By Jack Brittle, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
The City of Burlington held its first post-summer break monthly Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss various topics related to the city and its residents on Sept. 8.
David Falletta, designer and planner for Bousfields Inc., delegated to council about the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for 2072 Lakeshore Road.
The proposal, submitted by Bousfields Inc., on behalf of Acamar Dwelling Corporation, proposes a 23-storey mixed-use building located at 2072 Lakeshore Road.
Bousfields was also behind that proposal.
“The site is within your urban structure identified as a mixed-use urban centre,” Falletta said. “This is an area that’s designated and planned for compact, mixed-use development at transit supportive densities.”
The building is proposed in the zoning code DL-A (Downtown Old Lakeshore -A). The council was debating, according to Falletta, on whether or not to “modify the zoning to implement site-specific zoning standards, to implement the proposed architectural plans,” per Bousfields’ request.
Falletta said the proposal includes active retail use as well as amenity space on the second floor.
The building would include 164 units (21 one-bedroom, 82 two-bedroom, and 61 three-bedroom), 393 square meters of commercial space, and 161 parking spaces.
“A lot of work has been done to identify exactly how much space is needed for the city to implement its streetscape guidelines as well as its needs for the street,” Falletta said.
Lisa Kearns, Ward 2 councillor, asked Falletta how the developers were able to accommodate the significant number of two and three-bedroom units into the building plan.
“The earlier rendition of this building had 20 stories with much smaller units,” Falletta said. “The great majority of them were one-bedroom units. This is a very seasoned developer (Trinity Point) that’s done a lot of market research to understand what the need in the community was. And they think that there’s an opportunity to provide larger, family-sized units with two and three bedrooms, and that’s why the additional height is needed to accommodate.”
“We think that there’s a need,” Falletta continued. “Especially when you look at some of the developments that were recently approved and constructed, there’s a real lack of two and three-bedroom units.”
After a brief questioning of staff regarding their recommendations to council about the amendments to the proposal, councillors commented on the motion to advance the proposal to a council meeting.
Mayor Marianne Meed Ward offered her thoughts first.
“I’m really pleased to see the unit mix of more two-, and especially three-bedroom [units],” Meed Ward said. “I think the design is really interesting and very good. It will be a unique piece in the downtown, and getting that retail at grade and additional wider sidewalks in this area … that is very much needed.”
Meed Ward reiterated her stance on buildings of this height in areas outside the MTSA.
“That said, I’m very much about the right scale in the right place,” Meed Ward said. “This is the wrong scale in the wrong place. This is a great building for our MTSA, something of this height, and I feel that way about the other buildings that are in the area, too. Staff’s job is to make recommendations. Our job is to make decisions. And we mostly agree with our staff, but sometimes we don’t. And this is one of those occasions for me in reflecting where I think growth should be in our community.”
Kearns responded to the mayor’s comments and said that while she agrees with the community’s reservations about this type of development, through her own analysis and consultation with city staff, as well as with the Halton Region, she could not “come up with any opportunities to justify the comments that have just been made.”
“And that is why, in fact, I continue to support this staff recommendation,” Kearns said.
Kearns said that bringing this proposal before the Ontario Land Tribunal, as council did with a proposal on 2020 Lakeshore Road, would not be beneficial with this development.
“I certainly agree with fighting when the fight is right,” Kearns said.
Kearns said that without the unanimous council vote and “robust refusal from staff” that was present in the 2020 Lakeshore Road case, taking that approach with this proposal would not create a positive outcome for the city.
“There was certainly an investment in staff time and corporate dollars to unfold that tribunal decision, which for the first time was in our favour, but I don’t see that those conditions can be met with this file,” Kearns said.
Kearns also said that she was pleased with the unit mix, as well as the parking ratio, which would be just under one to one with the added amendments.
She summed up her comments by saying that while the development is not ideal, it is inevitable given the current context of the city and the Lakeshore area.
“I will stand with the community and tell you that I do not think this is the right place for development,” Kearns said. But we do need to be very alive to the realities of the legislative framework, the planning context, and the fiscal realities of defending files that we need our staff to help us with.”
“So, while I certainly think that maybe we don’t want to see this type of development at the waterfront again, I’ll say that the ship has sailed, and you saw the planning context in and around this area, which has already occurred,” Kearns continued.
Rory Nisan, Ward 3 councillor, echoed Kearns’ comments and said that the reality on the ground has changed significantly in recent years.
“I would not have supported this development prior to all of the other developments being approved and several of them being built,” Nisan said. “But that’s a 2018 reality, and we need to be in a 2025 reality, which is, this development is nearly surrounded by tall buildings, either approved by the OLT or being built.”
“And I don’t think it would be a good use of taxpayer dollars to fight a building that staff support and says represents good planning, which means they would have to be testifying against us at the OLT,” Nisan said. “And let’s be real about the overall context of this area, today in 2025. Surrounded by other tall buildings is where we would normally want a tall building to go. So it’s not ideal, there’s no doubt about it, but we have to be realistic about where we are today.”
The application, as amended by staff, was approved, with Meed Ward as the lone opposition, and will now move to a council meeting to be further discussed.
