By Pepper Parr
January 6th, 2026
BURLINGTON, ON
It’s a nice building.
Building is on the south side of Old Lakeshore Road with the Bridgewater development to the east. There is a very wide walkway to the addition to the Waterfront Trail.
It provides hotel space that is needed.
It provides some rental space – that will be expensive but the view to the lake will be superb.
Extension to the Waterfront Trail.
Height – the building is no higher than other towers that were approved and have either been built or are under construction.
Planners did a superb job. Councillor Kearns did a very good job on the holding provisions.
Background on how they got to this point took a three hour meeting.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
great information Caren (as usual)
I believe these statutory notice requirements exist to protect the public, not the calendar. When they are ignored or compressed, the legitimacy of the process itself is called into question. But as usual in Burlington, this group of “leaders” somehow avoids accountability ………
That is what deserves scrutiny.
Given parking is a significant concern and condition for this project to proceed the City should be requiring/negotiating with Vrancor to tear down the old outdated Waterfront hotel given they are building this new hotel and replace it with a full parking lot to accommodate the parking needed in the area. This will also preserve the views to the lake. As Plan B noted the motel site development is/was Vrancor’s plan if the Waterfront hotel redevelopment project failed which it did. The City needs to be proactive and negotiate with this developer.
Further to Gary Scobie’s below:
I received an email on Friday afternoon from COB dated January 2, 2026 (as I subscribe to City news and updates) announcing a “Special Meeting of Council/Statutory Public Meeting for January 6, 2026” re 2076 Old Lakeshore Road.
I scoured the City of Burlington website over that weekend to see if there had been a previous Statutory Public meeting on this property and No, there wasn’t one!
There was a Pre-Application Meeting in July 2025 open to the Public, but no “Statutory Public Meeting” was held.
The Rules state that residents must have a minimum of 20 days prior written Notice for a Statutory meeting to take place. This never happened.
This “Special Meeting of Council/Statutory Public Meeting” notice was on January 2, 2026 received by email; with the meeting taking place on January 6, 2026. This development application required a Council decision within 120 days (before January 10, 2026) The Statutory Deadline.
Why did our mayor wait until the very last minute to announce this meeting on Friday, January 2, 2026? Followed by the meeting on Tuesday, January 6, 2026??
A Special Meeting of Council does not over ride the Statutory timelines, see below:
“Key Legal Distinctions
Statutory Requirements Prevail: If a specific piece of legislation (e.g., the Municipal Act, 2001 or the Planning Act in Ontario) mandates a specific notice period for a particular action, such as passing certain by-laws or holding public meetings for development, a municipality cannot bypass these requirements simply by calling a “special” meeting.
Procedure By-laws: Every municipality is required to have a procedure by-law that governs how meetings are called. While this by-law may allow for a shorter notice period for a special meeting (e.g., 24 or 48 hours) compared to a regular meeting, this only applies to the meeting itself, not to other statutory notice periods required for the specific business being conducted”.
The Link to above is here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+a+special+meeting+of+council+in+municipalities+over+ride+statutory+notice+periods&client=ms-android-bell-ca-rvc3&sca_esv=13d5be0ef7350a07&sxsrf=ANbL-n55_bfcnVkQQo0en2jPs8ttEK2USA%3A1767913670648&ei=xjhgaYGsJ7rIp84PuufC-Qo&ved=2ahUKEwjLqPjbh_2RAxURwvACHVD3CQUQ0NsOegQIAxAB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp&udm=50&aep=10&ntc=1&mtid=-DhgabShCoqcw8cPseTZ0QI&mstk=AUtExfA2jxb3dNOz5isKmDGpnRVFCguIzR9fEkTi6kqQPb5uKielfb3h6ToRjHKtamOiCidZETa3QMwhXPpKXnEoFJumoEKYQgINxG4FIHhYcDzVgum1h55Q0sA9DxKZ32cXU8E_ZmInBIKv6iq-wRfdmPD9eAtKgs46A9PK0AyeW3va1DbAd-0EBxTIx-GS84DTdrYNEWcRRVoEffSIYUeFvPeWxVfsKkVA2ev07ChSfzymeSHwpPfvdKM_bjwUSBK-tm-J5lqilVJ6upPfemiaWF8tqHm9NGT2prkfezbtf9i2WgHCyG4BmukSvFVB-RC4z0AiMSJ2PkMJXQ&csuir=1
There was speculation when Vrancor purchased the Ascot Hotel, with the potential to extend the Waterfront Trail, that it might be used as a “bargaining chip” with the City in the redevelopment of the Waterfront Hotel. Who knows how this latest development might affect the future of 2020 Lakeshore?
Caren,
I have heard for years that a new parking Garage may be needed. The City has tried to get developers to build one.
Carriage Gate’s development on Maria Street was to comprise of 3 structures. The condominium building The Berkeley which is built, a medical building and a parking garage which were not. The premise was that the public would be able to use this parking garage BUT ONLY AFTER HOURS. During the day the spots were to be for patients etc.
The city thought this was a win/win.
Carriage Gate never paid the penalty for not following through on its original development application promises. The only win was for the developer.
Carriage Gate has since sold the property and the new proposed development is proposing an open parking garage for the owners of the condominium only. NO public parking. The city gave up a public parking lot to this developer.
Is it any wonder that the residents have no confidence in the council protecting residents from these types of development?
I want to share some of the other things I have come to learn about this development. This development is primarily a hotel and the 50 condominium units will be rentals, as a result, the developer does not have to pre- sell 75% of these units in order to secure financing from lenders. They can start building immediately.
Also, I am willing to bet that the 50 units will be registered as condominiums. The developer may rent them out now, but at any time these could be sold as condominiums and the renters will be gone.
Once again the residents are left in the dark as staff and some council members think that allowing this type of development has to be approved to avoid spending money to defend it at the OLT.
The City defended and won at the OLT against this developer’s proposed development at Brant/Lakeshore.
It seems the council is considering having a FIFA Caravan at a cost of $200,000.00 taxpayer dollars. This money would be better spent putting it towards defending a horrible development in an already congested area.
re: Editor’s note …… I respectfully submit that ……
If “done deal” is now the standard for avoiding scrutiny, that’s precisely the problem. When public land, waterfront access, and infrastructure impacts are treated as post-approval details, citizens are right to question whether the process served developers better than the public.
Further, if “done deal” now defines the end of questioning, then accountability has been quietly replaced by inevitability. That may be convenient for developers and council — but it shouldn’t be for taxpayers.
Thanks Wayne for both of your comments. I totally agree. This development just doesn’t fit, up against the shoreline that has to be extended and re-enforced with massive rocks in order to add a small length of path of Waterfront Trail leading to nowhere at Emma’s Back Porch as Penny points out.
And yes, this was a “done deal” but only because this meeting was supposed to be a Statutory Public Meeting where the public gets to understand the proposal and provide input, leading to a later Council Meeting where a decision is made. Seems that it was only a quickly scheduled show and tell meeting with no real opportunity for community involvement. This is Ontario and Burlington planning and development at its worst in 2026. Much more to come, citizens.
This decision warrants closer scrutiny.
I am not a planner, but as a taxpayer I submit that this decision was treated as routine when it clearly was not. Council focused on technical compliance — zoning, reports, and process — rather than exercising strategic judgment about the long-term public interest.
The loss of scarce waterfront land is a permanent outcome, yet that reality does not appear to have been weighed with the seriousness it deserves. The threshold for approval should have been higher precisely because this land is irreplaceable.
Once again, there is a disconnect between the process followed and the outcome delivered. The “football field” has long been understood as part of Burlington’s limited remaining lakeshore open space, yet its conversion to a private hotel was treated as a routine planning file rather than a once-in-a-generation decision. Despite clear public concern, council relied on planning justifications while largely sidestepping the bigger question: what is the long-term vision for Burlington’s waterfront?
Once developed, this land is gone forever — and no amount of future “studies” or “public benefits” will restore it. This was not bold leadership or city-building; it was the incremental erosion of public waterfront by approval.
Editor’s note: What’s to scrutinize? This is a done deal. Once the few Holding matters are dealt with – parking and ensuring that the Waterfront Trail property has been given to the city – the backhoes start digging.
I guess I will have to agree to disagree that this is a good development for the area.
A Burlington developer many years ago asked me this question “do you know what determines the size of a development”? I knew the answer. The size of a development depends on how many underground parking spaces it can provide.
The developer got away with not having to dig down( in an area that probably would not allow this to happen) to provide the necessary amount of parking spaces for a development of this size. 82 Parking spaces for a hotel with 154 suites and 50 condominium units.
Staff and council should not insult the intelligence of their residents. The developer gave unusable land to the city to “extend the waterfront trail”. This tiny stretch of land stops at Emma’s Back Porch and can go no further.
One of the best natural assets of Burlington is doomed thanks to past and present Councils that failed to protect the waterfront.
We need to remember this when we have the opportunity to make changes to the Council in October 2026.
Another win/win for the developers.
Penny,
I totally agree with your comment.
Very sad indeed to see another high rise building on our waterfront. None of these highrises should ever have been allowed on our Burlington Waterfront in the first place!!
At least there is a HOLD on the parking spot numbers being provided by this “Developer” to which I whole heartly agree. IMO there should be at least one parking spot per unit (for both rental units and hotel units).
Otherwise, these hotel/rental unit inhabitants will be taking up much needed public parking spots meant for residents and shoppers in the downtown core. (this also applies to any future developments on Old Lakeshore Road).
It was mentioned at todays meeting that a new parking Garage may be needed in the downtown core in the near future at a cost of roughly $50 million. There is NO way that Burlington property tax payers should be on the hook for this expense! Our mayor and council should implement an extra charge for parking that goes back to these developers in lieu of them providing the necessary parking spots onsite in their developments (which will pay for a new parking garage).