By Jack Brittle, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
On June 9, Burlington City Council held their monthly Committee of the Whole meetings to discuss various items relevant to the city and its residents. One key agenda item was a staff report recommending approval of a proposed 27-storey development at 2083 Lakeshore Rd., alongside amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw required to support it.
David Falletta, a registered professional planner for Bousfields Inc., delegated to council to speak about the “Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendments for 2083 Lakeshore Road,” which was voted on later in the meeting.
The agenda item is regarding a proposal by Bousfields Inc. to build a 27-storey, mixed-use building at 2083 Lakeshore Rd.
Bousfields’ proposal was amended by staff, and the staff report on the development proposal recommended that council approve it, with staff amendments.
According to the report, “The proposal requires an amendment to the Official Plan to support the height and density that is contemplated, as well as an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to provide relief of height, floor area ratio (FAR), and several setbacks.”
It also stated that “staff is of the opinion that the proposed development represents good planning.”
Falletta told council he was “really here to fully support the staff recommendation before you.”
The report provided some background information about the amendments that city staff have proposed.
“Transportation Planning Staff have identified that a road widening is required to implement the Downtown Streetscape Guidelines for Lakeshore Road,” the report stated. “The provision of a road widening will ensure that the goals and design principles of Downtown Streetscape is achieved for Lakeshore Road, enhance the public realm and create a unified streetscape along Lakeshore Road.”
“The road widening has since been incorporated into the design that achieves the desired streetscape for Lakeshore Road,” the report continued. “A holding provision has been included to require those lands be provided for, and the proposed zoning setbacks reflect the additional road widening lands.”
A holding provision was also recommended by staff to “address the required upgrades to the Junction Street wastewater treatment facility.”
Lisa Kearns, Ward 2 councillor, asked if the city had any timeline regarding the provision, because it is “tied to a number of different planning steps, including occupancy, the tax base, and development charges.” Alicia West, a planner for the city, said that there is no current timeline for the provision to be lifted.
“Staff are of the opinion that the road widening matter and associated considerations relating to building impacts have been addressed appropriately,” the report continued.
Kearns noted that the road widening did not significantly change any of the project details.
“[You have] maintained five levels of underground parking,” Kearns said. “The floor area ratio has changed just a little bit, but there’s been no reduction in the number of units or height.”
Kearns also asked Falletta if at any point Bousfields considered changing the size of the building to be in the 10- to 15-storey range.
“The ownership group doesn’t think it’s feasible at that height and density in terms of building something on this site today, which is a vacant parking lot,” Falletta said.
Falletta acknowledged that there was some interest from council in changing the height and density the last time the proposal was discussed, especially from Mayor Marianne Meed Ward.
Before council voted on the item, Meed Ward expressed her opposition to the development.
“I will not be supporting the recommendation,” Meed Ward said. “I think this is overdevelopment for this area. This will create a canyon of towers on both sides of a very narrow road, old Lakeshore Road, right in proximity to our waterfront. I understand that there may be folks who think that this ship has sailed, but I am not going to give it any wind.”
“My vision for downtown is not to see this type of height and density,” Meed Ward continued. “It better belongs at the MTSAs [Major Transit Station Areas], where we have now shifted our urban growth centre to. I maintain that vision. I will stand by that vision. I will fight that vision, and I will continue to be consistent in what I think the downtown should be.”
Kearns responded to Meed Ward’s comment and referred to herself as the “captain” of the aforementioned ship.
“The ship has sailed, and here’s why,” Kearns said. “I went through this planning file with deep scrutiny, and I was looking for a defensible way out of this particular application, recognizing the contextual area in which it’s been landed.”
Kearns listed the facets of the development that she raised questions about and explained that she felt the answers to all of them were satisfactory.
“The instruction to refer this file to staff to continue working on it resulted in essentially immaterial changes,” Kearns said. “They are immaterial and almost imperceptible to the built form context and to the neighbouring areas.”
“I’ve worked very hard on behalf of the community to scrutinize this particular file,” Kearns continued. “I don’t work on my personal opinions in this role. I work on expert technical staff recommendations, reports, and supporting policy pieces. So that is why I have been led to a supportive position on this file. I would like to have a very different vision. I would like to have a completely different context. But the reality is that that is not where we sit today.”
Kearns also said that she believed that if council did not accept staff’s recommendation, there would likely be an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
Rory Nisan, Ward 3 councillor, said that while he also wishes the context and reality were different, a positive outcome of the building would be more housing.
“We need the units,” Nisan said. “Every extra unit in our community has an impact on supply, which is the only real way that we’re going to have more affordable housing. It’d be one thing if staff weren’t supporting it or if the immediate context were different. We also need to ensure that we have enough housing for the next generations in our community, and whatever the cost of these units is, the supply is what will make that happen, so I will be supporting this.”
Shawna Stolte, Ward 4 councillor, and Meed Ward opposed the proposal while Kearns, Nisan, Ward 5 Councillor Paul Sharman, and Ward 6 Councillor Angelo Bentivegna voted in support.
