Newsletter Signup

LPAT Hearing Nov. 30 for Clearview Application; Parking Remains an Issue

1085-Clearview_Rendering1-X2

At its meeting of September 28, 2020, Burlington City Council considered Confidential Legal Report L-11- 20. Following this meeting, the City notified the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that based on the revised plan submitted by LIV Communities/1085 Clearview Limited Partnership, only two issues remained in dispute between the City and the appellant. (Update on City’s webpage / 1085 Clearview Ave. webpage)

Those issues are:

Does the proposal provide for an appropriate number of resident and visitor parking spaces?

In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeals, what is the appropriate form and content of the Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment instruments?

Burlington City Council has also directed that the planning analysis attached as Appendix ‘B’ to L-11-20 be released publicly and posted on the City’s webpage under Planning and Development Applications for Ward 1, while retaining solicitor/client privilege over the balance of this matter in its entirety.

The revised development concept proposes 164 units in two seven-storey buildings, separated by a recessed one-storey lobby, whereas the previous concept proposed one six-storey building with a length of 113 metres. The revised development concept proposes 181 parking spaces to accommodate the 164 units, whereas the City requires that 207 parking spaces be provided in accordance with the parking rates identified in the City Wide Parking Standards Review.

A copy of the planning analysis and revised development concept are located on the development application webpage. (LINK HERE: https://www.burlington.ca/en/services-for-you/1085-clearview-ave.asp)

The LPAT Appeal Update on the application is on the city webpage here: https://www.burlington.ca/en/services-for-you/resources/Planning_and_Development/Current_Development_Projects/Ward_1/1085-Clearview/1085-Clearview-LPAT-Update.pdf.

The Planning Analysis is here: https://www.burlington.ca/en/services-for-you/resources/Planning_and_Development/Current_Development_Projects/Ward_1/1085-Clearview/L-11-20-Appendix-B.pdf.

On Oct. 9, 2020, the LPAT issued an Order confirming the scheduling of the hearing of the appeal to commence on November 30,2020.

MY TAKE:

I know that residents were advocating for a scaled back project here more in keeping with the low-density neighbourhood. This file was well down the planning path before it came to council leaving minimal opportunities for significant change. However the project is better than what was previously proposed (and turned down) by staff and council, and that is thanks to resident input.

Even with the revised project, however, staff and council share the concerns of the community around lack of sufficient parking. This could be addressed with either more parking, or with fewer units. Residents have been clear they would prefer fewer units in a smaller building.

Ultimately, the LPAT will decide.

Residents have also raised concerns around matters that are more related to site planning, including fencing, trees and pedestrian access. Those matters have not been determined yet, and are not part of the LPAT hearing.  I will be bringing a motion to “undelegate” the site plan from staff back to council, to give the community and council further input before those matters are settled.

I have also initiated a process to change the address from Clearview to Masonry Court. It makes practical sense and will avoid confusion in deliveries and emergency access, given there is no vehicular access from Clearview. And it will help separate this building from the balance of the low density Clearview/ Queen Mary/St. Matthews neighbourhood.

At a separate meeting, I also brought a motion to exclude Clearview/Queen Mary/St. Matthews from the Aldershot GO Station Major Transit Station Area Boundaries. Significant growth is expected within MTSAs around our GO stations, so excluding this neighbourhood will help relieve pressure for overdevelopment. City council unanimously approved this recommendation, which will ultimately be decided by Halton Region during their Municipal Comprehensive Review which  is currently underway.

Read more here: https://mariannemeedward.ca/committee-council-meetings/draft-burlington-committee-requests-region-exclude-clearview-queen-mary-st-matthews-neighbourhood-from-aldershot-go-mtsa-in-haltons-official-plan-review/.

We undertook a brand new process with this application that hasn’t been tried before. Typically, residents would not see the details of a revised proposal before seeing them at a public LPAT hearing. I worked with the applicant who voluntarily agreed to share these proposed revisions publicly with the community at a city committee meeting. This also gave the Ward Councillor information about the project he would not otherwise have had, as he declared a Conflict of Interest due to living behind the proposal and did not receive reports or participate in committee discussions on this matter.

The public release of the information gave residents the opportunity to share your views about the project, and get an advance look at what will be discussed at the hearing.

Details of the revised proposal, presented at the Aug. 11 Community Planning Regulation and Mobility COmmittee meeting are here: https://www.burlington.ca/en/services-for-you/resources/Planning_and_Development/Current_Development_Projects/Ward_1/1085-Clearview/AUGUST-2020—Revised-With-Prejudice-Proposal-CPRM.pdf.

The minutes of that meeting also include a summary of all the public feedback received: https://burlingtonpublishing.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=5166f46d-7404-4a83-b1ff-764dae0b3f69&Agenda=PostMinutes&lang=English.

The City will be sharing all the feedback we received from residents during and after this meeting with the LPAT for them to consider in their decision making. Residents can also attend the hearing, and one member of the community has participant status to speak during the proceedings on behalf of the neighbourhood.

Nothwithstanding the above application, we have come long way together in protecting the area from overdevelopment, since I first launched my election campaign for mayor on Clearview in April 2018.

Several months earlier, in December 2017, staff released their “preferred concept” for the the proposed Aldershot GO Mobility Hub (as it was called then). The concept envisioned 20+ storey buildings at the NorthWest corner of Clearview (dark purple), 7-11 storeys on the balance of Clearview and Queen Mary (lilac), and 12-19 storeys on the 1085 Clearview site of the current proposed 6 storey building (maroon). See map to the right.

After our campaign launched, and with considerable input from the community, those plans were later modified. In the revised May 2018 plan, Queen Mary and St. Matthews were changed to singles, semis and townhouses (yellow on the map to the left), but Clearview was still slated for 11 storey buildings, including the 1085 Clearview site (orange on the map to the left). This clearly still represented overdevelopment.

You can read more about the background of the Aldershot Go Mobility Hub here: https://www.burlington.ca/en/services-for-you/aldershot-go-mobility-hub-study.asp.

The 1085 Clearview proposal at 6 stories is half the proposed city draft plan from 2018.

So the bottom line is this:

The Clearview/Queen Mary/St. Matthews neighbourhood has gone from being obliterated by up to 20+ storey buildings, to singles, semis and townhouses on Queen Mary/St.Matthews, with one proposed 6 storey building at the top of Clearview (not the potential 11 storeys envisioned in the revised city plan) and even that building will be carved out and given a new address; and finally a proposal currently with Halton Region to remove the entire neighbourhood from the MTSA boundaries to relieve future pressure for overdevelopment here.

We have made progress, together.

Thank you.

Receive new post notifications by email

6 thoughts on “LPAT Hearing Nov. 30 for Clearview Application; Parking Remains an Issue”

  1. Something has been really missed here – the revised buildings are 7 stories, stated in the initial story, and not 6, as the Mayor’s My Take states twice.
    Other folks comments about affordability and parking lack evidence on affordability, and context on parking. Housing in Burlington will never be affordable – the market dictates that, and the developers just take everything – certainly selling more units is preferred, and the parking is just a cost to provide these units.

    The City, Clearview affected residents, and nearby business already have big problems with Go parking packed all over the place including nearby streets and business.Obviously,the Go Lot is observably not nearly big enough and regardless of dreamers of transit heaven, the growth in the planning file all wants to provide fewer parking spots that even the new parking standards requires.

    If overdevelopment is ever to be controlled then we have to stick to the basics of the OP and Zoning, which are meant to provide means of such control. If not, there is no control and anything goes and that is what is asked for.

    I would add, that this is another example of how planning is set up to be done by LPAT. Staff refused the first proposal. but in my comments on this I said that they actually set things up for just this developer appeal to LPAT by stating repeatedly that this site was justifiably suitable for intensification and the proposal did fit but needed to be tweaked. The developer took what revisions needed to be done and wrote the appeal to LPAT to suit – same number of units, higher built form, (7 not 6 stories) less parking than zoning, and still offensive to the neighborhood.

    The Mayor asserts some changes that are good and moving in the right direction so we have to hope that the revised Hub plan will be brought to residents for their review and discussion.

    1. With the number of buildings going up on Masonary Court, me thinks there is going to be a traffic problem down the road. In an emergency there could be a disaster. In time I foresee that another exit will be asked for. Where will it be ?

  2. This is a horrible development smacked in the middle of an established residential neighbourhood zoned Low density.

    This community (even the masonary access road to the go station) does not have the ability to withstand the increased traffic from this size density.

    I’m fearful of the safety of our children and the negative impact this development will have on our community.

  3. The tiny difference in number of car parking spaces, right next to a massive parking lot for the GO station, should not be an issue at all. Why does the City need to force homeowners to provide (and pay for) space for car storage they don’t need? These policies make housing less affordable and subsidize fossil fuel use at a time when we need to deal with our climate emergency.

  4. If you are going to let them destroy the neighbourhood with this “compromise”….may as well let developers buy up the rest of the 3 streets and wipe the rest of it out. Changing the address doesn’t change the building….adding parking doesn’t make it part of the neighbourhood. It’s still too high, too long and too ugly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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.
Administrator

Administrator

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
Email:  mayor@burlington.ca

Media Specialist: John Bkila
john.bkila@burlington.ca
905-335-7600