almost the bottom rung on the public service organizational ladder. Boards of Education are below us.
 At some point, perhaps not in this term of office Civic Square is going to get a do-over. Why not replace city hall, an inefficient structure that no longer meets the city’s space needs. Funding from the federal and provincial levels is a constant flow of ideas the higher order of governments come up with and expect the municipal sector to make happen – the time frame for getting in on a funding opportunity is usually very short. Every municipality makes a point of having projects that are shovel ready or things they want to do that can be revised quick-quick. The federal or provincial governments provide the money, which comes out of the same taxpayer’s pocket, and on occasion require a contribution from the municipality.
Keeping on top of these opportunities is vital. The Region has an enviable reputation for being the place the provincial government goes to when there is an idea they want to pilot.
 Senior communications manager Kwab Ako-Adjei adding to his photo data base. Commisso looks like the kind of city manager who would staff his office with people who can read an application document quickly and thoroughly and find a way to make it relevant to Burlington. Kwab Ako-Adjei and Helen Walahura are in place to do just that kind of thing. Kwab more so than Helen.
The high hurdles are right in front of Commisso. He has to aide a city council that has yet to find its pace. The members of council get along quite well but there are tensions; mild at this point. The individual values and visions are beginning to come to the surface – each member has a stronger sense of where they have support and who they can look to for help.
Early in their first year most of the newly elected five were asking to meet with Commisso to learn what their jobs were. Commisso was in that awkward position of instructing the people who gave him his marching orders. When the Gazette mentioned this to Commisso he suggested that we had mis-characterized what he was doing. It was our view that Commisso had a conflict of interest and that everyone would have been better served if he had used some of the slush fund he had to hire a retired, respected city Councillor to meet with the newbies and guide them through the early stages. It will be difficult for the five to call Commisso to account should such a moment arise.
Commisso is happy as a clam with this latest job. He loves the energy of what he calls the council team. His respect for them is genuine; he no doubt sees their strengths and weaknesses and probably sees himself being in a position to help this group grow to the point where he can, at some future date, turn the wheel over to someone else – his job will have been done – well done.
By Staff
January 11th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
We got the following earlier today:
 In the mid 1960’s my Buffalo NY band “The Sterlings” performed with The Rising Sons who headlined the event “The Night Of The Rising Sons”…along with “The Ugly Roomers” and Buffalo’s WKBW’s Danny Neaverth as MC at the Welland Arena and I have a wonderful vintage poster from the event that I would like to share with the Sons members for their archives showing all the names and date. Can anyone tell me how to contact any one of them via email, phone or postal mail? Thanks, Dennis Schooley
Can anyone help?
Send us a note and we will put you in touch with Dennis Schooley.
publisher@bgzt.ca
 By Staff
January 11th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
A Burlington based real estate agency, the Rocca Sisters, reported that at “the end of December, year to date, the average price of a freehold property was $891,566, up 4.8% from last year.
“There were 1736 sales in 2019, up 3.1% as compared to 2018.
“Days on market were down 9.4% from last year. All things considered, it was a strong year where we saw a fairly balanced market and average gains.
“The more fascinating result from 2019 is the inventory level that remained at the end of the year. The month of December saw 60 sales in total, down 7.7% as compared to December 2018 and sale prices increase by 10.1%. The average price for the month of December was $978,067 which was the highest average price ever achieved in Burlington.
At the end of December there were 123 freehold properties available for sale in Burlington (under $3 million dollars).
To put this into perspective, at the end of December 2016, there were 119 properties listed for sale.
During the intervening years and the years prior, inventory levels were double these numbers. The interesting thing is, properties are still selling for under 98% of the listing price. What does all of this mean for our Burlington clients?
If you are planning to list your home this year, list it early. As to listing price, trust the evidence. Better to list sharp. If the price is right you will either sell for your asking price or possibly attract multiple offers. If you list too high, it’s very difficult to recover in this type of market.
By Pepper Parr
January 10th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
They are referred to as MTSAs – Major Transit Station Areas – they have be-deviled the thinking of city council for some time.
There was a point when a former Mayor, trying to assure residents that over-development would not take place, wasn’t fully aware of what role MTSA’s played in development.
The city has since learned that they are the biggest influence in what is going to be built where. There are those who knew and understood the bigger picture – they just didn’t want to be the one to tell the public what the public did not want to hear.
Public transit is what is being pushed upon a public that still clings to its automobiles.
 There was a point at which the transit department had recommended tearing down the transit station. Few in Burlington really want to ride a bus – but they are going to have to if they want to get around efficiently.
Somewhere in the bowels of city hall there is, hopefully, at least a draft version of a longer term transportation report – it is now four years overdue. But that is another matter.
Transportation is not efficiently led and has yet to produce a significant report since the new leadership was put in place. But that is another matter to be discussed at a more appropriate time.
Were it not for the designation of the John Street Bus terminal as an MTSA – this building may never have been approved. Burlington was assigned two MTSAs – one at the Burlington GO station, which was close to perfect and another at the John Street bus terminal which didn’t make any sense to anyone – other than the developer who used the existence of the designation to get a favourable OMB decision due to the existence of the John Street MTSA.
Many citizens have urged the city to make application to the Ministry of Municipalities and Housing to move the location of the Urban Growth Centre (more north) and to scrap the idea of an MTSA on John Street.
A consultant the city had hired said at a Standing Committee meeting to the best of his knowledge no one had asked the provincial government to change the boundary of an Urban Growth Centre.
The removal of an MTSA was said to be a Regional matter.
 Marianne Meed Ward wearing a smile. In her most recent Newsletter the Mayors said:
“Only the Region and Province can change MTSA designations and until that happens, Burlington needs to update its Official Plan policies and Zoning Bylaw before the development freeze ends on March 5 to better define and control the impact in each area. We are on track to meet that deadline with upcoming discussions at committee Jan. 14 and Council on Jan. 30, followed by a 20-day appeal period.”
True but what bothers many is that the Mayor and council have yet to ask the province or the |Region to remove the John Street MTSA designation.
 Burlington MPP Jane McKenna – waiting for a call? Why hasn’t this been done?” asks one very active ward 2 citizen. She is not alone in asking that question.
MPP Jane McKenna is reported to have explained to ECoB what the city has to do and is said to be waiting for a call.
There may be some egos at play here. There isn’t much in the way of thinking shared by the Mayor and the MPP.
By Pepper Parr
January 10th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
On Tuesday of next week there will be a Statutory Public meeting at which Planning Staff will present their thoughts on the Land Use Study report that has been available to the public since before Christmas.
It’s a critical report that the city must get right the first time.
It’s a complex report; one that the five new members of council will struggle with.
 The cover of the Land Use Study report tells the full story. The images of the downtown core as it is today – all within the circled pictures – and the site that is about to undergo new development. That is Burlington’s future. The limitations on that development are the issue. The Gazette has talked to several members of Council about their take on the report.
ECoB had published an Open Letter to city council imploring them to defer receipt of the ICBL Land Use Study Report on January 14 and to reject the recommendations for Official Plan and Zooming Bylaw Amendments.
We asked members of Council by email for a comment on the ECoB request.
We got the following from a council member. “I feel it is too early for me to comment. I have meetings this week with staff that will help form my thoughts.”
We are not going to identify the council member but want to comment on the position taken.
Statutory meetings are set up to allow Council members to ask questions of Staff and any consultants that produced a report. The public can make a delegation – registration is not required for a Statutory meeting.
The regrettable part of the meeting is that it takes place during working hours – which will limit real public participation. Those with a vested interest will appear – there is at least one major apartment operation planning to appear.
The question and answer between Council and Staff is always very enlightening; when it takes place in public we get to learn how Councillors arrive at their decisions. What Staff have to say is said in public – which is the way decisions are supposed to be made.
One would not want to encourage Councillors to meet in private with senior staff. Burlington’s public does not have a lot of trust in the Planning department – they see serious gaps between what the planners think their city should look like and what they think their city should look like.
There was an occasion when a former city manager walked over to a developer, shook his hand vigorously when their 20 storey + development had just been approved by Council. There was significant public opposition to the development – it began the process that is going to change not only the skyline of the city but the feel one will have as they walk the downtown streets.
Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns sets out her position in her most recent newsletter. Do let us know if there is any meat on the bone she has thrown you.
 Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns -most of the downtown is in her ward. “Key matters regarding land use planning for the Downtown / Urban Area are coming forward for important discussion. As your Councillor, my position is aligned with the values many of you have shared with me – to deliver a focused plan that represents reasonable growth, not over-development.
“The upcoming meetings are an opportunity to continue bringing your vision forward in planning for the future of our downtown.
“Now and in the coming years, Burlington will welcome many new residents and businesses. A majority of these will be through increasing housing and employment opportunities across the City and especially in the Mobility Hubs, including Ward 2’s Burlington GO area. The planning work underway right now through the Interim Control By-law (ICBL) and the Re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan will support this and continue to be a focus of Council.
“Stepping into 2020 will be a flurry of activity in finalizing and responding to a series of milestones in the Local, Regional, and Provincial Planning processes. We are going to get a better plan for the downtown that truly reflects the Community and Council’s vision. Your engagement matters. I recognize that timing and the ability to schedule attendance for these meetings might not be optimal, what I can assure you is that you’ve put your trust in me to act on your behalf. I continue to work diligently for you to ensure that every detail in this process is vetted, challenged, understood, and analyzed to deliver on an Official Plan we can all be proud of.”
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward focuses on transit matters – height limits don’t get that much comment from her – at least not at this point. In her most recent Newsletter Mayor Marianne Meed Ward sets out her position when she said: “The Downtown MTSA has been used to justify development well above current planning provisions, including the recent Ontario Municipal Board decision granting 26 storeys at Martha and Lakeshore where 4-8 storeys is permitted. This led council to implement a one-year Interim Control Bylaw to freeze development and conduct a land-use study of the downtown and Burlington GO area.
“The result? The downtown bus terminal doesn’t currently meet the MTSA threshold and is unlikely to without future improvements or enhancements, and Burlington GO has the potential to accommodate much more transit ridership than it presently does.
“There are several types of MTSAs in provincial policy, including a “major bus depot in an urban core.” Dillon concludes the John St. terminal “does not function as a major bus depot,” and the Downtown MTSA “is not expected to be a significant driver for intensification beyond that which is required by the Downtown Urban Growth Centre (UGC)”
“Dillon also states there are significant gaps in provincial and city MTSA policies and definitions. The downtown is also classified as an Anchor Hub — the same designation for Pearson Airport and Toronto Union Station without anywhere near the same passenger volumes.
“The report also found the Burlington GO area is under-performing relative to its potential given planned 15-minute regional express rail service. There’s opportunity to direct significant future job and population growth here.
“Only the Region and Province can change MTSA designations and until that happens, Burlington needs to update its Official Plan policies and Zoning Bylaw before the development freeze ends on March 5 to better define and control the impact in each area. We are on track to meet that deadline with upcoming discussions at committee Jan. 14 and Council on Jan. 30, followed by a 20-day appeal period.
Related news content:
The ECoB Open Letter
By Pepper Parr
January 10th, 20120
BURLINGTON, ON
We now have the report.
It is complex. There is a lot of information but it is a little short on clarity.
It will take a bit to go through the material and do an early analysis.
There are nine sections – some of the material has been made public before.
It will take a bit of time to do a thorough reading of all the material and begin to analyze. We can share some of the material – a detail of parts of the city and what the height recommendation is.
   The scoped re-examination of the adopted Official Plan is being undertaken at the same time as the Interim Control By-law Land Use Study.
The findings of the Interim Control By-Law Land Use study were released in late December2019 (PL-01-20) and will be presented to the Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee on January 14, 2020.
A Council decision on the ICBL is anticipated for January 30, 2020.
The ICBL Land Use Study proposes an Official Plan amendment to the existing in-force OP and a Zoning By-Law amendment to strengthen the integration between land use and transit by introducing policies related to transit-supportive development;
strengthens the concept of Major Transit Station Areas into the Official Plan; establishes a policy framework including an MTSA typology distinguishing the GO Station MTSAs from the Downtown Bus Terminal;
introduces development criteria for development applications within the ICBL study area;
updates or adds definitions to the OP to align with Provincial policy documents and/or assist in the interpretation of OP policies;and,introduces additional permitted uses and heights on lands in proximity to the Burlington GO Station.
The two reports, the Land Use Study and the Closer Look at Downtown, to use the language of the Planners, “inform each other”.
The findings of the Interim Control By-law Land Use Study that have been made public and will be debated and discussed at Council on Tuesday. The Taking a Closer Look report will be debated and discussed by Council on Thursday.
Is there an end in sight to all these reports?
The Planning people set out the schedule at the bottom of this report.
If council can arrive at decisions that keep those active in municipal affairs at least a little bit happy – it will be a major achievement.
At this point it is far from certain that they can pull this off.
 By Jim Young
January 10th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Jim Young is going to be out of town on January 14th & 16th and unable to delegate when the City’s Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee meet to discuss the Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) and the Scoped Review of the 2018 Official Plan (OP). Here is what he would have loved to say.
Considering the Dillon Report on the ICBL, The Official Plan Review (downtown precincts only), the continuing backlog of intensification zoning amendment applications and the complete lack of progress on the Transportation and Mobility Master Plan, I have to conclude that the ICBL has achieved nothing for the people of Burlington.
The ICBL was intended to buy the city a one year pause on the land planning process which would allow them to correct the more egregious errors of the OP. Citizens were hopeful that their concerns with the OP would be addressed. Concerns that: downtown intensification and building heights were extreme, exceeded provincial guidelines and that there was no Transit Plan in place to address the increased traffic and congestion that over-intensification would bring.
The over-intensification was predicated on the precinct being designated an Urban Growth Centre (UGC) which in turn was based on the Region’s designation of the bus ticket office on John Street as a Major Transportation Station Area (MTSA).
The ICBL and the OP Review have failed to address these concerns in a way that means anything to the people of Burlington.
Even the Dillon Report suggests the John Street Bus Terminal is not on a priority Transit Corridor, not supportive of regional transit and does not function as a major bus depot. Yet, so long as that John St. MTSA designation stays in place, any changes to the OP are meaningless and the proposed scoped review of that OP bears this out. Planners have presented two downtown options which amount to unattractive “Short Squat” density on Brant St from Ghent to Lakeshore or Alternating Extremely High buildings along that same stretch, neither of which have won favour with council and certainly do not appeal to local residents.
In the meantime the ICBL has not stopped developers from submitting numerous amendment applications, it has only stalled these in the process. They are still awaiting planning consideration while the ICBL is in effect. So even the hoped for “slowdown effect” has not been achieved. This will eventually allow developers to bypass the process by appealing to LPAT (Land Planning Appeals Tribunal) when planners are too overloaded to respond in time.
This will be aggravated by changes at LPAT, shortening the city’s response time from 210 to 90 days (120 for OP Amendments). Now even more failure to respond appeals will go to LPAT. Wins for developers will increase due to the fact they can now claim “compatibility” with the already approved/appealed hi-rises on Brant, Lakeshore and Martha Streets and the fact that city planners plan to “average” precinct density targets while developers and LPAT review applications on a case by case basis.
 The Burlington GO station is clearly a point where different forms of traffic can flow in and flow out.  Report suggests the John Street Bus Terminal is not on a priority Transit Corridor
The end result will be a severely over-intensified downtown without a transit plan in place to move the additional people around or to the real MTSA at Fairview GO. While a dedicated few will cycle or walk from downtown to the GO station, it was always more likely that commuters already committed to transit into Toronto would take a bus to the GO. If the bus is there! Yet all the talk of “Integrated Transportation and Mobility” are centered on cycling, walkability and active mobility modes, ignoring the most efficient way to move people in an over-intensified and congested downtown: Improved Public Transit.
Sometimes it feels like downtown mobility concepts seek health outcomes more than serious transit solutions.
The year of grace granted by the ICBL would have been better served by planners creating the transit plan that would have connected the city’s Urban Growth Centres to its GO stations, eliminating the need for a downtown mobility hub, working instead with the Region to remove that downtown MTSA designation. The Dillon Report clearly points out that this is a regional responsibility, “………The Province directs that upper-tier municipalities such as the Region of Halton are responsible for evaluating the major transit station areas within the region, delineating the boundaries of each major transit station area ……….”.
 Heather MacDonald with Planner Jamie Tellier at a council meeting. Heather MacDonald, Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility suggests this was clearly the original intention of the City’s ICB: …. “The recommendation to implement an ICBL ……………. will come back to City Council on Jan. 14 with proposed amendments ……………. that will make it possible for new development in the identified study area to be better informed by the City’s transit, transportation and land use vision……” I ask again, as many did in 2017/2018: Where is The Transit Plan on which all this intensification is based?
City advocacy groups; Engaged Citizens of Burlington, We Love Burlington and Waterfront Plan B are disappointed (see Open Letter, Gazette January 6) that after so much citizen outreach, feedback and supposed input so little attention has been paid to their voices.
 Personally, I fear the downtown as we know it is already lost to over development. My only hope is that maybe now, finally, the city is coming to realize that that the voices of city residents must be heard. Because so far they have not.
Perhaps city engagement efforts should involve a little less reaching out, and a little more listening in.
Jim Young is an Aldershot resident who was part of the group that formed ECoB. He delegates at city council frequently.
By Pepper Parr
January 9th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward today tweeted that “The Third Party Advertiser who targeted my 2018 mayoral election campaign with negative advertising was arrested over the Christmas holidays, and will make his first court appearance Tuesday, Jan. 21 at the Milton courthouse, 491 Steeles Ave. E.”
Meed Ward reports that: Sean Baird has been charged with:
Uttering a Forged Document – Contrary to section 368(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada;
Fraud over $5000 – Contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and
Corrupt Practice (four counts) – Contrary to the Municipal Elections Act.
She adds in her Tweet that: Court dates and schedules can be checked through this link up to a week in advance: https://www.ontariocourtdates.ca (agree to terms on the main page and select Milton).
 Mayor Marianne Meed Ward. “We will continue to share public information with the community when we learn about it as this case moves through the court system. I am thankful to the police investigating and laying charges in any matter that has the potential to undermine elections, the foundation of our democracy” said Meed Ward.
What is both interesting and disturbing is that the Gazette has been communicating with both the Ontario Province Police, who are believed to have carriage of this case, due to the investigative work done by the Anti Rackets Branch (ABR) and the Halton Regional Police Service (HRPS) who are still doing local investigations.
The ABR appear to have lost their tongues; the person we talked to said someone would get back to us.
We heard from the HRPS asking what we knew. We referred them to the Gazette where we have reported consistently on this case well before the Mayor made it a police matter.
Everything you want to know is still on the web site.
The disturbing part of all this is that the Mayor is releasing information that should be public knowledge. The first bit of information on Baird and the Provincial Police came out in an OPP media release saying they were looking for Baird.
Is the Mayor of Burlington now the mouth piece for the OPP? How long has the Mayor had this information? And who gave it to her?
There is an interesting cast of characters on the stage. A former Mayor, a former Member of Parliament and a former candidate for Mayor and Regional Chair.
The question is – who put Baird up to creating numbered corporations and what is he prepared to tell the police? Or was a developer with a development application before Local Planning Act Tribunal (LPAT) the cheque book behind all this?
 By Staff
January 8th, 2020
BURLINGTON, ON
 It began just before Christmas and has proven to be popular.
The overwhelming success and response of the summer 30/60 Play Challenge, led the city to launching the first ever 30/60 Play Challenge Winter Edition.
The exciting and fun activities will inspire and motivate families and friends to get outside and challenge each other to complete the tasks during the winter months.
Teams can qualify for a draw prize by completing at least 30 activities in 60 days. 21 random winners will be chosen from the teams who successfully complete 30 activities and a grand prize of a $100 Recreation Services gift card will go to the person/team with the most points.
Contest closes at midnight on Feb. 18, 2020
Individuals, teams or families can register by downloading the app HERE.
Examples of activities participants can choose from include:
• Skating
• Tobogganing
• Skiing
• Hiking
• Build a snowman
• Make a snow angel
The Summer 30/60 challenge had 97 teams/individuals participate with the grand prize team completing 153 activities.
Those who participated in the summer challenge had this to say:
“As a new citizen of Burlington, I thought this was a great way to get people to become better acquainted with their city.”
“We have loved the challenges! The kids are going to be in withdrawal tomorrow (“You mean there’s no more after today??”) We have enjoyed strategizing with friends and the thrill of finding new places we have never seen. Thanks so much and hope there will be more Goose Chases!!”
“Congratulations to all the winners! Such a fantastic way to spend part of the summer vacation with the kids. We discovered so many great spots in Burlington.”
For more information or to download the app, CLICK HERE.
|
|
