By Staff
November 16, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
They are going to call it the Saxony and it will be limited to four storeys as required by the existing zoning.
Will the re-design the developer does wrap the Saxony around the Melodia restaurant?
Daniel Mclean, vice president with Landform Development Group Inc. wrote the Neighbours of St. Luke’s Precinct and thanked them for their comments and advised them that “will formally submit our new design and application in accordance with current zoning allowances (4 storeys of condos) in the spring of 2015.
The ‘Saxony’ project will be a 4-storey classic condominium building, designed to reflect the rich and vibrant heritage of the community in the City of Burlington. There is to be no on surface parking and there will be commercial space at grade.
“Our commitment” said Mclean “is to build great buildings in great communities, and after listening to all of the comments and feedback, we are very pleased to be building in (Ward 2 – St. Luke’s Precinct) in the City of Burlington.”
The Saxony certainly looks like a fine building in the renderings that were shown.
Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward has always taken the approach that developers should meet with the community before they take an application for development to city hall.
Whenever a developer wants to build something in Burlington they arrange for what is called a per-consultation meeting with the planning department. That is when the developers explains what they want to do and the planning department tells them what they are required to do under the zoning attached to the property and the guidelines in the Official Plan.
It will be called the Saxony and will be limited to four floors with commercial at grade level and no above ground parking.
Each ward Councillor gets a list of the pre-consultations that take place every month. Thus, they know what is coming down the pipe and can, if they wish, call the developer and arrange to talk about the project. Meed Ward appears to be the only Council member who invites the developers to meet with the community.
Meed Ward relates to her ward residents much differently than any other Council member. She is younger than the others; has a much stronger command of media, especially social media than any other Council member. Ward 1 Council member Rick Craven was a radio broadcaster but at a time when media was a lot different.
Meed Ward brings a much more open and collaborative style to her job. It was both interesting and telling when she told her residents that of course she wanted their vote – but more importantly she wanted their trust. That is the message she will take to the community when she announces she is running for Mayor in 2018.
If she is able to follow through on her record to date – Burlington will be a much different city ten years down the road.
There are those in the commercial development sector that say Meed Ward drives development out of the city. She didn’t drive Landform and its Saxony project out of town.
ADI Development is asking for a zoning change to allow 28 stories on property currently zoned for a maximum of 8.
It doesn’t always work out. Meed Ward met with ADI Development to talk about their 28 storey condominium project at Martha and Lakeshore. They were not interested in meeting the community. They did what they were required to do and will follow the 180 day time frame. If they don’t have an answer from the city they will probably, as is their right, take their application to the Ontario Municipal Board, which is what they have done with the Dundas/Sutton Link2 project.
ADI wasn’t interested in working with the community – they probably knew what the reaction was going to be – it was certainly rowdy when the Martha Street proposal was presented to the community.
Landform chose to meet with the community and listen to their objections.
The big difference between the two is that Landform was asking for one additional storey; ADI wants to put up a 28 storey structure on property that is zoned for eight.
Way back in 1985 the city approved the building of a 28 storey structure on the south side of Lakeshore. It took more than 20 years to get that project to the point where there are now shovels in the ground and a sales office on the site.
Had the Bridgewater site come before the city today – how would it have been received? Mayor Goldring explains that the project is a “legacy site” – whatever that means.
Wait until the public realizes there will be just 500 feet of open space between the condominium and the hotel through which people will be able to see the lake when the project is completed.
Some legacy!
Related content:
There is a different Burlington coming your way.
Tom,thanks for making some enlightening observations that the average resident can relate to. Peter, although I can relate to some of what you say, I can’t relate to how you say it.
You certainly sound like a hard-butt windbag, with no sense of other people’s opinions … basically, every time you vent spleen you lose even MORE votes. Mayoral calibre – 3rd place …. I don’t think so! You can’t even play in the sandbox nicely.
Every post is more bilious. What goes around comes around. Take a breather and calm down, meditate and start thinking positively. It’s great for one’s mindset. Your mindset is 3 sizes too tight – at least.
This is great entertainment, let it roll. The opinions are actually personal attacks. I just want to give some of these people food for thought, there is no harm in the exchange. At least I dont take it personally like some of these guys. Do this one, and I will be nice for a while. Have some fun. This Tom guy is funny, he gets all crazy. Come on, just this last time. My opinion is just as good as his, and I don’t take things personally. I actually have been getting calls on the IKEA thing, and people are not happy; and the Water Street situation is all wrong, and that will bite her in the ass, I promise; and I dont promise very often. I AM the come around on some issues. My guess is you are getting some feedback to back off with my comments; tough; however, ultimately it is your call.
This is a revealing comment. It is reminiscent of some of the entertaining comments I read a while back from somebody using the moniker “Mr. Wonderful”. Could it be that Mr. Rusin and …naw.
Burlington, in particular the downtown core, is ripe for re-development, intensification, transit and road improvements. The entire downtown core is undeniably underutilized in it’s current form.
Many in Burlington who think all they have the power to stop intensification have their heads buried deeply in the sand. Relying on an outdated Official Plan to support your argument has proven time and time again to be unsuccessful. The Provincial Government is in control here, not your local Councillors, and the Province wants intensification. The public has the power to delay, but not to deny.
It’s time to face reality. The charm and small town feel of some of the outlying GTA and Golden Horseshoe city’s is quickly being gobbled up by intensification, thanks to the Greenbelt which has essentially built a wall around this ever growing metropolis. There is no more land. Period. We wanted to stop urban sprawl, well we got it. We must now turn our efforts to maximizing the space we have. Look at Mississauga if you need an example of what even just 20 years of change can bring. Whether you think that is desirable or not, it happened. I know you don’t want this for Burlington, but it’s going to happen.
Each year the population multiplies, and each year, more places to live and work must be developed, out of necessity. We can’t build out, therefore we must build up. Look at the development that has occurred in the last 100 years. Multiply that several times over, and that’s what the next 100 years holds. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to agree with it. But that’s what’s going to happen. That’s life in the Greater Toronto Metropolis. Thankfully Canada is a large country, and the vast majority of towns and city’s will not be impacted by this, so if that’s not the lifestyle you desire, you still have options. You don’t have to live in the GTA, but if you decide to stay, you need to know that things are changing.
The anti-development movement in Burlington right now is accomplishing nothing but delaying the inevitable, and in the process is strangling any sources of revenue this City may have had to look forward to. Result: property tax increases. They’re coming, and they’re going to be big. And then intensification will happen anyway. If you heard the news yesterday about the Liberal Party’s unrealistic plans to eliminate the deficit by 2017 or raise taxes, you know we are a few years from major tax increases at a Provincial level as well.
We need to embrace our future, and stop fighting it. We’ve already fallen behind as it is, and we’re going to pay dearly for that.
Self-righteous babble from a bureaucrat-probably an OMB acolyte.
Quality development is a tremendous boon to any municipality, but unconscionable greed from insipid looters makes no sense. Of course we need to intensify in our region, and our Official Plan may be dated, but crap 28-story buildings are still crap. Do it right.
Peter Rusin does have some good ideas, but he needs someone else to speak for him since his trouncing by Ms. Marsden, and his sad rantings, but I’m not sure that James is the right spokesperson.
“Do it right”. What does that even mean when any development proposed in this city is faced with an immediate “No” from the public? You mentioned that 28 storey building as an example. Nobody seems to care about the actual building design, amenities, or financial benefit to our city, all they care about is the number of storeys, and once they hear that number, their mind is immediately made up. Everyone has their own opinion of what’s “right”, and there lies part of the problem. There is absolutely no incentive for developers to consult with the public when the public has already made up their minds and are just not interested in listening to facts. It’s a bloodbath. It’s a no-win situation. The public wants status quo 100% of the time. Sorry, but that’s not the direction the Greater Toronto Metropolis is heading. Thus, the inevitable battle ensues. What’s “right” when there is no “right”?
Seems you haven’t got your facts straight. A developer just did consult with the public and it was a win-win situation. There was no bloodbath. The public settled for intensification and not status quo.
The whole point is that the public accept that there will be intensification. That is already built into the Official Plan. The issue is over-intensification, not intensification. The four storey building application is the latter. The 28 storey building application is the former. Not so complicated after all.
Um no, not exactly. The developer wanted 5 storeys, the public went off on them, and they caved. Not a win-win. The developer opted out before it got messy. Why they did that is beyond me, when he had a very solid proposal for 5 storeys that would have been approved without so much as a blink of an eye at the OMB. It may have even been approved by Council without the need to go to the OMB, that’s how good that proposal was. They could/should have gone higher.
I do not believe that the public accepts there will be intensification. Not really. It’s one thing to say that, it’s another thing in practice. This was a perfect example. The developer proposed 5 storeys instead of 4, with the 5th storey being stepped back such that it wouldn’t have even been visible from the ground. The public said no. They didn’t look at the design or the bigger picture, they looked at the number 5. The fact is, the general public doesn’t care about Provincial Policy, they simply do not like change, which is why every time someone tries to invest in Burlington, they are faced with opposition by someone who backs onto it or lives nearby. Sure intensification is fine, we’re all for it… as long as it’s somewhere else. That’s hardly a demonstration of acceptance.
This city needs to support the young generation to stay in this city in order to support the ever aging population; the demographics have dangerously shifted to an aged community. That’s why we need an up to date Official Plan and educated smart capable people with technical expertise to encourage smart growth intensification, and not continue hoping for the return of the dinosaurs. Tax increases are coming.
Tax increases (even adjusted for inflation and in per capita terms) in the city have been pretty standard fare, more or less, for more than 30 years. Show us some technical expertise and analyse the data. Then show us how your projected tax increases compare.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about upcoming tax increases, but you need to consider the context.
To support the younger generation we need jobs in the city, real jobs, and not just residential, sky is the limit, intensification, that sits near empty all day while people commute elsewhere. The small retail that is sometimes included to justify the “mixed use” terminology in the planning justification, is not going to do it.
Getting the employment land owners to get on board with job creation development, instead of trying to convert to residential, would really be “smart growth”. That’s what the city needs to provide positive cash flow tax assessment growth. How about using your knowledge and influence to work on this?
Smart growth has to be balanced, and couple real jobs with places to live, in the rough proportions and locations outlined in the Places to Grow Plan, and in the OP. I have not seen this happening in Aldershot growth of residential, which has certainly been intensification, and I am not aware of the city keeping track of how they are performing in terms of this balance.
The aging population is also not a new reality but has been foreseen for a very long time, so it isn’t really “dangerous” as you say it is. This is a federal and provincial problem too, and largely, as they have the highest leverage policy instruments. The city can’t do too much about that, except notably, as I suggested, get the employment lands growing some jobs to attract the younger folks.
You know that we are in the process of updating the city OP, and you may have engaged in that, as there have been a number of opportunities. And I think that you need to show some respect for the Planning people we have at city hall, and recognize that planning is not a cut and dried “technical” calculation.
Rather, the planning justifications I have read recently are almost totally judgemental opinions of the developer consultants hired to justify the development within the policy framework relevant. There is almost no quantification to support these planning opinions, and you can find different opinions from different expert planners.
I’ve seen cases where the Places to Grow people/job density suggestions may be mentioned, but the project proposal intensifies way beyond these, and the proposed densities that are implicit in the proposal are never put on the table. This is a key issue that infuriates citizens – as said above, people accept intensification, but enough is enough..
Of course, the hired consultant for the developer always writes nice words to justify the projects. No matter what is being proposed, it always seems possible to call it “good planning”.
This is the dilemma that city planners face, so again, show some respect.
The dilemma is competence of which this council has very little. Explain the enrichment of one commercial property owner at the northwest quadrant of Walker’s Line and QEW that got enriched by the city paying for a new 6-storey office building in exchange for a failed IKEA relocation promoted by the mayor. The same brain trust allowed a church to be built on the south side of a single load 400 series highway. City planners are smart, but, they are subject to the influence of this council, especially in Ward 2. I have 100 percent respect for staff at the city, but, they need support to deal with this council who have no technical expertise.
I am also happy that we have the protection of the OMB that has the knowledge and intelligence to keep moving us forward.
If the failed IKEA thing is your favorite, and others have complained about it too, then, as I have asked before, go to the Mayor in writing asking him what process and decision-making is responsible. Call city hall to account or stop the talk.
You attack Councillor Meed Ward to a point where it could be seen as an agenda of personal abuse, and with the “nauseating MeedWard-ite support thinking” comment, you are spreading the vitriol all around to anyone who dares to look like they agree with, and appreciate, her approach to governance. Just so you know, I’m not in her Ward, but I like what she does, says, and her style.
And Cities are not envisioned, planned or built with just “technical expertise” as you put it.
Meed Ward has led the abuse on private citizens involved in the water street deal. Public servants need to protect private citizens and not abuse them by promoting misleading information and abusing political influence in the public forum like she has. She needs to re-calibrate her ethical conduct in regards to that file in particular.
The enrichment of a commercial property owner resulting from the failed IKEA relocation is not something the Mayor wishes to discuss in public. The city essentially paid for a brand new 6-storey commercial office building without justification. The price is $6M and still climbing.
Out of all the cities in the GHTA, this city is one of the most, if not the most archaic when it comes to business development and proactive smart growth intensification and infrastructure planning. This city’s vision is stagnation and resistance to reality. This council wants you to pay more taxes.
This development would make significantly better land use and planning sense if it also included the Melodia restaurant property in the overall assembly. Without the Melodia property, this is not a desirable development, even under the current 4-storey proposal. It is too bad this city continues to work from an antiquated official plan and zoning by-law, and a council member desperately lacking in technical expertise.
Mr. Rusin, it seems like the developer begs to differ with you. Apparently he still sees this as a desirable development, and the City and the neighbours all seem to agree. You may judge the Official Plan as antiquated, but many see it as the valid planning document it is, even today.
And, as evidenced by your thorough trouncing in the recent election for mayor and Councillor Meed Ward’s thorough approval result within her ward, I think it might be wise for you to read the tea leaves before making accusations that don’t seem to hold water, or tea.
The 4-storey is an as-of-right development appealing to a certain type of infill developer; that site has been looked over by many over the years; whether it be 4 or 5-storey was never the primary issue. It’s the Meed Ward that always seems to make new development proposals be an issue, regardless of what is being proposed. A more comprehensive development scheme including the Melodia property would have been superior, and should have been the primary dialogue and encouraged by the city for better land use planning at a prime corner location in the heart of the core; good and effective application of land use planning is where the focus should have been, notwithstanding an antiquated Official Plan; and instead of focusing attention on the usual anti-developer, anti-intensification resistance movement. So now we have a nice mixed-use condo development surrounding a tear down restaurant building; this type of particular inability to capitalize on a superior development scheme is an example of opportunity cost to the city. Enjoy your thorough approval result for supporting an increase in taxes.
The developer,Landform Development Group has agreed to build within the constraints of the existing zoning. It appears that they don’t have an “issue”. Meed Ward does not have an issue, nor does the planning department or the Core Residents Group. The determination of this proposal is a result of consensus between the City, the community and the developer, and accords to free market enterprise and the OP as it exists today.
If one were to decree that Burlington’s OP is unprepared to deal with intensification as it relates to the Provincial Policy Statement, then it would be prudent to ask the planning department to defend it . If the OP does indeed hold up to scrutiny, then the City’s position would be defensible against the OMB.
As far as I am concerned, Meed Ward works to represent her public, as is her duty, the residents who own the city and pay all the bills, plus. She works to give them some say in what goes on and how they choose to live.
To Mr. Rusin, including residents makes development proposals into issues, and he sounds like he has no time for any of it. Like we are stupid and nobody else knows anything, or wants to live in a certain built environment different from what he thinks is “superior”.
Mr. Rusin seems to represent only his views, and residents that don’t go along with his dictatorial style, as he himself writes it so clearly, are anti, anti, resistance. Good thing we get to vote.
I’m trying to give your comments due consideration so I can perhaps see what your experience and acquired knowledge can offer to the discussion and the decision-making.
In this effort, it would help if Mr. Rusin ceased what seem to be general and ad hominem criticisms of everything and everyone he doesn’t agree with. In this comment of his, everyone else but him is wrong, apparently. This tone continues that of his mayoral campaign, and JQ pointed out the results.
I would like to see some detailed facts and argument to support his assertions that this apparent consensus, all around, with the city, residents, Councillor, and developer all seemingly on the same page, is not desirable, is antiquated planning and by-laws, and does not make good planning and land-use sense?
You say that Councillor Meed Ward lacks technical expertise, however, you have not demonstrated any yourself. You can’t just criticize and put yourself up on a pedestal as a self-declared authority on everything.
We have to develop a common language and set of criteria to justify the decisions we make or can live with. How about contributing to this discourse in a constructive way Mr. Rusin? What planning and by-law improvements do you think would better the outcome we have seen here? Tell us why? Tell us the pluses and minuses.
I must say, that I think the Melodia adds to the proposal, and together with the development, to the neighborhood. So you can see that a lot of personal values and opinions go into what makes something “good planning”.
All this type of nauseating Meed Wardite support thinking must believe that good planning was also building the 8-storey above ground parking garage just to the south on Locust; putting a university campus in a location along the highway that is only accessible by car, instead of downtown where it should have been put; allowing a church to be constructed in a prestigious employment land area along the south side of a 400 series highway eating up more scarce economic development lands; continuing to preserve the underdeveloped and underutilized fire hazard property called Village Square so that private property owners can capitalize on tax benefits at the cost to the city; keeping city hall in its current costly location instead of intensifying the site with new residential development; maintaining an obsolete hydro building on brant street instead of redeveloping the site for high density mixed uses along one of the major arterials in the city; enriching a private commercial land owner by paying for a new 6-storey office building at the northwest quadrant of the QEW and Walker’s Line in exchange for a failed IKEA relocation (this one is my favourite so far). Enjoy your tax increases in the next four years.
Nice to see a builder who cares about the community in which it operates, unlike ADI that couldn’t care less about the community or any deleterious effect its actions could have. It’s only Canada after all.
If the builder cared about the community, he would have worked together with the city to integrate the Melodia property into the overall development scheme.
ADI is heading in the direction of where the rest of the civilized world is heading and in the same direction as mandated by modern land use planning policies, and also as dictated by the city’s soon to be updated Official Plan. If not, then the technically capable at the OMB will ensure effective and responsible development for this city.