By Staff
November 20th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
It is when ordinary people see a decision made by a level of government that they do not agree with and turn to their neighbours and friends and decide to become agents of change that a city grows.
Susan Goyer has created Engaged Citizens of Burlington; a non-profit group working towards building a better Burlington for generations to come.
They will be virtual – all on-line, creating a community presence to help to build awareness on issues affecting Burlington residents and the community as a whole.
Small org – big hearts; a diverse group of residents and business people who want only the best for Burlington.
They want you to call, text, email and share their Facebook page with “those you would like to mobilize, and remember you’re not selling them anything or trying to convert them to a new religion.”
They are a grass roots based community trying to save a parcel of land – their fuel is passion which they find “ irresistible!” If you are excited about this cause and discuss it with those around you, they will naturally become engaged and interested in helping. Their virtual home is a Facebook page.
They define themselves as “caretakers of our environment and resident of Burlington who have a responsibility to ensure that building a better Burlington is a lasting legacy for generations to come.”
They talk a good talk: “All it takes is a few minutes of your time to advocate for a better Burlington.
“Volunteer: Recognize how your contribution is important to the people of Burlington. Leverage your amazing skills, we loved to be wowed, and we would be missing out if we didn’t have you!
Susan Goyer, first member of the Engaged Citizens of Burlington Facebook page would like people to like kittens.
“There are many opportunities to help, by helping to build our network, mobilize people in your community, and serve as an ambassador.
“Qualifications: Authentic, open minded, enthusiastic and a willingness to take on assignments to solve problems.
“Key Responsibilities: Attend city council meetings, events, raise awareness and achieve a win/win where gaps exists
Reflecting their sense of humour they suggest being “able to leap tall buildings; like kittens, puppies, like all animals really.”
Their first task is to take the city council decision on the 421 Brant project to the OMB. They are asking people to become part of a small (and growing) but mighty team to submit an appeal to the OMB on the recent approval of a 23 story building on Brant Street?
They maintain the approval by Burlington’s City Council exceeds the current 12 story limit for downtown Burlington. They want to have that decision reversed.
They plan to meet on December 13th to get the OMB appeal started.
Home for the Facebook page is HERE.
REMEMBER THIS DATE…… October 22, 2018……..That is Election Day in Burlington, the day Rick Goldring, Rick Craven, and a few others start their new jobs in civvy life after the elections. Time is ripe for new people who care about our city, our forests, our people to run for office! What a great opportunity to flush out the swamp!
A change in Members of Council next year will do little unless there is change in City Hall managent culture starting at the top. Currently there appears to be no accountability to the residents of Burlington.
A few years ago the City brought in a speaker ( think it was the Mayor’s Inspire Series) who indicated that having a vibrant downtown with retail stores to serve the area is essential. He suggested that when any new development is done in other parts of Burlington that council be aware of the importance of having this included in the planning.
Here we are a few years later, Council doing everything in its power to eliminate the small retail stores in the downtown area by having high rise buildings with less commercial space available and clogging up the streets with more traffic. No we don’t want a Shoppers Drug Mart taking up all the commercial space in a high rise building ( this was suggested by a Councillor).
I am tired about hearing that we have to follow density guidelines set forth by the Province. It was the decision of Council to decide where this intensification would take place….let’s not forget about that.
Burlington City Council’s recent approval of the 421-431 Brant Street development which consists of a 23 storey condominium complex situated on historic Brant Street goes against the existing zoning regulations and the wishes of residents and local business.
The rapidity of this approval, limited time to review amendments proposed by the developer and the City Planners’ recommendations, have not allowed for a proper detailed review of this major project which will have a substantial impact on downtown Burlington.
Just prior to the vote local residents in less than one week amassed close to 1500 signatures opposing the development which was presented to Council for their consideration.
Councillors heard on multiple occasions from community groups and businesses their objections and concerns the development did not support affordable housing, family units, and results in reduced retail and commercial space by 30% from the existing availability. In addition only 6 guest parking spaces was granted by the developer for 179 units and there is no parking allowance for retail/commercial.
The high volume of recent zoning amendments has eroded the role of zoning regulations as a true guide to what development is allowed across the City of Burlington. By frequently permitting larger and denser projects, the city has frustrated many residents who erroneously believed the established zoning rules dictated what could be built in their neighborhoods.
Zoning legislation is a necessary bulwark against chaos in urban land use. Without zoning, external diseconomies will abound; we can look to our neighbours within the GTA as examples of poor zoning amendment approvals.
Further, the city will be one of haphazard construction, instability, disregard for neighborhood “character,” irrational allocation of property—and a haven for unscrupulous speculators.
Land developers have only one objective: erect buildings for maximum profit and then move on to their next site. Other than occasional wind, parking, or shadow studies, there is generally no consideration given to the short term or long term impact and strain their project will have on the capacities of municipal services and infrastructure.
And yet other cities such as the City of Oakville and Niagara on the Lake have done an exceptional job of maintaining the character in their downtown core with a vibrant city scape while ensuring developers respect existing zoning regulations.
Residents and local businesses do not object to redevelopment/revitalization on this section of Brant Street, it is the scale and height of the proposed development that will completely dwarf the surrounding buildings and is totally out of keeping with the character of Burlington’s downtown core. There are many areas within Burlington that are better suited to high rise buildings which are more convenient to public transit and other amenities besides the downtown core.
Appropriate zoning is designed to ameliorate development, and create a city that is desirable and outstanding.
We should not be on bended knee to greedy developers as there is no shortage of good developers willing to abide by existing zoning regulations. The City of Burlington is situated along a wonderful natural resource that can be put to great use rather than exploited.
Well planned development benefits our citizens, our economy and our long term growth. We, as citizens of Burlington, look to our city Council to exercise authority to preserve and promote our safety and welfare first and foremost, and preserve the community in which we live.
Carriage Gate Condos must not be allowed to be built on Brant St.. Simple as that. Twenty-three storeys of people smack in the middle of what was once a thriving retail area would be a travesty. The traffic that will ensue will be a continual throbbing headache. The condos will be owned by investors wanting to make money from rentals such as air B&B. Burlington has always been a city of families. No families are going to live in the CGC. Children in such a place? I would feel very sorry for them. Rebuild Brant St. into the attractive, charming street it once was and it will thrive. Do not let the money-worshippers destroy a city that, treated properly, could be a shining example of what a beautiful city’s main street should be.
Having spent a lot of time in southwestern Ontario this summer I can attest to the relevance of Joe’s comment. Paris has a thriving downtown…as does Tillsonburg, and many other communities. What is also interesting is that those downtowns also have major retailers. Tillsonburg has a Metro, Sobeys and Zehrs in the downtown core, as well as a Shoppers Drug and a Staples. Even Walmart and Home Hardware are very near the major drag. They also have a large mall downtown that offers …wait for it….free parking! Big box retailers and small, local establishments co-exist in the same vicinity and are thriving. Quelle surprise!!
Anyone who thinks that a 23 storey high rise development is a prescription for a vibrant shopping experience is living in “la-la land”. First, the rents in these developments are going to be astronomical. Second, there is no parking. Third, local merchants will be dissuaded from opening because of higher costs. Fourth, the City hasn’t a clue how to deal with the impending traffic congestion caused by excessive concentration in the downtown core. Finally, residents will by-pass the downtown in favour of Burlington Mall, Mapleview Mall, or even neighbourhood malls where access and the shopping experience is a lot easier.
Finally, this isn’t about NIMBY, and it isn’t about being obstinate for the sake of being difficult. It is about fairness, practicality, and fair representation. We elect Councillors to represent our interests and do what is fair, reasonable and in the greater public good. I didn’t hear a single speaker at the November 13th Council meeting, aside from the developer, speak in favour of this development. What I did hear was 12 people advance logical, sensible and genuine concerns. They weren’t radicals, they weren’t obstructionists, and they weren’t parochial or narrow minded. Unfortunately, we have a Council that doesn’t give a damn about public opinion, and in the next election many of us will return the favour and show they aren’t worth a damn…or our vote!
For Engaged Citizens the gates will not be closed until after the next municipal election. The OMB appeal is only one prong of a movement sparked by city council’s indifference to the voices of its citizens.
While the Brant St. development has sparked the outrage, the feelings run deeper than that on so many issues from Bike lanes to Underfunded Transit to the Destruction of Lakefront to the J. Brant Museum Funding.
Engaged Citizens is fast becoming a city wide movement. Council should be aware that “Downtown” belongs to all of us and Burlington does too.
Councillors from other wards who thought this was not an issue for “Their Constituents” are about to find out: “IT IS”.
As a resident of ward 5, I commend the above mentioned group in their efforts to take a stand against city planners and council members. As has be stated by many of my neighbours, this continued lack of regard for the opinions of those who have voted this council into office, gives a clear signal that it is time for a change next fall.
We all remember who voted for the New Street Road Diet pilot and we will be watching with interest when the current data is presented to council for their final vote on December 11th.
When is the right time “to jump off the perch of inaction”? Perhaps it is now, before things get worse. There never seems to be a long period of time between when the city notifies the public what is happening regarding development and when it is passed by Council. Have you noticed that most times the email for a proposed public meeting is sent on a Friday late afternoon for a Monday or Tuesday meeting?
Sometimes you have to “pick gravel out of your teeth” to be more successful the next time around. Look at Oakville. Their council has won at the OMB many times, after not being successful at the beginning. If our council members had the same foresight we would not be in this situation now.
Perhaps if Council Members looked at the City of Burlington as a whole instead of protecting their own wards things would be different.
During the Town Hall radio session with Bill Kelly on Nov. 16 Mayor Goldring opined on the decision, how council seldom change their votes, how allowing citizens to delegate only give them false hope and how council will follow the new Official Plan and that citizens will not be allowed to appeal council decisions under the revised OMB. That means our votes in the next and future elections will mean more than ever. As to this effort, this is where the rubber hits the road and this group would be well advised to seek a legal opinion on the appeal process.
If 1% means nothing, stop asking us! Don’t confuse NIMBY with DEMOCRACY. The most frustrating part of this decision, must be, that council voted against the yet unapproved official plan that would allow 17 stories versus the existing 12 storey limit, that is not NIMBYism.
Paris Ontario has a thriving downtown, no tall buildings, no mobility hubs. Council and planning should pay a visit to “The prettiest little town in Canada” and then compare it with what we are about to get.
https://omny.fm/shows/bill-kelly-show/metrolinx-and-the-mayors-townhall-with-rick-goldri
The gates are not closed until the appeal deadline has passed.
It will cost $600 to get the appeal rolling. That has to be raised, so we will see how that is realized.
Knowledgeable volunteers can write the basic grounds for the appeal and file it at City Hall.
Maybe planning experience and legal advice will come forward, and there are several steps available before you get to a full hearing. It will take time.
Again, knowledgeable volunteers can contribute to the arguments supporting the appellants position.
People have to learn that the official planners and legals practice policy based evidence making. They make up stories to support what they want. You can buy any story you want.
There is no planning science, and that’s why we have planning and bylaw constraints to keep things in control. And there is no formula or objective method to determine what something should be in justifying things outside of these plans and bylaws.
It’s all blah, blah that you can read in the planning justification reports that are bought and paid for. Citizens can make their own blah, blah based on the city condoned developer’s violations of existing planning and bylaw policies. These are pretty clear.
Make no mistake, it is no slam dunk, but once a decision is made to commit, then providence will move too. All sorts of things may occur to help that would never otherwise occur.
The decision to commit can bring with it a whole stream of events that no one could have dreamed of.
There is no guarantee before a decision needs to be made, and taking the risk must come before what opens us to some influence on where things are going, something we do not have without real commitment.
We have to jump off the perch of inaction, if we are ever to learn how to fly.
Reality check:
A) The City Planning Department supports the application as good planning.
B) City Council supports the application as good planning.
C) The Regional Planning Department supports the application as good planning.
D) The Developer’s planner supports the application as good planning.
E) The Province actively promotes this type of development / intensification.
F) A handful of NIMBY-sounding citizens representing less than 1% of the city’s population with no planning expertise whatsoever are taking the position that the certified planning experts in A, B, C, D and E all got it wrong, because they don’t like it.
A + B + C + D + E + F = A small group of citizens who are going to get spanked at the OMB (if this even makes it that far) and then complain that the system is corrupt, all because they didn’t get what they wanted or couldn’t come up with the funds. To say this is an uphill battle is the understatement of the year. There’s something to be said about picking your battles. Jump off the perch of inaction at the wrong time and you may just end up picking gravel out of your teeth.
Thanks James for reminding us of the circumstances we should accept without question. We should be grateful knowing:
– Government works for the moneyed and the powerful, not all citizens;
– Municipal governments corporate welfare policy helping out the neediest developers in the form of increased height and density is good for all of us;
– Government works best when it ignores public input;
– Ignorant citizens need not worry, they have the benefit of the all-wise and all-knowing priesthood of planning experts to figure out the complicated stuff;
– Labeling dissenters as NIMBYs is really helpful – labels make it easier for even the simple among us to understand what the label makers see.
No, thank you. This is a great example of why the public often fails, when emotions override logical thinking and the ability to make an intelligent statement.
I think you are right James. It should also be noted that an appeal would also require the residents to lead evidence. This means hiring a lawyer, a planner, an urban designer, etc. This involves significant costs. While speaking to a lawyer friend of mine last night, he tells me that a hearing like this would run about two weeks long and the costs for the residents could easily be in the $250K range as the residents would have to present a full case. He rightfully reminded me that City Planning staff would be supporting Council’s decision, not the residents. I was also advised that if the residents are not prepared to call a full case, the appeal could be tossed out as being what he called frivolous and vexatious, solely for the purpose of delay. If I have some of the terminology wrong, my apologies. This is beyond what I know best.
Exactly.
Jamwes,
I agree with William.
Let’s check your reality check.
Your A+B+C+D are the bought and paid for blah blah that says anything they want, that we are supposed to accept as the gospel truth from the anointed high priests of planning, who are the only ones that can speak.
Like I said above, “People have to learn that the official planners and legals practice policy based evidence making. They make up stories to support what they want. You can buy any story you want.”
As to your E, the provincial support for development does not say that “intensification” means that anything goes with height and density regardless. The provincial policy statement says a lot of things that it supports, some of which are collateral damage of this approved project.
The ABCD takes intensification to justify anything they want, and uses more of the blah blah to say anything they want to justify it.
The provincial Planning Act requires due public process to approve Official Plans before they are law, and this requires public consultation and engagement before approval. This Act does not condone city Councils ignoring this public process before it even happens, and going ahead and doing what they want by violating their determinate, existing OPs.
That brings us to F. So what if it’s a relatively small group? A majority of 50% plus 1% would be almost 100,000. Is that enough for you. How about 5%, or 10,000. Even 1%, that you pick, is 2,000. I think I could say that the citizen group outnumbers the planners on this file. That’s more than work in city hall.
But you say they have no planning experience whatsoever, another extreme statement that you cannot possibly have any knowledge about.
So get serious, and stop the NIMBY crap. You are a 1-man NIMBY about these people, and you know nothing about them.
There are lots of potential battles going on in Burlington, with more to come. Picking battles to fight is not easy because there are so few ways to fight, and finding people to fight them is hard. Then there is a tipping point.
I agree that this is an uphill battle, and it may not happen. But jumping off the perch is part of the engagement, and having to pick gravel out of your teeth is an acceptable risk, a part of genuine living.
Oh Tom, here we go again with your baseless anti-development claims, conspiracy theories and propaganda-esque (and tiresome) tag lines of “policy based evidence making” and “bought and paid for”. We heard you the first time. What’s fascinating to me is that through years of repeating yourself over and over and over, you actually appear to believe your own alternative reality.
What makes you think Official Plans are written in stone, and not subject to amendment under appropriate circumstances? Where is your evidence that A, B and C are “bought and paid for”? You keep saying that, do you have receipts? Maybe darkened alley photos of developers handing over suitcases full of cash? Is it possible, even just remotely possible, that what I said is correct, that some of Council’s decisions actually do represent good planning, and because you disagree with them you are somehow trying to rationalize what in your mind must surely be some form of covert operation to screw with the people of Burlington? Or are you too far gone to see that? Maybe it’s time to take off your tinfoil hat and just accept that Burlington is changing. Of course that doesn’t mean anything goes, before you try and put words in my mouth as you often do. It needs to be done responsibly. Putting a 23 storey building in a downtown intensification area in a growing city within the Greater Toronto Area that already has 20+ storey buildings nearby doesn’t sound the least bit irresponsible to me.
James,
Well I guess enough has been said on this story. Once again, you just say anything you want, so having a real discussion is not on.
But I must admit, you are very good at writing about your own alternative reality. Just a little too vitriol and scathing by design, revealing your own propaganda machine at work.
It keeps reminding me that you use a pen name, no one knows who you are, and what your vested interest in these issues might be that stimulates your relentless scorched earth writing style. That is what attracts these questions.
I can take some comfort that of 19 comments here, besides our exchanges, no one but pen name Pauline supports what you say, another somebody we know nothing about.
But paying attention, one sees that you two are a pair, often seen together in comments.
Why don’t you both reveal if you have a vested interest in this.
Who are you?
Hey James,
How many people will live in Burlington in 2030? What percentages do you estimate will drive or use transit?
You would think the city will have answers to these questions as you note they are professional planners – however they have nothing except “more is better” – whit absolutely no explanation of how any of this is going to work.
The Facebook page is ENGAGED CITIZENS OF BURLINGTON, not Concerned Citizens of Burlington.
Please don’t underestimate the power of a grass roots organization. What is unfortunate is that the residents of Burlington have to fight the decisions of the councillors they voted into office. A City that wins an award for citizen engagement and not even follows their own Official Policy for development in the downtown is truly unsettling. When a developer originally asks for a 12 storey building and city staff encourages them to go higher and the council agrees to 23 storeys is unbelievable.
October 2018 is not that far away, I hope people don’t forget who voted in favour of this project.
Please join us. Visit Concerned Citizens of Burlington on Facebook.
I hope they have deep pockets or a lawyer and team of planning professionals willing to work for free, otherwise their little dabble into the OMB world is going to be a real eye-opener once they realize the true costs involved.
Welcome to justice in Ontario. A community’s fate is determined by who has the deepest pockets, i.e. the developers who hire well compensated mercenaries – lawyers, planners and other experts.
Our quasi-judicial system means citizens are shut out and left to fend for themselves.