Inside Burlington Council’s Decision on 2076 Old Lakeshore Road

By: Jack Brittle, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Burlington Local-News.ca

 

On January 6, the City of Burlington held a Special Meeting of Council and Statutory Public Meeting to discuss the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment for 2076 Old Lakeshore Road.

 

The proposal for the property, submitted by Bousfields Inc. on behalf of Acamar Dwelling Corporation, suggests a 23-storey mixed-use building at the aforementioned address.

 

City staff recommended that council approve the development of the property.

 

Alicia West, of the city’s Community Planning Department, gave council a presentation about the proposal.

 

“It has a site area of approximately 0.22 hectares and is currently used for a one to two-storey motel,” West said. “The property has frontage on Old Lakeshore Road and abuts Lake Ontario to the rear.”

 

“The application seeks permissions to permit a 23-storey, mixed-use development consisting of 154 hotel suites and 50 residential dwelling units,” West continued. “Staff note that the proposed development is considered 25 storeys, according to the city’s Zoning Bylaw, which includes the mezzanine and mechanical penthouse as their own additional storeys. The proposal also includes the extension of the waterfront trail.”

 

David Falletta, designer and planner for Bousfields Inc., delegated to council on behalf of the developer to speak about the proposal.

 

Falletta said that there is an “existing development pattern in the area,” which includes two recently developed buildings on the north side of Lakeshore Road between Pearl and Martha, which are 26 and 29 storeys, respectively.

 

“It really does highlight that the land surrounding the subject site is a tall building context, and it has evolved over time,” Falletta said. “Those tall buildings range in height from 14 to 29 storeys.”

 

The subject site falls within the Old Lakeshore Road mixed-use precinct, which the city’s Official Plan describes, according to Falletta, as “an area within the downtown that is [populated with] high-intensity mixed-use development that is pedestrian-oriented and transit supportive, and requires a high standard of design.”

 

“The policies also permit heights of up to 15 storeys, and we’re seeking an amendment to increase that height,” Falletta continued.

 

Falletta also said that the policies also seek to improve public access to the waterfront.

 

“This is a very direct policy objective, and in our opinion, it’s very clear that development along the waterfront has achieved this.”

 

Rory Nisan, Ward 3 councillor, asked Falletta if he was able to comment on the overall economic uplift of having additional hotel units in the downtown community.

 

“Hotels pay a higher tax rate than residential units, so you’re paying a different property tax rate, which is the one element,” Falletta said. “The other thing it does is it brings customers to the commercial areas within your downtown. So visitors will be visiting residents in your community, but they’ll be staying here and utilizing some of the commercial facilities around [town]. We think that there’s a lot of economic spin-off to hotels.”

 

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward asked Falletta about some concerns from residents regarding the height of the building.

 

“You are allowed 15 storeys, which is a tall building,” Meed Ward said. “It’s significant. Why not 15? Why not stay in keeping with what has been approved previously?”

 

“I think there’s a number of reasons,” Falletta said. “The first one is, we do want to optimize land in strategic growth areas like this. We want to make sure that we’re optimizing development. And then the second piece is, we do think it fits within the surrounding context. And I think your staff agrees.”

 

Falletta pointed out that the economy is an issue as well.

 

“And then the third piece is that financially, these projects are very difficult to make work, and you do need that development potential and gross floor area to make the numbers work. So that’s how we arrived at the height. Based on our review and analysis, we know that it doesn’t create any unacceptable built form impact. So we’re not creating shadow or wind conditions. That would be unacceptable. And I think your staff agree with us in that regard.”

 

The City of Burlington’s Manager of Integrated Mobility Kaylan Edgcumbe said that while there is additional parking capacity for the hotel portion of the building, it is not in a “close, walkable area” to the development.

 

“The two municipal parking options to support this development are lot three, up behind Joe Dogs, which is a 14-minute walk,” Edgcumbe said. “It’s a 1-kilometre distance from the hotel. And the other is the Waterfront Garage. It’s about 600 metres, an eight-minute walk back and forth.”

 

“We do anticipate a shortfall of around 72 to 78 spaces, which means that they’re going to have to be accommodated somewhere,” Edgcumbe said. “Is it privately-owned lots? Perhaps. That would be very conducive to a valet-type service. Or is it municipal supply? That’s where things get a little tricky and a lot harder to manage.”

 

Edgcumbe said that there are “a lot of strategic parking and management issues that have to be hashed out,” not just for the 2076 Old Lakeshore Road development but for other hotels as well.

 

Meed Ward asked Edgcumbe how to approach the insufficient parking space in the proposal.

 

“In trying to address the shortfall of parking that has been identified, would one of the ways be to simply shrink the number of units and height in the building?” Meed Ward asked.

 

“A lot of the time you either go deeper to obtain more supply or you would reduce the density to meet what your constant is,” Edgcumbe said.

 

Valet systems are manageable, but only under certain circumstances, Edgcumbe described.

 

“Valet does work,” she said. “It works when there is an off-site, privately-owned, fully controlled lot that is reserved exclusively for the hotel. I don’t know how it would be functional if the valet is going to be using municipal supply.”

 

Before deliberating on the main motion, Lisa Kearns, Ward 2 councillor, proposed two amendments to the item.

 

One was to add a fourth holding zone provision to “implement the waterfront trail extension works and dedicate the lands below the stable top of bank in an improved condition, free of charge to the city, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Planning.”

 

The second amendment was to “undelegate approval to lift the Holding for 2076 Old Lakeshore Road from the Director of Community Planning to Council.”

 

Both amendments were passed unanimously.

 

Paul Sharman, Ward 5 councillor, said that the city is in need of housing and should take it as it comes.

 

“We should take any housing we can get right now, even if it is luxury homes,” Sharman said. “What it might do is provide the opportunity for people to move out of their current homes into these homes to free up existing homes. So whatever we can get, I think we should get, because it increases capacity elsewhere for somebody to move in.”

 

Kearns said that while she understands the apprehension amongst community members regarding the proposals, the alternative is untenable.

 

“I do recognize that many residents raised concerns about the height of the building and feel that it does not reflect a balanced approach to growth in our community,” Kearns said. “The reality is that the original planning vision for this area, which did set that maximum height of 15 storeys, is no longer achievable. The change did not happen because council wanted it to, but because the Ontario Land Tribunal decisions overruled council’s position.”

 

“It’s a difficult decision to vote in support of the file, but to vote in opposition would lead us down a path that I don’t think we’re prepared to take,” Kearns continued. “The planning framework has been so weakened by past OLT decisions that council no longer has meaningful leverage. I respect the opinion of my constituency and believe we did everything to deliver on a shared vision for growth. But I also respect every tax dollar, and an opposition vote would likely result in a costly, taxpayer-funded litigation. So with that, I will be registering my support for the project.”

 

Shawna Stolte, Ward 4 councillor, put forward a motion to cap the building at 15 storeys, based on the precedent set by decisions made by the Ontario Land Tribunal as well as what is outlined in the city’s Official Plan.

 

“Our role here at council is to be an opposing voice,” Stolte said. “If it’s not us, then I don’t know who it would be. And for us, not being an opposing voice means that we’re adding approval to the precedents that are set, and that will only guarantee future heights. So I will not be supporting this as I’ve not supported the others before it.”

 

Meed Ward seconded the amendment.

 

“My commitment to community always is the right development, the right scale, and the right place. And this is none of those,” Meed Ward said. “It is becoming a canyon of towers in our downtown, right next to our adjacent waterfront.”

 

“Our role is not to rubber-stamp what our staff give us,” she continued.

 

“When we look at what the developer is proposing as far as residential, nine storeys are for residential,” Stolte said. “So by limiting it to 15 storeys, we’re not getting in the way, in any way, shape or form of what the developer is proposing as far as permanent residents that we need for our housing supply.”

 

Sharman and Kelvin Galbraith, Ward 1 councillor, voiced their opposition to the amendment.

 

“We’re not planners,” Galbraith said. “We are councillors. We vote on things that are well thought through and presented to us. Fifteen storeys just seems like it’s coming on the fly. I think the 23 storeys have been well thought through. Sending this to the OLT, if you ask me, is delaying the rental housing that we need.”

 

“I’m not willing to go down the path of spending more dollars and fighting an old battle that we’ve fought many times,” Sharman said. “Staff have given us the answer, and I’m willing to go with it.”

 

The amendment failed 5–2, with only Stolte and Meed Ward voting in favour.

 

Before voting on the motion, Kearns Kearns reiterated her reasoning for supporting the development.

 

“No new evidence has been able in the course of these three hours to change my mind, which started out as ‘I don’t want to support this at all based on my own ethos,’” Kearns said. “But I always have to set my own ethos aside and do the work as a representative of council, and that’s what I’ve done today.”

 

The motion to approve the proposal passed 5–2, with Stolte and Meed Ward voting against.