City council has quietly removed firm shoreline protections along our waterfront – despite telling us for months afterward that a 20- to 30-metre setback applied, inside of which no development was possible.
Waterfront setback in purple extends to the middle of Old Lakeshore Road. Taken from the city's Urban Design Guidelines for Old Lakeshore Road
Not so. All a developer needs to do is convince Conservation Halton that the shoreline can be stabilized, and there is no protection from Burlington to stop high-rises along the lake.
Tim Hortons appealing waterfront development limits
As you’d expect, Conservation Halton’s authority is now being challenged by a waterfront landowner. Tim Hortons (TDL Group), which owns the run-down vacant lot east of Emma’s, is appealing a host of issues to the Ontario Municipal Board in October. Those include the setback, height limit, and worst of all whether it is “appropriate to assume that the subject lands cannot be developed.” (click here to see Tim Hortons issues list).
If the OMB rules in Tim Hortons favour, the current zoning would permit a 15-storey building on that lot. Think about that the next time you order a double-double. Though OMB cases are site specific, you can be sure other developers will be looking at the outcome of this case as it applies to other waterfront property.
Planning meeting Sept. 28
Save Our Waterfront is applying for participant status at the OMB hearing. Meantime, we’re hosting a planning meeting Sept. 28, 7:30 pm at the Burlington Seniors’ Centre on New Street to tell you how we’re fighting this, and how you can help. You can read more about this issue below, and find links to our participant statement for the OMB hearing outlining our concerns, and relevant city, Conservation Halton and OMB documents on our media and resources page.
No waterfront development? Think again.
The setback provisions in our zoning bylaw have many exceptions, and all too often the exception proves the rule.
Our zoning bylaw states that “all buildings and structures greater than 10 sq. m. in area shall maintain a setback of 30 metres from the top of the stable slope of the Lake Ontario or Burlington Bay shoreline.” That seems iron-clad, until you read the next sentence of the bylaw, the exception clause: “This setback may be reduced … provided the approval of Conservation Halton is obtained.”
Reduced to what? That was the item changed by council in June.The clause originally said that the setback “may be reduced to 20m.” That language provided at least a minimum “no-go” line in the sand that even with shoreline stabilization or Conservation Halton approval, Burlington had set its minimum setback at 20m.
But on June 15, 2009, council passed an amendment to replace “a minimum 20m” and with more open-ended language: “the applicable setback requirement contained in the base zoning.”
What’s “applicable?” Whatever Conservation Halton decides. Shoreline development is governed by Conservation Halton under provincial legislation. The legislation allows Conservation Halton to “grant permission for development” inside of the usual setbacks if flooding, erosion and land conservation “will not be affected by the development.”
How likely is Conservation Halton to grant this permission? The Burlington staff report recommending the change noted that Conservation Halton “has advised that they will support reduced setbacks in some instances.” (click here to read the extract of the staff report passed by city council recommending the setback change)
In effect, now Conservation Halton becomes the final authority on development on our shoreline, where once there was some additional protection in our zoning documents. If a developer does enough shoreline stabilization to satisfy Conservation Halton, there is no longer anything in Burlington documents that will prevent shoreline development.
If we win we lose, if we lose we lose
To complicate matters, that zoning change removing the firm 20m setback hasn’t yet taken effect because the entire setback (and other matters) are under appeal to the OMB.
But here’s the irony: If OMB rules in Tim Hortons favour, there is no setback. We lose. But if the OMB rules in the City of Burlington’s favour, the ruling will simply bring about the change that council made to delete the firm minimum setback of 20m. We still lose. If the OMB rules that Conservation Halton’s setbacks are appropriate, we may also still lose because those setbacks have some exceptions and conditions under which shoreline development is allowed.
Lack of transparency on shoreline setback
Despite all of this, city documents refer to the setback as if it were firm. The Design Guidelines for the Old Lakeshore Road Precinct refer to “a minimum” 20- to 30-m setback that substantially limits redevelopment potential on the south side of Old Lakeshore Road.”
We now know the setback isn’t firm. And we also now know it is being challenged by a waterfront property owner, namely Tim Hortons.
Responsibility rests with city council
It would be tempting to blame the OMB, or blame Conservation Halton, here. But really, the buck stops with our current council who have the power to protect this. Even if the shoreline could be stabilized in order to construct a tower beside Emma’s Back Porch on our water’s edge, is that good planning? Is that good for the environmental integrity of our shoreline?
It must also be said that I accidentally stumbled across this information in the course of doing other research for our group. All of this begs the question – what else don’t we know about what’s going on in the Old Lakeshore Road area and other key pockets of waterfront land east of Brant?
More to the point, when is the city going to listen to what residents want for waterfront development?
We’re going to keep asking questions on your behalf, and report what we find. Stay tuned.
What you can do – meet us Sept. 28
Attend our planning meeting Sept. 28, 7:30 pm at the Burlington Senior’s Centre, 2285 New St. in Central Park adjacent to the Central Library and Arena. We’ll introduce you to the Save Our Waterfront team, tell you what we’ve discovered, what we’re doing, and how you can get involved, whether you’ve got five minutes or five hours to help. It’s all welcome.
27 Comments
We support the setback which preserves the current status of the Burlington waterfront
I am so glad someone is fighting for our waterfront Thank you Marianne Meed Ward.
WE DO NOT WANT TO BE ANOTHER TORONTO.
WE DO NOT WANT TO BE ANOTHER TORONTO.
I was there last week and I could not believe all the condo’s being built – it was disgusting.
Lucille/Gerry
Incredible. Peter Thoem made much to me of the 30 metre setback rule when I met him personally to discuss Old Lakeshore Road on July 21st.
That means either
a) He was somehow ignorant of the change to the Official Plan that he had personally voted on less than 5 weeks earlier
or
b) He was being ‘economical with the actuality’ when he spoke to me on July 21st.
As he described it to me, the Official Plan amendments for Old Lakeshore Road were required in part to allow the owners of the property to be able to realise the value of their lands when they sold it. Without the possibility of condominiums on the north side of Old Lakeshore, the owners of the buildings on the south side of the road were sitting on almost worthless land.
It now appears that this entire argument was specious. Until now I thought that Mr Thoem and I simply had an honest difference of opinion, and I was willing to give him a lot of credit for the time he spent with me on July 21st. This puts a very different perspective on things.
Did Mr Thoem know and deliberately mislead me? Or does he vote without reading what he’s voting on? Which is it?
We only have one lakefront. Once it is gone from view, it is gone forever.
Our town planners have taken a wrong turn on this one and seem or have lost direction. Or, at very least, stopped listening to residents of this city.
There should be absolutely no further development allowed on the south side of Lakeshore Road.
If the developers (and, by association, our City Council) want to build near the lake there is just as much property on the north side of Lakeshore as the south.
If they want, they can build 50 storey buildings there and the owners can still overlook the lake.
The lakefront should be for to enjoy not just the few hundred people that can afford to live on it.
I don’t think the value of the condos built downtown on the north side of Lakeshore have suffered. They were still sold out prior to construction.
Look at any of the world class cities that have accessible waterfronts and that is where the soul of the city is.
Stop already!!!
I talked with this issue with my local councilor Rick Goldring but he told me that it would be months or years before any decision was taken regarding Old Lakeshore Rd. I would like to see these current councilors changed, or at least 4 of them including the mayor
If the pier is not a glaring example of Burlington City council’s ability to make inappropriate decisions on behalf of local taxpayers in the name of progress for the betterment of Burlington, what is? Does council need to continue making regrettable errors that threaten our waterfront’s visual, ecological and historical integrity before it realizes the destructive consequences of its actions? Perhaps now is the time to reconsider highrise development as a viable option for our waterfront before it is too late and Burlington succumbs to the disastrous fate that is Toronto’s reality. What is the definition of stupidity after all?- repeating the same behaviour with the expectation of a different result…
I support firm shoreline protection including an immediate freeze on development. On waterfront issues, council has definitely not displayed the progressive leadership this city has been known for. The first mistake was allowing a commercial restaurant to eat up public space.
I hope all this will be a major focus in the next municipal election.
Burlington is such a wonderful place! What a mistake it would be to have a row of condos tower over us when we walk this area. I am very much against it.
Doesn’t tims have enough…man
how is it possible that the City council just ignore the citizens of Burlington and are prepared to destroy our heritage just for the sake of getting more revenue???why are they intent on destroying the beauty and sole of our city just for a few bucks??
we have nothing against development but why not follow the example of cities some of the US cities who retain their waterfront and only allow the gradual increase height of buildings away from their shoreline so that the citizens of those cities can enjoy their lake sides.
i always thought councils were there for the people and not for big concerns – there to keep watch over our environment
stop destroying our heritage
Richard Whiley
How can they believe these decisions are the best for our waterfront? Who are they working for anyway? We need to think long term. I agree with all these comments including Dave Adeney when he talks about the restaurant they built at Spencer Smith Park. crazy…
Jeannie Bugiardini
I just have to “echo” Ann Mason’s post of 9/20/09! Could not have said it better myself. It is time for the community elect to listen to the community at large.
We are definitely against all this so-called highrise junk being proposed for our waterfront. It’s bad enough now that we as residents of Burlington has to put money in a meter to view our beautiful waterfront, visit the beach, take a stroll or bike ride along our pathways, who needs further eyesores of highrise buildings and congested traffic and our lake being polluted with garbage from inconsiderate residents of these buildings? We have some beautiful historic houses and businesses that need to be kept as they are what makes our stroll pleasant. A nice coffee in Emma’s or just the view. We don’t even go down there to the events taking place because as seniors we cannot afford the ridiculous parking rates. Don’t spoil our heritage views!!!
here we go again same b***t as we were given when Wal-mart moved in and destroyed Fairview St with traffic traffic traffic,
We must do all we can to preserve the waterfront and convince city council to listen to the people they represent
I agree with all that’s been said.
The lake front should be for all to enjoy.If we knock our Heritage buildings down very soon we have no heritage.
Someone commented on the restaurant what an ugly monstrosity that turned out to be, and still costing the tax payers money for repairs.
I’m wondering can our infrastructure cope with all the new high rises planned for down town. As we have seen what the bright idea of closing down the lake shore road from two lanes down to one has done.
I agree with the comments made. The narrow strip of land south of Lakeshore and east of Brant should have a setback that allows for shoreline protection, a public path and some greenspace along the shore. Once that is created, it leaves little room for large buildings. Hence any building that is allowed should be smaller (not larger) and lower (not higher) than the tall condos that are now being allowed on the north side of Lakeshore. Just seems to make ecological, densification and public accessability sense to me. But I’m no politician, just a citizen!
I love the lakeshore area. All the historic houses,just the feeling you get traveling through the area either on foot or by car.
Speaking of cars did anyone even consider what an influx of residents that a high density development plan would bring, along with their vehicles and their pollution. The city reduced traffic lanes through the downtown lakeshore area and the traffic has been horrific between Brant Street and Maple Avenue, this is without the new developments and residents that would follow. Let’s rethink this entirely. Do Not let the Tim Horton’s group be successful in the challenges ahead.
Thanks for listening(?)
Dave Dickson.
Put the apartments up along Dundas street Upper Middle road anywhere there’s any room left north of New street.
Leave the lake front alone.
I go to Bronte or Oakville free parking and lots of boats and interesting things to look at coming in and out of the harbors, Burlington’s part of the lake is boring. It was nice to walk along there, but now because of paid parking and all the expensive stores and highrises there it is not fun anymore.
They should have enclosed a small portion of the lake with a wall like they used to have. Probably cheaper than the pier, then the people could have swam in side it, and moored boats inside. The water would have been warmer. And there could have been openings for boats. That would have been a tourist attraction.
Stop putting all the expensive shops Downtown, the average person shops away from downtown.
Ditto #17 from Gary Scobie for me. In additon I expect City Council to truthfully explain the changes (if any) to the setback and why, and why this decision was withheld from the Burlington public and taxpayers. Building these highrises is not progress, it would be claustrophobic – this is not the way to attract people, visitors and tourists to our community.
Also ditto #17 Gary Scobie for me. The setback has to stay as is to protect the shoreline and provide for adequate open space. There’s probably important environmental impacts to such an adjustment that would cause negative ramifications
Roland Tanner (#3) is so perceptive of Peter Thoem and his responses. Messr. Thoem suffers from tunnel vision & certainly has a listening deficit. In the past I’ve attempted to converse with him re bus transportation & lack thereof in the industrial areas in Burlington, only to be told that his wife takes a bus everyday to & from work…apparently works in the Burloak/New St. area which is a regular bus route. He seemed to think that the ‘industrial area’ of our fair City stopped at Burloak. Frustrating!!
This is probably the most ridiculous idea yet. This begs the questions:
1. Where will all the tenants park?
2. Considering the fact that most will probably not be walking to work, how in Heaven will the traffic accomodated?
3. Is this another plan to make the skyline look more in line with Torono? … God forbid we become another concrete jungle!
What has Burlington ever done to Tim’s, other than allow the over-expansion of a franchise that sells block weld disquised as coffee?
Whatever happened to the Visibility Corridor so cherished by council not so long ago. Boy I’ll bet the hotel is pissed!
I support your group, Save or Waterfront 100%… It’s about time that the Mayor, Cam Jackson and our Alderman-Peter Thoem, who represents the downtown core and the rest of City Council started listening to the citizens of Burlington. We need to save what is left of our waterfront now. Once the developers develop it, it will be gone forever. We are so lucky to live in a city with a waterfront, lets not cover it up with condos and high-rises, it should be enjoyed by everyone, not just the few that wish to buy condos down there at the public’s expense. We should take a look at the Hamilton waterfront, it is accessible to everyone. The Waterfront in Burlington needs to be maintained for public use and visitors too!! Its time City Council started paying attention.
On virtually every issue that has arisen over the past three years, this Council and the Mayor have shown themselves sadly out of touch with the needs, concerns and interests of local residents. This re-development proposal for Lakeshore is just one of a number of ill-conceived ideas supported by this Council and its local administration.
Access to the Lakeshore is important, not just for environmental and aesthetic reasons, but for creating a sense of community. I look at what Bronte, Oakville, and even Port Credit have managed to do in giving citizens parkland and access to the lakefront, and the results are truly impressive. By contrast, Burlington’s efforts are woefully inadequate.
The broader issue though is that every member of this Council, and the Mayor, need to be booted out come next election. Most of them are part-time tourists whose membership on Council is a sideline to their other business interests. My Councillor doesn’t even live anywhere near my Ward! Their handling of every major policy initiative from Lakeshore redevelopment to public transit, hospital rebuilding, the Performing Arts Centre, the pier, etc. has been a fiasco. Enough already!
In the name of transparency and good government, it is time for our elected representatives to be held accountable for their decisions. It appears that it may be time for a sweeping change to the old guard at City Hall.
In the 19th Century along almost all waterfronts industry was built. At that time easy access to cheapest transportation was an obvious excuse.
It took 100 years to understand that it was not the luckiest location.
Nowadays developers’ greed is destroying the recaptured waterfronts: for the benefit of very few lucky ones who can afford to live on those attractive lands.
Do we need another 100 years to understand that those ugly glass boxes on our waterfronts are one more a huge historical, urban mistake ?? It’s easy to predict that’s it’s going to end like this.
Only people with a total lack of vision – like Burlington’s Councillors – do not see that.
A lot of damage was done already on Burlington’s waterfront, but maybe we can still save a little bit of it.
And it it obvious: demolishing those historical houses is an architectural crime. Maybe Burlington’s Councillors should take a trip to Oakville Downtown for a better example how to preserve historical houses.
Let’s build those new boxes in Burlington, away from the beautiful waterfront.