Another high rise development for Brant Street.

News 100 blueBy Pepper Parr

October 9th, 2020


Rendering - initiial Oct -20

Proposed 26 story structure on Brant, east side, north of Caroline.


Add another one to the downtown core.

This one is to be located on Brant, north of Caroline on the east side running from the Joe Dogs site north to where the Bank of Nova Scotia is located – at the south end of the No Frills Plaza.


Several blocks north – at Ghent and Brant the Molinaro development on either side of Brant will comprise of three 25 storey buildings that will cover three of the four corners of the intersection.

Molinaro Brant and Ghent

Three 25 storey structures.


And there is more to come.

The public will have an opportunity to comment on the plans for a 26 storey at a Pre-Application Public Meeting that will take place on October 26; it will be a virtual meeting.

The Zoom coordinates for the event are:

Participate On-Line via Zoom:
(internet connection required)
Webinar ID: 946 2906 4953

  • Participate by Telephone:
    1-647-374-4685 (audio only)

The developers proposal at this point is for a

  • 26-storey mixed-used building
  • 248 residential units, including one, two and three bedroom units

Ground floor commercial space

Ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns may have a conflict of interest on this development, it is close to across the street from her residence.

Renimmob Properties Limited, based in Hamilton is the developer listed on the file.


Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

13 comments to Another high rise development for Brant Street.

  • Alfred


    I knew I would wake you up. A quick summary. In my respectful submission I find it difficult to bet on the nubi councilors and this Mayor for the following reasons 1st. Very little experience in planning matters. The Mayor’s anti-development position is going to work against her. Getting rid of the previous City Manager and Planning Director was not exactly a sign of rational thinking. As clearly the word has spread in Provincial circles. Picking fights with the Premier can have a bad affect on decisions. 2nd. These Developers did not get rich betting on losing battles. They have the best Planners and Lawyers money can buy. Most importantly the have all the experience tilted in their favour. Finding properties that can be developed is what they do and at the highest level. Let’s let the LPAT. run it’s course and see what decisions come back. When one person is left standing we will know who won. If this system was working there would not be this many appeals. In fairness to all, the Province could do a much better job in making their directions a little more clear to remove all this uncertainty. Have a good evening.

    • david barker

      Maybe the previous City Manager and Planning Director were just not up to the job?

      Many people might have agreed with you about going up against the Ford govt. But just look how Ford has changed his tune on many subjects since his election. I do not just refer to class sizes, children with autism, but to potentially dissolving municipalities into new giant municipalities and the mobility hub issue. It seems, Ford respects those who stand up to him and has proven to be someone who will listen and will change. Oh and I am not a Ford voter or supporter my any stretch of the imagination.

      You are right about developers. They have all been playing with loaded dice. The test is going to be how LPAT responds to an official plan that we are now told is compliant with the Region’s own Official Plan, which is we understand compliant with Provincial policies. LPAT should be adjudicating based upon how the appellant’s and the respondent’s positions each measure up against Provincial policy.

      As you say, once the OP is approved by the region and adopted by the City, and the ICBL is lifted, we shall just have to wait and see what comes out of LPAT.

      I note municipalities do have a right to appeal LPAT decisions to the Ontario Appeals Court. Other than cost, why gave municipalities only done that on rare occasions.

      Best wishes !

  • Alfred

    Hi David.

    It appears that you have a good grasp on how development works in Ontario. Mr. Schafer and Mr Hodgins appear to be struggling with this concept. If we could, let’s crarify some points. Who said the new OP. aligns with the Regional OP. and Provincial Policies. The Mayor and a few planners who are in fear of losing their jobs if they don’t follow the Mayors narrative? The Old City Manager and planning Director were shown the door. When their interpretations of the Provincial Policies did not align with the Mayors. Housing policies in Ontario are determined by the Provincial Government they delegate this authority to the Municipalities under strict guidelines that the Municipalities must adhere to. When Municipalities and Mayors attempt to go rouge, or contrary to Provincial Policies as is the case with this Mayor. The Province put safegaurds in place. These would be known as LPAT. or OMB. It is these final adjudicators of facts and policies that have the final say as to who is correct. The Developers, or the City in cases where they don’t agree with each other. Official Plans and Zoning by-laws are not fixed and if they don’t comply with Provincial Policies The developer can apply for an amendment anytime and will win everytime. On the other hand if the City Policies comply, the Nimby’s have nothing to worry about. My prediction is the City will come out on the losing end most of the time. We the taxpayers will get stuck paying all the legal bills. For the uninformed the Provincial election is where you have your say on housing policies. Ironically The Mayor in 2007 while running for the Liberal Party supported all of this intensification mandate and all these policies that some of you detest.Now you are calling on her to save you. What am I missing here?

    • david barker

      Hi, Alfred. Good to hear from you.

      I question your commentary regarding alignment of the OP with the Region and the Province. The 2018 OP was returned by the Region unapproved to the City for its review and amendment because it was not in alignment with the Region’s own OP which had been approved by the Province, and so we assume is in alignment with the Province’s policies.

      The OP just recently passed by the City if approved by the Region would we should assume then be compliant with the Region’s OP and so Provincial policies. Policies which LPAT us supposed to follow.

      Is not LPAT, in regards to a specific planning application, supposed to side with the municipality where the developer’s plans are not compliant with a valid and Provincial policy compliant OP; and side with the developer where the municipality’s OP is not compliant with the Region’s OP/Provincial policies?

      One note of clarification, the Province delegates it’s planning authority to the Region, not to the City. It is the Region that then further delegates the authority to the City.

      I also note it is possible to appeal LPAT decisions to the Ontario Courts. Why is that dobe so rarely?

  • K. Hodgins

    Just enforce the bylaws!

  • Alfred

    Hi Penny.

    The big problem here is that everyone is so focused on height. They are not seeing the big picture. The business services required to compliment the residential development, as you have pointed out. Well done.

  • Vic Djurdjevic

    Oakville attempted to develop a community north of Dundas that planned to reduce vehicle dependancy. They planned for shops, so people could walk or use public transit. They brought in top planners. Now the ward is facing major problems. Homes do not have adequate parking. Visitors have no where to park, not even on streets. Residence purchase street parking permits, can’t find parking. What planners failed to recognize is that people have multi vehicles per residence. Any shopping outside of community requires vehicle use. So residence did not live up to planning. High rise buildings coulpled with high density population in a community not designed properly will have the same result as in North Oakville. Businesses- retail stores will have problem to attract customers if there is no parking. This prpposal will suffer the same result. Before city approves this study the North Oakville community problems. If not, there disaster will be repeated in Burlington with no way to rectify it.

  • david barker

    At the risk of upsetting Lynn, Blair and Gary.

    WOW ! Why all the angst ? Yes, be outraged at the gall of the developer. But bear in mind any developer has the right to submit a proposal. Submitting a proposal and it becoming a reality are two very different things and a long way apart.

    No doubt after the pre-application meetings, the lifting of the ICBL, then planning department reviews etc this will probably end up at LPAT in the line behind the 30+ other appeals already sitting there awaiting their hearing once the ICBL Is lifted. At that point in time each appeal will we hope and expect be judged against the City’s newly minted official plan, the Region’s OP and the Province’s policies, which we are told are now all aligned. Hopefully the City’s new OP is robust enough to withstand these attacks and that LPAT will be respectful and unbiased enough to deny the appeals.

    We shall see.

    In the interim I suggest we all “get out there” to the virtual pre-application meeting and voice your opinion.

    Ask blunt questions of the developer such as:-

    What on earth gives you the right to blindly ignore the City’s OP, which reflects residents wishes, and seek a twenty six storey building in an area where the limit is set at eleven?

    What plans do you have to assist the City in managing the resultant heavy increase in traffic?

    Assuming you are hoping to attract customer traffic to the commercial space at street level, where will you accommodate those visiting vehicles?

  • Judy G

    With all the condos what are we supposed to walk to? Small business won’t be able to pay the High building rentals

  • Penny Hersh

    My concern is that with this development we will lose some of the services that are now available in that area. Personal Auto will be gone.

    If we are to have high-rises in this area then we need to encourage the city that these businesses are included in the plans.

    If the city wants us to walk, cycle, etc. then we need to have the services to allow us to do this.

  • Well…this will be a test to see if the city can defend its newly approved official plan. This plot is in the Mid-Brant precinct, The new OP shows maximum heights of 11 stories on the south end and 17 closer to Baldwin & Victoria.

    The good thing about urban development done properly, is not every trip has to be done by car. Of course if you put towers in isolated places on wide roads surrounded by speeding cars (Mississauga), the people have few other options. In a location close to Downtown Burlington, that shouldn’t be the case, especially if the city also sticks to its guns and provides strong walking, cycling & transit connections along Brant between Caroline and Fairview (Burlington GO).

    A lot of people won’t like the height, but I think what’s more important is how it meets the street. The design and the retail on the main street seem to be missing here. Culaccino and Joe Dogs patios give this part of the street a great ambience. (but they appear to have been drawn in as non-descript white boxes). It would be nice to know the specific address this is proposed for.

  • Anthony Schafer

    How could this happen? We elected a new Council and Mayor to stop this kind of ugly and irresponsible development. Is it a legacy from our old mayor and Council? If this a new application our new Mayor and Council should be able to stop it. Have they made a formal statement?

  • B.Tuinman

    Wow…..pretty soon Burlington will look like Mississauga…nothing beautiful about it…..and a further 1000+ cars added to our already congested roadways. Respectfully.