Councillor Sharman weighs in on the 2100 Brant development - says the city will take a $28,000 hit on the legal costs.

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

April 27th, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

 

Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman weighs in on what happened to that development on Brant Street.

On August 31, 2017, the Planning and Building Department acknowledged that a complete application had been received for an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment for 2100 Brant Street to facilitate the development of 233 townhouse units.

Aerial-of-2100 brant site

The ward Councillors; first Rick Craven and now Kelvin Galbraith were not opposed to the development.

The original applications proposed the development of 233 townhouse dwelling units comprised of street townhouses located along Brant Street and a proposed public street and standard condominium townhouse units. The original net density of the development was 43.55 units per hectare and gross density was 21.07 units per hectare. The applications were requesting site specific exceptions to allow for the development.

Further to technical comments received from staff, other agencies and public feedback received through the processing of the applications, the applicant made changes to the proposed development and submitted revised studies, reports and a reconfigured draft plan of subdivision.

The applicants appealed the subject applications to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal after the required time period established by the Planning Act expired. Notwithstanding the appeals, the City continued to work with the applicant in an effort to resolve what the City and its residents were concerned about. The result of these negotiations with the applicants, was Minutes of Settlement. This agreement was reached in November 2018 and supported a 212-unit townhouse development. This settlement agreement was based on the assessment from staff that the application satisfied all regulatory and planning requirements and was therefore defensible at LPAT.

Sharman hand to head

Paul Sharman listening to a delegation

Despite the advice of staff, on December 17, 2018, the newly elected City Council, in a vote that was not unanimous, repudiated (i.e. cancelled) the settlement agreement. That decision not only pushed the City and the applicants towards an LPAT hearing but is also expected to lead to an awarding of costs to National Homes in an amount of approximately of $28,000 when the final settlements and awards are confirmed.

Notwithstanding the grim reality facing Council, City staff continued to work with the applicant in an effort to further refine the proposal to address concerns raised by members of Council and the neighbourhood surrounding the property.

At its meeting of April, 20, 2020 Burlington City Council approved the planning staff recommendation of Confidential Legal Report L-10-20 to accept a new offer of settlement between National Homes (Brant) Inc. (“National Homes”) and the City.

This settlement agreement presented to us was essentially based on the assessment from staff indicating that proposed amendments to the development proposal satisfied all regulatory and planning requirements and was therefore defensible at LPAT. The settlement proposed is almost identical to the rationale provided to the previous Council.

Sharman pointing LVP

Paul Sharman fighting for his political life in the fall of 2018

Sharman says he is “the only returning member of Council in 2018 who voted to support of the original settlement agreement with National Homes. That decision was based on two considerations.

The first being that the applicant had worked with community members and staff to achieve several modifications. Original 2018 approved settlement included:

• reduction of 21 units
• addition of 0.76 parkland
• addition of 7 townhomes suitable for families and seniors

The second consideration being the assessment of staff that the application satisfied all regulatory and planning requirements and was therefore defensible at LPAT.

“On April 20th, 2020, I again voted in support of what was essentially the same application that I supported in 2018, for the same reasons although, as I have noted, there were some further, minor, modifications.

“Ironically, it is possible that increased setbacks included in the 2020 settlement will actually increase the net density of the development. In other words, the development will be more compact.

“It is unfortunate that taxpayers will likely foot a $28,000 legal fee that will be awarded against the City resulting from the new 2018 Council decision to scrap the first settlement agreement.”

Is that a shot over somebody’s bow?

Related articles:

John Calvert’s J’Accuse

The Mayor’s rationale

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7 comments to Councillor Sharman weighs in on the 2100 Brant development – says the city will take a $28,000 hit on the legal costs.

  • Elan

    The original ‘Sharman’ settlement was reached November 2018…rushed through after the election but before the new Council could be sworn in. That last minute settlement by a lame-duck Council tied the new Council’s hands who, on behalf of the surrounding residents, wanted more negotiation and concessions.

    It is a similar quagmire created by Sharman’s and his previous Council as the one faced by the new Council in trying to deal with the Old/New Official Plan, and the need to change the Hub designation ridiculously assigned to the Burlington bus depot, again by Sharman’s developer- friendly Council.

    Sharman is part of a group that threw up all these barriers to the then ‘new’ Council, who were elected to try to role back his over-development plans, then tries to take credit when the Council can’t get LPAT support to get past his barriers, saying “I told you so”.

    Anyone thinking Sharman would be a good mayoral candidate, please….imagine the skyscrapers he would support in the downtown! 80% of his political donars in 2018 were developers. I would hope Burlington has moved on from his developer friendly nonsense.

    • Lynn Crosby

      Very well said! Also post-COVID, overly dense intensification may be a much harder sell.

    • Blair Smith

      Well Elan, I almost thought that you were another voice under a pseudonym. But, it would appear not. Anyone thinking that Sharman “would be a good mayoral candidate”, or candidate at all, is frankly grasping rather pitifully at past history. Your points are well taken but I think that we all need to move on – including Mr. Sharman.

    • Susanne Tristani

      Elan, you have summarized this application perfectly. The part that I find most irritating is glossed over in the above article: “The applicants appealed the subject applications to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal after the required time period established by the Planning Act expired.” There is absolutely no justification for our Planning Department to be so incompetent that they don’t get their work done in time to meet the statutory requirements, and yet it is happening time and again. Had they put a recommendation before council in the required time frame, this all may have been avoided. It should also be noted that “defensible at LPAT” and “good planning” are two completely different things.

  • Perryb

    28 grand is less than rounding error. Couple of day’s pay for the Planning dept.

  • Alfred

    David.

    . Councilor Meed Ward voted against the other councilors decisions or went rogue as you put it, on many occasions. She is now the Mayor. We need independent thinkers, not sheep for council. This might be history repeating itself.

  • Howard

    Sharman is taking one from the MMW playbook. She was outspoken and broke rank during her tenure as a councillor. Give him credit for staying the course based on the staff reports and insight. Since little had changed why change your way on how you vote. Sharman is also getting his back up as the mayor is attempting to spin the message that this new council massively moved the bar on the deal which is not true. Public consultation, greenspace and unit numbers and modifications were in the 2018 deal. She attempts to take credit for these positive changes. 28K for one LPAT hearing. Multiply that by the 30+ tribunals headed in that same direction, it will become a very expensive 24 months.