Newsletter Signup

Burlington Mayor responds to public feedback on Council passing Interim Control Bylaw

Burlington City Hall.
Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward signs Interim Control Bylaw after Council’s approval on Tuesday, March 5, 2019.

My office has received feedback from the public regarding Burlington City Council’s vote to pass an Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) on Tuesday (March 5) during a special meeting of council. Since then, we have consistently received overwhelming support from the community regarding this initiative.

The ICBL came forward through a staff report initiated by the Department of City Building recommending temporarily limiting the development of lands in the downtown Urban Growth Centre and the area around the Burlington GO station — a total 1.07% of Burlington’s land is impacted by this bylaw — for one year with a maximum extension of one additional year.

If the work under the ICBL is completed in under one year, staff will bring forward its recommended policies to Committee and Council at that time.

Why now?

At the March 5 Planning and Development Committee Meeting we heard Heather MacDonald, Director of City Building, explain that staff has come forward now with this ICBL primarily because it was triggered by the Adi decision that was handed down by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB, now known as the LPAT – Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) in 2018 that allowed 26 storeys in a 4-8 storey zone. That was a game changer because it specifically referenced the downtown mobility hub as rationale in its decision.

The city asked for a review of that decision. We received notice that the review was complete and the decision would stand in November of 2018 — just a few months ago.

Staff considered the implications of that final decision and brought their report forward to the new council.

We heard from city staff that they have concerns around the intensity at the Adi site and with other development applications that they know of. The OMB relied heavily in their decision on the fact that the downtown is designated a Major Transit Study Area (MTSA) (as well as the mobility hub) based on the bus terminal located in the downtown.

The downtown is also designated an Urban Growth Centre (UGC). Staff said during the committee meeting that is why they felt it was important to take the time to study the UGC around the bus terminal to determine what its functions will be and its related density needs. MacDonald said the ICBL gives the City the opportunity to pause and evaluate what the future of that MTSA is and what its optimal uses should be.

A number of recent applications the city has received are well beyond the permissions provided for in the existing Official Plan (OP), or even the adopted/unapproved Official Plan, and the justifications for those new applications rely in part on the MTSA/Mobility Hub designation and specifically reference the Adi decision.

We need to undertake the mobility hub studies in a way that allows the city to avoid reacting to applications — but rather setting policy and becoming our own drivers of the planning and development that supports the community’s vision for our city. The ICBL gives us time to do that work without the pressures of simultaneously processing applications.

The work that will be undertaken through the ICBL study has not yet been done by the City. These are new studies informed by the recent Adi LPAT decision upheld last November. The valid work that has already been done by staff will be combined with this study’s new findings to complete the full picture of what our city will look like. Think of it as a puzzle that is still missing a few integral pieces.

While a letter from Minster Steve Clark last month did advise municipalities to consider pausing activities that may impact their OP while the province evaluates the municipal land-use planning process, no specific details or concrete timelines were given. My office responded to Minister Clark in a letter (Letter Minister Clark Feb 22) that indicated we would continue moving forward with our OP review as per the motion approved by our City Council on Feb. 5 while we await further details from the province.

What about other areas?

If staff or council wished to consider an ICBL for any other areas of the city, that would follow the same process that the downtown/Burlington GO ICBL has followed: namely a staff report providing a planning rationale for the  ICBL, and the scope. Though other areas of the city are facing pressures of overdevelopment, those can be addressed by a vote of the new council.

In addition, the downtown in particular is unique in that we lost an LPAT case with significant overdevelopment due to an MTSA/mobility hub designation. Only the Burlington GO and downtown are provincially designated MTSA/mobility hubs, thus the need for the study in these two areas.

Timing and public notice

City staff told committee they had met any related Planning Act requirements for an ICBL. While no notice is formally required, the City of Burlington put out the staff report on its website 24 hours before it would be sent to the scheduled Special Meeting of Council for approval. To further inform the public, a statement from the Mayor’s Office was released to the media and shared on additional channels, including social media. There was also notice provided in the Mayor’s monthly newsletter.

When the Director of City Building was asked about why the ICBL was coming forward now, she responded that staff felt this was the right time to take pause, given the pressures of multiple new applications, and look at the pieces of the puzzle they have not yet had a chance to.

Applications while under the ICBL

While the ICBL has placed a pause on development applications, applicants can still submit them to the City of Burlington and staff will continue to process those applications, taking in comments from the public, up to the point of a statutory public meeting and recommendation. No recommendation will be made until the ICBL is complete and the policies arising from the study work are in place. The results of the ICBL study will then be used to guide recommendations on the applications that have come forward, at which time the application process will resume.

Results from ICBL

The results from the land-use study that city staff will bring forward to Burlington committee and Council will help develop policy that will be compatible with the Regional Official Plan, addressing outstanding conformity issues. Further, staff will ensure it also aligns with the growth plans laid out by the Province.

There will be two separate studies undertaken, one under the ICBL and the other from the previously passed motion by Burlington Council to look at modifying the Adopted 2018 Official Plan (OP), which has not yet been approved. We heard from city staff the two studies are separate, but it is possible the ICBL will inform work on the new OP modifications. Policies brought forward by staff as amendments to the City of Burlington’s current, enforceable and in-effect OP will then, if passed by Council, inform changes made in the development of the new OP.

View the Department of City Building’s staff report on the Interim Control Bylaw by clicking the link.


I support the rationale behind this bylaw that staff has laid out in their report. I believe this is a very important and timely matter for City Council to proceed with at this time. The Adi decision handed down by the OMB in 2018 allowing 26 storeys in a 4-8 storey zone was a game changer because it specifically referenced the downtown mobility hub. We need to undertake the mobility hub studies, so we are not simply reacting to applications but setting policy for them. The ICBL gives us time to do that work without having to simultaneously process applications.

Given the number of applications we have received and those we know are coming — all of which are wildly above the provisions in our Official Plan — new or existing,  we needed to go ahead with the ICBL in due haste. This interim control bylaw is a temporary measure, not a permanent one, that will afford us the time and opportunity to do the more detailed land-use review work needed on our vision and policies. Once the land-use study outlined in the report has been completed, and any required policy changes are made, we will be in a better position to properly evaluate applications and ensure they align with updated policies and the community’s vision for these key areas in our city.

Receive new post notifications by email

6 thoughts on “Burlington Mayor responds to public feedback on Council passing Interim Control Bylaw”

  1. Elaine O'Brien

    The ICBL is an important first step in getting the Urban Core under control. ADI is a perfect example of why we need to step back and deal with the runaway mess that has been created by overdevelopment in a small area.

  2. My take is that there is ‘pride in ownership’; as anyone that owns a home in Ward 1 might agree. This pride begets a thoughtful and cost-effective vision for the future of each residence but only when reconstruction decisions, for the most part, are left in the hands of its owners.

    So, to my way of thinking, the question is: who is accountable and responsible for the future of Burlington? Is it the residents who live and breathe Burlington each day, the developers with their bottom line interests or the province and its ivory tower future for all. I for one do not want to get boxed in, especially in some multi-million dollar, bedroom, 1000 sq ft condo in the sky.

    Personally, I am proud to live life in Burlington. I see all it has to offer and as such I would rather a future where it becomes a ‘modern, best-in-class destination’ rather than a rat trap for human kind.

  3. I agree with the ICBL decision. I remain confused as to how Adi received approval for 26 stories as it contravenes the current and future Official Plans. If the province is going to allow this to happen, why do we waste our time creating Official Plans when they can easily be overturned at the provincial level? I guess the City and residents have to find a way to boycott Adi projects to send a message that we will not see our city ruined by greedy developers.

  4. To me, the only real disappointment in all this is the fact that my Ward 1 Councilor Galbraith was the only Councilor who voted in opposition to this ICBL, despite the substantive rationale for it from staff, and moreover from the public interest.

    Looking at his voting and explanatory transparency record so far, suggests he is more concerned about development, and the interests of several Toronto developers, than he is about the residents of his own City and Ward 1.

    Moreover, this vote in opposition to this ICBL contradicts his vote as Councilor in the council unanimous vote to approve the Mayor’s motion to re-examine the policies of the Adopted 2018 Official Plan and review matters of height and density in our city. If the ICBL he opposes does not have to do with height and density what is he missing?

    And the Mayor can’t just issue commands, but has to use the legal procedural tools of governance to get things done in a plan of action. So in fact his vote in opposition to this essential tool for getting things done in operation, is obstructing the doing of something in this matter.

    My immediate concern arising from his vote is a request I sent to him and the Mayor, prior to the vote, asking them to support it the ICBL, and as well, to support an extension of it to Plains Rd and the Aldershot GO/Mobility Hub. Councilor Galbraith did not reply to me, but the Mayor did reply.

    In this piece, the Mayor at least explains how this could be done in future, and I can assure her and others that an over-development planning case argument exists. I have assembled evidence of this, as have others. As well, there are other areas in Ward 1 with similar over-development situations, and similar evidence files arguing this.

    Taken together, these developer proposed projects in Ward 1 contain the same seeds of important, possibly deal-breaking precedents that exist in the Downtown ICBL case, and he is aware of this.

    I have no idea how he can explain away this obvious contradiction in his voting, and to allay my fears that he will vote in opposition to a similar ICBL for the Plains Rd and the Aldershot GO/Mobility Hub, which is in his Ward 1, and that he has personal interests in, if one emerges in the future.

    I would ask for him to please enlighten us.

    1. Tom Muir. I am also disappointed with his vote and his reasons make no sense to me. I am starting to wonder of his interests and if he really has the interest of the people of ward 1 and the city of Burlington.

  5. I agree with the interim plan. It seems that Adi and other developers are trying to push through their projects that will put more money in their pockets without any concern of the impact it will have on our city. We have a beautiful downtown right on the lake and every effort should be taken to keep it that way.

What's your take?

Here are guidelines before you comment, and our expectations before we will post:

  • Be civil. Would you speak this way to a good friend? If not, rewrite.
  • Focus on the issues. Build your argument and make your case in support of your opinion from facts, research or other sources. That way we can all learn. “I disagree with so-and-so because…” is fine; “So-and-so is naïve/stupid  for thinking the way he/she does and here’s why…” is not acceptable.
  • Don’t make personal attacks. Don’t assume motives of those you disagree with, make unfounded allegations, spread rumours, or engage in any other behaviours that would discourage you from participating if someone said this to, or about, you. The Golden Rule applies: Do unto others as you would have done to you. We will edit or not post comments with this type of content.
  • Say it once: When comments from the same individual or individuals become repetitive, going over ground already stated, we reserve the right to close commenting.
  • Use your full, and real, name. If wish to make a comment in public, we expect you will publicly stand behind it with your name. If you don’t want to publicly reveal your name, that’s fine; you are always welcome to share your thoughts with me privately via my email below. I welcome and consider all feedback in making decisions for the community.
  • Have fun, consider and learn. Share your views and read those of others. May we all benefit from a healthy exchange of ideas, and learn a little more about the people in our community, what you think, and what’s important to each of you. You may end up changing your mind about an issue; even if you don’t, we hope everyone will gain a greater understanding of why people have different perspectives.

Newsletter Sign Up

Phone: 905-335-7607

Constituent Assistant: Georgie Gartside
905-335-7600, ext. 7689