Page 54 of Report PB-31-11 APPENDIX I OFFICIAL PLAN

Page 54 of Report PB-31-11

APPENDIX I

OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85 AMENDMENT NO. 85 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING AREA

CONSTITUTIONAL STATEMENT

The details of the Amendment as contained in Part B of this text constitute Amendment No. 85 to the Official Plan of the Burlington Planning Area, as amended.

PART A — PREAMBLE

1. PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT

The purpose of the amendment is to permit the development of a 14 storey, 115 unit apartment building (13 residential storeys) with one level of underground parking at 470, 474, 476, 480 and 486 Brock Avenue with a maximum density of 353 units per hectare.

2. SITE AND LOCATION

The subject lands are located on the west side of Brock Avenue between Elgin Street and Ontario Street and are referred to municipally as 470, 474, 476, 480 and 486 Brock Avenue. These properties have been assembled for the proposed development. The property has a frontage of approximately 71.3 m on Brock Avenue and a land area of approximately 0.32 hectares.

To the north of this site are three properties zoned H-DRH (High Density Residential with a Holding Designation) and three 18 storey apartment buildings, to the east is an Ontario Hydro Corridor and a municipal parking lot, to the west is a 15 storey apartment building and to the south is a hydro substation and an 11 storey apartment building.

3. BASIS FOR THE AMENDMENT

a) The subject applications propose intensification that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS promotes densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of public transit.

b) Intensification of land within built-up, serviced areas of the city makes more efficient use of existing developed lands and meets the intent of the Provincial Places to Grow Plan and the Region of Halton Official Plan.

c) The property is identified within the boundary for the Downtown Urban Growth Centre Boundary. Within the Urban Growth Centre boundary as delineated Page 55 of Report PB-31-11

on Schedule B, Comprehensive Land Use Plan-Urban Planning Area, and Schedule E, Downtown Mixed Use Centre, the target is established of a minimum gross density of 200 residents and jobs per hectare, in accordance with the "Places to Grow" Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. The proposed higher intensity development with 115 units will achieve and contribute to reaching the target density in this Centre.

d) In the Downtown Mixed Use Centre, development shall be permitted in accordance with the land use designations of Schedule E, Land Use Plan - Downtown Mixed Use Centre. The Downtown Mixed Use Centre Land Use Plan designates the subject lands, "Downtown Residential-Medium and/or High Density Precincts". The objective of this precinct is to recognize the variety of the existing residential medium and/or high density development that currently exists within these precincts and to provide for future medium or high density residential development or re-development which is compatible with existing development. The character of this area is defined by a mix of residential building types, including tall apartment buildings. The 14 storey building height is similar to adjacent buildings. The goal has been to create a development that is sensitive and responsive to the character of this precinct, and this has been achieved through building design and siting.

The proposed site layout and building form will contain various urban design features that will integrate the building into the existing area. Features such as building massing, podium/arcade, stepping of the building to reduce impact of height, building top design, screening of parking, landscaping and a publicly accessible landscape and public art feature -contribute to the compatibility with the existing area.

e) The Downtown Residential-Medium and/or High Density Precincts allows ground or non-ground oriented housing units at a density ranging from 26-185 units per net hectare.

f) The applicant has submitted shadow, wind, vista, and traffic impact studies to illustrate the impacts of the proposed building on neighbouring development and the intensification of the subject property will not unreasonably impact adjacent lands.

g) The subject site is located within close proximity to a neighbourhood plaza, it is a short walk to Mapleview Mall or Brant Street (downtown), and close to a supermarket and other services in the Maple Mews plaza located at the north- east corner of Maple Avenue and Fairview Street. There is convenient access to schools, parks, the art centre and Joseph Brant hospital.

h) The property is located one block east of Maple Avenue which is identified as a major public transit corridor. Maple Avenue provides a connection to the Page 56 of Report PB-31-11

Fairview GO inter-regional transit station. Burlington Transit provides bus service in close proximity to the site.

PART B — THE AMENDMENT

1. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT

Map Change None Proposed

Text Change

The text of the Official Plan of the Burlington Planning Area, as amended, is hereby amended as follows:

By adding the following policy d) in Part III, Section 5.5 Downtown Mixed Use Centre, Subsection 5.5.5 Downtown Residential Medium and/or High Density Precincts, as follows:

"East side of d) Notwithstanding Part III, Subsection 5.5.5 b) ii), within the Brock Downtown Residential Medium and/or High Density Precincts Avenue, north designation located at the northwest corner of Elgin Street and of Elgin Street Brock Avenue, one 14 storey apartment building having a maximum density of 353 units per hectare is permitted."

2. INTERPRETATION

This Official Plan amendment shall be interpreted in accordance with the "Interpretation" policies of Section 3.0, Interpretation, of Part VI, Implementation of the Official Plan of the Burlington Planning Area.

3. IMPLEMENTATION

This Official Plan Amendment will be implemented in accordance with the appropriate "Implementation" policies of Part VI of the Official Plan of the Burlington Planning Area. Page 57 of Report PB-31-11

APPENDIX II

Conditions of Zoning Approval

Prior to the enactment of the amending zoning by-law, the owner shall sign the City's standard Residential Development Agreement, and any other necessary agreements in effect on the date of signing, within one year of the date of Council approval, failing which, Council's approval shall lapse, said Agreement to contain the following conditions:

1. Complete the following to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering:

i) With the site plan application, submit A MOE acknowledged Record of Site Condition

Pay for burial of hydro (100% of cost), upgraded street lighting, sidewalk and curbing (50% of cost) and tree planting (100 % of cost) along the west side of Brock Avenue, from Elgin Street to Ontario Street.

iii) Submit an updated noise report to address compliance of the project's stationary noise sources with the Ministry of the Environment's noise criteria (NPC-216, residential air conditioning devices and NPC-205, stationary sound level limits), and compliance with MOE noise criteria for all residential units and OLA's.

iv) Include the following warning clause in all Offers of Purchase and Sale and in the Condominium Declaration:

"Purchasers/tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control features for this development and within building units, sound levels due to increasing road traffic may on occasion interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants and exceed the Municipality's and the Ministry of the Environments noise criteria. This dwelling unit has been equipped with a central air conditioning system which will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the Municipality's and the ministry of the Environment's noise criteria."

2. Complete the following to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building:

a) Agree to the inclusion of warning clauses in all Offers of Purchase and Sale, and if applicable Tenancy Agreement and in the Condominium Page 58 of Report PB-31-11

Declaration that each unit has been designed to accommodate one vehicle and that on-street parking will only be permitted in accordance with the City's on street parking By-law.

b) Agree not to remove existing trees until draft Site Plan approval or at a later stage.

c) With the site plan application, agree to include streetscaping details including street furniture along Brock Avenue and enhanced landscaping with decorative public art along Elgin Street.

d) With the site plan application, agree to submit a contract with a private waste and recycling collection service for the proposed development.

e) Agree to remove existing fencing along the north and west property lines, and at the site plan approval stage provide a revised landscape plan showing the installation of 1.8m high solid wood board fence.

3. Complete the following to the satisfaction of the City Forester:

a) Prior to site plan approval, obtain a tree permit for retention and protection of existing City trees. A refundable deposit of $200.00 is required. Council approval and compensation will be required for the removal of City trees pursuant to tree by law 19-1975. In addition, City tree securities will also be required at the tree preservation approval stage.

b) At the Site Plan stage, Council approval of City tree removal and payment of compensation will be required.

c) At the Site Plan Approval stage, submit a detailed tree preservation plan, with protection and construction recommendations confirmed and noted by a certified arborist.

d) Letter of confirmation from the contractor/project manager responsible for the site's development, that all the tree saving documentation contained in the site plan approval, consisting of tree protection standards and hoarding in vicinity of trees being saved, has been reviewed and agreement to comply with the approved tree saving measures.

e) Letter of confirmation that a qualified landscape consultant has been hired to conduct inspections of the construction activities, Page 59 of Report PB-31-11

monitoring the activities, and being responsible for the preservation of the trees.

4. Complete the following to the satisfaction of the Region of Halton:

a) The Waste Management Department has indicated that the Region will provide waste collection services to this development provided the front end containers are placed on the garbage pad on the appropriate collection day.

b) At the Site Plan Approval stage, provide details of garbage chutes to be installed in the building and the details related to the garbage rooms on each floor and the basement compactor.

c) For collection of garbage and/or recycling materials from private laneways, apartments and or condominiums, a signed "Application for Garbage and Recycling Collection on private Property" must be completed prior to the commencement of collection, to the satisfaction of Halton Region's Waste Management Division

d) Halton Region will supply blue totes for recycling collection and Green totes will be supplied at a later date for organics

The Region will not be responsible for collection and disposal of waste until 90% occupancy of the development has been reached. The owner is required to contact the Waste Management Department upon 90% of the proposed building being occupied in order to initiate Regional waste collection

f) Owner shall contact the Regional Services Permit Section (905- 825-6000 ext. 7879) for a more detailed review of the water and sanitary servicing proposed and to obtain water and sanitary sewer Services Permit, and pay all necessary fees. Note: The issuance of a Regional Services Permit is Halton Region's confirmation that servicing will be available to service this site.

5. Complete the following to the satisfaction of the Halton Catholic District School Board: Page 60 of Report PB-31-11

a) That the owner agrees that a clause will be inserted into all offers of purchase and sale for residential units, that "sufficient accommodation may not be available for students residing in this area, and that you are notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to existing facilities outside the area". Further, the clause will specify that the "Halton Catholic District School Board will designate pick up points for the children to meet the bus on roads presently in existence or other pick up areas convenient to the Board."

b) That the owner agrees to the satisfaction of the Halton Catholic District School Board, to erect and maintain a sign at the entrance into the new development advising prospective purchasers that if a permanent school is not available alternative accommodation and/or bussing will be provided. The owner will make this sign to the specifications of the Halton Catholic District School Board and erect them prior to the issuance of building permits.

6. Complete the following to the satisfaction of Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc:

a) Should any servicing or other development-related works be carried out within the intersection of Elgin Street and Brock Avenue, the proponent should contact Trans-Northern's Field Services office at (905) 678-2261 to arrange a pipeline locate and confirm safe work practices.

NOTES: 1. The owners, its successors and assigns, is hereby notified that City-wide Development Charges may be payable in accordance with By-law No. 72-2004, as may be amended, upon issuance of a building permit at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the Burlington Building Department at 905-335-7731.

2. Regional Development Charges and Surcharges are payable in accordance with the applicable Regional Development Charges by-law. The owners will be required to pay all the applicable Regional development charges prior to the issuance of any building permits, unless a servicing (or other form of development) agreement is required, in which case the water and wastewater portion of the Regional development charges are payable upon execution of the agreement Page 61 of Report PB-31-11

Educational Development Charges are payable in accordance with the applicable Education Development Charges By-law and are required at the issuance of a building permit. Any building permits which are in addition to the maximum unit yield that is specified by the Development Agreement are subject to Education Development Charges prior to the issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect at the date of issuance. Page 62 of Report PB-31-11

APPENDIX III

Sustainable Development Committee Comments

Draft Comments Application for 14-Storey Residential Development — 472 Brock Ave.

April 11, 2011

BURLINGTON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PREAMBLE

The committee has reviewed the Revised Application by The Molinaro Group for 472 Brock Avenue, located near the corner of Brock and Elgin Streets in downtown Burlington. We are generally in support of this development, despite proposed density nearly double that indicated in the Official Plan. Intensification is proper for this location given ready access to transit, nearby shopping, restaurants, recreation, education and medical facilities. The height of the building is not out of place with other apartment buildings in the area, and addition of rental units would be a benefit for the community. The revision of plans to accommodate a smaller ground floor podium is an important adjustment, affecting both the amount of landscaping on site and storm water runoff. However, proper intensification projects require site and building features that respect the natural environment. The developer should address these aspects of the proposed development before this committee will offer its recommendation. Our comments are based on the following Objectives of Sustainable Development, developed by the committee, endorsed by Council and part of the City's Official Plan: Natural Storm Water Management — Watercourses should be protected in their natural state and for those watercourses that have been significantly altered, restoration to a more natural state will be encouraged as opportunities arise Accessible Community Development — A new form of community development should be promoted whereby local community components such as commerce, shopping, employment, education and recreation are readily available, preferably within walking distance of all residents Integration of Natural Features and Green Space — Integrate natural features and green space in all new developments and intensification projects Energy Conservation — Promote energy conservation through efficient land use planning and building design

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Increase storm water management provisions and sustainable site measures

The proposed development will replace vast areas of vegetation with pavement and concrete. Designs should include storm water management measures that emulate pre- development rain runoff conditions. This can include rainwater harvesting and reuse, Page 63 of Report PB-31-11 pervious pavement, bio-retention and other infiltration techniques. Design landscape portions of the site to use plant species that are drought resistant. Native species should be used to landscape portions of the site.

2. Follow sustainable housing practices

Energy— Buildings should be designed in accordance with the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guide or the New Buildings Institute Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide. Roofing should be specified with Solar Reflective Index (SRI) above 78 or vegetation to reduce heat load. Appliances and lighting fixtures should meet Energy Star standards, or a proven alternative of equal or greater efficiency. Consideration might be given to on-site renewable energy or green power, as well as to Ongoing Commissioning and Monitoring & Verification plans to maintain high building performance. Water— Specify high-efficiency fixtures and fittings, preferably meeting WaterSense certification. Incorporate rainwater harvesting and gray water reuse system for toilets and irrigation. Materials and Resources — Create a dedicated space within the building for collection and sorting of recyclables. Specify only FSC certified wood. Incorporate a high percentage of recycled content in building materials. For example, use exterior trim and façade materials that have a minimum of 50% recycled content. In addition, obtain and apply reused materials. Site — Draft and follow a construction waste management plan including a minimum waste diversion from landfill of 25%. For example, make each trade responsible for collection and recycle of the materials they bring to the site. Identify which materials can be diverted through recycling or salvage. A Construction Activity Pollution Prevention plan should be in place to control dust, soil, erosion and sedimentation. Identify and protect new and existing trees and important natural features during construction. In particular, identify native species for protection. Non-roof areas of the site should be shaded by trees, to reduce heat island effects. Exterior lighting should not spill across property boundaries, and should be directed downward with a minimum of light spill to the sides. Provision should be made for bike storage. Indoor Environment Quality— Incorporate enhanced outdoor air ventilation measures such as heat recovery ventilators (HRV), or install a ventilation system in accord with CSA Standard F326. Aim to provide demand-controlled ventilation that exceeds ASHRAE 62.1 requirements by as much as 30%. Select materials that have no or low VOC and/or formaldehyde off-gassing. Select paints, carpets, carpet padding, adhesives and flooring that have low or no VOC and/or formaldehyde (e.g. GreenSeal).

3. Increase connection to community

The site is well located with respect to many essential community services including shopping, banks, churches, convenience stores, restaurants, senior care facilities and medical facilities. Care should be taken to maintain convenient pedestrian access to these services in light of possible future development in the area. Page 64 of Report PB-31-11

Appendix IV

Public Comments May 27, 2010

Charles Mulay MCIP RPP Planner - Site Development and Urban Design Planning and Development Department City Of Burlington, City Hall, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario L7R 3Z6

Dear Sir:

Re: File No. 505-03/10 & 520-04/10 Application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments The Molinaro Group - Brock Avenue Apartments 470-486 Brock Avenue

Further to your letter of May 21, 2010 on the subject topic we would like to register our objections to the Amendment Applications sought by Molinaro Group..

1. When the official zoning was created, there was a valid reason for the height and density limits stated, and we do not see any logical reason to be amending them now, especially when the request is for a 100% increase in both height as well as density. Current owners in our building might have based their purchase, in part, relying on the zoning By-laws as written, as well as existing buildings within our sight lines, and it is hardly fair to be making amendments after the fact.

2. The increase in traffic on local streets, Brock, Ontario, Elgin and Maple will be adversely affecting the flow of traffic as well as the safety of pedestrians and children also using these streets. The speed limit on Maple has already been reduced from 60 to 50 KPH, presumably in an attempt to provide further safety, however the vehicles on Maple routinely operate at 60 - 70 KPH, with no regard to the law. This will be worse after the subject building is occupied with the addition of a further influx of cars (say 177 if we assume 1.5 cars per unit for 118 units) plus who knows how many more for the ground floor offices.

Traffic density is increasing very year, and little is being done to alleviate the problems. Pedestrian and child safety would also be affected adversely. 3. Our building, The Maples, 1272 Ontario Street, is a 13 story building, the shortest in the immediate area north of Elgin Street, and views from most units are already blocked by other buildings adjacent to us. To construct a 14 story building on the Brock Avenue site would effectively cut off any view at all of the 12 condo units in our 5/E corner.

Views from other units on the north side of our building have been hampered significantly by other condo buildings built on the north side of Ontario Street, and will further be obstructed by the new building on Maple Avenue currently under construction and approved by a special site plan agreement to be 21 stories or 69 m in height.

This latest application for amendments will undoubtedly have a further serious adverse effect upon the property values of the units in our building when time comes to sell. This is hardly fair to the owners in The Maples.

As a consequence of our comments above, we respectfully request that the applications be denied and the original height and density figures be applied in this case

In accordance with the invitation in your letter to submit our comments, we are doing so herewith, and ask that the staff report take our comments into consideration in their Report and Recommendations. We plan to attend the Neighbourhood Meeting on June 7th, at BAC and further ask that you let us know the date of the Community Development Committee Public Meeting to be held at a later date.

Thank you for your interest.

Respectfully submitted:

James D Lewis 1001 - 1272 Ontario Street Burlington, ON L75 2L8

cc Peter Thoem Marianne Meed Ward > Charles Mulay MCIP RPP > Planner-Site Plan Review and Urban Design > Planning & Building Department > City of Burlington > By PDF email to [email protected]

> Dear Mr. Mulay:

> Re: Molinaro Applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments > 470-486 Brock Avenue > Your Files: 505--3/10 & 520-04/10

> 1804458 Ontario Inc. is the owner of 490-492 Brock Avenue, the property > immediately adjacent to the above noted application. I am writing to > express the company's very serious concern about this application.

> My understanding of the "H" Holding designation referred to in your > letter of May 21, 2010, is that this designation is designed to > encourage assembly of smaller parcels into larger developments.

> The applications referred to above do not encourage nor accomplish the > appropriate assembly of the lands on Brock Avenue. To the contrary, the > proposal will isolate our land and seriously impair our ability to use > the land in the future for any residential purpose. I wish to make it > clear to the City of Burlington that 1804458 Ontario Inc. believes that > the land we own should be a part of any assembly of lands on Brock > Avenue and will strongly oppose the isolation of our lands from the > redevelopment of that block in the manner contemplated by the > applications. Frankly, I would have thought that the City would be > encouraging assembly of the H zoned lands and I confirm that 18034458 > Ontario Inc. is strongly in favour of a development that includes the > entire frontage of the block facing on Brock Avenue. Such an assembly > would clearly be in the public interest and our lands should be a part > of any such assembly. No one has approached me to acquire and assemble my lands.

> As to the points raised in your letter regarding height, density, and > design of the proposed buildings and as to the issue of assembly > referred to above, the Company is in the process of retaining legal > counsel and professional planning advice and we reserve our rights to > respond to the issues of height, density, and the form and shape of the > building design attached to your letter. > Please ensure that notice of all steps in the process of dealing with > the applications is provided to me at the following address:

> Jay Borkowsky 162 Cumberland St Suite 200 > Toronto ON M5R 3N5 > Telephone > Fax:, > email-

1804458 Ontario Inc.

Per: > Jay Borkowsky,ASO Mulay, Charles

From: Penny Hersh Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:14 PM To: Mulay, Charles Cc: Thoem, Peter Subject: Proposed Molinaro Development on Brock Avenue

Mr. Mulay

After listening to the reasoning why the Molinaro Group should be allowed to double both the height of the building and the number of people to live in one small area I have come to the conclusion that QUALITY OF LIFE just does not seem to fit into the scenario. Putting too many people in a small area with no green space is not a good thing.

One Hundred and Twenty Five Parking spots for One Hundred and Eighteen Units just does not work. Young couples who could rent these units usually travel outside of Burlington for work and would require atleast 2 parking spots. The official City mantra which I have heard over and over again is that " people living downtown should downsize when it comes to cars, they should walk everywhere". This is not what is happening. I presently live at 360 Pearl and prior to that lived at Bunton's Wharf, both Molinaro Projects and parking has always been and continues to be an issue. The mean edge of the people living at Bunton's Wharf is probably 70 yrs. Are they to bike from place to place or walk with their groceries in the winter? This approach is totally unrealistic. The City not requiring the Builders to provide visitor parking creates another huge problem for those who live downtown.

If parking is not an issue in the downtown, and to quote "certainly people can walk a few blocks to use the parking garage" please tell me why in the small park behind St Luke's Church did the City remove the Swing Area that the children use to asphalt over and provide parking for City Trucks. SHAME on the City for doing this. Surprisingly no public input was asked about that.

I am also tired of hearing about the mandate of the province regarding intensification downtown. It is the City who decides where the intensification is to take place in the Burlington. There is no point in having height and other restrictions if they are simply a starting point from which the developer can start asking for more. The comment made that perhaps the time has come to " Clean House in the Planning Department" is the way to go.

I also feel, and I understand and agree that Peter Thoem has a conflict of interest in this situation, that I will not have the representation at Council regarding this matter.

I hope that the City truly did listen to the concerns of the people who attended the meeting this evening. No one mentioned how unattractive the design is. Perhaps some sort of terracing not just a brick block box. Lastly, this suggestion may come as a huge shock - Fewer Units, more parking spots.

Penny Hersh

Comments on Brock Street tme 7th 2010

There are major problems with The Brock Street condohental proposal :

1)excessive height ( 14 storey proposal on a site with an Official Man maximum of 7 storeys)

2)Insufficient parking ( the developer proposes 1 parking space per unit instead of the current City requirements of 125 parking spaces per one bedroom rental unit or 1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit ( 28 ofproposed units ace one bedroom units) (Of the proposed 118 units, 90 are 2 bedroom units )

3)The City's new proposed parking lot on Brock on the hydro corridor (directly across the street from the proposed building) according to Vito Tokme will provide monthly parking to tenants of the new building who do not have parking space on site for their second car. (This makes it appear that the City is subsidizing the developers by providing parking spaces which are needed by tenants but the developer is unwilling to pay for himself This means that many of these parking spaces wilt never be available to the general public)

4) insufficient green space ( the surface of the development will be covered with the building itself or parking, spaces -only one small corner at the back of the property will be open space)

5)increased density will bring more cars, parking pressures, and traffic to already busy streets (Elgin, Ontario, Maple and Lakeshore).)

The meeting's discussion focused on the negative impact of adding ONE 14 storey building to the neighbourhood; however there are at least THREE additional properties within a one block radius which according to the City's Official Plan are zoned for high rise development. Planning end parking and tritric shies should be done with ,ALL these potential developments in mind.

M 'kat- i-1-4/41eSo&_3 4-C71 C34.4eLieuctrtlu ok‘M" 1272 Ontario St #101 Burlington On. June 12, 2010

I attended the neighborhood meeting regarding the Molinaro Groups Proposed changes to the cities official plan allowing them to construct a fourteen story high rise apartment building on Brock St. (files 520-04/10 and 505-03/10) when the official plan calls for seven stories. This proposed building will have more than double the planned population density, double the overall height , almost no green space at all around the building and less than the required set back from the property lines. I believe this proposed building has far too large a footprint for the property it is proposed to occupy.

One of the statements made by the planning department representatives was that the official plan is "simply a starting point for negotiations with potential developers that have amassed enough properties to erect a building that exceeds the planning departments own criteria".

As an owner of a condominium apartment close to the property in question and having used the planning department's future plans for the area as a guideline to purchase, I can only say my faith in those who govern this city has been badly eroded...

Some questions have come to mind after listening to the statements from our planning department.

1, Did the official plan allow for the population density laid down by the Provincial government? If in fact it did, why is it necessary to deviate from the official plan? If it did not what was the purpose of having an official plan?

2. Is the city so enamored with the prospect of the tax dollars the Molinaro group's buildings will generate, that the enjoyment and quality of life of existing taxpayers in the area should simply be shoved aside to allow this company to do whatever it wishes within the city of Burlington?

W. H. Mercer Mulay, Charles

From: Joe Vietch ,.,. ., Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:48 AM To: Mulay, Charles Subject: Brock Avenue Apartments

I feel that the present zoning is adequate to address the Provinces plan to intensify. Moving from 4 or 5 single family homes to 185 units per hectare. At the meeting it was quoted 1 parking space per unit, I was given to understand that this should be land 1/3 parking spaces per unit. The developer is asking for too many and too great a variance which is not under any circumstances minor variance. I would refer you to Joan Littles letter in the Hamilton Spectator. Traffic congestion is bad enough now without this development and the future one at Caroline and Brant. Joe Veitch 1323 Lakeshore Road

1 Mulay, Charles

From: marnie thompstone Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:55 PM To: Mulay, Charles Subject: Brock Ave Project Molinaro Development

Dear Mr. Mulay Re: 520-02/10 and 505 - 03/10 Brock Ave Proposed Development

The meeting in June was very interesting and informative. The planning process has asked for comments and questions on this project.

Here they are.

The City's Official Plan and Zoning By-Laws set out very specific planning criteria for the area of the proposed development. These documents form the basis for required services during the planning period and beyond, such as road maintenance and construction, water and sewer services, schools, parkland and recreation facilities, to name a few. These documents are also the basis for financial planning, I understand the Official Plan is reviewed every 5 years and will be reviewed in 2011. We, as residents of the core have relied on these guidelines to make our decisions to purchase in the core. This area on Brock Ave is zoned High Density Holding Residential = 185units/lhectre, Maximum 7 Storey, Green Space allotments, Set Backs, and Parking Requirements, as set for any development and intensification for this area.

Intensification requirements: It appears that every guideline is being overstretched by the developer/builder. Is this due to a Land assembly issue as indicated at the meeting? eg: 5 out of the 8 properties assembled. We can not be held responsible for this Land Assembly Issue and the inability of the Molinaro Group to assemble all 8 properties.

The Green space is virtually "non-existent" Why?

Parking is already a Burlington recognized problem in the core. The construction of yet another multi storey parking garage is now on the books for our area at Brock and Elgin Instead of supporting the Burlington Core with additional parking for our community use, it appears that the builder is being subsidised by our residents' tax money with a parking garage adjacent to his project supplied by the city. The parking requirements for this proposed project (rental/condo) on Brock Ave. is much less than it should be. When asked about the lack of parking for this proposed building, it was indicated that the developer/builder will be relying on my tax dollars to benefit in his overflow of cars. We should not be supplying parking for a developer/builder that is unwilling, "because of cost would be too great", to dig another level to supply parking for his own project.

If we allow a 14 storey building in this area, it sets a precedence for future developers/builders to increase their sizes by the same %. What next? Caroline St development? Martha St? Gore Park? Will they all be able to push the envelope? Are we in that bad of shape, that we need to give in to every developer that comes along? The number of storeys proposed is double set requirements for this Brock Ave project, to what means? Capitalism or blatant Greed?

The Carriage Gate developer has indicated that it will be involved in another 3 projects in the core in the near future. (front page Spectator This past week) What is the benefit to the developer/builder to register these units as condos, retain ownership of the units, and rent them at the onset? Are there Construction concessions eg: lower specifications required, lower permit costs, reduced taxes? What are the Tax benefits and how do they impact Burlington? Has a study been done to see the benefits to our city, if any, for more rentals?

How long is the developer/builder required to retain the "built and registered as Condos", but held as rentals? If not kept for a certain amount of time.... What are his tax implications and when will they take effect? Is there any claw back or stop gap for this? If so, for How Long? What are we giving away with nothing in return, except more people, cars and congestion in the core?

Where in our Official Plan does it give the right to have Office space on the main floor in this residential zoning? When Questioned about the length of time the Molinaro Group Head Offices would remain in Burlington the answer from Mr Fathergill was "Tenure is not Molinaro's concern, to stay in Burlington." What goes in Next?

Does the widening and straightening of Brock Ave. include Sidewalks? Who is paying for this?

The "Collector Roads" Ontario and Elgin Ontario St has a "no left turn" at Brant St, this causes the traffic to disperse through the core area. As you can see I live on Locust and the traffic near the school has tripled in the past two years. The sleepy street I bought has become a speedway with drivers trying to get around the continual tie ups and traffic problems from the already over abundance of cars on the one lane core roads.

Elgin Ave is very tricky left turn at Brant St. The visibility is poor due to parked cars close to the intersection, and traffic has increased to a steady stream on Brant. The alternative is.to take the back roads to get to where you need to go. Caroline and Baldwin are the streets with stop lights, that's where the extra traffic is trying to get to. I do have concerns for the school children that walk our streets with the new and increasing fast moving traffic. This all effects the local streets that were not built for this kind of heavy use. Elgin and Ontario Streets may need stop lights at Brant St. if they are the "collector roads". How would this impact the traffic on Brant? What is the city's plan for the improvement of the adjacent area roads to accommodate the increased traffic, and heavier vehicles? Where is the money for these projects coming from? Has the City taken into consideration the effect on Emergency vehichle times to the Hospital with the increased traffic? What about the times when we experience road closures for Special Events, Accidents on the Bridge, or in Our immediate area?

With all this in mind:

The surrounding area will be adversely effected by a development with the volume of cars and people.The jobs are not in the core and this developement will not change that. It is unreasonable to think that people will give up their cars and carry groceries 10 blocks home. Our weather dictates our use of cars. If the city plan is to promote the use of public transit and walking, what kind of demographics are we expecting for this "rental" complex? No Balconies, Minuscule Green Space, Not enough Parking, No Architectural value at all, Just a Box to our area with lots of cars and people. Are we building, an overcrowded rat warren?

I was born in Burlington, and am happy to be downtown, I bought here because of the quaint feel of our core area expecting that the changes would not effect my immediate area based on the Official Plan. Please protect me from this kind of unnecessary overcrowding for the almighty buck.

2 "If you get something for free, someone else has paid for it somewhere along the line."

Sometimes the big guys should just play by the rules I think this may be the time. I look forward to your response to this letter.

Regards, Mamie Thompstone 572 Locust St, Burlington, Ontario L7S 1V6 Mulay, Charles From: Mary Munro [ Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 4:13 PM To: Mulay, Charles Subject: Files 503-03/10 and 520-04/10 re Molinaro Application for Official Plan and By-Law Amendments

Dear Mr. Mulay: I would like to briefly restate my comments , made to you at our meeting of June 4th and at the public meeting on June 7th , as follows: I believe the Molinaro application should be denied for these reasons: - it does not meet the criteria for the removal of the "Holding " Zone -the height and density are not compatible with the neighbourhood -the project does not meet set-back requirements from Brock Ave. and Elgin Street. On the North and West sides of the property, the plans indicate a mere .6M green strip. -mature trees are to be removed -though the parking provisions may meet the by-laws, it is patently obvious they will be insufficient to accommodate the needs of the residents, the office uses and visitors -though design evaluations are, for the most part, subjective, in my view, the project has little to recommend it. Further to the above, I object to the proposed 90 space parking lot to be located directly opposite the Molinaro Brock Ave. project, on the Hydro Right of Way. The location of the parking lot seems more than coinicidental, given that I understand it will be partially funded by the $300,000 "community benefit" required from the Molinaro group in return for the substantial increase in density it was allowed for its Strata towers on Maple Avenue. The parking lot will, no doubt, be a great convenience and compensation for inadequate parking provisions for the proposed Brock Ave. multi-use complex. For many decades, it has been the city's policy/practice to treat the Hydro corridors as open space/bicycle and walking paths. I am given to understand the Burlington Cycling Master Plan identifies this section of the Hydro corridor as a proposed bike path. I am also informed the need for this new parking lot is partially driven by the need to free up core-area parking spaces for city staff who are given monthly passes.. On a final note, i believe there is an urgent need to address the issues of urban intensification during the 2011 Official Plan Review. There is a need to establish a vision for the downtown and the framework and criteria for increased densities in the O.P. and Zoning By=Laws, rather than the current " piece-meal" approach. With respect, Mary G. Munro

1 IBI Group 200 East Wing-360 James Street North IBI Hamilton ON L8L 1H5 Canada GROUP tel 905 546 1010 fax 905 546 1011

November 11, 2010

Mr. Charles Mulay, MCIP, RPP Planner - Site Plan Review & Urban Design Planning & Building Department

City of Burlington 426 Brant Street P.O. Box 5013 Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6

Dear Mr. Mulay:

PROPOSED BROCK AVENUE DEVELOPMENT 470-486 BROCK AVENUE FILE 505-03/10 & 520-04/10

Please be advised that IBI Group has been has been retained by 1804458 Ontario Inc., owners of lands municipally known as 490 Brock Avenue and 1298 Ontario Avenue and we have been monitoring the subject applications. It is our understanding the purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to increase the maximum unit density from 185 units per net hectare to 362 units per net hectare while the purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to permit the proposed 14 storey, 118 unit apartment with ground floor office uses along with increasing the permitted building height from 22 metres (approx 7 storeys) to accommodate the 14 storey building. In addition to the proposed site specific zone modifications, the Zoning By-law Amendment also proposes the removal of the "H" (Holding) provision. The subject lands are located in the Downtown Mixed Use Centre land use designation on Schedule "D" to the Official Plan. Section 5.5.3(e) of the Mixed Use Centre General Polices states "Holding Zones may be used ... in areas where land assembly is a requirement of development." As illustrated on Map No. 9a of the Zoning By-law (see attached), the "H" (Holding) provision applies to the entire group of properties on the west side of Brock Avenue between Ontario and Elgin Streets all currently zoned "H-DRH" — Holding — Downtown High Density Residential. This "H" (Holding) provision was applied to the lands based on sound planning principles and should continue to be in place until such time as all the lands subject to this provision are appropriately assembled under common ownership as specified by the existing "H" (Holding) provision in the Zoning By-law and general polices of the Official Plan. The removal of the "H" (Holding) provision at this time may be premature and could compromise the ability of this block to achieve its' ultimate development potential. rrY Dzysumg-tel firkprr Please accept this letter as our formal request to be notified of furthe'nkocedding6 .a8 trus ' application continues to proceed through the Planning Act process. 140V 2010

IBI Group is a group of firms providing professional services and is affiliated with IBI Group Architects Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd. (PEIL) is a member of the IBI Group of firms

IBI Group 2

Mr. Charles Mulay, MCIP, RPP — November 11, 2010

Feel free to contact either of the undersigned with any comments or questions. We look forward to receiving further notice.

cc: Jennifer Shaw, Committee Clerk City of Burlington, Community Development Committee

1804458 Ontario Inc., Mr. J. Borkowsky Mulay, Charles

From: Linda Torrance [L. Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12: t) To: Mulay, Charles Subject: Brock Avenue Apartments

Hello I am writing in connection with the Molinaro plans to build an apartment building on Brock Avenue.

On the City's web site under "Current Development Applications" it states that "The applications were the subject of a neighbourhood meeting and neighbourhood comments are being considered as part of the review of these applications." I was never made aware of, these meetings, only becoming aware of this development by the signs posted on the property. Is this to be condo or rental?

I would like to request that you please provide more detailed information if possible and please inform me of future meetings. I am sure that my neighbours would be interested as well, especially those in suites to the south of our building at 1276 Maple Crossing Blvd. I live on the 16 th floor in the SW corner, with windows facing towards Lakeshore (I can see the other building on Brock Ave) as well as in a more westerly direction over the bay towards Hamilton, Dundas and Ancaster.

Towards Lakeshore, I currently have a partial view of the lake, as I can see in-between and over the building on Brock and another older building to the west of it. Should Molinaro build the proposed apartment building I suspect that my view to the south will be affected, as it is to the west by the Strata (in my estimation I am losing 2/3 of my view of the Bay, Hamilton, Dundas and Ancaster to the Strata — from my windows I can see the whole Straia building and a small portion of the west end of the Plaza to the north).

Please add my name and contact details to any mailing list that you have regarding the development. Thank you.

Linda Torrance 1601-1276 Maple Crossing Blvd Burlington L7S 2J9

Linda Torrance Senior Designer

IBI Group 30 International Boulevard Toronto ON M9W 5P3 Canada tel fax I email web

NOTE: This e-mail message and attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify,the sender and delete this e-mail message.

NOTE: Ce courriel peut contenir de ('information privilegiee et confidentielle. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immediatement a l'expediteur et effacer ce courriel.

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Penny Hersh _ Sent: Thursday, March U3, 20111758 PM To: Mulay, Charles Cc: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Re Revised application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments- The Molinaro Group - Brock Avenue Apartments

Mr. Mulay,

You may have noticed from last evenings meeting that the public has little faith in the City doing the right thing for the residents who have to live with decisions made for them. The words intensification,mandate, and region have been rammed down our throats for the past few years. The City seems to hide behind them to justify everything and anything when it comes to "over intensification" of the downtown core. The word "green space" seems to have become a dirty word. I dont have much confidence in a City Planning Department doing the right thing when the Chief Planner says "any piece of asphalt is a wasted opportunity" Green space was not to even be considered an option.

For the first time this evening I heard that there are other ways to increase the intensification in the downtown core other than residential units. Why has the City not made a more concerted effort in attracting business to the core? Why have the residents of Burlington not been informed of this?

After the meeting I spoke to someone from the Molinaro Group with regard to the underground parking. He reaffirmed to me that they would definitely be using all 140 spots in the underground for resident parking. They will on paper meet the requirements of the City - 115 resident, the rest for visitor parking and then do as they please, after all they are the owners of the building. As you stated no one enforces the by-law unless there is a complaint. How would residents in a rental building know if anyone other than a resident is parking where they are supposed to be? Simply another way to circumvent City Hall, and make the public leery about City Hall and how things operate.

There have been studies done that show that "quality of life' is important to one's well being. The fact that one lives downtown should not negate the need for a quality of life. There has to be a balance. Presently, I dont see a balanced approach from the City.

The proposed Brock Avenue Apartment Development does not meet the Official Plan. It is over intensification not simply intensification. There is a definite shortage of parking spots. We have to deal with reality not the utopia the City seems to continually spout. As Marianne Meed Ward stated when it comes to Official Planning and Zoning - "SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY" - In my world 7 Stories means 7 Stories.

Penny Hersh Burlington Ontario

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Deedee Davies [L Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:28 PM To: Mulay, Charles Subject: Brock and Elgin high-rise

Dear Mr Mulay:

I am writing to ask city staff not to approve a building of 14 storeys in height proposed by the Molinaro Group for the corner of Brock and Elgin. The height is inappropriate for this area. It is not a pedestrian friendly height. There is insufficient green space around it to offset the height. Seven to eight floors should be the maximum. I understand that the official plan has seven and this can be traded off for community benefits, but once we go over this height it is that much harder to say no to the next, and the next. These community benefits may not benefit those who live, work, or play in that area who must live with staff decision on issues of height. How much money they offer the city should not be the deciding factor.

We are nearing the end of our places to grow obligations, based on total projected populations. Therefore, we can afford to be strategic in our planning. I encourage you to reconsider support for this proposal.

Sincerely,

Deedee Davies 701 Courtland Place Burlington ON L7R 2M7

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Jack Bentley P. _ _ Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 1:37 PM To: Mulay, Charles Subject: Brock Ave/Molinaro

Sir:

We are writing this to strongly protest the proposed application by Molinaro to allow a 14 storey condo building on Brock Ave. where the Official Plan only allows (?) 7 storeys.

• The secret in how developers can get what they want, is to ask for more than they planned for. Then when questioned about it, they make a small reduction and the City is so happy - i.e. reducing the number of units from 118 to 115..

• Why do we have an Official Plan at all? It is totally ingnored when developers can make a token 'donation' of a few hundred thousands dollars for some other City project. Compare this to the millions it makes for them in return.

• We already have a over-sized monstrosity going up on Maple Ave, which used the same strategy to get what they wanted. More than twice the height, jammed into a small area, sitting almost on the sidewalk. Here comes another one.

• The 'Official Plan' is misnamed - it should be called 'Let's Make a Deal'. Developers know this and play the game extremely well.

Jack & Bev Bentley 302-1272 Ontario Street Burlington, Ontario L7S 2L8

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Kevin Shields Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:22 AM To: Mulay, Charles Cc: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: proposed highrise at Elgin and Brock

Mr. Mulay,

I realize that the opinions of the residents in this city carry no weight with planners and most of those on council. Developers consistently get whatever they want regardless of the needs and or wants of the city. I do wish to tell you for the record that I strongly disagree with the proposals for this project. I agree fully with my councilor's (Marianne Meed Ward) opinion on the sensible changes she would like to see as far as intensification and balanced developments. It would be nice just for once to see the residents concerns taken into account when making changes in a neighborhood.

Kevin Shields

1 Mulay, Charles

From: flo babiak [ .: Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 8:40 PM To: Mulay, Charles Subject: Highrise at BrocIVEIgin

Hi The details presented by Marianne Meed Ward on the current highrise project absolutely infuriate me. I am so glad that we have one thinking, rational individual on council.in the name of Marianne!

It seems once again that the Molinaro Group are in control of Burlington Development.

If the City of Burlington does indeed have an Official Plan, then it should be honoured, and not changed to accommodate the exploits of a developer. I would like to know what and why certain city staff support a project that the residents/taxpayers do not.

As a Grande Regency resident, we went through the information sessions/presentations by the city and the planning dept. That area on Maple Ave also was zoned for 10 stories. Many residents did their due diligence before purchasing in the GR and the Palace - and believed there was a 10 story limit in 'The Official Plan'. What a waste of time and a crock that was. The outcome: we now a have 20+ story highrise - literally on the street. Through that process, I've learned that Burlington resident input does not count - and feel so strongly that the Ward 2 residents were sold out by the City.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any specific community benefits as a result. It would be of interest to learn what those might be - and would we, the taxpayers, consider them to be 'benefits'. It is my opinion that Molinaro gave a little, and got too much.

Flo Babiak

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Joe Vietch :,. _ Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:31 AM To: Mulay, Charles Cc: Office of Mayor Rick Goldring; Craven, Rick; Taylor, John; Dennison, Jack; Meed Ward, Marianne; Sharman, Paul; Lancaster, Blair Subject: Brock St. appartments

Subject: Brock Avenue Apartments. Address: 470-486 Brock Avenue File: 520-04/10 and 505-03/10.

The reason for the Revised Application is a reduction of units from 118 to 115 and the slight increase in parking. Density is almost double the Official Plan density from 185 units per net hectare to 352 units per net hectare and an increase in height from the Official Plan height of 7 stories to double that to 14 storeys. I would suggest that these requests are greatly excessive. If this is approved it will create a precedent for future developments in this area. The present site has 5 dwellings on it. Based on the concentration suggested in this proposal a 7 storey structure would have approximately 57 units this would be an 11 fold increase in the concentration which to my mind would adequately cover the •Provinces policy for Intensification. To double this would be, to use a term that is frequently popping up throughout the Province, "over intensification" This proposal should be rejected. As Planning Staff presumably prepared the Official Plan, I fail to see how they cannot support their original recommendations otherwise we are wasting our time and money on an Official Plan which now becomes useless With regard to the Traffic Study carried out by consultants on behalf of the Molinaro Group, this is not valid, as it only considers this one project. As the Official Plan considers the whole area, including the adjacent sites. A traffic study should cover this request and the future high rises on Elgin and Ontario Streets bearing in mind that they also may request going to 14 stories. All other services should be considered over the whole area i.e. Roads, Gas, Hydro, Water and sewage on the same basis of 14 stories An example of how variance from the Official Plan can ruin the City Downtown can be seen on Maple avenue where the high rise being constructed hovers over the street and it will be approx. 4 times higher when completed.

J.H.Veitch, 1323 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, On. L7S 1A9

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 2:02 PM To: Marianne Meed Ward; Mulay, Charles Subject: Brock Avenue Apartments

I attended the public meeting on the evening of Thursday, March 3 regarding the proposed building on Brock. I was delighted at the number of people who turned out, mostly to voice their concerns and displeasure that the Molinaro Group is still asking for such a radical change to the Official Plan and that the Planning Department is even entertaining the idea. What is the purpose of an Official Plan if it can be overturned at the whim of a developer? What is the purpose of a Planning Department if the developer is doing the planning for us? The very idea! Saying that it is an area of high rise so what's one more is not a reason to add more.

I hope the City Staff is listening to the residents who are watching our neighbourhood being swallowed up and our Official Plan being chipped away. I know change is inevitable but it should be made within reason and doubling the allowable height of a proposed building is anything but reasonable. We are the people who live here and our opinions should bear more weight than the desires of a developer who claims he is doing this for our good. I wonder if he would consider building this in his own neighbourhood. He remarked at the meeting that nothing can be built above Highway 407. I remember when the Official Plan stated nothing above Dundas Street - and look at what has happened there. Perhaps our Planning Department needs an overhaul.

Traffic on Maple Avenue is restricted currently for the construction of the Strata. Maple is a four lane road. Have studies been done on the traffic impact during construction of this proposed building? If the builder has his way it will be twice the size, probably take twice the time and all on one lane streets.

Needless to say I am very much opposed to Molinaro's proposal.

Elaine Evenson

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Meed Ward, Marianne Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:36 PM To: JACK Cc: Gartside, Georgie; Mulay, Charles Subject: RE: Brock/Elgin highrise

Jack, Thanks for your comments. I have forwarded them to the planner on the file, and have asked my assistant Georgie to add you to our list to receive updates on this project.

Take care, Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 le: meedwardmaburlington.ca Friend me on Facebook: Follow me on Twitter: http Read Ward 2 News: h ' --

From: JACK , Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 9:55 AM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Brock/Elgin highrise

First of all let e say that I really appreciate receiving your very informative newsletter. I don't always agree with your opinion, but I respect your efforts to explain your position. In the case of this highrise I totally agree with you. I see no point in having an "Official Plan" if it is used only when it suits the needs or wishes of a few developers. If the intent of the "Official Plan" is being ignored because it is outdated then it should be replaced. Allowing a building to exceed the guidelines to this degree is just plain wrong

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Meed Ward, Marianne Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:30 PM To: John C. Mateer Cc: Gartside, Georgie; Bielski, Bianca; Mulay, Charles Subject: RE: Brock/ Elgin

John, Thanks for your comments. I have forwarded them to the planner on the file, and have asked my assistant Georgie to add you to our list to receive updates on this project.

By copy of this email, I am asking staff in our planning department to provide you any updates on the Reichmann project on Pearl.

Have a great day. Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward l Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 I e: meedwardmburlinoton.ca Friend me on Facebook: '- Follow me on Twitter: Read Ward 2 News: '

From: John C. Mateer [i Sent: Tue 3/8/2011 9:46 AM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Brock/ Elgin

This is another example of a developer using money to get the development they want. Why does the city always give into them? It is like the building going up at 392/8 Pearle next to our building. When we moved in this lot was zoned for 3 stories similar to the work/live units now on Pearle, now it's 14 stories and more density. They moved their building back slightly from ours and the city allowed them to go another floor higher. They always seem to get what they want. What is the purpose of a city plan if it's never followed? The city is strictly looking at revenue with no regards to people who currently live in the area. Give them some consideration. How would you like to own a condo that now has the new arts centre a few feet from their windows? Time for the city to take a stand and stick to the city plan now in existence. There is more to living here then revenue from a new building.

Thanks

John Mateer

PS I would like to be kept informed if there are any new Reichmann property on Pearle developments on the Mulay, Charles

From: Meed Ward, Marianne Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 11:34 PM To: hubners Cc: Gartside, Georgie; Mulay, Charles Subject: RE: Brock/Elgin

Peter,

Thanks for your comments. I have forwarded them to the planner on the file, and have asked my assistant Georgie to add you to our list to receive updates on this project.

We do have our work cut out for us! Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 I e: meedwardmburlinaton.ca Friend me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/M/marianne.meedward Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/MariannMeedWard Read Ward 2 News: http://ward2news.ca/

From: hubners Sent: Sat 3/12/2011 5:24 PM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Re: Brock/Elgin

Marianne,

Thank you for explaining the plan to increase the population of downtown Burlington. In my previous Email speaking against the high-rise at Brock/Elgin I also mentioned that the building development that is allowed should have Charm, character and interest. Downtown Burlington can become a delightful place to live and visit, even with 200 people per hectare, or it could become a mess of unattractive high-rises with not much in between! There are plenty of low rise, well populated and delightful towns in the world and I hope Burlington becomes one of them. As our representative for downtown you have set yourself quite a task and I wish you the best of luck with it. Cheers, Peter Hubner. Original Message From: Meed.nNarci, Nilaranne To: hubners Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:27 PM Subject: RE: Brock/Elgin

Peter, Great questions. The short answer: the provincial government has passed the Provincial Places to Grow legislation which requires municipalities to grow within their urban boundaries by a certain number of people. For Burlington, our "growth centre" in the legislation is the downtown core. We must reach targets of 200 people or jobs per hectare. I believe we need to focus on jobs, not just residential condo developments.

1 Hope this helps. Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward City/Regional Councillor, Ward 2 Burlington 905 335 7600 x7588 [email protected]

From: hubners ' Sent: Thu 3/10/2011 5:29 PM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Brock/Elgin

Further to my Email following the meeting on March 3rd, could you let me know what is meant by 'Planned population growth for downtown' (or words to that effect). I heard this mentioned during the meeting but cannot trace such a plan. Have I misunderstood something? Is there a plan and if so what is it? Thanks for your help. Cheers, Peter Hubner.

This message, including any attachments, is privileged and intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information contained in this email/fax. If you have received this email/fax transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, fax or email and permanently delete this email from your computer/shred this fax, including any attachments, without making a copy. Access to this email/fax by anyone else is unauthorized. Thank you.

2 Way, Charles

From: Meed Ward, Marianne Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 8:33 PM To: carolynn mccartney Cc: Mulay, Charles Subject: RE:

Thanks for the feedeback, Carolynn. I will pass it on to planning staff on this file. Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 I e: meedwardmburlington.ca Friend me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/marianne.meedward Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/MariannMeedWard Read Ward 2 News: http://ward2news.ca/

From: carolynn mccartney Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 12:17 PM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject:

This is not Toronto, the appartment buildings are already too high, a 7/8 story building would be much more appealing to the eye lets follow the rules

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Meed Ward, Marianne Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:37 AM To: Cunliffe and Cecilia Clare Cc: Mulay, Charles; Gartside, Georgie Subject: RE: Feedback

Thanks for the feedback. I will forward your comments about Brock/Elgin to the planner on the file. I have also asked my assistant Georgie to keep your name on our list to receive updates on this project as it progresses. Regards, Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 I e: meedwardmburlinoton.ca Friend me on Facebook: httr ' - Follow me on Twitter: ' Read Ward 2 News:

From: Cunliffe and Cecilia Clare - Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 11:29 AM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Feedback

Hi Marianne:

Agree with your take on the proposed Brock/Elgin highrise - official plan should have some tangible meaning other than as a place to start bargaining. Totally support your propsed budget reduction items - we have to start somewhere and these items are benign compared to cuts in programs that come closer to affecting people's daily lives.

Cecilia Taylor-Clare

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Meed Ward, Marianne Sent: T1 lesday. March 15. 2011 3:32 PM To: t Cc: to i; Mulay, Charles Subject: RE: March 2011 newsletter: Brock/Elgin highrise concerns; Burlington's infra...

Thanks for your feedback Bob.

I am forwarding your comments on the Freeman Station to our relocation committee chair, James Smith.

I am forwarding your comments on the Brock building to the planner on the file Charles Mulay. i've heard much the same concern from a number of residents.

Have a great day!

Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 I e: meedwardmaburlinqton.ca Friend me on Facebook: Follow me on Twitter: hi Read Ward 2 News: httt

From: Sent: Tue 3/15/2011 3:26 PM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Re: March 2011 newsletter: Brock/Elgin highrise concerns; Burlington's infra...

Hi Marianne great news letter & please hold the line on the 0 P for the proposed building at Brock st Just because the Prov likes density i think we must look real hard at some of the core density. Do we really have the infrastucture ie water storm sewer sanitary sewer gas etc all before we think os cars & parking & do we want to look like Toronto ? this item for the Rail station team i suggest looking at Barrie and this site They seem to have a positive attitude ..also on the same item i worry about graffiti if this building is located in a park without security maybe donate to the firemen as a museum for firefighters the present location is why there are no attacks thanks for reading Bob

1 Mulay, Charles

From: Meed Ward, Marianne Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 1:46 PM To: Pete Sagan Cc: Mulay, Charles Subject: Molinaro on Brock

Done, thanks. Charles, please note more resident feedback on the Molinaro project and need to respect Official Plan in general. Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 e: meedwardmaburlinpton.ca Website: http://ward2news.ca Follow me Twitter Friend me on Facebook

From: Pete Sagan Sent: Thu 3/17/2011 8:19 AM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Re: infastructure

Marianne, please pass on my comments regarding by-laws Pete

Pete, Thanks for your comments and I agree with your concerns. I would like to pass them on to the planner on this file, with your permission. Please let me know if you're okay with that. Thanks.

Our meeting next week on the hospital will explore the new strategic plan, and redevelopment. There will be time to ask questions so you can ask about hospital beds if you like. Hope to see you there. Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 e: meedwardmburlington.ca Website: http://ward2news.ca Follow me Twitter Friend me on Facebook

1 From: Pete Sagan [ Sent: Mon 3/7/2011 12:18 PM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: infastructure

I have just registered to receive your newsletter and I agree with you on your comments about budget and developers. The city's officials dealing with developing by-laws etc have expertise in this field and came up with by-laws that they felt were right for each of the areas in Burlington. When they say that a height of 10 stories in a certain area, then that should be the rule by which we all have to follow. Why then can a developer, who becomes friendly with the city get changes to an area, building etc in which he is interested. If I wanted to change my house from a ranch to a 2.5 storey monster home, I would have a major problem getting a permit considering all the homes in my area are at most 1.5 stories. Now by allowing one developer to change the by-law, we are opening the doors to others who will want more changes and use the "you let them do it" argument. I do not want a downtown similar to Toronto, that it is why I moved here This applies to most bylaws. If we were to live by the present bylaws and stick to them, then there would be fewer problems. I cannot wait to hear the problems that will come to council's attention once Molinaro's Maple Ave Apt goes up. The traffic congestion in that area will be great as the area was not designed to have such a building. On another note I see you are having a workshop on March 24 and one of the issues is health. I am conserned with the lack of hospital beds. Can you tell me what the topic(s) for discussion will be, before I commit to being there. I am aware of hospitals etc as I have a son who has been in every Hospital in the area, in the last 22 years Thank you Pete

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11

2 PAulay:Charles

From: Meed Ward, Marianne Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 8:01 PM To: lain Mackenzie Cc: Mulay, Charles Subject: RE: March 2011 newsletter: Brock/Elgin highrise concerns; Burlington's infrastructure deficit and more

Done, thanks lain. Charles, for your files.

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 e: meedwardmaburlington.ca Website: - Follow me Friend me on

From: lain Mackenzie Sent: Thu 3/17/2011 7:55 PM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Re: March 2011 newsletter: Brock/Elgin highrise concerns; Burlington's infrastructure deficit and more

Sure - go ahead Original Message 'From: Meed Ward,tMarianne, To: lain Mackenzie Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 4:25 AM Subject: RE: March 2011 newsletter: Brock/Elgin highrise concerns; Burlington's infrastructure deficit and more

Belated thanks for your comments lain. Would it be okay for me to forward to the planning department so they know how residents feel about their Official Plan? Let me know. Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 I e: meedwardmaburlindton.ca Website: hti-- Follow me Friend me or

From: lain Mackenzie L.) Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 6:39 PM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Re: March 2011 newsletter: Brock/Elgin highrise concerns; Burlington's infrastructure deficit and more 1 Dear Marianne, ' My comment on the construction of high rises in the city is that the existing laws must be observed with no special concessions to developers. The laws exist for the purpose of ensuring new construction is visually pleasing, fits well with surrounding buildings and is acceptable to local residents. What is the point of having zoning laws that can be bent or broken at the whim of a developer? For too long we seem to have bent over backwards to satisfy this group of people, often at the expense of residents.

I appreciate very much this newsletter and congratulate you on it. We taxpayers really need to know what is going on in Burlington, and you have provided an excellent conduit for us. lain Bruce Mackenzie

2 MUlay, Charles

From: Meed Ward, Marianne Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 3:29 AM To: Peter Hubner Cc: Mulay, Charles Subject: RE: March 2011 newsletter: Brock/Elgin highrise concerns; Burlington's infrastructure deficit and more

Peter, Thanks for your feedback. Well said. I have fowarded your comments to the planner on the file, Charles Mulay, to be considered and included in the staff report on this issue. Marianne

Marianne Meed Ward I Councillor for Ward 2, Burlington 426 Brant Street, Box 5013, Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 t: 905-335-7600, x7588 I e: [email protected] Website: Follow me Friend me or

From: Peter Hubner [rr Sent: Fri 3/4/2011 2:46 PM To: Meed Ward, Marianne Subject: Re: March 2011 newsletter: Brock/Elgin highrise concerns; Burlington's infrastructure deficit and more

Hello there, Last night I attended the meeting on High Rise at Brock and Elgin, to which I am completely opposed, and • now add my comments. I have lived in downtown Burlington for more than 50 years and in the same house on Ontario Street for more than 45 years so I am familiar with the area and its development. I am surprised that the planning department has the authority to go ahead and negotiate and support a builder who wishes to go completely against the official plan. I am also surprised that a builder can offer a fountain or parking area as an inducement to have the city bend the rules. These kick-backs should not be any part of city planning. The tall apartment buildings at Maple/Ontario were built at a different time and on farm land and the site of a lumber warehouse which allowed plenty of green space. The building now proposed would be built in an area already densly occupied giving no opportunity for green space. I believe it should be built well within the official plan and have another feature which was not mentioned at he meeting last night. It should be good looking. At 440 Elizabeth Street a building was recently constructed which has some character and is pleasant and interesting to look at and at the same time seems to conform to the 7 storey official limit. A little further along, at 429, another building has a pleasing appearance. Neither of these buildings had green space to work with and that will be the case for other buildings that will gradually replace old outdated buildings in the inner core of downtown Burlington. Another case coming up is the John/Caroline block where a 14 storey apartment complex is under consideration. So let me make my opion clear as follows. 1. There shoud be no further high rise buildings in downtown Burlington. 2. 7 Storey should be the absolute maximum height. 3. The buildings should be good to look at and have some character. 4. The building proposed at the Brock/Elgin site is a good example of what a building should NOT look like. It has only slightly more charm than the apartment buildings put up for the workers during the U.S.S.R era, i.e. a large block of cement with windows! Good luck with your efforts to make downtown Burlington an attractive place to live. Cheers, Peter Hubner Original Message From rneedwardm(iturlington.ca To: :- _ _ _—___ - Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:12 AM 1 Mulay, Charles

From: Deborah Arbour-Ruse [,, ---,--;--=-.,---,,- Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:15 PM To: Mulay, Charles Subject: Proposed Highrise

Re: proposed highrise at Brock & Elgin

I could spend the time necessary to rewrite these comments but I completely agree with all said, so will reiterate:

I do not support the extra height and density being proposed for this development. The Official Plan should mean what it says and say what it means. I believe highrises have a place in the downtown - and we already have many of them. We can reach our population targets under Places to Grow with a modest seven storey building, which is allowed under the Official Plan. Such a building would replace three single family homes with 70 or 80 units. That's intensification and balanced development, and we should strive for that.

Please explain to me how this developer can submit plans that are so blatently out of sync with an "Official Plan" and expect to be accomodated.

Deborah Arbour-Ruse 547 Lorne Street Burlington ON L7R 2T5

1 NEIGHBOURHOOD MEETING COMMENT SHEET

Subject: Brock Avenue Apartments Address: 470-486 Brock Ave. Files: 520-04/10 and 505-03/10

Please Indicate Below Any Comments or Special Concerns You May Have About This Project

61.}9117 14/90A5' .."1 -7--,/,/tai,

itilinc.) ,4 to64,z‹._ dellot<.-S NEIGHBOURHOOD MEETING COMMENT SHEET

Subject: Brock Avenue Apartments Address: 470-486 Brock Ave. Files: 520-04/10 and 505-03/10

Please Indicate Below Any Comments or Special Concerns You May Have About This Project

-Aee, c c_

Jo, fwv,",,,, yt-t-th /4e;-1—• frzi>, vto 44, 4.4_e_w

11--k --C41/

/`( 4-eA4

(74 125- G(-,0( aL,-4" t144- 6 k _ C 1.4 I._ muLRy. NEIGHBOURHOOD MEETING COMMENT SHEET

Subject: Brock Avenue Apartments Address: 470-486 Brock Ave. Files: 520-04/10 and 505-03/10

Please Indicate Below Any Comments or Special Concerns You May Have About This Project

ALAto.4_ &a— SVte. t:4 '?_tnos.&-,ezk t(a A-

(kko-e us tos t„;ok m,;/

) 1/4 bt,f1-1,:s\ L.*" VLs. .4th-tru L c..gs3s LQ- LYx._ SVaa41,

\ru__ Vo..e-sev:1 tvnl Va./cab-,A.

An..az VA-4-A4- S.03-4.---kr-44e_- std

VteAoke,-. \A-Jk p A.L.esk- 04-- \rt,...; \owzt;..x....v&A-$1

-t-k" o--es

&A,231 .e>tc.. VC-i-ss .))V4,5t' tra.6--t? cket„,i_skeA,

042.a..\d- )re,S .

V;-\3\t (kbt)-1-7k- rrk- ‘42"xj3"14-'2- 40...\61- C\Htk 81/4.40. 9.55Lie_UVcot,..tt:s 4( 'tak.";

\QS 4434: Vr4A,

kat_ 0,st_ ,fotkNA-u...44_, _ ‘444,k 0-42u,e_ \00—e_k El 0 1-1 D EETI G C MMENT SHEET

Subject: f: rock venue partments Address: 470-486 Brock ve. Files: 520-04/10 and 505-03/10

Please Indicate Below Any Comments or Special Concerns You May Have About This Project 0F ry0L...11 MEETS C MMEj , T SiEET

Subject: rock avenue partments Address: 470-486 rock Ave. Foes: 520-04/10 and 505-03/10

Please Indicate Below Any Comments or Special Concerns You May Have Aho t This roject

z,r/, a-ue iok_ • e

Please deposit in the comment box when you (Please FULLY complete this section, if you leave or mail to: wish your comments acknowledged.) Attention: Charles Mulav City of Burlington Planning and Building Name:• Department 426 Brant Street P.O. Box 5013 Burlington, Ontario L7R 3Z6 or E-Mail to: [email protected]

NO LATE TO-I N: March 17, 2011 E-mail:

Notice of Collection of Personal Information Personal information is collected under the authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 and may be contained in an appendix of a staff report, published in the meeting agenda, delegation list and/or the minutes of the public meeting and made part of the public record. The City collects this information in order to make informed decisions on the relevant issue(s) and to notify interested parties of Council's decisions. It may also be used to serve notice of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Names and addresses contained in submitted letters and other information will be available to the public, unless the individual expressly requests the City to remove their personal information. The disclosure of this information is governed by the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M. 56. Questions about this collection and disclosure should be directed to: Coordinator of Development Review, Planning (905) 335-7642

El 0 R MEETl Cc MENT S! EET

rock Avenue Apartments Subject: Address: 470-486 rock .,ve.

Foes: 520-04/10 and 505-03/10

Please Indicate Below Any Co rents or Special C •ncerns You ay Have About This Project

'AiffA7 t'f-19AM f- '7Cf- ''7 ID-1414

c€ .7 1 R / s 1$ o ufr-e. 7 /,-t4 -1(3,.-4)

1)4-7

-/-1-41cqft> /oz -6;--71.

/-fr P-tv- 176--evl 7T-af Ozcsi}

11,4) c-- -f*-4) ?Pr (4-'7 77;(c- DivteoL,

Tit T / 4-- • c -6/6 al-- C-/r 7 6r-) rim

Please deposit in the comment box when you (Please FULLY complete this section, if you leave or mail to: wish your comments acknowledged.) Attention: Charles Mulay City of Burlington Planning and Building Name: (fit ft4 ) Department 426 Brant Street Address: 2r1 P.O. Box 5013 Burlington, Ontario City: Tot' L7R 3Z6 or E-Mail to: [email protected] Postal Code:

NO LATER THAN: arch 17, 2011 E-mail: 2.,(2 a 66:-) C4

Notice of Collection of Personal Information Personal information is collected under the authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 and may be contained in an appendix of a staff report, published in the meeting agenda, delegation list and/or the minutes of the public meeting and made part of the public record. The City collects this information in order to make informed decisiOns on the relevant issue(s) and to notify interested parties of Council's decisions. It may also be used to serve notice of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Names and addresses contained in submitted letters and other information will be available to the public, unless the individual expressly requests the City to remove their personal information. The disclosure of this information is governed by the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M. 56. Questions about this collection and disclosure should be directed to: Coordinator of Development Review, Planning (905) 335-7642 El H U D EET1 G C• MENT S EET

Subject: Brock Avenue Apartments Address: 470-486 rock Ave. Files: 520-04/10 and 505-03/10

Please Indicate Below Any Comments or Special Concerns You May Have About This roject DISPOSITION: 01- Approved

03 - Apo, as acne

- Referred

d and Filed

raven ivsrosm--14, ate. Conn&

•': LIII[71 -- men - Referred 1 MA Reed and Filed 1E I WRIIP4 E?i Withdrawn = FILE ft6 US- 05-10 520-4110 IBI Group 200 East Wing-360 James Street North IBI Hamilton ON L8L 1 H5 Canada GROUP tel 905 546 1010 fax 905 546 1011

May 9th, 2011

Danielle Pitoscia Committee Clerk

City of Burlington 426 Brant Street P.O. Box 5013 Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 Dear Ms. Pitoscia:

PROPOSED BROCK AVENUE DEVELOPMENT 470-486 BROCK AVENUE FILE 505-03/10 & 520-04/10

Please be advised that IBI Group has been has been retained by 1804458 Ontario Inc., owners of lands municipally known as 492 Brock Avenue and we have been monitoring the subject applications. To date, we have made a written submission on November 11, 2010 in which the Clerks Department was copied and we also attended the March 3 rd, 2011 Neighbourhood Meeting. Additional meetings with Councillor Marianne Meed Ward and planning staff have also been held. The intent of this submission is not to object to the planning merits of the proposed site specific Official Plan Amendment 'and Zoning By-law; rather, it is to object to the premature removal of the "H" (Holding) provision. The subject lands are located in the Downtown Mixed Use Centre land use designation on Schedule "D" to the Official Plan. Section 5.5.3(e) of the Mixed Use Centre General Polices states "Holding Zones may be used ... in areas where land assembly is a requirement of development." As illustrated on Sketch No. 1 of the staff Report No. PB-31-11 and Map No. 9a of the Zoning By-law, the "H" (Holding) provision applies to the entire group of properties on the west side of Brock Avenue between Ontario and Elgin Streets all currently zoned "H-DRH" — Holding — Downtown High Density Residential. This "H" provision was applied to the lands based on sound planning principles and should continue to be in place until such time as all the lands subject to this provision are appropriately assembled under common ownership as specified by the existing "H" provision in the Zoning By- law and general polices of the Official Plan. IBI Group holds the opinion that the removal of the "H" provision at this time is premature because it compromises the ability of this block to achieve its' ultimate development potential using the existing Official Plan and Zoning By-law provisions. A discussion regarding the removal of the "H" provision commences on page 30 of the staff report. Specifically, staff states "the assembly allows a land base which is deemed appropriate to allow the implementation of the site's DRH zone designation." Staff's analysis continues to conclude that the remaining 0.22 ha is developable as "the development of the subject lots does not cause any negative impact on the development potential of the remain "H" designated lots to the north or the lots along Ontario Street."

IBI Group is a group of firms providing professional services and is affiliated with IBI Group Architects Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd. (PEIL) is a member of the IBI Group of firms EXISTING H-DRH ZONE 'H" FOR LAND ASSEMBLY

EXISTING 13 STOREY :BUILDING WITH HEIGHT EXPECTATIONS. EXISTING • STOREY YEAR BUILT - 1998 • BUILDING YEAR BUILT - 1973 011TAR

LANDS OWNED BY 1804458 ONTARIO INC.

EXISTING 13 ttOREY' 0 CO-OP BUILDING YEAR BUILT 1993 DISPOSMON: Cne. Councli 01- Approved E= 1 03- App. as amended ()4 - Referred LI ec'd and Red Li CD 07- Withdrawn ED 161 Group 200 East Wing-360 James Street North IBI Hamilton ON L8L 1H5 Canada GROUP tel 905 546 1010 fax 905 546 1011

April 6, 2011

Marianne Meed Ward 2 Councillor City of Burlington 426 Brant Street, PO Box 5013 Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6

Dear Councillor Meed:

THE MOLINARO GROUP - BROCK AVENUE APARTMENTS 470-486 BROCK AVENUE FILES: 505-03/10 & 520-04/10

As you may be aware, IBI Group has been retained by the owners of 492 and 494 Brock Avenue which are comprised of the property at the southwest corner of Brock Avenue and Ontario Street and the abutting ho use to the south. It is not our client's intent to object to positive forms of development within the downtown core; however, we wish to relay the following concerns of our client: Namely, the Holding 'IT Provision was applied to the entire block for the purpose of land assembly in efforts to ensure the properties develop to their fullest potential within the parameters of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. To date, the entire block has not been assembled in its entirety; yet, the proponent of the subject applications seeks to nearly double the maximum permitted density from 185 to 352 units per hectare while doubling the building height from 7 to 14 storeys. The proposed built form and density could be considered more appropriate when the entire block has been assembled with the remaining two owners. This would accommodate a more consistent streetscape and provide additional lands to accommodate such a proposal while reducing the number of required zoning modifications. Through our client, it has come to our attention that our client and the Molinaro Group have discussed the purchase of our client's lands. Our client has been fair with the sale price and requested the Molinaro Group pay the same per square footage price that they paid Emshi Developments for their property on the corner of Elgin and Brock. That leaves Ms. Diane Lang at 490 Brock Avenue who we understand is interested to sell as well. It is our understanding, discussions between our client and the Molinaro Group has revealed that the primary reason the Molinaro Group has not pursued these remaining two properties for assembly is that the Burlington Planning staff have not recommended or insisted they do so.

161 Group is a group of firms providing professional services and is affiliated with IBI Group Architects Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd. (PEIL) is a member of the IBI Group of firms