Burlington’s experiment with an Interim Control Bylaw was arguably the worst planning decision in the city’s history.
After spending two years and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, it appears the Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) imposed by Mayor Meed Ward and council has not accomplished much. In fact, it appears to have given the development industry the opportunity to advance their proposals unchecked by the mayor and council.
The city’s stated the intent of the ICBL was to freeze development while they studied the areas of the downtown included within the Downtown Urban Growth Centre and around the Fairview GO station.
At the time, this sounded like a reasonable plan to many, however, despite being told in advance the ICBL would and could not stop development applications from being submitted and would not ultimately apply to applications filed prior to the findings and implementation of that study, the mayor and council directed staff not to process applications beyond a statutory public meeting. That meant that the development industry had at least a year window to submit their proposals knowing the mayor and council chose not to make decisions on any applications as long as the ICBL was in place. In other words, all significant applications were submitted and appealed because council failed to make a decision within the statutory planning framework that applies to all municipalities in Ontario.
The city left the door wide open to appeals resulting from council’s failure to make a decision and that is exactly what happened, repeatedly.
The fallout of the ICBL is what many now consider to be a gift from the mayor. Applications came in and staff’s hands were tied, council became redundant as they chose not to make decisions. Maybe this is why an ICBL is so rarely used.
The Amica senior care complex on North Shore Blvd, was the first development within the ICBL study area to advance to an Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) hearing. However, the hearing was converted to a settlement hearing when the mayor and council approved a negotiated agreement with the developer. There has not been much activity on the site yet but, make no mistake the complex will be built with multiple buildings up to 16 storeys in height.
Mattamy’s proposal at the corner on James and Martha St. was the second settlement agreement within the ICBL study area. The mayor and council approved a 13-story building and in the process disregarded their tall and mid-rise building guidelines and commercial requirement in the downtown mixed-use precinct. That decision may and likely will come back to haunt the city and council. With the Mattamy development generally approved, they are back at the OLT in Jan. 2022 for another settlement agreement, presumably a site plan for the OLT to approve.
The recent approval of a 29-storey development at the corner of Lakeshore Rd. and Pearl St. was also a proposal submitted but not acted on by the mayor and council. Despite knowing and having already approved two developments within the ICBL study area, the mayor and council chose not to make a decision on the application. This resulted in a long and costly process at an OLT hearing. The results of that hearing are well known and confirmed what the mayor and council already knew but refuse to except, the policies in place at the time an application is submitted are the ones that apply to the development proposal.
Thinking they could rewrite history, create new policies, and then apply them retroactively, is naïve at best, the mayor and council knew better.
Those three developments are just the beginning of the ICBL fallout. During the time the city refused to act on development applications several were appealed and began to stack up at the OLT, all due to councils’ failure to make decisions.
It should be noted that despite the politically popular soundbite blaming the OLT for making decisions in favor of developers, they have been almost a non-factor for this mayor and council. During their time in office, the OLT has made two decisions, the parking rate for the Clearview development (mayor and council approved the development height and mass) and the recent 29-storey development at Lakeshore and Pearl (mayor and council supported 22 storeys on the Lakeshore, contrary to the new OP they had just approved). If you compare the OLT record with councils, you will find there have been at least 14 developments approved by the mayor and council, most of them behind closed doors. It’s clear the OLT has not been the driving force behind all the new developments in Burlington.
That is not the end of the ICBL story. January 2022 promises to be another critical month with two developments that were stacked up due to the ICBL and council’s non- decisions scheduled for OLT hearings.
First up is the 27-storey proposal by Core Developments between Lakeshore and Old Lakeshore Road (in “the football”). The new Official Plan (OP) and the ministers decision to move the Urban Growth Centre (UGC) will not be factors during this hearing. The hearing is to be complete in Jan. 2022, so we expect the OLT will provide their decision sometime in the spring or early summer of this year.
The 11-storey proposal on Pine Street has a long history. However, that saga will finally be the focus of a hearing commencing on January 19, 2022, with a decision again expected in the spring or early summer. As is the case with the Core appeal, the new Official Plan, which is under appeal, and new UGC location will not hold any weight on the final decision.
Both developments were appealed because council failed to make a decision, effectively making the OLT the decision maker.
The seven-building development on Fairview St. (Holland Park site) is also before the OLT in what appears to be a decision on a site plan. Many will recall this application does not need an Official Plan or zoning amendment, just a site plan to move forward. Councillor Kearns undelegated the site plan approval from staff to offer more public engagement in the approval process. However, after almost two years for a process that has a timeline of 30 days the application was appealed, council will no longer be the decision makers for this application.
You may be as confused as we are regarding the process for this application. The application complies with the in force Official Plan and applicable zoning. This is exactly where the mayor and council say they want growth to happen and within the new boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre. So, why would this site plan be taking so long for the city to approve?
Whether it is just delaying a decision during an election year or not wanting to make a politically unpopular decision, the result is yet another appeal at taxpayer’s expense.
Following an uncontested motion releasing the two additional 17-storey towers at the Paradigm complex next to Walmart on Fairview St. from the ICBL, the city is processing a site plan to allow the final stages of this project to move forward.
A little later in the year (June), there is a hearing scheduled for the second of two 27 storey buildings between Lakeshore and Old Lakeshore Rd. (in “the football”).
Although the land between Lakeshore and Old Lakeshore Rd. (known locally as “the football”) was within the ICBL study area the mayor and council chose not to use the opportunity to review and update the city’s current planning policies that have been recognized as out of date and fail to reflect current provincial policy. The results of the hearings for both 27-storey developments in the football will determine if their decision was a good one, or not.
Three more development applications within the ICBL study area (two appealed for non-decision) 535 Brant St. and 407 Martha St. will work their way through the process. The third on Maple Avenue will eventually replace the Maple Villa long-term care home. That application has been under review for a long time. Let us hope the city acts responsibly and doesn’t force yet another appeal because council failed to make or did not want to make a decision.
We have also been told the much-delayed report from staff restarting the Waterfront Hotel study will finally be available early this year, perhaps January. When the study finally does restart it will be on the taxpayer’s dime as the funding from the developer has long been spent.
The discussion and focus of the study will be very different this time as the Waterfront Hotel itself now has an application working its way through the planning process. The mayor and council’s three-year delay in restarting the Waterfront Hotel study and their decision not to include it as part of the ICBL study or the new Official Plan review has potentially taken the wind out of the city’s sails.
So, was the ICBL and naïve thinking about rewriting history and retroactively applying new policies just a convenient way for the mayor and council to delay difficult and politically unpopular decisions, then place the blame on the OLT? Or are these approved, appealed, and soon-to-be built developments considered a success?
Either way the ICBL study was costly for taxpayers and had little or no impact on developments around the GO station or downtown.
Not what many were expecting from this mayor and council.
