Meeting recording - Burlington Escribe Link

The City of Burlington is at a crossroads regarding the future of its local economy and property tax base. During a statutory public meeting on January 13, 2026, the Committee of the Whole debated sweeping changes to the city’s Official Plan (OPA 7) and the Regional Official Plan (ROPA 1). These amendments are intended to bring Burlington into compliance with the Province of Ontario’s new Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) 2024 and Bill 97. However, the meeting revealed a significant conflict between the province’s narrow focus on industrial manufacturing and Burlington’s reality as a mature, service-oriented urban centre.

Under the new provincial definitions, "Employment Areas" are strictly limited to manufacturing, warehousing, and goods movement. Traditional office buildings, standalone retail, and institutional uses—such as private colleges and places of worship—are generally

no longer permitted as new uses in these zones. For a city like Burlington, where 45 per cent of all jobs are located within these employment lands, the shift threatens to stall economic growth and potentially lower the value of non-residential properties, shifting a higher tax burden onto homeowners.

A subtle but sharp moment occurred when a local business owner compared the city’s high-tech aspirations against the reality of provincial mandates.

The comment was used to illustrate the scale and type of employment change being raised by local businesses, rather than to quantify specific wage levels. This observation highlighted the core tension of the meeting:

While the province aims to protect industrial lands from being turned into residential housing, the narrowness of the new rules may unintentionally devalue the very land it seeks to protect.

The meeting opened with a presentation from Sylvia Labon, a policy planner for the City of Burlington. Labon explained that the city is responding to a series of provincial legislative changes, including Bill 97 and Bill 185, which have fundamentally altered how employment lands are managed. The new provincial definition of an "employment area" is significantly more restrictive than previous versions.

Under the new rules, manufacturing, warehousing, and goods movement are the only primary permitted uses. Office, retail, and commercial uses are only allowed if they are "directly associated" with a primary industrial use. Standalone office buildings are now directed toward Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) or other strategic growth areas. Furthermore, institutional uses and public service uses are no longer contemplated as permitted uses within these zones under the new framework.

The city’s own growth analysis review, attached to the staff report, concluded that Burlington will have nearly exhausted its vacant employment lands by 2051. The city is currently forecasting a need to accommodate 22,000 new jobs in that time frame. However, the restrictive nature of the new provincial definitions may make reaching that target difficult, as the types of jobs Burlington typically attracts—tech, professional services, and health—may no longer be allowed on the remaining land.

Delegates representing land owners and the business community expressed deep concern that these changes amount to a loss of property rights and economic viability. Glenn Wellings, a planning consultant representing owners of multi-tenant office buildings on Harvester Road, argued that existing buildings designed for office use cannot simply be converted into warehouses.

Wellings noted that while lawfully established existing uses are recognized, the inability to replace a departing office tenant with a new one would create long-term vacancies. He suggested that for property owners who built modern office facilities under previous rules, the new restrictions feel like a "form of expropriation" because their intended use for the land is being stripped away.

The impact on small-scale employment was also raised. Wellings pointed out that many units in the Harvester Road corridor are small industrial units occupied by medical offices and professional services. These units are physically incapable of housing large-scale manufacturing or warehousing operations.

Mike Corker provided a detailed critique of the province's focus on warehousing. He argued that Burlington is not a competitive location for large-scale distribution centres compared to neighbouring Hamilton or Milton, which have better highway access and more land.

Corker also raised a significant "red flag" regarding the city's digital infrastructure. He claimed that despite Burlington’s wealthy demographic and educated workforce, its employment lands are suffering from outdated communications technology.

He shared that his employees living in Burlington are the only ones on his team without access to fibre-optic internet, placing the city in the bottom 10 per cent for connectivity according to his internal assessments. This lack of infrastructure makes the restrictive industrial zoning even more problematic, as it prevents the high-tech firms that could operate in smaller spaces from doing so effectively.

The prohibition of institutional uses in employment areas also threatens the city's social infrastructure. Father Anthony Wadi, representing a congregation of over 1,000 members, spoke about the difficulty of finding affordable space for community services.

Father Wadi noted that their church in Mississauga employs approximately 150 full-time staff, yet such a use would be prohibited in Burlington’s employment areas under the new rules. He argued that churches and non-profits often occupy the "crumbs" of the real estate market—vacant industrial spaces that are not attractive to manufacturers—and provide essential services like youth counselling and senior programs at no cost to the city.

The discussion among council members reflected a growing frustration with provincial oversight. Councillor Paul Sharman questioned the necessity of rushing into compliance with a policy that he described as "stupid" and "1950s thinking."

Staff acknowledged the difficulty. Steve Power, Director of Community Planning, explained that the city is currently working with an outdated 1997 Official Plan because the 2020 version remains largely under appeal at the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). This leaves the city in a "reactive" position when developers submit applications.

However, in response to the concerns raised by delegates, Mayor Marianne Meed Ward asked if the city could move forward with a "partial update." This would involve cleaning up redundant policies and streamlining the plan without immediately embedding the most restrictive provincial rules while the city advocates for a broader definition of "employment."

Several structural risks were identified during the meeting that could have long-term financial implications for Burlington residents:

Council did not finalize OPA 7 or ROPA 1 during this meeting. Instead, they passed a motion directing staff to reconsider the feedback from delegates and council members.

The following timeline and actions were established:

The meeting concluded with an adjournment, but the underlying issue remains unresolved. Burlington is struggling to balance the province’s desire for a protected industrial heartland with its own evolution into a modern, service-based economy. For property taxpayers, the outcome of this policy debate will determine whether the city can maintain a robust commercial tax base or if the economic future will be limited to the "forklift and warehouse" model mandated by provincial law.

Source Note
This analysis is based on the January 13, 2026 Committee of the Whole meeting and supporting documents. All quotes, timestamps, and figures are drawn directly from official meeting transcripts.