Newsletter Signup

Contribution to Freeman Station, affordable housing, park improvements among Community Benefits proposed for 22 storey at Brock

new Burlington Junction sign

Staff are recommending the follow Community Benefits be approved, arising from extra height and density granted by council (6-1) for the 22-storey building at Brock and Ontario. Community benefits may be in the form of a financial contribution (direct benefit) or indirect benefits (facilities, services, or installations built or provided by the developer, at their expense, which are accessible by and/or beneficial to the general community):

  • $600,000: financial contribution to the Region of Halton for use against purchasing up to 6 dwelling units in the subject building. Alternatively, should the Region opt not to purchase units in the subject building, or should the building tenure change to a corporate ownership (i.e. for rental purposes) the applicant would provide the Region with a $600,000 financial contribution to be held in trust until such time the Region attributes it towards affordable, assisted, and/or supportive housing opportunities within the Urban Growth Centre.


  • $140,000: financial contribution to be held in reserve funds and allocated to: downtown Transit Terminal improvements ($25,000), active transportation, cycling and pedestrian improvements at the Elgin promenade or hydro corridor ($20,000), Brock Park or Spencer Smith Park improvements ($45,000); park facility improvements, including fitness stations, pedestrian furniture, etc. for the future bicycle walking path along the hydro corridor  ($50,000).


  • $10,000: financial contribution to be gifted to the Friends of the Freeman Station;


  • $300,000: indirect community benefits in which the developer agrees to implement green technology and sustainable architecture elements in accordance with either LEED certification standards and/or compliance with the City’s Sustainable Building and Development guidelines.

The combined total of the proposed community benefits as outlined above is $1,050,000.00.

The proposal heads to committee Sept. 11, with a final recommendation heading to council Sept. 24.

About Section 37 Community Benefits

Section 2.3.2 of the in-effect existing Official Plan sets out that “community benefit provisions pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act may be used by the City in the Zoning By-law to allow increases in height and density of development beyond those permitted by the Zoning By-law in exchange for facilities, services, or matters of public benefit as are set out in the Community Benefits section of the implementing Zoning By-law.” The city follows a protocol for securing benefits, outlined below.

Protocol for securing Section 37 Community Benefits under the Planning Act

On April 10, 2012, Council approved a Protocol for the Provision of Community Benefits in association with approvals for developments that seek to increase height and/or density as permitted by section 37 of the Planning Act. The Protocol contains the following policies, among others:

  1. The City will consider the provision of community benefits associated with increases in height and/or density pursuant to Section 37 in the urban area with special regard for areas that are deemed to be suitable candidates for intensification (1.1).
  2. The normal tests of good planning practice must be met in all applications approved by Council for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, including those involving the provision of community benefits (2.1).
  3. The community benefits are to be secured in an agreement registered on title pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act (2.2).
  4. There is a location or functional connection between the development proposed and the facilities, services, or other benefit being required under the Section 37 Agreement (2.3).
  5. Under no circumstances will a community benefits provision be considered where an application or any particular elements of an application has not been determined to be acceptable in terms of good planning practice (2.4).
  6. In accordance with Section 37, eligible community benefits will be identified in the Official Plan (2.5).
  7. The increased value of the land resulting from the height and/or density increase will be determined through the appraisal of increased value, prepared by the City or on the City’s behalf and to its satisfaction (4.3).
  8. Prior to the approval of the Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law amendment, the owner shall execute the Section 37 Agreement securing the community benefits in consultation with City staff. The Agreement shall be registered against the title of the subject lands (5.1).
  9. The Ward Councillor be consulted by staff prior to any negotiations with the applicant (5.9).



My Take: I did not support the mayor’s motion for extra height and density granted for the Brock/Ontario building  Regarding the specific items negotiated as Section 37, I support the affordable housing components and the contributions to area parks, trails, transit and Freeman Station. I would convert the $300,000 indirect contribution for LEED certification into a direct benefit toward additional affordable housing. We should not have to negotiate for sustainable building measures; they should be a given, based on our sustainable building guidelines in the Official Plan.

3 thoughts on “Contribution to Freeman Station, affordable housing, park improvements among Community Benefits proposed for 22 storey at Brock”

  1. LEED Certification is standard engineering practice these days. The mandate of LEED is to promote the use of green building methods and sustainable materials. Ultimately the building owner recaptures their investment through efficiency and increased value.
    It seems that allowing a 300,000.00 break for doing what they would already be doing in their best interests is “double-dipping”.

  2. Didn’t the city just give the Freeman station $50,000 for a floor in the basement. I like the station and what the volunteers and sponsors have done but when it was moved to its permanent location(which I suggested) we spent $25,000 which was allocated for relocation. So now the city wants to add another $10,000. That is not was promised many years ago when we were told the City’s contribution would be $25,000 for relocation and preliminary engineering.

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.
Marianne Meed Ward

Marianne Meed Ward

A Better Burlington began in 2006 after my neighbours said they felt left out of city decisions, learning about them only after they’d been made. As journalist for 22 years, I thought “I can do something about that” and a website and newsletter were born. They’ve taken various forms and names over the years, but the intent remains: To let you know what’s happening at City Hall before decisions are made, so you can influence outcomes for A Better Burlington. The best decisions are made when elected representatives tap the wisdom of our community members, and welcome many different perspectives.This site allows residents to comment and debate with each other; our Commenting Guidelines established in 2016 aim to keep debate respectful. Got an idea or comment you want to share privately? Please, get in touch:

Newsletter Sign Up

Phone: 905-335-7607

Constituent Assistant: Annemarie Cumber
905-335-7600, ext. 7689