By Keith Moorse
December 16th, 2017
BURLINGTON, ON
I was shocked to learn of the approval by council of Amendment No.106 allowing the construction of a 23 story condo at 421Brant St. This is almost twice the existing bylaw of 12 stories. Just as disappointing was the lack of any explanation by the five Councillors for approving the application. I have not heard a single voice supporting the project ,save and except the Planning and Building Department’s 112 page report submitted to the Planning and Development Committee.
City Planner Mary Lou Tanner explains a development to ward 3 Councillor John Taylor
The role of the Planning and Building Department also needs clarification. Who do they represent? Their report reads like it was drafted by the developer with the recommendation based on unreasonable assumptions, out right contradictions, false conclusions, and serious omissions.
What can be done to cancel the approval of Amendment 106 and implementation of this project?
FIRSTLY: Restore the democratic process whereby the citizens opinions and input receives consideration. If the five councilors truly represented their constituents they should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment.
SECONDLY: Establish a referendum process to allow the citizens to determine the outcome of the project and Amendment #106.
THIRDLY: A thorough review of the report (PB- 62-17) by The Planning and Building Department and revisions made where necessary.
If this development takes place it will totally and permanently change the character and charm of lower Brant Street and the City of Burlington. This will affect all residents and is too big a decision for Burlington Council alone. A precedent will be established and more applications will follow, as is already anticipated. There is a reference in the report, PB-62-17, that the proposed 23 story building will look less obtrusive when similar buildings are erected in the immediate area. This is an admission that this building will look out of place until others are erected.
The Burlington Sustainable Development Committee has added it’s comments to the application, starting on page 149. It sets out several conditions to be met, most of which have at best received only lip service. For example: “full public participation in development decisions”. Input was given at public meetings and to council, however, it was ignored. It also called for the new development to be compatible to existing end users, which is clearly not the case. Putting aside, all the disputes regarding whether or not, the analysis is flawed the issue really distills down to three distinct choices:
Part of the “quaint” small town Burlington feel that many citizens want.
1.Reject the by-law Amendment No.106 to allow a 23 story condo at 421 Brant Street, keeping lower Brant Street with its’ boutique like shops, and eateries. It has a quaint friendly character which has contributed to its rating as the #1 City of its’ size in Canada in which to live.
2.Allow the amendment to pass thus creating the tallest building in Burlington changing the character of Brant Street and Burlington itself. It would become a Mississauga or Toronto with its’ not so charming steel and glass canyons.
3.Authorize a 12 story building as established by the new official plan.
There are other locations where such a building would be more suitable. Just leave our historical Brant Street alone.
Appendix “A”
1. New Official Plan (NOP) states tall buildings in the downtown area should exclude construction of same on Brant Street which is presently approved for 12 stories.
2. Many units will be three(3) bedrooms to attract families yet elsewhere in the report it states the target market as being “ affluent empty nesters”.
3. Parking at 1.2 spaces per unit hardly meets the requirement for the family ( 3+ adults).
4. Two elevators to service 23 floors are inadequate
5. This project in NOT needed to meet the Provincial Growth Plan minimum target (report PB-62-17).
6. This is not an isolated project and sets a dangerous precedent.
7. Why 23 stories, when there are many exciting designs far more appealing which could be achieved in 12 stories? The cold sharp angles of this structure does not compliment City Hall. Burlington can do better.
8. The only one benefiting from 23 stories is the developer.
9. Years of disrupted traffic due to construction, making a bad parking/traffic situation worse.
The clock plaza at City Hall provides this focus.
10. Many small businesses on lower Brant may not survive due to prolonged construction activity.
11. Burlington does not need a “signature’ building. The clock plaza at City Hall provides this focus.
12. For what purpose are there height By-Laws when they are continuously waved?
13. Staff response to citizens’ concerns with building height is flawed. They compare other buildings which cannot be considered in the same category the tallest being 5 floors lower(18) then the applicant and 2 to 3 blocks East of Brant. None are in fact on Brant Street.
14. No infrastructure costs are allocated to the City of Burlington for the sewer and water expansion and upgrades.
Keith Moorse is a Ward 3 resident. He is a retired senior executive with a Bay Street merchant bank with national responsibility. He has been a resident of Burlington since 1981
Mr Moorse is absolutely correct. Lets have a referendum.
Pauline, do you have an hour?
He nailed it! I am voting for Keith in the next election, city council who voted yes will not get my vote.
Keith is absolutely right on so many levels! He has summarized concisely the concerns that many residents feel.
This Council has no mandate to proceed with Mobility Hubs, and they should never have approved the 421 Brant Street proposal. Just as in the case of the ill-fated New Street Road Diet trial they flagrantly ignored majority opinion prior to the vote and sided with developers.
Council should hold a referendum on the Official Plan and the Mobility Hubs a.s.a.p. They can create an online referendum, issue user ids and passwords to residents as was done for online voting during the 2014 municipal election, and then they will have clear direction on whether or not to proceed. If they aren’t prepared to let voters have the final say on these issues then they can kiss their re-election chances “good bye” next October.
I have been mentioning this form of decision making for some time now. Our future being decided by a self serving horse show has to change. Large issues must be voted on by the constituents in each ward…then represented by the corresponding councilor.
Let’s create the website and move forward. Time for City Hall to put its money where it’s mouth is…correction…our money
Helene: There have been over 35 staff reports, open houses, a Strategic Plan, etc, etc … Is it really fair to criticize a process that has been ongoing for over six years that you obviously did not participate in?
Pauline: You may be missing the point regarding the genesis of ECoB.Why have a plan if you don’t follow it? The development in question and what raised a lot of hackles is 421 Brant at 23 storeys, does not conform to the existing 12-storey limit,let alone the 17 storey limit under the proposed Official Plan.
It appears that the City is updating its plan because it is so desperately out of date. It is my understanding that ALL tall buildings in the downtown required both official plan and zoning amendments. In fact City Hall does not comply. The Downtown was designated as an Urban Growth Centre in 2006 in Places to Grow and as an Anchor Mobility Hub in 2008 in The Big Move. The Strategic Plan establishing the downtown as the primary intensification area was approved unanimously by City Council – including MMW. Thus the need for the update. There were over 35 staff reports written related to the official plan review that are in the public realm. The Tall Building Guidelines came into effect this year. I bet you that a 17 storey tall building has the same GFA as a 12 storey slab. Not to mention the superior built form. I am no expert on this but based on my review of the City Planning Department’s recommendation report, the additional height beyond 17 storeys was recommended for approval as it satisfies provincial policy, proposes no adverse impacts and because of the community benefits that ECOB and you conveniently ignore. You might want to refresh your memory on the details of the development. On another post you commented that the existing density in the Urban Growth Centre is approx. 170 people and jobs per hectare. What does the additional 30 people and jobs per hectare mean in terms of additional units and commercial GFA. It appears that you are not alone in your interpretation of misleading and incorrect information.
Pauline,
I participated in a lot of the process that I could, and at the start it was a revision OP. But then, after a few years, it became a a process to complete write a whole new OP.
I read a lot of the reports that came out of what public engagement, but I didn’t really know where all that process was leading to until Fall into November when planners preferred options started to emerge.
With that, the original plan was to pass all the OP for approval early in January, but not the Hubs until later, in June 2018.
So people were supposed to digest 6 years of reports, of thousands of pages, of two different processes, in a couple of months, and it became obvious that the city didn’t care what people thought or said, and this became obvious because of the following events.
During the same time period several proposals were in process, and at least 2 of these were approved by amendments to the existing OP but based on the ideas and rationalizations from the proposed OP/Hubs plans and bylaws that are not approved, not vetted, and have no force and effect.
The proposal approvals, especially 421 Brant St., made it obvious that the the city was hurrying the proposals they wanted, and even more than that, regardless of what people thought.
Well that apparently triggered an avalanche of public outrage – not so much at the process itself, but where it was taking them, in fact, took them, and their city without their vetting and approval, or even any respect for their views. The city and planners are not waiting for any of the approval process to get in the way.
So the point is that the process we are talking about was never allowed to run its course before the plans it was working on were being effectively implemented. It was to hell with citizens.
That’s the issue here.
The downtown precinct has been changed/added since September 2017. A lot of this is very new. And the City completely disregarding their own OP would mean that even if we saw and agreed with the OP, they have now said “nevermind, we’ll do something completely different”. So what is happening now has not been going on for six years, and yes it’s very fair to criticize it.
Lynn: The City is updating its official plan. Of course it is going to be different. If everything were to stay the same, there would be no update.
People I talk to are already making plans to leave Burlington if this goes ahead. Already Grimsby and Welland are favourites to relocate as is Niagara on the Lake. People want that small town feeling back not the big city feeling. If we wanted that we would move to Toronto!
Excellent, understandable” objective analysis” of the decision,and its impact.Very refreshing.Perhaps a Ward 3 candidate in the next election?
I would love to see this matter go to a referendum. Do not destroy our quant downtown.
Totally agree with Mr. Moorse. This needs to be an election issue. The residents of Burlington should stand up and let staff and Council know that trying to amend the current Official Plan is not how this important issue needs to be decided.
Council should not ratify allowing 421 Brant Street to become the first of many high-rise buildings on Brant Street.
Agree with every single word. I hope those who don’t understand the full picture and think that opposition to this is simple NIMBYism of not wanting tall buildings anywhere read this. And this should be sent to every councillor and the Mayor. It is a disgrace how the 5 councillors who voted for this have treated and continue to treat the citizens who are voicing our opposition.
At the recent ECOB meeting, an attendee stood up and read an email he received from one of those councillors who told him that he listens to the experts at the Planning Department who are “university educated and well paid”, the obvious implication being the dumb citizens don’t know what they are talking about.
Well it’s obvious Mr. Moorse is also university-educated and seems to know a lot more than the planners!
Hurrah for Mr. Moorse! He is correct in every way. I especially like the idea of a referendum so that once and for all the idea of Brant Street becoming a street of high rise condos is banished forever.