Transparency lacking in Burlington

Negotiations may occur behind closed doors, but the outcome should be public

A recent Burlington planning committee meeting used three of its maximum four hours on three items — a zoning approval and two statutory public hearings.

But an agenda addendum had been issued about a controversial issue. It was not readily visible to people searching the city’s website, which prompted much advance concern.

In November the committee had approved a highly controversial 23-storey condo opposite our eightstorey city hall, directed staff to prepare the amending bylaw and negotiate Section 37 community benefits. Section 37 (the bonusing section) of the Planning Act, allows councils that grant extra height and density to negotiate payment of “community benefits” in exchange.

Readers may recall the controversy. In Burlington, the planner on the file typically introduces a report and explains the details — but not on this one. City manager James Ridge led off, extolling the virtues of a 23storey building where a maximum of 12 is allowed, and only on part of the property. Planner Kyle Plas followed. It will be the city’s tallest building.

It featured, among other things, a 16-by-16 metre triangle of outdoor public space (an easement, not city owned), which would enhance views of City Square and the cenotaph. Also required were eight visitor parking spaces, plus other conditions.

A developer profits from the extra floors and more density. A city says: “but we require certain community benefits in exchange.” That’s the process.

Now, some city conditions are being shown as “indirect” benefits, with price tags attached totalling $1.225 million. Staff told the committee this was an administrative process, not a public one.

Nonsense! Negotiations between the developer and staff may occur behind closed doors, but the outcome requires council approval. That makes it a public process.

The ward councillor is consulted about community needs, but is not part of the negotiating team, which consists of staff and the developer. Marianne Meed Ward said she identified affordable housing as a priority. That was negotiated at a discount of $300,000 used against the purchase price of up to 10 units, or a $300,000 cash payment.

Benefits are supposed to bear a relationship to the extra land value created for the developer.

Delegate Gary Parker, made an excellent presentation on what should and shouldn’t qualify as benefits, direct or indirect. Staff negotiated a total of $500,000 — in Parker’s opinion, way too low. He noted several items listed as “indirect” benefits benefited condo buyers, not the community at large (e.g. eight visitor spots, valued at $400,000, and one car share for two years ($50,000). The condo board would have to continue or cease it. That was tried, and failed, in the Strata condo.

They’re adding a third elevator, after a citizen had chided them about the “vertical commute” time. The larger floor space required for the elevator reduces the setbacks from Brant and from James Streets to less than originally planned, but increases the John Street setback.

Tami Kitay outlined the “community benefits” of $500,000 cash. The city gets $300,000 toward affordable housing, $50,000 toward improvements to City Square, and $150,000 toward the public art reserve. (The developer gets 11 extra floors).

The discussion was illuminating. There were delegations to be heard, but less than an hour left. Coun. Blair Lancaster suggested only five minutes per delegation instead of the allotted 10, to which Paul Sharman said the clerk had advised them this was not a public participation issue anyway. Mayor Goldring said, “Leave it at 10 minutes,” which carried.

When Parker and the developer’s agent had spoken, little time remained. John Taylor moved that the remaining delegations be invited to the April 23 council meeting, and have 10 minutes each, instead of the usual five at council, saving council from itself.

On Monday, Jim Young and Lisa Kearns spoke. Noted Young: “$500,00 is probably less than the price of one unit.” Kearns admonished that “Our city could have done better to Grow Smart, not just bold.” Again, it was deferred, until either April 25 or 30.