By Pepper Parr
BURLINGTON, ON May 30, 2011 – When the city planner tells a council committee that he can “see this one heading for the OMB ” – pay attention. Bruce Krushelnicki the planner knows a lot about the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB); he wrote the definitive text on the organization and once sat as a Board member.
Massive five building complex that has been a problem since day one – now has to deal with a Council committee.
The Planner was speaking at a Community Development Committee meeting at which close to 50 residents from the Plains Road and Fairwood Place East area of Aldershot where a five unit development of 20 storey high-rises are going up.
The developer, Drewlo Holdings has been described as a “difficult” neighbour and has a tendency to walk all over the rules that regulate development in Burlington.
Mark Preston, a known Burlington Tory operative, has an office directly across the street from the construction site and complains of noise, dust and traffic problems. Such is the price of development in a community.
However, the residents of Fairwood Place East have decided they are not going to sit quietly by while a developer consistently flouts the rules.
The issue at the moment is the decision on the part of the developer not to put in one of the five ramps to the massive underground parking complex. They just didn’t build it – and when the city inspectors began asking questions the developers sought an amendment to the site plan.
The city wasn’t prepared to go along with the request to an amendment to an approved site plan, especially when neighbours in the immediate area said the decision to change the ramps to the garage would have a profound impact on traffic in the immediate area.
Rob Cooper, speaking on behalf of the 40+ resident who crowded into Council chambers, said the developer was trying to use the application for an amendment to legitimize something they should not have done in the first place.
One of the ramps just wasn’t built and the planning department wants to see it built. Residents have very strong feelings about the ramp and want the city to enforce its construction.
The planner had a clear understanding of what was going on and he asked Council to un-delegate the site plan. When a development is approved the matter gets turned over to (delegated) to the planner who oversees the construction and ensures that all the rules are followed. He makes all the decisions and because Krushelnicki is pretty sure this difference of opinion just might be taken to the OMB he wants to be sure that the cities case, in the words of Ward 2 councillor Marianne Meed Ward is “bullet proof. So after hearing all sides of the issue Council went along with the request to un-delegate which means the matter is now in the hands of the Committee.
And what will the Committee do for the suffering residents of Fairwood Place? Well first, the Committee wants a detailed report on just what has taken place and then wants to hear what the planner recommends. While the report writing is going on the developer is expected to initiate talks with the city to look for any possible compromise.
No problem there for the planner – he is there to keep things moving and he is also there to ensure that things move the way they are supposed to – and with this development very little has moved the way it was supposed to. The complex we are talking about will, when completed, have 950 residential units and Rob Cooper believes that many will end up using Fairwood as the street to get out of the complex of apartment units.
Cooper argues that gridlock has already taking place with the twice a day Aldershot school traffic as well as traffic to the public swimming pool and the 750 students who travel through the area to the high school.
When approved the project, a cluster of three buildings that were supposed to have five ramps leading into the underground parking. The developer arbitrarily failed to construct one of the ramps to the under ground garage and then when challenged decided to ask for an amendment to the site plan which would make his arbitrary decision legal.
This kind of hanky panky doesn’t go down very well with our planner. A gentleman to a T and more than prepared to be reasonable – but don’t cross him or try to pull a fast one. That’s what Drewlo tried to do and now they are in the cross hairs of a planner who knows the rules.
Rob Cooper says the planning department believes that on “a technical level, the street can support additional volumes of traffic” “We absolutely challenge that” said Cooper
“We believe” said cooper, “that the planning department is relying on outdated traffic data, and given the ongoing difficulty of dealing with Drewlo, are not dealing with this matter effectively.”
More than forty residents attended the Council Committee meeting to voice their anger with a developer who has been a consistent problem.
“It is the city’s responsibility” he added, “to act in the best interests of its residents. That simply is not the case with regard to this entire Drewlo development. There have been many violations of the original site plan but tonight we wish to focus on the traffic gridlock that this amendment, if approved, will create.”
Cooper and his neighbours want the city to:
Reinstate the central ramp exiting onto Plans Road.
Generate a new traffic report conducted by the city and not Drewlo Holdings
Provide the staff with more legal support.
No one knows yet if the residents are going to get what they have asked for. The matter is now back in the hands of the Council Committee who will now wait for a detailed report with recommendations from the planner. That should be in hand by the middle of July.
Council committee with then review the report and make a decision. The planner believes that the developer will appeal any decision that is unfavorable to the developer to the OMB. That process can take months and there is nothing the community can do until the OMB makes a decision. The critical part of this process is that the city have the strongest possible report in hand should there be an appeal to the OMB – that’s the bullet proofing Meed Ward was talking about.
While all this is going on the city will not be issuing and additional building permits for other parts of the development – which makes it a little sticky for the construction people – because the summer is the time of year to get those buildings up.
But developers have to deal with any number of issues: financing, marketing demand for construction crews elsewhere. It is a complex business that usually runs smoother when the rules are followed. Because the rules are as complex as they are the planner said “there are times when our hands are tied.”
What Councillor Craven wanted to know, “will the report tell us that we don’t already know” “Not much” was the response from the planner – but the report is being done for two reasons; to communicate to the developer that the city will be prepared if there is an OMB appeal to the decision council committee makes and (2) there will be a recommendation in the report on what the best next step should be.
The best line of the evening came from a staff member from the traffic studies group when he said: “What we have is a central ramp that is not there.”
It’s a messy situation with a developer who has chosen to break rules rather than comply. Time will tell if Council will give the Planning department the clout is needs to bring this situation back in line.
[retweet]
[…] decision made at the committee level is more of a recommendation than a cast in stone decision. Council can either accept the committee […]