Ontario Land Tribunal  
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement  
du territoire  
ISSUE DATE: September 02, 2022  
CASE NO(S).:  
OLT-22-002451  
(Formerly PL200557)  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,  
c. P. 13, as amended.  
Applicant/Appellant:  
Subject:  
Old Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc.  
Request to amend the Official Plan Failure to  
adopt the requested amendment  
To permit a 27-storey apartment building with  
retail/commercial at grade  
505-02/20  
Description:  
Reference Number:  
Property Address:  
2107 Old Lakeshore Road & 2119 Lakeshore  
Road  
Municipality/UT:  
Burlington/Halton  
OLT Case No:  
OLT-22-002451  
Legacy Case No:  
OLT Lead Case No:  
Legacy Lead Case No:  
PL200557  
OLT-22-002451  
PL200557  
Old Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc. v. Burlington  
(City.)  
OLT Case Name:  
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.  
1990, c. P. 13, as amended.  
Application to amend the Zoning By-law –  
Refusal or neglect to make a decision  
Subject:  
To permit a 27-storey apartment building with  
retail/commercial at grade  
Description:  
Reference Number:  
Property Address:  
520-03/20  
2107 Old Lakeshore Road & 2119 Lakeshore  
Road  
Municipality/UT:  
OLT Case No:  
Legacy Case No:  
OLT Lead Case No:  
Legacy Lead Case No:  
Burlington/Halton  
OLT-22-002452  
PL200558  
OLT-22-002451  
PL200557  
2
OLT-22-002451  
Heard:  
June 14, 2022 to June 30, 2022 by video hearing  
APPEARANCES:  
Parties  
Counsel  
Old Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc.  
Scott Snider  
(“Applicant/Appellant”)  
Anna Toumanians  
City of Burlington (“City”)  
Andrew Biggart  
Kelly Yerxa  
Regional Municipality of Halton  
(Region”)  
DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL  
INTRODUCTION  
[1]  
This was the Hearing in the matter of appeals by Old Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc.  
(the Applicant/Appellant) pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (the  
Act”) from the failure of the City of Burlington (City) to make a decision with respect to  
an application for an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law  
Amendment (“ZBA”) within the statutory time periods, with respect to the Applicants  
lands comprising 0.2 hectares (ha) municipally known as 2107 Old Lakeshore Road  
and 2119 Lakeshore Road in the City (“subject lands/subject property/subject site”).  
[2]  
The proposed OPA and ZBA were requested to facilitate the redevelopment of  
the subject lands with a 27 Storey Mixed Use Building that consists of retail/service  
commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above. A total of 196  
residential units are proposed in the redevelopment.  
[3]  
Core FSC Lakeshore LP has withdrawn and was no longer a party to the  
proceedings. Halton Condominium Corporation 160 (HCC) requested in writing to be  
downgraded from party to participant. This was granted without objections. HCCs  
participant statement has been considered. It generally stated that the proposed  
3
OLT-22-002451  
building design, massing, its construction and traffic effects will adversely affect the  
privacy and quality of life of its residents.  
[4]  
The Regions Counsel, Ms. Yerxa requested that she be excused from attending  
the hearing, as the Region and the Appellant had conditionally agreed that there was  
just one issue of site rehabilitation between them. In the event that the Tribunal finds for  
the Applicant/Appellant, the Region is content if the order is withheld until Site Plan  
Approval is addressed. Ms. Yerxa was accordingly excused for the duration of the  
hearing. The Regions expert witness statement was disregarded for the purpose of  
these proceedings.  
HEARING  
[5]  
The City listed twenty-three issues for determination. Wind and noise are not live  
issues. The parking rate has been agreed at 1.07 per unit and there is no lay-by parking  
in the revised concept plan. The original concept plan enclosed with the original  
applications has been revised and placed before this Tribunal. The Tribunal did not sit  
on June 20, 2022 as an Applicants witness was unavailable.  
Issues  
[6]  
The issues, in the Tribunals view are:  
1. Is the proposed development at an appropriate level of intensification and  
density?  
2. Does the proposal address the matters required in an appropriate Urban  
Design?  
3. Does the OPA and ZBA meet the requirements of the policy and legislative  
framework?  
4
OLT-22-002451  
4. Is the proposed development compatible with the existing and planned  
neighbourhood context, good land use planning and in the public interest?  
[7]  
The proposed OPA and ZBA are evaluated against the Provincial Policies and  
Legislative Framework that apply to these applications.  
Witnesses  
[8]  
The Applicant called a total of ten expert witnesses, and the City called five  
experts:  
Applicant  
1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  
6.  
Michael Goldberg Land use planning  
Enzo Corazza Architectural  
Scott Llewellyn Municipal and land development Engineering  
Ralph BouwmeesterSun and Shadow analysis  
Stewart Elkins Transportation planning  
Matt BielaskiGeotechnical, Hydrogeological Environmental  
Engineering  
7.  
8.  
9.  
10.  
Jeanette Gillezeau Land use economics and demographics  
Tom Kasprzak Urban Design and Land use  
Michael Hannay Urban Design and Land use  
Paul Ferris Landscape Architecture  
City  
11.  
12.  
13.  
14.  
Franco Romano Land use planning  
Todd Evershed Land use and urban design  
Zelaikha Shareqi Landscape architecture  
Kaylan Edgcumbe Transportation planning and Traffic  
engineering  
15.  
Joshua Medeiros Municipal Engineering and servicing  
[9]  
The above witnesses were affirmed/sworn and qualified by the Tribunal to give  
expert opinions in their respective disciplines.  
[10] The City is strongly opposed to the redevelopment. The contrary position is firmly  
5
OLT-22-002451  
held by the Applicant’s expert witnesses.  
[11] The Tribunal prefers and is persuaded by the opinion evidence of the Applicants  
expert witnesses that the applications should be approved.  
[12] Franco Romano, the Land Use Planner called by the City, opined that the  
appeals should be dismissed. However, he stated that the appropriate s. 37 Planning  
Act benefits may be imposed by the City in the event the Tribunal finds in favour of the  
proposed development.  
[13] Subject to the specific conditions that will be imposed, and after careful  
consideration of the evidence and policies, the Tribunal finds that the proposal  
represents good land use planning, and that it is in the public interest.  
Site Context  
[14] The subject site is located at the eastern confluence of Old Lakeshore Road and  
Lakeshore Road, between Torrance Street and Martha Street. Old Lakeshore Road  
loops to/from Lakeshore Road from the extension of Pearl Street in the west to the  
approximate mid-point between Martha Street and Torrance Street in the east. The  
subject site forms part of this island-like condition with low-rise lakefront commercial  
properties to the south and a variety of residential built forms to the east, north,  
northeast and northwest.  
[15] The subject site has an area of approximately 2,029 square metres (m2) (0.2  
hectares, or 0.5 acres), is a roughly triangular configured parcel, with frontages on both  
Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road. The frontage on Old Lakeshore Road is  
69.0 metres (m) and the frontage on Lakeshore Road is 74.2 m. The west lot line that  
stretches between Old Lakeshore Road in the south to Lakeshore Road in the north is  
approximately 51.8 m long. The east lot line, at the confluence of Old Lakeshore Road  
and Lakeshore Road, has a length of 9.2 m.  
6
OLT-22-002451  
[16] The lands are currently occupied by a one (1)-storey condominium sales centre  
for Carriage Gate Homes, and a one (1)-storey medical office building. The subject site  
also contains two surface parking lots that are associated with each of the existing  
buildings. Vehicular access to the site is currently provided by driveways to/from both  
Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road.  
[17] The subject site has generally flat topography, with moderate sloping land down  
from west to east.  
[18] Beyond the south lot line of the subject site, there is a public sidewalk within the  
Old Lakeshore Road right-of-way whereas there is no public sidewalk adjacent to the  
subject site along the Lakeshore Road right-of-way.  
South of the Subject Site  
[19] To the south of the subject site, on the south side of Old Lakeshore Road, are a  
number of low-rise, house-form commercial buildings with frontages on Old Lakeshore  
Road and rear lot lines abutting Lake Ontario. The uses in these buildings include  
restaurants, a spa, a one (1)-storey hotel, and surface parking lots that back directly on  
to the lake shore. There is a two (2)-storey designated heritage building at 2084 Old  
Lakeshore Road, and a two (2)- storey listed heritage building at 2100 Old Lakeshore  
Road.  
East of the Subject Site  
[20] Immediately southeast of the subject site, across Old Lakeshore Road and  
backing onto the lake shore, is a two (2)-storey, residential townhouse complex known  
as ‘Pier 21’ (2136 Old Lakeshore Road). Further east are five (5) residential apartment  
buildings backing onto the Lake Ontario shoreline. These buildings include:18 storeys  
(2160 Lakeshore Road), eight (8) storeys (2170 Lakeshore Road), 12 storeys (2190  
Lakeshore Road), four (4) storeys (2196 Lakeshore Road), and nine (9) storeys (2210  
Lakeshore Road).  
7
OLT-22-002451  
[21] All of the above-mentioned apartment buildings are shown in Schedule E –  
Downtown Mixed Use Centre (DMUC), Land Use Plan, as being within the DMUC and  
designated Downtown Residential Medium and/or High Density Precinct.  
[22] On the west side of Torrance Avenue, east of the subject site at 360 Torrance  
Street is a long, slab styled 15-storey residential apartment building, the Rambo Creek  
to the west of it, and what appears to be a vacant single detached dwelling at 2137  
Lakeshore Road, west of the Rambo Creek. This area is also within the DMUC and  
designated Downtown Residential Medium and/or High Density. North of Lakeshore  
Road, Torrance Avenue is the eastern boundary of the DMUC, east of which, are single  
detached dwellings designated Residential Low Density on Schedule B,  
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Urban Planning Area of the City OP.  
West of the Subject Site  
[23] The properties to the immediate west of the subject site, at 2093-2101 Old  
Lakeshore Road and 2096-2100 Lakeshore Road, are proposed to be developed with a  
27-storey, 88.4 m (including the mechanical penthouse), mixed use residential and  
commercial building. This proposed development includes 310 residential units and  
426.4 m2 of commercial Gross Floor Area (GFA). The proposed applications for that  
site have been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) and the OLT has  
approved this development on May 4, 2022 (CORE decision/Core Development/Core  
Building).  
[24] To the immediate west of the foregoing development proposal, there is a two (2)-  
storey commercial building at the southeast corner of Lakeshore Road and Pearl Street  
that is listed on the City’s Heritage Registry. This commercial building has surface  
parking to its east and west.  
[25] On the south side of Lakeshore Road, occupying the block from Old Lakeshore  
Road in the east to Elizabeth Street in the west is the Bridgewater development, the  
construction and occupancy of which are substantially complete. This development  
8
OLT-22-002451  
consists of a 22-storey building with 100 dwelling units on the east portion of the site,  
and two buildings of seven (7) and eight (8) storeys on the west portion of the site,  
which are occupied by a hotel, office and residential uses.  
[26] To the west of the Bridgewater development, on the south side of Lakeshore  
Road from Elizabeth Street to Brant Street is 2020 Lakeshore Road, a proposed OPA  
and ZBA submitted in December 2021 seeking approval for a development of 30 and 35  
storey buildings containing commercial, hotel and residential uses. This application  
remains in process.  
North of the Subject Site  
[27] Immediately north of the subject site is a five (5)-storey building at 2109  
Lakeshore Road operated as Chartwell Martha’s Landing Retirement Residence  
(Chartwell), and a seven (7)-storey residential building at 2121 Lakeshore Road. To  
the north of the Chartwell facility, on the east side of Martha Street is a 12-storey  
apartment building, north of which are single detached dwellings which are under OPA  
and ZBA applications for a 12-storey residential building.  
[28] On the northwest corner of Martha Street and Lakeshore Road, at 374-380  
Martha Street, is the Nautique condominium project by ADI Developments (ADI),  
which is currently under construction. This OPA and ZBA application was approved by  
the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on February 13, 2018. This under construction  
project is a 26-storey residential building with 240 dwelling units.  
[29] Located immediately west of the ADI site is an October 27, 2021, Local Planning  
Appeal Tribunal approved OPA and ZBA application on 2069-2079 Lakeshore Road  
and 383-385 Pearl Street., by Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc., for a 29-storey mixed use  
building with 320 residential units.  
9
OLT-22-002451  
Proposed Development and Applications  
[30] The proposal is to demolish the existing buildings on the subject site and  
construct a 27-storey (excluding the rooftop amenity space and mechanical units),  
mixed use building, with 462 m2 of retail and service commercial GFA in a one (1)-  
storey podium level, with residential units above. The proposed residential GFA is  
17,933 m2 for a total GFA of 18,395 m2. This will provide an overall residential density of  
980 units per hectare and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 10.4 times the lot area.  
[31] By contrast, the existing City OP permissions for the Old Lakeshore Mixed Use  
Precinct and the subject site, permit a minimum density of 51 units per net ha, a  
minimum building height of two (2) storeys, and a maximum building height of six (6)  
storeys or 19.5 m. Section 5.5.7.2d permits an increased height of up to a maximum of  
eight (8) storeys and 29 m, subject to conditions. Section 5.5.7.2k permits an increased  
height of up to a maximum of 12 storeys and 37 m, subject to similar conditions. It is  
due to these City OP restrictions and prescriptions that an OPA application has been  
filed.  
[32] The one (1)-storey podium will contain the lobby, retail space, back of the house  
service areas, loading, and the entrance ramp to the underground parking. The retail  
space is included along all three (3) public street frontages, with the predominant depth  
and breadth of the retail space being focused toward the east portion of the site at the  
corner of Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road.  
[33] The residential lobby entrance is located on the south side of the building,  
fronting Old Lakeshore Road.  
[34] Site access includes a controlled one-way southbound, 4.5 m wide service  
vehicle through-driveway, entering from Lakeshore Road and exiting onto Old  
Lakeshore Road. Site access for passenger vehicles enters the 6.9 m wide  
underground garage ramp, shown toward the southwest portion of the site, to/from  
Lakeshore Road. There are seven (7) levels of parking in the underground garage,  
10  
OLT-22-002451  
providing 210 parking spaces.  
[35] The overall height of the 27-storey building is 92.5 m from established grade to  
the top of the roof, plus a 7.0 m mechanical penthouse above, for a total height of 99.5  
m.  
[36] The building is proposed to have 196 dwelling units, with the following mix of unit  
types:  
1-Bedroom  
2-Bedroom  
3-Bedroom  
Total  
96  
49.0%  
36.7%  
14.3%  
100.0%  
72  
28  
196  
[37] The building is proposed to have indoor and outdoor amenity space of 524 m2  
and 4,593 m2, respectively, for a total amenity area of 5117 m2. This amount of amenity  
space exceeds the minimum requirement in the Zoning By-law No. 2020 by 3,920 m2.  
[38] A 0.40 m wide road widening is proposed along Lakeshore Road. The City is  
seeking a road widening of 2.0 m. The purpose for this road widening is to enable  
cycling lanes to be constructed along Lakeshore Road within the public right-of-way.  
The reasoning behind the proposed 0.40 m proposed road widening compared to the  
City requested 2.0 m is that all the required on-road facilities envisioned for Lakeshore  
Road can be accommodated with the smaller road widening dimension, without the  
need to reconfigure, and add levels to the proposed parking garage.  
[39] The project includes public realm enhancements surrounding the building,  
including landscaping and design features and cycling facilities within the expanded  
public right-of-way, described in detail by the Applicant’s Urban Design, Landscape  
Architectural and Transportation experts at this hearing.  
11  
OLT-22-002451  
Issue. 1: Is the proposed development at an appropriate level of intensification  
and density?  
[40] According to Mr. Romano, City’s planning witness, the level of density and  
intensification that is proposed exceeds the existing, planned and emerging context for  
the subject site. A more moderate form of high density development that maintains the  
intent of the City’s Intensification Strategy as implemented through the City’s OP is  
appropriate. This generally means that the proposal of 27 storeys and 196 residential  
units, in his view, is too tall and too intense, representing an overdevelopment of the  
site.  
[41] Mr. Romano stated that the proposal conflicts with the in-force land use planning  
framework. The proposed amendments do not properly implement the planning  
framework at the Provincial, Regional or Local levels.  
[42] The proposal, he opined, conflicts with the emerging land use planning  
framework. The applicable land use planning framework permits a significant  
intensification opportunity for the site, one that is optimalfor the site. The planned  
context intensification opportunity reflects a moderate high density development. The  
proposal thus conflicts with that because it is an excessively high intensity development.  
[43] According to the Applicants planning witness Mr. Goldberg, land use planning is  
not static, and the OP specifically contemplates applications to amend.  
[44] The subject site is located within an area that is undergoing significant change  
and growth through intensification application approvals, resulting in an evolving built  
form context of higher densities and heights, reflective of its Downtown Burlington  
location and Urban Growth Centre designation.  
[45] Mr. Goldberg explained that while there is a broad range of existing and  
approved building heights in the neighbourhood, there is an evolving trend of taller and  
denser developments being proposed and approved in recent years. The area is clearly  
evolving to accommodate much needed housing to meet population growth needs. The  
12  
OLT-22-002451  
immediate area contains some of the tallest buildings in the Downtown area.  
[46] He testified that there are many development applications at various stages of  
the planning process, in close proximity to the subject site. These developments  
contribute to the evolving built form context within the Downtown area.  
[47] Mr. Goldberg stressed that approvals for new buildings within this part of  
Burlington takes place through OPA and ZBA applications, seeking among other things,  
greater levels of height and density permissions from the City OP and ZBL permissions  
at the time of the application.  
[48] The Tribunal concurs with Mr. Goldberg that this part of the City has seen and is  
experiencing changes. Major developments and approved applications have resulted in  
taller buildings and density increases. Consistent with the evolving context around this  
part of the City, the Tribunal finds that the subject property is suited for a development  
at an appropriate level of intensification and density.  
Issue No. 2: Does the proposal address the matters required in an appropriate  
Urban Design?  
CITY  
[49] The Citys Urban Designer, Mr. Evershed, stated that from an urban perspective,  
the proposed development does not conform to the policies and design directions of the  
applicable Official Plan policies and urban design guidelines, will not fit appropriately  
into its existing and planned context, fails to provide an appropriate transition in height  
to neighbouring residential areas, and fails to demonstrate how the potential shadowing  
impacts will not result in any unacceptable adverse impacts.  
[50] In his opinion, the proposed development does not represent appropriate urban  
design in addressing matters including height, density, form, massing, bulk, scale,  
siting, transitions, building articulation, setbacks and spacing having regard for the site  
and the character of the surrounding lands.  
13  
OLT-22-002451  
Height, Density and Transitions  
[51] The City Official Plan 2008 (in-force OP) and Zoning By-law No. 2020 (ZBL  
2020) set out the building height and density expectations for the precinct and site.  
Further, area-specific design guidelines have been prepared for the subject precinct,  
reflecting the vision and characteristics expressed through these policy documents, and  
creating guidelines to guide how height and density should land within this area of the  
Downtown.  
[52] Policy 5.5.7.2 b) establishes that the appropriate height in this location is a range  
of two (2)-storeys and ten (10)-storeys, or up to 15-storeys if certain conditions are met.  
The Zoning By-law establishes a maximum building height of ten (10)-storeys (31.5  
metres) and a maximum floor area ratio of 4.5:1 within this precinct.  
[53] Policy 5.5.7.1 a), states that the objectives of the Old Lakeshore Road Mixed Use  
Precinct (OLRMUP) is to provide an area in the Downtown for high intensity, mixed  
use development that is pedestrian-oriented and transit-supportive, which helps meet  
Provincial Growth objectives and provides for a transition from the highest density  
mixed-use area (Wellington Square Mixed Use Precinct) to the more residential areas to  
the east.  
[54] In Mr. Eversheds opinion, the proposed development is too tall and represents  
an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed development would represent the tallest  
building in the downtown, at the eastern edge of the downtown. The proposed  
development ignores the policies of the Official Plan and design directions of both the  
Official Plans (the in-force OP and the new 2020 OP (new OP) (under appeal)) and the  
Old Lakeshore Road Precinct Urban Design Guidelines (OLRPUDG) and would result  
in a building that far exceeds the expressed height and density maximums and fails to  
provide an appropriate transition in height to the adjacent low- and mid-rise residential  
context.  
14  
OLT-22-002451  
Form, Massing, Bulk and Scale  
[55] Mr. Evershed opined that, the proposed development is too tall within the context  
of the existing built environment, and would result in a form, massing and scale of  
development that is not in keeping with the policies of, and vision as expressed in the  
in-force OP and ZBL 2020.  
[56] In his opinion, the proposed development is not in conformity with the evaluation  
criteria set out in OP Part III, Section 2.5.2 and does not conform with the intended  
height, density, massing, scale and form of intensification set out within this area of the  
Downtown.  
Siting, Building Articulation, Setbacks and Spacing  
[57] Mr. Evershed stated that the proposed development would result in a building  
that is too tall for the site and therefore does not represent an appropriate urban design  
response in addressing matters of height, density, form, massing, bulk, scale, and  
transitions.  
[58] In Mr. Eversheds opinion, the proposed development has not demonstrated  
conformity with Part II, Subsections 6.2 b) and c) and Part III, Subsection 5.5.12 q) of  
the Official Plan as it relates to the adjacent heritage building at 2101 Old Lakeshore  
Road, for example, in addressing matters of siting, building articulation and scale.  
[59] He reiterated that the proposed 27-storey development does not represent an  
appropriate building height.  
[60] In consideration of the policy and built form context, including the immediate  
block scale and surrounding area, the importance of providing a transition in the height  
and scale of buildings from the center of a growth area down to a lower-scale area  
cannot be understated as a fundamental urban design principle to ensure an  
appropriate fit and compatible development. In Mr. Eversheds opinion, the proposed  
15  
OLT-22-002451  
27-storey development does not provide an appropriate transition in height from the  
existing, planned or emerging built form context in the downtown, which includes the  
existing 22-storey building on the south side of Lakeshore to the southwest of the  
subject site (2060 Lakeshore Road) and the recent OLT/OMB decisions to approve a  
29-storey and 26-storey building on the north side of Lakeshore Road to the west of the  
subject site (2069-2079 Lakeshore Road and 383-385 Pearl Street and 374 Martha  
Street, respectively).  
[61] Mr. Evershed stated that the height and massing of the proposed podium is not  
appropriate given the existing and planned surrounding development context.  
[62] While the proposed podium is of a low-rise character it does not adhere to the  
minimum height set out in Section 2.2 b) of the Tall Building Guidelines nor does it  
reflect the existing and planned surrounding context.  
[63] In his opinion, the Proposed Development would not comply with Guidelines 2.2  
b), 3.2 a), 3.3 a), and 3.3 b) of the Tall Building Guidelines.  
[64] Further, a wider public right-of-way along Lakeshore Road is preferred from an  
urban design perspective to contribute to an enhanced public realm including the  
provision of active transportation, pedestrian-friendly streets, comfortable pedestrian  
environments through wider sidewalks, the provision of street trees and active at-grade  
uses with enough space for spill-out uses.  
[65] Mr. Eversheds view is that an appropriate public right-of-way width also helps to  
establish an appropriate streetwall podium location, height and massing in  
accordance with Guidelines 2.1 and 2.2 of the Tall Building Guidelines, for example.  
[66] With respect to shadowing, Mr. Evershed opined that the Applicant’s sun shadow  
study does not demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in adverse  
impacts, nor does it provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the proposed  
development seeks to adequately limit shadowing on the adjacent public realm  
16  
OLT-22-002451  
(boulevards, sidewalks and streets) or nearby residential properties and open spaces  
with respect to the excess height and mass being proposed. If there are shadow  
impacts, they can be mitigated by reducing the building height for instance.  
[67] He concluded that the proposed development does not represent good urban  
design and would result in an overdevelopment of the subject site, located at the edge  
of the downtown in close proximity to lower-scale residential housing, with excessive  
height and mass; fails to provide appropriate transitions in height; and does not fit  
appropriately into its existing and planned context.  
[68] Mr. Evershed emphasized that the Official Plan provides for differing precincts  
that contemplate differing scales of redevelopment and intensification. The Old  
Lakeshore Road Precinct (OLRP), in which the subject site is located, does not  
provide for the tallest or highest densities in the Downtown. Rather, it functions as a  
transitional designation between the taller and higher permitted densities in the  
Wellington Square Mixed Use Precinct and the lower- scale residential areas to the east  
of the site.  
Streetscaping  
[69]  
The City’s landscape architecture witness, Ms. Shareqi opined that appropriate  
streetscaping has not yet been sufficiently demonstrated for the following reasons. A 2  
m land conveyance along Lakeshore Road is required by the City of Burlington’s  
Transportation department and is not represented on the plans. If the land conveyance  
is not provided, then the streetscape design would have to be revised to meet the City’s  
guidelines for the City of Burlington’s Downtown. The streetscape proposed along  
Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore Road do not propose a running bond pattern as  
per the Recommendations for Lakeshore Road outlined in the Downtown Streetscape  
Guidelines. Additionally, the streetscapes proposed along Old Lakeshore Road fail to  
include the 4 zones identified in the Downtown Streetscape Guidelines Section 3.1:  
Streetscape Anatomy: The Marketing Zone, The Clear Path Zone, The Furnishing Zone,  
The Edge Zone. (Applicants witnesses spent a significant amount of time explaining  
17  
OLT-22-002451  
that the four zones are illustrated in cross-section which the Tribunal acknowledges).  
[70]  
The proposed development would remove city trees in the right-of-way. In Ms.  
Shareqis opinion, this removal is not supported by the materials that have been  
submitted with the application. She stated that an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation  
Plan, should be provided so that the City can review in its consideration of whether the  
City’s trees in the City’s right-of-way should be removed. (The Applicant countered that  
this, and other related tree planting, tree growth, tree health or landscaping matters  
could be considered and provided at the detailed Site Plan approval stage which the  
Tribunal agrees with).  
APPLICANT  
[71] Mr. Kasprzak and Mr. Hannay testified as a panel on urban design. Their  
opinions are encapsulated in the following. The proposed amendments to the Official  
Plan and Burlington ZBL 2020, are appropriate and desirable in urban design terms and  
should be approved. The proposed development at the easterly entrance to the  
downtown, is compatible with the existing and planned built form context and would  
enhance the area by intensifying an underutilized site with an appropriately scaled high-  
rise, mixed-use development that will contribute to the ongoing regeneration and  
enhanced vibrancy of Burlington’s Downtown Core as a complete community.  
[72] From an urban design perspective, it is Mr. Kasprzaks opinion that the proposed  
development represents an appropriate response to the location of the subject site at a  
prominent location which demarcates an important gateway and view terminus within  
the City’s Downtown and Old Lakeshore Road Mixed Use Precinct (OLRMUP). The  
design consists of two distinct building elements: a one (1)-storey podium designed to  
have an expression of a two (2)-storey element and a slender tower totalling 27 storeys.  
The proposed building height will fit harmoniously within the range of existing and  
approved building heights in the surrounding context.  
[73] In his opinion, the built form impacts of the proposed building are acceptable,  
18  
OLT-22-002451  
given its location within an area identified for intensification and the surrounding context  
of existing and approved tall buildings. In particular, the shadow analysis undertaken by  
R. Bouwmeester and Associates (Mr. Bouwmeester testified at the hearing)  
demonstrates that the incremental shadows created by the proposed 27-storey tower  
will satisfy the applicable policy tests and recommendations.  
[74] The proposed built form, setbacks and height of development appropriately  
conform to the policies of the Official Plan and address the relevant Council-approved  
guidelines with respect to tall building development in an area characterized by tall  
buildings. The proposed form, setbacks and height of development are appropriate and  
compatible from an urban design perspective with the physical (both existing and  
planned) context of the surrounding area. At grade, the proposed development will  
animate the public realm with active grade related uses. Parking, loading and other  
service functions of the development will be located away from the public realm to  
minimize any potential visual impact.  
[75] The proposal conforms with the urban design policies of the Mixed Use Activity  
Areas (MUAA) and Mixed Use Centre (MUC) designations that apply to the subject  
site. The proposal requires amendments to the Official Plan policy 5.5.7.2(d) in order to  
permit the proposed height of 27 storeys. In Mr. Kasprzaks opinion, the requested  
amendment is appropriate and desirable and would permit a contextually appropriate  
building design that responds both to the existing and planned built form context and the  
overarching policy directions promoting intensification on the subject site. Furthermore,  
the proposed height is within the range of existing and approved heights in the area,  
many of which exceed the current policy framework.  
[76] In his opinion the proposed development represents appropriate urban design  
with respect to height, form, massing, scale, siting, transition, building articulation,  
setbacks and spacing. The proposed height has to be considered with respect to its  
context, potential impacts and appropriate transition. In that regard, the proposed height  
of 27 storeys is within the range of the existing and emerging pattern of development in  
19  
OLT-22-002451  
the City’s Downtown which includes building approvals of up to 29 storeys. The  
proposed building is also situated over 127 m from lower scaled residential areas  
ensuring it meets a 45 degree angular plane which is often applied to establish an  
appropriate transition between different scales of development. Based on the shadow  
impact analysis there are no adverse impacts. Furthermore, Mr. Kasprzak opined that  
the subject site is situated in a prominent location which demarcates a gateway  
condition for the Downtown and a view terminus for Lakeshore Road, one of the City’s  
principal east-west corridors.  
[77] Mr. Kasprzak stated that the proposed siting of the tower and podium is  
appropriate with respect to the building’s interface with the public realm at grade and its  
relationship to the lower scaled buildings on the south side of Lakeshore Road on lower  
levels and the building’s relationship with potential redevelopment to the west. In that  
regard, the proposed tower maintains a setback of 12.5 m from the west property line, in  
accordance with the City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines.  
[78] In terms of building articulation, the proposal consists of two distinct elements: a  
podium and a tower. The podium provides for an appropriate framing of the streets and  
is reflective of the scale of some of the existing low scale buildings situated in the  
OLRP. The tower is representative of a slender point tower design with a floorplate size  
of 750 m2 in accordance with the City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines. The design of  
both, the podium and tower are influenced by the configuration of the site and  
accentuate its prominence with a high quality architecture. Furthermore, the proposed  
podium height reflects the recommendations of the OLRPUDG.  
[79] The proposal provides for appropriate streetscapes with an appropriately scaled  
podium element and adequate setbacks. The previously proposed lay-by parking has  
been removed along Old Lakeshore Road.  
[80] Mr. Kasprzak opined that the development proposal represents good urban  
design and will make a positive contribution to the area in general. The development  
proposal provides an excellent opportunity to achieve residential intensification on an  
20  
OLT-22-002451  
underutilized site in close proximity to transit and a higher intensity mix of built forms,  
and in a manner that reinforces the existing and planned built context in the area. He  
recommended the approval of the proposed OPA and ZBA.  
[81] Mr. Hannay said that the revised design of the proposed development fully and  
appropriately meets both the specifics of the Tall Building Guidelines as well as the  
general intent of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. The revised design of the  
proposed development also appropriately addresses those recommendations of the  
OLRPUDG that continue to be relevant to the design of new developments in Areas ‘A’  
and ‘B’ under the OLRPUDG.  
[82] It is his opinion that density is not of itself an urban design matter and only  
relates to urban design in terms of building typologies and site design. Further, his view  
is that the design of the proposed development responds appropriately to the design  
guidelines and does not produce potentially unacceptable impacts relating to built form  
such as shadow, while the density of the proposed development is appropriate.  
[83] In reference to the relevant urban design related policies of the Official Plan, the  
planned and built context of the subject site has continued to evolve and the pattern of  
building heights that has been approved no longer reflects the pattern of building  
heights envisioned in the City of Burlington Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. The  
height and massing of the proposed development including the proposed height of its  
podium is appropriate to its location and context.  
[84] The design of the proposed podium at one storey with a two storey expression  
with vertical architectural fins, will provide a sense of pedestrian scale along both the  
Lakeshore Road and Old Lakeshore streetscapes through its height, massing  
articulation, landscaping and streetscaping at grade, and the proposed uses at grade.  
[85] In Mr. Hannays opinion the height and massing of the revised podium design is  
appropriate to the existing and planned development context.  
21  
OLT-22-002451  
[86] Within the area of the subject site and along Lakeshore Road from Pearl Street  
east, there is no common podium height for tall buildings. From Pearl Street east along  
Lakeshore Road the range of built and approved podium heights include two (2) storey,  
three (3) storey, four (4) storey, and six (6) storey podiums with no over-riding  
consistent pattern of podium heights. This is a condition that will provide an element of  
visual variety along the streetscape. Older apartment buildings to the east of the subject  
site, on or close to Lakeshore Road, do not provide podiums.  
[87] Section 2.1 Podium Location of the Tall Building Guidelines recommends a  
distance of 6.0 m from the face of the podium at grade to the curb of a street. The  
distance from the face of the podium on the ground floor to the curb on Lakeshore Road  
is now 6.8 m and 8.0 m to 9.3 m on Old Lakeshore Road.  
[88] Mr. Hannay stated that from the perspective of urban design, the proposed  
redevelopment represents a well-designed redevelopment proposal for the subject site  
that will fit appropriately into its existing and planned context.  
[89] The Tribunal is persuaded by the opinion evidence of Messrs. Kasprzak, Hannay  
and Bouwmeester (who was the only expert providing shadow studies that  
demonstrated minimal shadow impacts on the opposite side of Lakeshore Road with the  
proposed developments Sun Access Factor (SAF) of 0.45 as compared to the  
required SAF 0.5). The urban design elements of the building meet the policy  
requirements and City approved guidelines. The building is well-designed to be  
specifically and appropriately sited on this triangular shaped site. As one drives from  
east to west on Lakeshore Road, this future architectural landmark will be a standout  
view terminus at this Downtown gateway. Although not defined as a gateway in the OP,  
in reality, this confluence triangular patch of the Old Lakeshore Road and the Lakeshore  
Road forks right at the nose of the subject propertyleading to the downtown.  
[90] The redevelopment incorporates the tall building guidelines requirements on built  
form and typology. The two (2)-storey podium expression through architectural fins,  
from the pedestrian perspective, will not be at odds with the existing and approved  
22  
OLT-22-002451  
context where there are buildings without podiums, and building podiums in the vicinity  
ranging from two (2) to six (6) storeys high. The tower portion is of a height that is  
generally prevalent in the neighbourhood.  
[91] The redevelopment will be in line with the provincial goal of creating healthy and  
complete communities. Present and future residents will benefit from the increased  
housing supply, the landscaping, and the creation of open space amenities that will  
revitalize this underutilized subject property. The Tribunal acknowledges the  
requirement of an appropriate width for a right of way for a comfortable and safe  
pathway in the public realm.  
[92] New residents in this proposed development will benefit from the varied types of  
apartments. The Province’s and the City’s objectives of providing more affordable  
housing will be realized. The appropriately designed proposal is a sustainable  
development maximizing efficient use of municipal infrastructure and services.  
[93] The Tribunal finds that this intensification of the subject lands, through the  
provision of a total of 196 units of well-designed residential apartments and ground floor  
retail is beneficial to this area.  
Issue No. 3: Does the OPA and ZBA meet the requirements of the policy and  
legislative framework?  
City  
[94] Mr. Romano testified and provided evidence on matters of Provincial interest  
including Provincial, Regional and City Policies and the Zoning By-law.  
[95] He opined that the proposed amendments do not have regard for the following  
matters of Provincial interest identified in s. 2 of the Planning Act: 2(h); 2(n); 2(p); and  
2(r)(i) (ii) (iii).  
[96] The proposed amendments, he added, will result in a site development that is out  
23  
OLT-22-002451  
of keeping with the existing, planned and emerging context. These currently afford a  
significant, yet much more moderate, form of development intensity for the site than is  
currently proposed. The proposal represents a significant departure, representing one of  
the tallest, most intense development, for example, within an existing, planned and  
emerging context where shorter, less intense development is called for.  
[97] Mr. Romano stated that the site is subject to the Settlement Areas policies of the  
Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS). Settlement Areas are the focus for growth  
and development within land use patterns which are based on a range of uses and  
opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The applicable policy sections of 1.0  
Building Strong Healthy Communities (1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6) are guided by  
the Implementation and Interpretation policies of 4.0 and the Definitions of 6.0.  
[98] Mr. Romano stressed that the PPS and the existing in-force land use planning  
framework permit a context suitable intensification and redevelopment opportunity for  
the site.  
[99] He said that the PPS and the new OP permit a context suitable intensification  
and redevelopment opportunity for the site. This planned and emerging context is  
consistent with the PPS. The Tribunal notes that the new OP is under appeal and is  
informative and not determinative with respect to the applications.  
[100] Mr. Romanos view is that the proposed OPA and ZBA would elevate the level of  
intensification and redevelopment for the site in a manner that remains consistent with  
the PPS but is not context suitable. The appropriate implementation of the PPS, read as  
a whole, would achieve a significant development on the site which is more moderate  
than proposed. The proposed amendments do not have the effect of bringing the site  
into a position of consistency with the PPS, he opined.  
[101] The 2020 Growth Plan (Growth Plan) is in-force and is part of the planned  
context. It provides for a high level of policy which is to be implemented at the local level  
based on context suitable considerations. Mr. Romano stated that the Growth Plan is to  
24  
OLT-22-002451  
be read as a whole and the municipal land use planning framework is to be read such  
that the policies are implemented appropriately.  
[102] The site is located within the Growth Plan’s Delineated Built-Up Area component  
of the Settlement Area and within the Urban Growth Centre. The policies of the Growth  
Plan are intended to achieve complete communities by facilitating contextually  
appropriate development that is compact, transit supportive and makes efficient use of  
existing infrastructure. The policy direction is to optimize the use of existing urban land  
supply in a context suitable manner. Mr. Romanos opinion is that the policies are clear  
that they do not confer any new land use designations and rely upon the local land use  
planning framework for implementation.  
[103] Mr. Romano stated that the site is located within an area that is described in the  
Managing Growth section 2.2.1, except that it is not in a higher order transit location. It  
can contribute appropriately to the Section 2.2.1-related matters under the existing,  
planned and emerging land use planning framework utilizing existing significant  
intensification permissions. The proposal, he said, does not establish conformity with  
these policies.  
[104] Section 2.2.3 Urban Growth Centres states that these areas will be planned as  
focal areas for investment, accommodate and support the transit network at the regional  
scale, serve as high density major employment centres and accommodate significant  
population and employment growth. Section 2.2.3 provides for minimum density targets  
of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare for Downtown Burlington.  
[105] The aforementioned density target is described within the in-force OP. According  
to Mr. Romano, the City is meeting its minimum density target (City report September  
2020 Taking a Closer Look at the Downtown: Recommended Modifications to the  
adopted Official Plan).  
[106] Section 5 of the in force OP deals with the Implementation and Interpretation of  
the Growth Plan. Section 5.1 states that all planning-related decisions will conform with  
25  
OLT-22-002451  
the Growth Plan.  
[107] Section 5.2.5.6 interrelates the achievement of the minimum targets with a  
municipality’s development and implementation of urban design and site design Official  
Plan policies and other supporting documents that direct the development of a high  
quality public realm and compact built form.  
[108] It is Mr. Romanos opinion that the achievement of the Growth Plan policy  
direction in a manner that conforms with the Growth Plan is a land use planning  
condition which currently exists under the in-force land use planning framework. The in-  
force land use planning framework conforms with the Growth Plan. It contains policies,  
including density targets, which conform with the Growth Plan.  
[109] Mr. Romanos view is that the proposed OPA and ZBA would elevate the level of  
intensification and redevelopment for the site in a manner that is in conformity with the  
Growth Plan but is not context suitable. The appropriate implementation of the Growth  
Plan, read as a whole, would achieve a significant development on the site which is  
more moderate than proposed.  
[110] The in force OP and ZBL 2020 can facilitate a maximum ten (10) storey mixed  
use development with a floor area ratio up to 4.5:1. This ‘as of right’ permission affords  
a significant intensification opportunity for the site. A site development in this regard will  
contribute to the City’s achievement of the Growth Plan conformity targets under the  
Growth Plan, as described within the in force OP.  
[111] Mr. Romano stressed that an increase beyond the ‘as of right’ zoning permission  
and beyond Official Plan designation development standards is not required for the site,  
in order for the City to achieve its Growth Plan conformity targets.  
[112] He stated that the Regional Municipality of Halton Official Plan Amendment 48  
(ROPA 48) was approved by the Minister on November 10, 2021. It is consistent with  
the PPS and conforms with the Growth Plan. It is in force and forms the land use  
26  
OLT-22-002451  
planning framework planned context.  
[113] ROPA 48 is informative, instructive but not determinative because it was adopted  
and approved after the applications were deemed complete by the City.  
[114] ROPA 48 provides an updated regional structure to conform with the Growth  
Plan. ROPA 48 identifies on Maps 1h and 6b that the Burlington Major Transit Station  
Areas (MTSA) is centred around the Burlington GO Station, a Priority Transit Corridor.  
The Burlington MTSA is at the top of the Regional Urban Structure hierarchy.  
[115] While ROPA 48 moves the Burlington MTSA to the Burlington GO Station, it also  
contains transitional policies for applications made prior to the Minister’s decision for  
lands originally within an Urban Growth Centre (UGC) to continue to be subject to  
UGC policies. ROPA 48 maintains the same UGC minimum density targets as those  
contained within the in-force OP and the Growth Plan.  
[116] ROPA 48 (and the Halton Region Official Plan (ROP) as a whole) provides for a  
high level policy framework, at the Regional level, which is to be implemented at the  
local level through such means as local Official Plans. The in force OP is the local  
Official Plan that implements the ROP.  
[117] In Mr. Romanos opinion, the proper implementation of ROPA 48 achieves a  
significant development on the site which is more moderate than the Proposed  
Development.  
[118] The ROP, June 2018 Consolidation, includes all amendments from the initial  
adoption in March 1994. The ROP planning horizon is to 2031.  
[119] The site is located within the Settlement Area which includes the Urban Area  
(Policies 50.2 and 72). The Urban Area and Intensification Areas (Policies 77, 78 to 81)  
sections provide direction for complete community diversity and relies upon the local  
municipality for context suitable implementation. This includes implementation at the  
27  
OLT-22-002451  
Official Plan and Zoning By-law framework.  
New Official Plan (City Official Plan 2020)  
[120] Mr. Romano stated that considerable weight should be given to the Citys new  
OP. Nevertheless, the Tribunal notes that the new OP (currently under appeal) is  
informative but not determinative of the applications.  
[121] Mr. Romano opined that the proposal is in conflict with the new OP which clearly  
identifies a more moderate, yet significant, form of intensification on the site. Any  
approval of an OPA for the site should better align with the new OP framework and  
achieve a more moderate development for the site.  
[122] The new OP, Chapter 6, Infrastructure, Transportation and Utilities, recognizes  
the Downtown and Uptown Urban Centres as priority areas for improvements. The  
Sections within this Chapter provide the policy basis and direction for right-of-way  
widths, active transportation requirements and transportation demand management  
integration and efficiencies. The subject site is located in an area where the Lakeshore  
Road right-of-way is planned to be widened. The City proposes to take less of a road  
widening than the planned right-of-way width. The applications propose to permit an  
even lesser road widening to be provided (0.4 m, as shown in the April 2022 revised  
plans). In Mr. Romanos opinion, the proposal does not implement the new OP  
appropriately and the proposed OPA does not represent good planning.  
[123] Chapter 8 (Section 8.1 et al) provides the new OP objectives and policies relating  
to the Urban Area, Mixed Use Intensification Areas, and Urban Centres. It is within this  
Chapter that the site’s Downtown Urban Centre and OLRP underlying land use  
designation policies are found.  
[124] Section 8.1.1, Urban Centres, elaborates upon the policy description. Section  
8.1.1(3.1) General Objectives, for example, states:  
28  
OLT-22-002451  
b) To establish minimum density targets for the Urban Growth Centre contained  
within the Downtown in terms of residents and jobs, in accordance with the  
Provincial Growth Plan;  
c) To establish a precinct system that recognizes areas with distinct character  
and sets policies for differences in land uses, height and built form, informed by  
historical development patterns and the planned function of each precinct.  
d) To ensure development incorporates effective transitions with adjacent  
development and surrounding areas.  
h) Development will respect and be compatible with the existing built form  
character of adjacent development and provide appropriate built form transition.  
i) Development will support the achievement of the vision and function of the  
precinct within which it is located.  
[125] Mr. Romano explained that the OLRP policies contained in Section 8.1.1(3.6)  
further describes the underlying land use designation. It states:  
The Old Lakeshore Road Precinct will provide for mixed-use mid-rise  
buildings consisting primarily of residential uses which are pedestrian-  
oriented and transit supportive while also achieving a high standard of  
design. Modest tall buildings which transition downward from the adjacent  
Lakeshore Precinct towards the waterfront may be accommodated where  
such development achieves strategic public and city building objectives,  
including the provision of public waterfront access and the creation of  
new uninterrupted view corridors to Lake Ontario, among others.  
[126] The accompanying policies provide for a mix of uses which may be permitted, a  
minimum required building height of two (2) storeys and a maximum height of ten (10)  
storeys and 31.5 m within the East Sector of the OLRP where the site is located. The  
maximum permitted building height may be permitted up to a maximum of 12 storeys  
and 37.0 m, subject to the provision of the following to the satisfaction of the City:  
a. Old Lakeshore Road is retained in the East Sector and realigned to form an  
29  
OLT-22-002451  
intersection at Martha Street and Lakeshore Road;  
b. conservation or re-location of significant cultural heritage resources within the  
precinct;  
c. submission of an angular plane study, identifying visual, sun shadowing and  
wind impacts, and demonstrating how any adverse impacts can be mitigated to  
acceptable levels; and  
d. community benefits.  
[127] The proposal is to permit a building height that is essentially triple the new OP  
permission. In Mr. Romanos opinion, the proposal is not a modest tall building, nor  
does it transition downward from the adjacent Lakeshore Precinct towards the  
waterfront, nor are the other substantive provisions being implemented.  
[128] With respect to community benefits, he comments that it would be appropriate for  
the Tribunal to withhold any approval Order pending receipt of confirmation from the  
City Solicitor that a satisfactory execution and registration of a Section 37 agreement  
has been obtained.  
City Official Plan 2008 (in-force OP/OP)  
[129] In Mr. Romanos opinion, the proposed amendments are not in conformity with  
the in-force OP and do not maintain the intent of the policies of the OP.  
[130] The OP was initially adopted by City Council in 1994, approved by Halton Region  
in 1997 and updated through to 2008 when it was approved by the OMB in 2008.  
[131] The in force OP contains policies which incorporate the 2006 Growth Plan,  
including the associated densities for the Downtown Urban Growth Centre. Section 5.5  
Downtown Mixed Use Centre, states that the minimum density target is established at  
30  
OLT-22-002451  
200 residents and jobs per ha. It also states that higher densities and intensities will be  
encouraged within certain precincts of the Downtown Mixed Use Centre, informing the  
reader that the intent is not homogeneity.  
[132] The site is located within the City’s settlement pattern Urban Planning Area  
Boundary. The site is located within the MUAA which is further refined into land use  
designations (the site is within the Downtown Mixed Use Centre) and precincts (the  
subject site is within the Old Lakeshore Road Mixed Use Precinct (OLRMUP)).  
[133] The OLRMUP objectives state the following:  
To provide an area in the Downtown for high intensity, mixed use  
development that is pedestrian- oriented and transit-supportive, which  
helps meet Provincial Growth objectives and provides for a transition  
from the highest density mixed-use area (Wellington Square Mixed Use  
Precinct) to the more residential areas to the east.  
[134] Mr. Romano stated that the Wellington Square Mixed Use precinct permits the  
maximum height of buildings shall be eight storeys and up to 29 m with terracing  
required above the second floor. Taller buildings up to a maximum of fourteen storeys  
may be permitted where they provide compatibility with surrounding land uses and a  
sense of pedestrian scale by the use of terracing above the second floor, and subject to  
the community benefits provisions of Part VI, Subsection 2.3 of this Plan.  
[135] The OLRMUP, unlike other precincts such as Wellington Square and Downtown  
Core, has specific policies which refer to matters of transition, a gradation of intensity as  
well as specific built form related parameters.  
[136] The subject site is located within the East Sector of the OLRMUP. Section  
5.5.7.2.b permits a building height of minimum two (2) storeys and maximum six (6)  
storeys and 19.5 m. Taller buildings up to a maximum of eight (8) storeys and 29 m may  
be permitted, subject to specific criteria. Upon the site, there is a site specific policy  
which states, the maximum height of buildings shall be ten (10) storeys and 31.5 m.  
Taller buildings may be permitted, up to a maximum height of 12 storeys and 37 m,  
31  
OLT-22-002451  
where they provide compatibility with surrounding land uses and a sense of pedestrian  
scale by use of building design incorporating a ground level, street-oriented podium,  
and subject to the community benefits provisions of Part VI, Subsection 2.3 of this Plan  
and details to the satisfaction of City Council.  
[137] Mr. Romano stated that the proposal is for a development intensity that is not  
intended, nor permitted, to be located on the site. The proposal conflicts with the  
community plan and growth strategy. The proposal does not conform with, nor maintain  
the intent of, the Official Plan as it relates to Part I 3.0 of the Official Plan.  
[138] Section 3.2 contains Transportation objectives and policies to achieve the  
optimal benefit from the transportation system, including major public right-of-way  
widths.  
[139] Section 3.3 more specifically includes objectives such as protecting adequate  
public road rights-of-way to meet future needs and to maximize the use of existing  
roads. In this instance, the planned Lakeshore Road right-of-way width is 30.0 m  
(Section 3.3.2.c Table 2 Road Allowance Widths). The right-of-way requirements shall  
take into consideration the needs of vehicular traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, transit,  
emergency response and urban design considerations including streetscape design and  
the provision of public vistas.  
[140] Mr. Romano stated that based on the existing Lakeshore Road right-of-way width  
of 20.0 m, a 5.0 m road widening on either side would achieve the planned 30.0 m right-  
of-way width. The City has accepted a smaller road widening of 2.0 m for other nearby  
development applications along Lakeshore Road. The City seeks a 2.0 m road widening  
from the subject property.  
[141] The Proposed Development does not provide the 2.0 m road widening.  
[142] In Mr. Romanos opinion, the Proposed Development does not conform with, and  
does not meet the intent of, the Transportation Official Plan sections.  
32  
OLT-22-002451  
[143] Sections 2.2 and 2.5 of the OP refer to encouraging residential development and  
residential intensification of underutilized land within the Urban Planning Area in  
accordance with Provincial growth management objectives and recognizing that the  
amount and form of intensification must be balanced with other planning objectives.  
This section continues the Official Plan direction for development that is context  
suitable.  
[144] Mr. Romano explained the policies in section 5 of the OP as follow:  
5.4.2.f) The zoning of individual sites may not allow for the full range of  
permitted uses or the full extent of development intensity at every location  
based on site specific factors that may include, but are not limited to, traffic,  
land use compatibility, market impact, natural hazards and features, and  
environmental factors such as soil contamination.  
5.4.2.h) The design and development of Mixed Use Centres shall encourage  
the use of public transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel as an alternative to the  
car and shall maximize personal safety.  
5.5.2.g) To increase the resident population and provide a variety of housing  
types mainly at medium and high densities that will strengthen the live/work  
relationship, ensure the Downtown is used after business hours, and create a  
local market for convenience and service goods.  
5.5.3.b) Within the Urban Growth Centre Boundary as delineated 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 OLRMUP policies contained in Section 5.5.7 describe a planning  
33  
OLT-22-002451  
framework which is consistent with its southeast periphery location within the  
Downtown. The general policy thrust provides for a transition from the highest  
density mixed use area to the more residential areas to the east. Given the  
location of the OLRMUP next to Lake Ontario and its shoreline hazard  
character, the precinct contains policies that ensure these lands are at a  
lower intensity of development. This OLRMUP planning framework  
strengthens and reinforces this policy intent as it is articulated throughout the  
OP from the general to the specific.  
[145] In Mr. Romanos opinion, the Proposed Development represents an over-  
intensification of the site. The Proposed Development does not conform to, nor  
implement the intent of, the existing, planned and emerging policy context. It also  
conflicts with the existing, planned and emerging physical context. The Proposed  
Development represents an overdevelopment. He opined that the appeals should be  
dismissed, the proposed amendments should not be authorized as they do not  
represent good planning.  
Applicant  
PPS  
[146] Mr. Goldberg for the Applicant testified that the PPS and the Growth Plan direct  
municipalities to implement within their planning instruments the principles, goals and  
objectives expressed in these two important Provincial documents. For example,  
Section 4.6 of the PPS indicates that “the official plan is the most important vehicle for  
implementation of the PPS.” Section 4.6 of the PPS also indicates that the "policies of  
this Provincial Policy Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of an  
official plan." This is very important since the most current direction of growth expressed  
in the PPS and the Growth Plan must be considered and implemented, notwithstanding  
there being an approved official plan in effect. Therefore, this PPS policy directs that the  
PPS and the Growth Plan are considered in a planning evaluation of a planning  
application, independent of an approved municipal official plan.  
34  
OLT-22-002451  
[147] Since official plans and zoning by-laws are not static and evolve by way of  
amendment, each municipality must ensure that the official plan and zoning, and the  
related amendments, are up to date, and “consistent with” the PPS, and "conform to”  
the Growth Plan.  
[148] The PPS provides a policy framework that promotes and encourages  
intensification in locations well served by municipal infrastructure i.e. the following PPS  
policies:  
Part V, Section 1.1.1 (a), (c), and (e) relating to healthy, livable and integrated  
communities;  
Part V, Section 1.1.2, relating to appropriate range and mix of land uses  
within settlement areas.  
Part V, Section 1.1.3.3, relating to planning authorities identifying appropriate  
locations and promoting opportunities for intensification and redevelopment.  
Part V, Section 1.1.3.4, relating to appropriate development standards to  
facilitate intensification.  
Part V, Section 1.1.3.5 indicating that planning authorities shall establish and  
implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-  
up areas.  
Part V, Section 1.4.1(a) relating to providing an appropriate range and mix of  
housing options and densities.  
[149] In Mr. Goldbergs opinion, the proposed development, as revised since the  
subject applications were filed, is consistent with these policy directions. The proposed  
development is located in Downtown Burlington, which has been identified as an  
appropriate location for high density, mixed use residential and commercial  
35  
OLT-22-002451  
intensification and growth.  
[150] He testified that the development of the subject site with a tall, mixed use building  
and a street related retail component will be an efficient use of land, with a denser urban  
form that will cost-effectively and more optimally utilize existing infrastructure and  
community facilities. The subject site is located in close walking proximity to a major  
transit facility in Downtown Burlington, where higher levels of height and densities are  
anticipated and expected by Provincial policy.  
[151] The PPS housing policies of Section 1.4 identify the need for municipalities to  
provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities, directing new  
development towards appropriate locations where the levels of infrastructure and public  
service are available. The PPS also promotes densities for new housing that efficiently  
use land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities, and supports the use of  
alternative transportation modes, such as walking, bicycling, and public transit.  
[152] The proposed development will increase the residential population in this part of  
the Downtown Burlington Urban Growth Centre by population equivalent of 196  
residential units. This additional concentration of people contributes to maintaining and  
enhancing the vitality and vibrancy of Downtown Burlington as a potential place to work,  
supporting the shops and services in the area, and the 24/7 pedestrian activity and  
presence on the street. The commercial space will also create some opportunity for  
employment uses within this part of Downtown Burlington, as well as enhancing the  
animation of the sidewalk frontages and the public realm. All of this contributes to the  
vitality and long-term success of this Downtown area.  
[153] It is Mr. Goldbergs opinion that the existing City OP permissions are outdated,  
would lead to an under-utilization of the subject site, and are not consistent with the  
current PPS. Conversely, the revised plans for the subject site supports, advances, and  
is consistent with, the PPS policy direction to optimize the use of the land, resources,  
and the existing and planned infrastructure. In his opinion, the proposed 27-storey  
building, at a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 10.4 is, from a PPS perspective, appropriate  
36  
OLT-22-002451  
and suitable for this site and its surrounding existing and planned context.  
Growth Plan  
[154] The Growth Plan generally aims to, among other things, revitalize downtowns to  
become vibrant and convenient centers; create complete communities that offer more  
options for living, working, shopping, and playing; provide greater choice in housing  
types to meet the needs of people at all stages of life; curb urban sprawl; protect  
farmland and green spaces; and reduce traffic gridlock by improving access to a greater  
range of transportation choices. The Growth Plan encourages compact, vibrant,  
complete communities, optimizing the use of land and infrastructure in order to support  
growth in a compact, efficient form.  
[155] The Growth Plan promotes compact urban form through the intensification of  
existing urban areas and provides for an “intensification first” approach to development,  
focusing on making better use of existing infrastructure. The intent is to better use land  
and infrastructure to avoid the unnecessary urban sprawl.  
[156] The subject site is located within the area identified in the Growth Plan as “built-  
up area”, which encompasses the whole of Downtown Burlington and beyond.  
[157] By definition according to the Growth Plan, the subject site is located within a  
Strategic Growth Area, an UGC and is within the defined distance of a MTSA to the  
John Street Bus Terminal, all of which are areas where the Growth Plan policies direct  
intensification and the most intensive forms of growth.  
[158] The use of the subject site for a mixed use development, at the density proposed  
will assist in meeting the minimum population growth targets, if not exceed them, for this  
UGC. The policies in the Growth Plan regarding intensification and density targets are  
minimum standards and municipalities are encouraged to exceed these targets, where  
appropriate. The subject site is well suited for a high-density mixed use building that  
contributes to meeting or exceeding the minimum intensification and density targets.  
37  
OLT-22-002451  
[159] The subject site is very accessible to the existing John Street Bus Terminal which  
functions as the confluence for many inner-municipal and intra-municipal transit routes  
and transit providers. The proposal is intended to better utilize and optimize the subject  
site with respect to public transit access.  
[160] Although Halton Region, by virtue of ROPA 48 (not determinative), no longer  
considers the John Street Bus Terminal to be a major bus depot (which is not a  
provincially defined term), it was identified as a provincially designated Mobility Hub and  
an MTSA at the time the Applicant filed the subject applications. It also continues to be  
the central bus terminal for Downtown Burlington, providing bus connections to higher  
order transit at Aldershot GO Station, Appleby GO Station, and Burlington GO Station,  
as well as a number of other destinations within and beyond Burlington.  
[161] Mr. Goldberg opined that maximizing intensification in proximity of the John  
Street Bus Terminal will increase transit ridership near a station that is an important bus  
terminal in Downtown Burlington. It assists in supporting the level of transit that currently  
exists and assists in facilitating increases in ridership to strengthen the Terminal’s role  
and function, as a key transit facility in the City and Region-wide public transit network.  
[162] In addition, by introducing a variety of housing units, the housing policies relating  
to providing a mix of housing options and densities are satisfied and advanced. This will  
contribute to achieving a more complete community, which will complement the existing  
and approved mixed use buildings in the area and will contribute to the evolution and  
maturation of this part of Downtown Burlington.  
[163] It is Mr. Goldbergs opinion that the subject applications are consistent with the  
PPS and in conformity with the policies of the Growth Plan.  
Halton Region Official Plan (ROP)  
[164] Mr. Goldberg explained that the Halton Region Official Plan, 1995 (the ROP),  
provides a planning policy framework to manage and guide growth, development, and  
38  
OLT-22-002451  
physical change within Halton Region, as well as the social, economic, and natural  
environment of Halton Region.  
[165] ROPA 48 included two important amendments to the Regional OP policy regime  
that apply to the subject site. First, ROPA 48 amended/moved the boundaries of the  
Burlington Urban Growth Centre from Downtown Burlington to the area surrounding the  
Burlington GO station. Second, the Major Transit Station Area designation of the John  
Street Bus Terminal was removed.  
[166] With respect to the Urban Growth Centre boundary modification, ROPA 48,  
includes a Ministerial modification which added to the Regional Council adopted version  
of ROPA 48, a transition provision in Section 80.3, as follows:  
Sections 80 to 80.2 continue to apply to applications for official plan  
amendments, zoning by-law amendments and draft plans of subdivision  
or condominium approvals made prior to the approval by the Minister of  
Municipal Affairs and Housing of Amendment 48 to this Plan if the lands  
that are the subject of the application were within an Urban Growth  
Centre prior to the Minister’s approval of Amendment 48.  
[167] Pursuant to Section 80.3 of ROPA 48, the subject applications are transitioned  
and remain a part of an UGC.  
[168] Although ROPA 48 does not contain a transition provision regarding the  
designation of the John Street Bus Terminal under ROPA 38 as a MTSA, that transit  
facility continues to serve the important transit function as a central transit hub and  
confluence of many City-wide and regional-wide transit routes, served by a variety of  
transit providers. As such, the subject site remains subject to, and serviced by,  
enhanced public transit within close walking proximity to it.  
Applicable Planning Policies in ROP  
[169] The ROP defines Intensification Areas as lands identified by the Region or its  
Local Municipalities within the Urban Area that are to be the focus for accommodating  
intensification” and include UGCs, MTSAs, Intensification Corridors, and Mixed Use  
39  
OLT-22-002451  
Nodes. The subject site is located within the Urban Area and is designated as an UGC  
and meets the Growth Plan definition of being within a MTSA.  
[170] In Mr. Goldbergs opinion, the proposed development conforms with the ROP by  
intensifying an underutilized site in an Urban Area, Built Up Area, and Urban Growth  
Centre that is targeted for significant population and employment growth. (Policy 81.1  
and 81.3(1)).  
[171] The proposed development will contribute to achieving the minimum growth  
targets, set out by the Region, by providing new housing units in a compact and high-  
density urban form.  
[172] The proposed 27-storey building is an appropriate form of development in an  
Intensification Area, as it is well designed and responds appropriately to the existing,  
approved and planned high density built form context. This, in Mr. Goldbergs opinion,  
achieves an appropriate and compatible built form within the Intensification Areas. The  
site and building have been carefully designed and massed to respond to its current and  
emerging mixed height and mixed density built environment and context.  
[173] The proposed development will conform with the policy directive in the ROP  
regarding housing supply. The proposed intensification of the subject site will provide  
many new residential units in the form of one, two and three-bedroom units, contributing  
to the achievement of Halton’s housing supply targets, as well as improving the range of  
housing choice for the community.  
City of Burlington Official Plan, 2008  
[174] The 2008 City OP (in-force OP) was in force at the time the subject applications  
were filed in December of 2019.  
[175] The 2020 City OP is under appeal and not currently in-force.  
40  
OLT-22-002451  
[176] Mr. Goldberg explained that the sections of the in force OP that are applicable to  
the subject applications are Part I - Policy Framework, Part II - Functional Policies, and  
Part III - Land Use Policies.  
[177] On Schedule A - Settlement Pattern of the OP, the subject site is located within  
Urban Planning Area and is designated as Mixed Use Activity Areas.  
[178] On Schedule B, Comprehensive Land Use Plan Urban Planning Area of the  
OP, the subject site is within the Downtown Urban Growth Centre boundary and is  
designated as a Mixed Use Centre.  
[179] On Schedule E Downtown Mixed Use Centre Land Use Plan of the OP, the  
subject site is designated as Old Lakeshore Road Mixed Use Precinct (Area B).  
Schedule E of the OP illustrates that the Downtown Urban Growth Centre  
Boundary in the vicinity of the subject site: extends to the waterfront to the  
south; extends easterly to Stratheden Drive within which, are the 5 apartment  
buildings of 4-18 storeys, east of the subject site; includes the 15 storey, long,  
slab styled apartment building, just north of Lakeshore Road, on the west side  
of Torrance Street; Includes the February 13, 2018, Adi Development Group  
Inc. OPA and ZBA, OMB approval at 374 Martha Street, for a 26 storey  
building containing 240 residential units, that is currently under construction;  
Includes the October 27, 2021, Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc. OPA and ZBA,  
OLT approval at 2069-2079 Lakeshore Road and 383-385 Pearl Street, for a  
29 storey building containing 320 residential units; and includes the proposed  
27 storey building of 310 residential units by Core Development Group, OPA  
and ZBA approval on the adjacent property to the west of the subject site  
(2093-2101 Old Lakeshore Road & 2096 2100 Lakeshore Road).  
Mixed Use Activity Area Designation  
[180] Section 5.2.2 regarding policies for development in the Mixed Use Activity Area  
41  
OLT-22-002451  
provides the following:  
The design and development of Mixed Use Activity Areas shall  
promote these areas as focal points for community activities that are  
characterized by a compact form of development, pedestrian-  
orientation, greater accessibility to public transit and higher intensity  
development (5.2.2d).  
The City may ensure the proper integration of Mixed Use Activity  
Areas with surrounding neighbourhoods through measures such as  
pedestrian walkways, cycling paths and transit routes, and the  
protection of the physical character of these neighbourhoods through  
urban design (5.2.2k).  
The City may consider the use of reduced parking standards in Mixed  
Use Activity Areas in order to encourage greater reliance on non-  
automobile forms of transportation (5.2.2l).  
Old Lakeshore Road Mixed Use Precinct (Area B) Designation  
[181] This is the precinct within which the subject site is located. Section 5.5.7.1 sets  
out the objectives for development in the OLRMUP that include:  
To provide an area in the Downtown for high intensity, mixed use  
development that is pedestrian-oriented and transit-supportive, which  
helps meet Provincial Growth objectives and provides for a transition  
from the highest density mixed-use area (Wellington Square Mixed  
Use Precinct) to the more residential areas to the east (5.5.7.1a).  
To require a high standard of design that has a sense of pedestrian  
scale and comfort that is compatible with existing development and  
reflects the unique history and character of the precinct (5.5.7.1c).  
To establish East, West & South Sectors that will be subject to  
specific land use policies. Schedule E identifies the general limits of  
the Sectors with Area ‘A’ being the West Sector, Area ‘B’ being the  
East Sector and Area ‘C’ being the South Sector (5.5.7.1d).  
[182] Section 5.5.7.2a sets out the land uses permitted in the Old Lakeshore Road  
Mixed Use Precinct, which are:  
high-density apartment residential uses, including the residential use of  
upper storeys of commercial buildings (5.5.7.2a(i));  
[183] Section 5.5.7.2b sets out the density and height of development permitted in the  
42  
OLT-22-002451  
“East Sector (Area ’B’, Schedule E)” of the Old Lakeshore Road Mixed Use Precinct.  
This section provides that:  
Development will be subject to the following criteria:  
The minimum density of residential buildings shall be 51 units per net ha.  
The minimum height of buildings shall be two (2) storeys and the  
maximum height of buildings shall be six (6) storeys and 19.5 m.  
[184] Section 5.5.7.2d sets out special consideration for taller buildings in the East  
Sector as follows:  
Taller buildings may be permitted in the East Sector, up to a maximum  
height of 8 storeys and 29 m, where they provide compatibility with  
surrounding land uses and a sense of pedestrian scale by the use of  
building design incorporating ground level, street-oriented podium, and  
subject to the community benefits provisions of Part VI, Subsection 2.3 of  
this Plan and the following details to the satisfaction of City Council:  
[185] Mr. Goldberg notes that for all of the Downtown Burlington land use designations  
and precincts, the applicable policy sections of the City OP contain site-specific  
exception policies for specified properties, which generally permit greater levels of  
heights and densities compared to those otherwise permitted in that land use  
designation and precinct.  
[186] The OPA and ZBA approvals in the vicinity of the subject site authorize much  
taller and denser developments when compared to the permissions for each  
designation and precinct in this part of Downtown Burlington.  
City of Burlington Zoning By-law No. 2020  
[187] Mr. Goldberg stated that the in-force City of Burlington Zoning By-law that is  
applicable to the subject site is ZBL 2020. The ZBL 2020 was adopted to ensure that  
the City’s zoning provisions were consistent with the 2008 City OP. The as-of-right  
permissions in the ZBL 2020 are consistent with the maximum permitted height and  
density in the in force OP.  
43  
OLT-22-002451  
[188] The subject site is zoned “Downtown Old Lakeshore Road A” (“DL- A”), which  
permits a variety of uses, including retail, service commercial, community, office,  
hospitality, entertainment, and recreation. Dwelling units are also permitted, but the  
ground floor of any building within 15 m of a public street is required to provide only  
retail or service commercial uses.  
[189] The Maximum Permitted Height for the DL- A zone is ten (10) storeys up to 31.5  
m. A ZBA is required to implement this proposal.  
[190] The proposed ZBA will be site-specific, aimed at implementing the proposal. The  
proposed development will require site-specific exceptions regarding height, parking,  
setbacks, balcony projections, and FAR.  
[191] With respect to height, FAR, and parking, the amendments are required to  
achieve consistency and conformity with the PPS, Growth Plan, and ROP policies for  
UGCs.  
[192] The proposed development will support the achievement of complete  
communities by integrating a mix of residential and commercial uses in a form that is  
well designed and consistent with the planned and emerging built-form context of the  
area. It will add a significant number and varied mix of new residential units on an  
underutilized, site in Downtown Burlington. Mr. Goldberg stressed that the subject  
proposal plugs into the existing and emerging built form context of this area in a  
complementary and compatible manner.  
[193] The proposal is located on a site that is in the interior of, and not at the edge of,  
the UGC. In Growth Plan terms, the subject site is amongst a mixed density and mixed  
height UGC which does not interface directly with the area outside of the centre,  
including the Residential Low Density area to the east. In Mr. Goldbergs opinion, the  
proposal sufficiently addresses transition from a Growth Plan perspective.  
[194] With respect to the removal of Downtown Burlington as a MTSA, the John Street  
44  
OLT-22-002451  
Bus Terminal is no longer an identified MTSA, yet it continues to satisfy the Growth Plan  
definition as an MTSA, and it continues to be an important component of Downtown  
Burlington’s public transit network. This network includes many public transit routes,  
converging at the John Street Bus Terminal located within close walking proximity to the  
subject site, and where such routes service many locations and directions in Burlington  
and beyond, including linking with rapid transit Go stations.  
[195] Mr. Goldberg opined that the proposed development is consistent with the  
overarching policy objectives of the new OP (not in-force), which is to direct growth to  
appropriate locations as required by Provincial planning policy, and promote  
development that is well designed to fit within the existing and planned context of the  
area. While many of the general objectives of the City in-force OP are satisfied by the  
proposal, the specific prescriptions of the City OP require amendment. That is the  
purpose of this OPA.  
[196] The intent of the policies of the in-force OP, Mr. Goldberg opined, is to permit  
development that is compatible with the existing built form context of the area.  
Compatibility is context specific, and the context of the subject site is an eclectic mix of  
land uses, built forms, scales and heights, including tall towers, that comfortably and  
compatibly co-exist together, without adverse planning impacts.  
[197] Mr. Goldberg testified that the in-force OP policies applicable to the subject site  
regarding height and density are out of date in relation to current intensification policies  
of the PPS, the Growth Plan and the ROP. They also prevent the optimization of this  
subject site within Burlington Downtown. The subject applications will permit  
development at a scale that is in keeping with its Downtown setting in accordance with  
the Provincial and Regional policy direction. He emphasized that the subject OPA  
application is a site specific Planning Act means of keeping the City OP up to date with  
the Provincial policy direction as set out in Section 4.6 of the PPS.  
[198] Mr. Goldberg opines that the subject applications are in the public interest, that  
the appeals, the OPA and ZBA applications be allowed, subject to the City and  
45  
OLT-22-002451  
Applicant reviewing and agreeing on the final form and content of the OPA and ZBA  
instruments.  
[199] The Tribunal prefers the opinion evidence of the Applicants witnesses in  
particular Messrs. Goldberg, Corazza, Kasprzak, Hannay, Bouwmeester, and Ms.  
Gillezeau, and other Applicants witnesses over those contrary opinions of Messrs.  
Romano, Evershed, Medeiros and Mlles. Shareqi and Edgcumbe (save for their  
opinions on the 2 m road widening) on the City’s side. The Tribunal finds that the  
Applicants witnesses opinion evidence persuasive for the redevelopments approval.  
[200] The Applicant has undertaken relevant specific studies (which can be updated for  
the subsequent site plan approval) through specialized experts and the several well  
qualified experts had accordingly testified at the hearing.  
[201] The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Goldberg that the subject applications promote the  
efficient use and optimization of the underutilized subject property by intensifying  
development at a transit supportive density in a location that is well served by public  
transit and municipal services and facilities. This is despite the fact that the John Street  
Bus Terminal is no longer a MTSA. It continues to service this area and will continue to  
do so as a de facto transportation hub with connected bus routes and stations.  
[202] The Tribunal finds that the development is consistent with the PPS on a subject  
site identified for growth and intensification. The proposed development is at a density  
that is appropriate and suitable for the surrounding built form and planned context.  
[203] The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Goldberg that the subject applications conform to  
the Growth Plan. The proposed development is on a subject site within the UGC that  
will optimize the use of the lands and the available infrastructure and municipal  
services. The Proposal is transit supportive, promotes the continued use of the existing  
bus depot, and contributes to a healthy complete community in accordance with the  
Provinces growth objectives.  
46  
OLT-22-002451  
[204] The subject property transitions under the transition policy of the ROPA 48, and  
remains in the UGC. The proposal conforms to the ROP.  
[205] The existing and emerging built form context in the area supports mixed use,  
high density, tall, and transit supportive development. The site is in a mixed use UGC  
where intensification is permitted. The Tribunal finds that the Proposal conforms to the  
in-force OP.  
[206] The Tribunal accepts Mr. Goldbergs overview and opinion that accords with the  
Policy frameworks consideration and evaluation of provincial and municipal  
developments. The Tribunal is satisfied that the OPA and ZBA meet the requirements of  
the Policy and legislative framework.  
Issue No. 4: Is the proposed development compatible with the existing and  
planned neighbourhood context, represents good land use planning and in the  
public interest?  
[207] This redevelopment represents good land use planning and is in the public  
interest. The Tribunal finds that the redevelopment is compatible with the existing  
character of the neighbourhood. The conclusions are arrived at upon evidence  
presented by the Applicant’s expert witnesses.  
[208] City Planner, Mr. Romano questioned whether the proposal is compatible with  
the existing and planned context. He opined that the redevelopment is not compatible.  
In particular, the site is not optimally utilized for the intensification and density that the  
subject site is intended for. According to him, the height and density proposed for the  
site is not compatible nor well designed. New development is required to be compatible  
with the surrounding built context and the proposal represents overdevelopment for this  
site as it is triangular in nature and not suited for this over intensification.  
[209] He stated that the objectives of Section 2.5 of the OP relate to increasing the  
housing stock and encouraging intensification in a context suitable manner. Section 2.5  
notes that this is encouraged provided the additional housing is compatible with the  
47  
OLT-22-002451  
scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood. The policies in 2.5.2  
address adequacy of municipal services, off-street parking supply, the capacity of the  
transportation network, proximity to transit facilities, accessibility to community services,  
natural and cultural heritage feature protection and the following:  
2.5.2(v) compatibility is achieved with the existing neighbourhood character in  
terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, coverage, parking and  
amenity area so that a transition between existing and proposed buildings is  
provided.  
[210] Section 5.5, the Downtown Mixed Use Centre component of the Official Plan  
provides the next layer of objectives and policies. These policies reference and include  
the more specific policies found within the Precincts such as the OLRMUP. Section 5.5  
describes that subsequent policy framework to achieve the following:  
5.5.2.m) To establish planning precincts within the Downtown, each with their  
own distinct character and specific planning policies.  
5.5.2.o) To ensure that the density, form, bulk, height and spacing of  
development is compatible with the surrounding area.  
[211] Mr. Romano opined that the proposal is not in keeping with the character of  
neighbourhood area since the proposal does not comply with the maximum height  
restrictions in the OLRMUP nor the other requirements.  
[212] He further opined that the new development is impactful to the surrounding  
existing buildings and the public realm. He emphasized that minimizing undesirable  
impacts on existing adjacent buildings is a paramount consideration, specifically the  
requirement of appropriate transition.  
[213] His opinion is that the proposed 0.4 m right-of-way widening is not reflective of  
the 2.0 m widening required by the City. He stressed that the 2.0 m setback will assist in  
48  
OLT-22-002451  
creating a compatible public realm to built form relationship with the abutting Lakeshore  
Road while providing for a wider clear pathway for pedestrian comfort and safety. The  
built environment and features such as setbacks and building structures from the  
property line and the 2.0 m right of way of the zoning is the character of the recently  
approved developments in the area.  
[214] Mr. Goldberg, the Applicant’s planner, disagreed with the City’s planner. There is  
an existing, and an emerging/evolving pattern of development in this part of the  
Downtown Burlington where taller buildings, as high as 29 storeys, in very close  
proximity to lower built forms of residential and non-residential development co-exist to  
create a compatible mixed height and mixed density character and fabric for this part of  
the Downtown.  
[215] In the vicinity, 29, 26, and 22 storey tall buildings have been approved to the  
northwest and west. To the immediate west is a 27 storey building. Across the street to  
the north and northeast are nearby mid-rise buildings of five (5) and seven (7) storeys,  
east of which is a large, slab styled, 15 storey apartment building on the west side of  
Torrance Street.  
[216] To the east of the subject site on the south side of Lakeshore Road, at 2114  
Lakeshore Road, is an 18 storey apartment building.  
[217] This existing and emerging context and pattern, arising from existing longer-term  
development and recent approvals, demonstrate that within this part of the Downtown  
Mixed Use Centre, there is a mixed height and mixed density pattern, from site to site,  
and across land use designations and precincts.  
[218] In Mr. Goldberg’s opinion, the subject proposal fits compatibly into this pattern  
and is an appropriate and well-considered addition to this area.  
[219] The concept of ‘transition’ as stated in Policy 5.5.7.1 of the in-force OP has been  
canvassed during prior applications and reported on in prior tribunal cases for sites in  
49  
OLT-22-002451  
this immediate vicinity of the subject site. It is his opinion that transition has been  
achieved by the subject application in conformity with this OP policy.  
[220] The OLRMUP policies call for high density, mixed use, that is pedestrian friendly,  
and helps meet Provincial objectives. It is within this context and the existing and  
planned context of this area that the word ‘transition’ must be considered, Mr. Goldberg  
reiterated.  
[221] The mixed heights of existing and approved buildings in the area to the north,  
west and east of the subject site demonstrates that the existing and approved context  
within the Downtown Mixed Use Centre are varied where high rise co-exists with low  
rise and there is no particular consistency from site to site.  
[222] Policy 5.5.7.1 also speaks of transition from the highest density mixed use area  
(Wellington Square Mixed Use Precinct) to the more residential areas to east. The  
subject site is within a mixed use area within the Mixed Use Centre and is not a  
residential area to the east, which would be the Residential Low Density area to the  
east, as shown on Schedule B, Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City OP. The  
subject site is surrounded by lands within the Mixed Use Centre in all directions and is  
not abutting, nor contiguous with Residential Low Density lands.  
[223] The concept of transition is not intended to be at the expense of optimization  
within the Mixed Use Centre. In Mr. Goldbergs opinion, there is no implied, nor required  
‘transition down’ in the policy and certainly not within the Mixed Use Centre area itself.  
In his opinion the policy does not direct to ‘transition down’ and if that was an intended  
purpose of the policy, then the policy could have been clearly and specifically drafted,  
which it is not. In the circumstance, the policy is generally worded. He opined that this  
generally worded policy, lacking in clear and specific direction, needs to be balanced  
with the clear Provincial direction to optimize the use of lands and infrastructure,  
particularly in Urban Growth Centres.  
[224] Section 5.5.7.1(c) of the Old Lakeshore Road Mixed Use Precinct policies,  
50  
OLT-22-002451  
requires:  
a high standard of design that has a sense of pedestrian scale and  
comfort that is compatible with existing development and reflects unique  
history and character of the precinct.  
[225] In reference to the high quality of design that has a sense of pedestrian scale  
and comfort, he relies on, and adopts, the evidence of the Applicant’s Architect, Mr.  
Corazza, Urban Designers, Messrs. Kasprzak, Hannay, and Ferris (Landscape  
Architect), all of whom testified at the hearing.  
[226] Mr. Goldberg stated that the intent of these and many other policies of the OP is  
to achieve a compatible development with the existing developments in the area. As  
has been demonstrated through the evolving approvals in the area, compatibility is  
context specific, and the context of the subject site is an existing, designated and  
evolving Downtown context, where an eclectic mix of land uses, built forms, scales and  
heights, and architectural and urban design expressions/solutions comfortably and  
compatibly co-exist together, without adverse planning impacts. In other words, there is  
a much greater level of tolerance for differences in a Downtown environment and  
context, and this is clearly no different in the case of Downtown Burlington.  
[227] In view of the above, Mr. Goldberg concludes that the proposal will be compatible  
with the context of the subject site.  
[228] The Tribunal finds that the existing and emerging context already contains  
examples of high-rise buildings. There are a number of approved high-rise  
developments of equivalent heights in the vicinity. The abutting property (Core  
Development) for example, is 27 storeys high. As such, the proposed development is  
not out of character in this area. The proposal is thus compatible with the existing  
neighbourhood as defined in the OP. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed  
development is compatible with the existing and planned neighbourhood context,  
represents good land use planning and in the public interest.  
51  
OLT-22-002451  
[229] The Tribunal finds that the Planning Applications represent good planning, are  
in the public interest and should be approved.  
Submissions  
Applicants Submissions  
[230] Counsel for the Applicant submits that the CORE decision is significant as the  
broad planning issues are the same as with the subject property. The Citys witnesses  
Mr. Romano and Mr. Evershed canvassed the same opposing opinion evidence in that  
matter as in the instant case. The applicable planning policy regime was virtually  
identical in the Core and subject property case.  
[231] In the Core case, Mr. Evershed offered that 2069 Lakeshore Road, an approved  
building of 29 storeys in the northwest, would be a transition point to the Core 27  
storeys which is situated more eastwards in the OLRMUP east sector. However, for Mr.  
Evershed, in the instant case, the subject propertys building is 12 m higher (translates  
to 4 storeys) than the Core building, so there is no transition here.  
[232] The Tribunal accepts that the Core decision that approved a 27 storey building  
was approved in the same precinct that the subject property is situated, in fact just 25 m  
to the west of the subject property proposed building. In this Precinct, the permitted  
height difference of the west side from the east side is four (4) storeys. Mr. Romano did  
not explain this height difference by way of transition in the instant case. The in force  
OP contemplates this four (4) storey difference between the Core building and the  
subject property.  
[233] In the new OP, the precinct, now designated Old Lakeshore Road Precinct  
(OLRP), the four (4) storeys difference is maintained while the focus of transition is to  
the waterfront where the concept of heightis first introduced.  
[234] Counsel for the Applicant submits that Ms. Gillezeau provided, by far, the most  
52  
OLT-22-002451  
comprehensive assessment of the implications of the proposed development to meeting  
provincial policy for accommodating growth and optimizing the use of urban land,  
intensification sites and municipal services. Ms. Gillezeau concluded:  
A very substantial amount of new housing is needed in the built-up area  
of the City of Burlington to achieve the intensification targets and phasing  
policies of the Region. The proposed development will provide new  
housing through intensification to help meet the projected housing needs  
of the City in a strategic growth area (the Downtown Burlington Urban  
Growth Centre) where infrastructure, public service facilities, transit and  
active transportation options are available.  
[235] Ms. Gillezeau rejected Mr. Romano’s proposition that the in-force OP framework  
provides for an “optimal” intensification opportunity while the proposal is an “excessively  
high intensity development”. Ms. Gillezeau noted that the density of the proposed  
development is appropriate for and will efficiently use the existing infrastructure and  
public service facilities in the area around the subject site. Further, the “as of right”  
permissions would provide approximately 120 fewer housing units. This is a significant  
and consequential difference in terms of optimizing the use of this important  
intensification opportunity.  
Citys Submissions  
[236] Counsel for the City submits in general that the Applicant did not complete the  
necessary studies for the revised proposal. There is a failure to update the previous  
studies as such there is insufficient information as to whether the development can be  
undertaken without negative impacts from the geotechnical, the hydrogeological and  
municipal engineering perspectives. The City complained that the Applicant relegates  
these and landscape/trees matters to the Site Plan process whenever it was convenient  
for it to do so. The Tribunal notes that what is under consideration is the OPA and ZBA,  
and several matters of the site plan are more appropriately dealt with in the Site Plan  
approval process.  
53  
OLT-22-002451  
2.0 m Road Widening  
[237] The Citys compelling submissions on the required 2.0 m road widening are  
persuasive. The Applicants experts have adamantly held that the 2.0 m requirement  
need not be fulfilled, as, for them, the 0.4 m provision is sufficient for the provision of the  
respective zones as per the Guidelines.  
[238] Speaking of street level, the urban designers for the Applicant, Messrs. Kasprzak  
and Hannay, supported the dedication of 0.4 m rather than the 2.0 m required by the  
City. The urban designers, when speaking of the Clear Path Zone, the Furnishing Zone  
and the Marketing Zone, advised the Tribunal that the proposed development was  
appropriate because the streetscape will not be perceived as comprising different  
elements. They advised the Tribunal that it will be viewed as a unified space. City  
Counsel contends, and the Tribunal concurs, that such an approach ignores the  
practical and legal realities that arise between land that is privately owned and land that  
is publicly owned.  
[239] The Marketing Zone space (proposed to be 3.6 m in width by the Applicant) will  
be privately owned. The Marketing Zone, by definition, is to be used by commercial  
entities for marketing or benefiting its customers (e.g., placing sandwich board ads, or  
setting up tables and chairs for customers). Counsel submits that the urban designers’  
views that the distinction between zones will be viewed as a unified space is unrealistic.  
The Tribunal agrees that it is imperative that public spaces be obtained for the benefit of  
the public (pedestrians and persons who may need assistance). If the sidewalk (Clear  
Path Zone) is increased through the road widening by 1.6 m (in addition to the 0.4 m  
already offered by the Applicant), the Clear Path Zone can be developed in accordance  
with the City’s needs, together with the land in front of the CORE site. The Marketing  
Zone at the subject property can still meet the 2.0 m standard.  
[240] Mr. Elkins, Applicants transportation witness, supported a development that  
provided the minimum sidewalk width of 1.8 m, when the City’s policies call for an  
enhanced public realm and active transportation within the Downtown. In presenting his  
54  
OLT-22-002451  
opinion to the Tribunal, Mr. Elkins also questioned why the latest multi-model  
transportation standards, the Multi-Modal Level of Service Guidelines (“MMLOSG”),  
should be utilized. He took this position notwithstanding the fact that the MMLOSG  
specifically state that they are consistent with Provincial policy [Exhibit 1 Joint  
Document Book pg. 2952] and should be utilized when assessing an application such  
as the present one.  
[241] Mr. Elkins supported the proposed development, which does not provide the  
required 2.0 m dedication as required by the City for the purpose of achieving an  
enhanced pedestrian realm and an improved sidewalk condition. He went so far as to  
state that a Level of Service “D”, as measured in the MMLOSG, is appropriate for this  
Downtown location. When questioned during cross-examination if he truly supported a  
Level of Service “D”, which is described as a condition in which “pedestrians  
occasionally have sufficient space in which to walk or roll in a social manner that is  
removed from traffic nuisance [Exhibit 1 pg. 2959], Mr. Elkins remained steadfast and  
said that this was appropriate.  
[242] The Tribunal finds that Mr. Elkinss view is unnecessarily partisan and not of  
assistance. It is apparent that a 2.0 m road widening will improve the transportation  
condition (especially active transportation) within the City’s Downtown. A sidewalk of the  
width sought by the City will result in a Level of Service “A”, which is defined as a  
condition in which “pedestrians always have sufficient space in which to walk or roll in a  
social manner that is removed from traffic nuisance[Exhibit 1 pg. 2959].  
[243] The Tribunal notes that the Core property adjacent to the subject site, dedicated  
2.0 m to the City to allow it to achieve its mobility and active transportation goals and  
objectives along this portion of Lakeshore Road.  
[244] Mr. Llewellyn, the Applicants municipal engineering witness, refused to support a  
dedication of 2.0 m because, as he put it, requiring a dedication of 2.0 m will affect the  
floorplate (which is non-existent at present and is just a proposed structure) of the  
underground parking. He testified that it will make it inconvenient for the people who use  
55  
OLT-22-002451  
the parking and may affect the number of parking spaces.  
[245] Mr. Llewellyn, (not a lawyer and not legally qualified), testified that the issue of  
the parking could be solved if a stratified arrangement could be achieved with the City.  
This may result in the City controlling the top portion of the 2.0 m it seeks, with the  
Applicant retaining title (or having an easement) to the ground below the portion  
controlled by the City. Mr. Llewellyn provided no evidence as to how this would function  
or whether it has ever occurred in Burlington. He also provided no evidence to  
demonstrate that the City is in any way interested in pursuing or accepting a stratified  
dedication of lands that should comprise the public right-of-way.  
[246] With respect to the dedication of 2.0 m to the City, it appeared that Mr. Goldberg,  
the Applicants planner, clearly understood and supported the City’s requirement to  
have 2.0 m dedicated to it as part of this proposal. However, he too suggested the  
concept of stratified ownership which has never been accepted in Burlington and in  
which Burlington has no interest. Mr. Goldberg admitted that there is Provincial and City  
policy in support of the demand for a 2.0 m dedication. He advised the Tribunal that this  
matter that should be addressed at the Site Plan stage.  
[247] Mr. Goldberg’s suggestion that the issue of the 2.0 m widening be put over to  
Site Plan is not appropriate. This is not a new issue. It was raised by the City after the  
applications were filed. The entirety of the concept plan and proposed development are  
based upon a 0.4 m widening. The Appellant has demonstrated nothing but resistance  
to dedicating the required 2.0 m. The City is not prepared to accept 0.4 m and has  
insisted, for appropriate infrastructure reasons, that 2.0 m must be dedicated.  
Furthermore, the Issues List, at Issue 15, states that a question to be answered in this  
hearing is, “Does the Proposed Development provide an appropriate right-of-way width  
for Lakeshore Road?”. [Exhibit 1 pg. 71]. It would be a waste of the resources of the  
parties and of the Tribunal’s time to have had this hearing, and all of the evidence  
tendered, only to have the issue of the dedication determined at the Site Plan stage.  
This will simply result in a second hearing in which the same question will be asked and  
56  
OLT-22-002451  
the same evidence will be determined. All parties agreed that Issue 15 was an issue to  
be determined as part of this hearing and the Tribunal ordered that this was an issue to  
be determined.  
[248] The Tribunal notes that Mr. Goldberg did not identify a single policy reason as to  
why the Applicant should dedicate anything less than 2.0 m. When addressing the  
question of the 2.0 m dedication, Mr. Goldberg could only cite the potential costs to his  
client as to why the dedication was even an issue.  
[249] When speaking to the benefits of having the 2.0 m dedication to the City, rather  
than the 0.4 m offered by the Applicant, Ms. Shareqi, Citys landscape witness noted  
that an additional 1.6 m of City owned land will allow for greater flexibility to coordinate  
utilities without the landscaping or trees having to be sacrificed. It was Ms. Shareqi’s  
opinion that if the full 2.0 m is not to be dedicated to the City, it is imperative that the full  
details of how utilities and landscaping can co-exist, be disclosed at this point in time.  
She noted that the Applicant had failed to provide such details.  
[250] When addressing the need for a dedication of 2.0 m, Ms. Edgcumbe, Citys  
Transportation Planner, confirmed that 2.0 m is the minimum that the City requires. In  
other words, the City is asking only for what is necessary to fulfill its transportation  
planning objectives.  
[251] It was the opinion of Ms. Edgcumbe that the Applicant’s design, which only  
provides for a Clear Path Zone (i.e., sidewalk) of 1.8 m, does not provide an “enhanced  
pedestrian realm” and nor does it meet the intent of the City’s Integrated Mobility Plan. It  
was the evidence of Ms. Edgcumbe that providing a sidewalk of 1.8 m is the bare  
minimum of what is required to construct a sidewalk in Burlington.  
[252] When addressing why it is appropriate to require a sidewalk that will be wider  
than 1.8 m as proposed by the Applicant, Ms. Edgcumbe, also relied upon the most  
recent standards that have been released to address Multi-modal transportation.  
Relying upon the newly released MMLOSG, Ms. Edgcumbe demonstrated that the  
57  
OLT-22-002451  
Applicants proposal only provides a Level of Service “D” for pedestrians, while it is  
possible to provide a Level of Service Aat this location. The Level of Service Acan  
be achieved if the 2.0 m dedication is provided as demanded by the City. [Exhibit 1,  
pgs. 2959, 2960 and 2985]  
[253] The MMLOSG expressly note that they are consistent with the PPS and the  
Growth Plan. The Guidelines also reflect the current best practices for transportation  
planning and engineering in the Province of Ontario.  
[254] Mr. Medeiros, Citys engineering technologist noted that the Applicant had  
responded to the City’s road widening requirement by only providing a 0.4 m dedication  
to the City. This was in contrast to the previous drawings and plans prepared and  
submitted by the Applicant in which a 2.0 m dedication had been shown. He testified  
that, in reducing the dedication to 0.4 m, the Applicant’s drawings had failed to ensure  
that there would be no permanent development or private infrastructure encroachments  
within the City’s road allowance. This deficiency, according to Mr. Medeiros, was  
demonstrative of the fact that the Applicant had failed to show that there would be no  
negative impacts on the public right-of-way.  
[255] In demonstrating this concern, Mr. Medeiros took the Tribunal through the  
Lakeshore Road cross section that had been prepared by the Applicant [Exhibit 1 pg.  
430], which shows below grade utilities under the proposed bicycle lane. Mr. Medeiros  
testified that both the City and utility companies do not like to have their services located  
under the traveled portion of the road allowance (cars/bicycles) and that these would  
likely be moved to the boulevard or sidewalk area. He noted that the potential impacts  
of such a relocation had not been demonstrated.  
[256] On the matter of stratifying the 2.0 m dedication, as had been suggested by the  
Applicants witnesses, Mr. Medeiros was unequivocal in his testimony that the City has  
not accepted an encroachment of a private buildings below grade structures within the  
City’s public right-of-ways. He noted that road widenings are taken above grade, to the  
maximum level (the sky), and below grade, to the maximum level (the centre of the  
58  
OLT-22-002451  
earth).  
[257] Mr. Medeiros explained that there would be significant concerns with  
maintenance issues and access if any form of stratified ownership or control were to  
occur. Mr. Medeiros noted that if the future condominium corporation needed to  
maintain its underground parking structure, it would have to excavate the public right-of-  
way, risking damage to utilities, sidewalks, trees and, at the same time, disrupting  
pedestrian access to the public realm. Mr. Medeiros also noted that the inverse situation  
may also occur. If the City were required to undertake work within the public road  
allowance, and if there is a parking structure under the road allowance, there is a risk  
that the City could damage the private underground parking garage. It was the evidence  
of Mr. Medeiros that it is best to simply avoid those potential risks by having the  
Applicant dedicate 2.0 m to the City without the Applicant retaining any interest in the  
dedicated lands.  
[258] It was Mr. Medeiros’ opinion that, to implement the City’s current active  
transportation and streetscaping needs, which include below grade utilities, while also  
ensuring that there is sufficient space to maintain and upgrade and possibly relocate  
above grade and below grade utilities, it is necessary to have the full 2.0 m dedicated to  
the City.  
[259] The Tribunal regards the 2.0 m dedication as a significant matter in this hearing.  
The Applicants proposed development is based on the conceptual drawing  
accompanying the OPA and ZBA. It can be argued that the whole redevelopment  
stands on this significant matter. Parties have agreed to put this issue before the  
Tribunal and if this is not dealt with, after both parties had voluntarily and thoroughly  
canvassed it, the Tribunal will be abdicating its duty and obligations. At times an issue  
can be put off, however in this instance, this appeal will need to firmly place this  
dedication of 2.0 m road widening, as a matter and requirement, to be considered  
already predetermined at the ZBA for the Site Plan Approval process. The Tribunal is  
evaluating the development wholistically on provincial interest and provincial plans as  
59  
OLT-22-002451  
well as municipally. The Applicant may contend that the 2.0 m requirement is best left to  
the Site Plan process. The Tribunal disagrees. To be sure, the Site Plan application is  
not before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal is deciding the 2.0 m road widening as  
being a necessary term and condition in the ZBA. The imposition of this condition is  
necessary to implement the instrument in order to permit a redevelopment to achieve  
the enhancement of the public realm for pedestrian and active modes of transportation  
as envisioned pursuant to the legislative framework and Policies. The actual Site Plan  
Approval process and the details required are left to the municipal approval authority,  
the City.  
Policy Framework Findings  
Matters of Provincial Interest Section 2 of the Planning Act  
[260] The Tribunal must have regard to section 2 of the Act that prescribes a list of  
non-exhaustive criteria in carrying out its responsibilities under the Act.  
Applicable Planning Policy Documents  
[261] The Tribunal agrees that the planning context for the proposed Development  
is established by the following: the PPS; the Growth Plan; the ROP; and the in force  
City OP.  
PPS 2020  
[262] Section 3(5) of the Act requires the decision on a planning matter of the Tribunal,  
shall be consistent with the provincial policy statements that are in effect.  
[263] The PPS 2020 applies and the Tribunal finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA  
are consistent with the PPS.  
[264] Specifically with respect to Policy 1.1.1(b), the proposed plan will provide  
60  
OLT-22-002451  
additional housing with a range of residential apartment units, which will help meet long-  
term needs, along with useable open amenity spaces.  
[265] With respect to Policy 1.1.3.4, the proposed development promotes appropriate  
development standards that will facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact  
form. Development standards in this case include the proposed podium design and the  
proposed height and the required public street widths, all of which will result in an  
appropriate balance between making efficient use of land and infrastructure and  
ensuring compatibility with the existing and planned built form context. The proposed  
development will provide a range of new apartment units in the high-rise residential  
building.  
GROWTH PLAN  
[266] The Growth Plan policies encourage intensification in appropriate locations. The  
site is located in Downtown Burlington, an Urban Growth Centre, where high-rise and  
high density mixed use developments exist and are approved, and conventionally co-  
exist comfortably and compatibly with lower forms of development. Downtown  
Burlington is also rich with available public services for health, education, recreation,  
employment, and entertainment uses and activities. (s. 2.2.3.1).  
[267] The use of the subject site for a mixed use development, at the density proposed  
will assist in meeting the minimum population growth targets, if not exceed them, for this  
Urban Growth Centre. The policies in the Growth Plan regarding intensification and  
density targets are minimum standards and municipalities are encouraged to exceed  
these targets, where appropriate. The subject site is well suited for a high density mixed  
use building that contributes to meeting or exceeding the minimum intensification and  
density targets (s. 2.2.3.2 -minimum gross density targets 200 residents and jobs  
combined for the Downtown Burlington Urban Growth Centre).  
61  
OLT-22-002451  
HALTON REGION OFFICIAL PLAN (ROP)  
[268] The proposed development conforms with the ROP by intensifying an  
underutilized site in an Urban Area, Built Up Area, and Urban Growth Centre that is  
targeted for significant population and employment growth.  
[269] The proposed development is located within an Intensification Area by reason of  
its location within an Urban Growth Centre. The proposed intensification and increased  
density of the proposal, conforms with the policies that direct development within these  
areas with a mix of uses and higher densities (s. 81 of ROP).  
[270] The proposed development will contribute to achieving the minimum growth  
targets, set out by the Region, by providing new housing units in a compact and high-  
density urban form.  
[271] The proposed development supports the policies for Intensification Areas by  
providing a mix of uses near the John Street Bus Terminal, and provides residential  
density that will support both the existing and future viability of the transit service, as  
well as potentially enhanced transit service to the Downtown.  
[272] The proposed intensified form of mixed use development will allow the efficient  
use of the subject site and be supportive of transit usage. The development will  
contribute to building a healthy community through encouraging the use of public transit  
and active modes of transportation, such as walking and cycling, to destinations  
throughout the City.  
HALTON REGION OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 48 (ROPA 48)  
[273] With respect to the Urban Growth Centre boundary modification, ROPA 48,  
added a transition provision in Section 80.3 which transitions the subject property. The  
subject property is regarded as being located in the UGC and appropriate for  
intensification and redevelopment.  
62  
OLT-22-002451  
[274] Although ROPA 48 does not contain a transition provision regarding the  
designation of the John Street Bus Terminal as a MTSA, that transit facility continues to  
serve as a central transit hub of many City-wide and regional-wide transit routes, served  
by a variety of transit providers. As such, the subject site remains subject to, and  
serviced by, enhanced public transit within close walking proximity to it.  
CITY OF BURLINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN 2008 (OP/in-force OP)  
[275] The in-force City OP policies pre-date the current PPS and Growth Plan, and  
some policies have yet to catch up with the planning realities in the City.  
[276] The City has not brought into force updated, land use and built form policies for  
the Downtown Mixed Use Centre, including the OLRMUP designations, to reflect  
current PPS and Growth Plan policies. The current Provincial policy imperative is to  
‘optimize’ land and infrastructure.  
[277] The Tribunal acknowledges the approved developments in the area. Three  
developments in very close proximity to the subject site 2069-2079 Lakeshore Road  
and 383-385 Pearl Street (29 Storeys and 320 residential units), owned by Lakeshore  
(Burlington) Inc. (OLT File No. PL200040) (“Lakeshore/Pearl”); 374 Martha Street (26  
Storeys and 240 dwellings), owned by Adi Development Group Inc. (OMB File No.  
PL150274) (“374 Martha”); and the Core Property (27 Storeys and 310 residential units)  
2096-2100 Lakeshore Road and 2093-2101 Old Lakeshore Road (OLT File No.  
PL200092) on the adjacent west property were approved by OMB/OLT following  
contested hearings at heights very similar to the height of the proposed building (27  
storeys and 196 residential units) on the subject site.  
[278] Those projects range in similar height or taller and higher density when  
compared to the OP permissions for those sites. The current definition of high density  
residential uses of the OP (51 185 units per hectare) has been well exceeded by  
those approvals, as is also proposed in the subject case, to reflect a contemporary  
intensification project on this site, implementing Provincial policy.  
63  
OLT-22-002451  
[279] Section 5.5.7.1 relating to the Old Lakeshore Road Mixed Use Precinct directs  
that this is:  
an area in the Downtown for high density, mixed use, development  
that is pedestrian friendly and transit-supportive, which helps meet  
Provincial Growth objectives and provides for a transition from the  
highest density mixed-use area (Wellington Square Mixed Use Precinct)  
to the more residential area to the east.  
[280] In relation to this policy, Mr. Goldberg concludes:  
The subject proposal is a contemporary expression of a high density,  
mixed use development with transit stops at the site that connect with the  
nearby John Street Transit Terminal, which connects to GO stations and  
other areas within the City, and beyond.  
[281] The proposal seeks to amend the City OP solely due to some of the prescriptive  
policies relating to height and density. These prescriptions are out of step and out of  
date with the current intensification policies of the PPS, the Growth Plan and the ROP.  
The OPA seeks to authorize a development that is in scale with, and in keeping with,  
this Downtown setting. It is Mr. Goldbergs opinion, that the proposal supports many  
important public policy objectives of the Province, the Region and the City.  
[282] The Tribunal finds that while the other developments in the vicinity inform the  
Tribunal as regards the height and density of the neighbourhood development, those  
are decisions that are persuasive in nature. This Tribunal has regard for the particular  
facts and merits of this matter and has decided based upon the specific location,  
physical attributes and characteristics of the subject property and the proposal. The  
Tribunal finds that the proposed development satisfies the objectives of the OP for the  
Downtown Mixed Use Centre.  
New Official Plan  
[283] Mr. Goldberg opines and the Tribunal concurs that the proposed development  
conforms to the overarching policy objectives of the new OP, which is to direct growth to  
appropriate locations as required by Provincial planning policy, and promote  
64  
OLT-22-002451  
development that is well designed to fit within the existing and planned context of the  
area.  
CITY OF BURLINGTON ZONING BY-LAW 2020 (ZBL 2020)  
[284] The proposed ZBA will be site-specific, aimed at implementing the proposal. The  
proposed development will require site-specific exceptions regarding height, parking,  
setbacks, balcony projections, and FAR.  
[285] The in-force OP sets the policy framework within which development is to take  
place. The Tribunal finds that the proposed development conforms to the in-force OP  
and is compatible with adjacent property developments.  
DECISION  
[286] Mr. Romanos opinion can be summarised to reflect that transition, public realm,  
pedestrian scale and active transportation enhancements should triumph over routinely  
increasing heights, density and housing units increase. There must be strict adherence  
to the OP policies and Zoning requirements of the Precinct.  
[287] Mr. Goldbergs view is that a development with additional housing units supply  
that meets minimum standards of policies and zoning should be sufficient for approval  
of the OPA and ZBA which merely seek height and density changes.  
[288] The Tribunal as the arbiter of private and public interests is required to balance  
these conflicting interests. Public interest demands that the provincial interest of  
provincial minimum housing supply targets be met or exceeded and a healthy and  
liveable community be supported. The Tribunal accepts the planning evidence provided  
by Mr. Goldberg in support of the redevelopment proposal and will make the requisite  
interim orders for the planning instruments subject to contingent conditions imposed by  
the Tribunal.  
65  
OLT-22-002451  
[289] The proposed development has regard for the matters of provincial interests in s.  
2 of the Act in particular: s. 2(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy  
communities; s. 2(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including  
affordable housing; s. 2(p) the appropriate location of growth and development; s. 2(q)  
the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable to support public transit  
and to be oriented to pedestrians; and s. 2(r) the promotion of built form that, (i) is well-  
designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are  
of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.  
[290] The Tribunal finds that the proposal meets the PPS and Growth Plan objectives,  
in particular the housing target goals of the Province.  
[291] The Tribunal finds that transition in density, in a general sense, to the east from  
the subject property is apparent. Here transition, in the in-force OP, does not engender  
a downward in heightelement. What is mentioned is a transition to the east in terms of  
density. As the concept of transition is not clearly defined, the Tribunal needs to balance  
the need for optimization on this underutilized subject site which helps to meet  
Provincial Growth Objectives against the transition requirement. Strictly, the subject  
property is in a Mixed Use Centre which is not within the residential area to the east. It  
does not interface with the residential area to the east. The Downtown Mixed Use  
Centre has a varied mix of heights and densities from site to site. There is no uniformity  
of built form height and density. However, the 27 storey subject property will be taller  
and of higher density than the existing 18 storey building to the east and to the low rise  
in the residential east area.  
[292] This proposal conforms to the intent of the new OP (not determinative of the  
applications currently under appeal) where the overarching policy objectives are to  
direct developments to locations that fit in to the existing and planned built context. The  
Core Building and the subject sites proposed building are both at 27 storeys and fit into  
the existing built, planned and emerging context of this area.  
[293] As regards character and compatibility with the existing and planned context, the  
66  
OLT-22-002451  
Tribunal finds that such compatibility exists. In the OLRMUP, the adjacent approved  
CORE propertys 27 storeys (though 12 m lower) established the height context of this  
precinct. The subject propertys 27 Storey is compatible with the height of the abutting  
west side property. It is enlightening that, in this precinct, regardless whether in the in  
force OP or the new OP, the height increase is from the west Core side (6 or 8 storeys  
as compared to 10 or 12 storeys towards the east side where the subject property is  
located) (see Exhibit 10 East sector and OP Schedule E, Downtown Mixed Use  
Centre Plan). This is a height differential of four (4) Storeys between the Core building  
and subject proposed building.  
[294] The Tribunal notes that the regulated maximum height in this precinct for the  
Core building is eight (8) storeys in the west, and 12 storeys in the east side for the  
subject property (a difference of four storeys i.e. 12 m). Nevertheless, events have  
overtaken the regulated heights. The Tribunal (a differently constituted panel) in the  
CORE decision had approved a 27 storey building to the immediate west of the subject  
property.  
[295] The CORE property building will be just 25 m from the subject propertys  
proposed building which is similarly 27 storeys and just 12 m higher. The proposed  
building in this precinct is four (4) storeys higher on the east side, generally meeting the  
intent of the difference in height permissions in this precinct.  
[296] The Downtown Core Precinct to the north of the Old Lakeshore precinct contains  
developments of a 29 storey building (2069 Lakeshore Road) and a 26 storey building  
(ADI) fronting the Lakeshore Road. To the western side of these properties are  
developments of 22 storeys (Bridgewater). Thus, the neighbourhood characters  
existing and planned context are tall buildings. The surrounding built form and context  
are tall buildings. The proposed development, when compared to the surrounding area  
is compatible as defined in the OP.  
[297] Compatibility does not mean the same nor even similar. As long as the property  
can co-exist in harmony with the existing properties without negative impacts, it is  
67  
OLT-22-002451  
deemed compatible. The proposed development is compatible with the existing and  
planned context of the area. Compatibility is defined in the Part VIII Official Plan as  
follows:  
Compatible Development or re-development that is capable of co-  
existing in harmony with, and that will not have an undue physical  
(including form) or functional adverse impact on, existing or proposed  
development in the area or pose an unacceptable risk to environmental  
and/or human health. Compatibility should be evaluated in accordance  
with measurable/objective standards where they exist, based on criteria  
such as aesthetics, noise, vibration, dust, odours, traffic, safety and sun-  
shadowing, and the potential for serious adverse health impacts on  
humans or animals.  
[298] The Tribunal is persuaded by the Applicant’s experts and finds that the reports,  
and testimonies by the Applicant’s witnesses adequately addressed the opinions by the  
City’s witnesses, save for the matter of the 2 m road widening. The Tribunal is  
persuaded by the City that the 2 m widening will enhance the public walkway, lead to  
comfort and safety for pedestrians and Ontarians (including those with disabilities) while  
walking, cycling or using wheelchairs on the public pathway portion that will be  
dedicated and conveyed to the City. The public interest of enhancement of the public  
realm for pedestrian and active transportation requires the right-of-way widening.  
[299] The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed development is compatible with the  
adjacent residential properties existing and planned context in built form, scale,  
architectural design and typology. The Tribunal accepts the Applicants witness, Mr.  
Bouwmeesters shadow studies as demonstrating there is minimal impact on adjacent  
properties. There is no evidence of adverse impacts on the neighbourhoods existing or  
planned context and character by virtue of the compatibility.  
[300] The Tribunal finds, upon the preferred planning evidence presented by Mr.  
Goldberg, that the proposed OPA and ZBA, have appropriate regard for the matters  
of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act; are consistent with the PPS 2020;  
conform with the Growth Plan, the ROP and the OP.  
[301] The Tribunal will add contingent conditions to the approval of the instruments in  
68  
OLT-22-002451  
principle (having considered parties’ submissions). The Tribunal disagrees with the  
Applicants counsel that it has no inherent authority to do so, as s. 2(n) of the Act,  
requires the Tribunal to have regard to the resolution of planning conflicts involving  
private and public interests. The Tribunal has authority to make orders or give directions  
as may be necessary or incidental to the exercise of the powers conferred on the  
Tribunal under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act 2021 (OLTA) or any other Act. (s.9(1)  
OLTA). Pursuant to s. 9(2) of the OLTA, the Tribunal may include in an order, conditions  
that it considers fair in the circumstances, including a condition that the order comes  
into force at a future fixed time or on the performance of terms imposed by the Tribunal.  
[302] The Tribunal is satisfied by the totality of evidence that the proposed  
development with 196 residential units that contributes to the provincial target is in the  
public interest. Nevertheless, good planning requires that the 2 m road widening  
requested by the City to be part of the development that contributes to the public  
realms active pedestrian and transportation enhancement.  
INTERIM ORDER  
[303] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that :  
1. The appeal pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Act is allowed and the Draft Official  
Plan Amendment (OPA) is approved in principle subject to a draft OPA  
with detailed policy provisions being received in a form satisfactory to the  
parties to be presented for confirmation.  
2. The appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act is allowed and the Zoning By-  
law Amendment (ZBA) is approved in principle subject to a draft ZBA  
with detailed zoning provisions and regulations being received in a form  
satisfactory to the parties to be presented for confirmation.  
3. The Orders are withheld pending receipt by the Tribunal of the Draft OPA  
together with the Draft ZBA and the partieswritten confirmation that the  
69  
OLT-22-002451  
Site Plan Approval has been finalized between the parties.  
4. The Appellant shall ensure the 2.0 metre road widening required by the  
City of Burlington be provided in the form and manner determined by and  
to the satisfaction of the Municipality as the governing and approval  
Authority.  
5. The Appellant shall provide written confirmation from the Regions Solicitor  
on the satisfactory status of the Site Condition of the subject property.  
6. The Appellant shall provide written confirmation from the City Solicitor that  
a satisfactory execution and registration of a section 37 Planning Act  
Agreement has been obtained.  
7. The written request for issuance of the Tribunals final order after  
compliance of the above stated requirements and confirmations must be  
received by the Tribunal before the expiry of 180 days from the date of this  
Order, or in the alternative, a written status report on the reasons of failure  
to request issuance of final order, before the 180 days expiry.  
8. If any of the above requirements and confirmations are not fulfilled in the  
time stipulated, the Appeals herein may be dismissed.  
9. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing this order, the  
Tribunal may be spoken to.  
70  
OLT-22-002451  
“T.F. Ng”  
T.F. NG  
MEMBER  
Ontario Land Tribunal  
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248  
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local  
Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and  
continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding  
tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the  
Tribunal.  

Top Judgements:
Saskatoon Co-operative Association Limited v United Food and Commercial Workers | Aug 15, 2022
Old Lakeshore Inc. v City of Burlington | Sep 2, 2022
Tietz v. Affinor Growers Inc. | Sep 13, 2022
Efficiencyone (E1) | Sep 6, 2022
President's Choice Bank v. The Queen | Jul 19, 2022
First Global Data Ltd | Sep 15, 2022
Rayonier v Unifor, Locals 256 and 89 | Aug 11, 2022
Alberta Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission | Decision No. 2021-0334 | Jul 14, 2022
Metrowest Developments Ltd v Flynn Canada Ltd | Sep 14, 2022
R. v. Cameron | Jul 15, 2022
Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management | Jul 28, 2022
101034761 Saskatchewan Ltd. v Mossing | Aug 24, 2022
Waste Control Services Inc. v International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 115 | Aug 12, 2022
RJM56 Holdings Inc. c. Bazinet | Aug 17, 2022
Sherwood v The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549 | Aug 9, 2022
WCAT Decision A2001487 | Aug 8, 2022
City of Hamilton v Ontario Water Employees’ Association | Sep 12, 2022
Century Services Corp. v. LeRoy | Jul 8, 2022
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 175 v Metro Ontario Inc. | Jul 4, 2022