On January 14, RAHB representatives attended the Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility Committee Meeting where recommendations from the Interim Control By-Law (ICBL) land use study were presented to the Burlington City Council. .
Discussions about the recommendations will continue at a Special Council meeting on January 30 at 9:30 a.m., and a decision will be made on the staff recommendations that same day.
The Interim Control By-Law is still scheduled to be lifted on March 5. It was, not as of yet, extended another year.
The proposed recommendations fall into four categories:
- Policy Framework
- Functional Policies
- Land Use Policies (Urban Planning Areas)
- Definitions
Policy Framework
New policy language has been proposed that describes major transit station areas as a component of the City’s Urban Planning Area.
Functional Policies
Additional policy language will be added to:
- Include pedestrians and cyclists as active transportation
- Include the term “Major Transit Station Areas” (MTSA)
- Include the incorporation of transit-supportive development
- Include the role of transit in the overall urban form
- Include the importance of more compact forms of development along transit and transportation corridors to support complete communities
- Include subsections that strengthen the concept of transit-supportive developments in the Official Plan by recognizing the role of MTSA
Land Use Policies – Urban Planning Areas
Mixed Use Corridors – General
Additional policy language has been proposed to establish the role of the Region of Halton’s Municipal Comprehensive Review, which will delineate the major transit station area boundaries and identify minimum density targets.
Mixed Use Corridors – Commercial Corridors
Additional policy language has been proposed to remove reference to time-frame of development and acknowledge the redevelopment of the mixed-use commercial corridors.
Downtown Mixed-Use Centre
Minor policy edits to include a reference to the Regional Official Plan and update the reference to the Urban Growth Centre.
Role and Function of a Major Transit Station Area – Go Stations vs. John Street Bus Terminal
Include language to support transit-supportive development that corresponds to MTSA typology:
- Burlington and Appleby Go Stations – higher order transit units
- Aldershot Go Station – higher order, but not priority transit unit
- John Street Bus Terminal – not higher order or priority transit unit
It is anticipated that the majority of growth within the City’s four MTSAs will occur in the three MTSAs located along higher order transit routes and with planned frequent transit service by way of regional express rail (i.e., the city bus).
These proposed policies will help guide development applications by requiring that the highest density and tallest buildings be concentrated closest to the GO Stations.
Definitions
The following definitions have been proposed to be updated or added to the Official Plan in order to align with provincial plans and policies, such as A Place to Grow, 2019, and to assist in the interpretation of the proposed Official Plan policies:
- Active Transportation
- Compact Built Form
- Complete Communities
- Complete Street
- Frequent Transit
- Higher Order Transit
- Major Transit Station Area
- Major Trip Generator
- Mid-rise Building
- Multi-Modal
- Public Service Facilities
- Tall Building Transit-Supportive or Transit-Supportive Land Use
- Urban Design Brief
City of burlington council is out of control in their zest to remove rights of property owners – the recent private property tree bylaw passed by council is a prime example of their ignorance of property ownership rights as they have decided the city will use removal of private owned trees as a major fund raiser for the city using climate change as their rational – They cite a statistic 2/3 of the population want a price tree bylaw to stop removal of trees in private property but that is a skewed statistic and does not reflect the % of actual property owners who own their trees who want the city to pass a bylaw Thant will result in potentially having to pay 6 to 20 thousand dollars in obtaining a city permit, arborist reports, removal and replant of replacement trees –
The land conveyencing act says property owners own the trees on their land, the municipal act forbids the city from charging a permit fee or any charge when it comes to a property owners use of natural resources on his property, the municipal act does not give the city authority to pass a private tree bylaw and indeed the act of read in its totality the city interpretation of section 135 as giving it this authority is wrong. The expropriation act of Ontario is clear that the city action is an injurious affection and the city is liable for an act of same – the forestry act forbids the city from interfering with private property tree owner rights, and interferes with several other legislative acts and instruments that run with the land.
Comments made by various council member in public meetings is to ensure the cost to remove a tree is so high that the city can generate significant revenues which it can then use to expand the urban tree canopy and indeed several councillors want it so high no one will cut a tree – – this bylaw is a clear example of council overstepping it’s authority as given by the province and there are numerous Supreme Court rulings that say this is an act of expropriation.
Two realtors spoke to council about the bylaw and the city has totally ignored what was said and passed its bylaw anyways which has fines up to 200000$ for removing a tree without a permit.
As realtors who negotiate sale of land having a tree with trunk thickness greater than 20 cm diameter is a significant property liability and a major step forward in the city claiming control of any item on a property owners land that is not within his dwelling.
This attack on property rights is what we as realtors must stop of we are to be credible because we are going to be held liable if we sell property with mature trees and our client is faced with tens of thousands of dollars of fees and fines to use his property .
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying unwarranted cutting of trees is good what I’m saying is this draconian attack on private property ownership is and living in an urban setting you would be foolish to let trees get bigger than 18 cm in diameter without removing them at that time.