By Pepper Parr
May 25th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The Ontario Land Tribunal said in their final decision that there was “more work to be done” before a project like this could be approved.
So – is it really over?
Not if you read the fine print.
Here is the wording from the Ontario Land Tribunal decision released recently.
The words that caught my attention were: “There is more work to be done”
Good Planning and In the Public Interest
The Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development as currently contemplated does not represent good urban design and good planning. However, the Tribunal finds that with certain modifications, informed by further technical work, as discussed in this Decision, could result in an outstanding mixed-use re-development linking the City’s Downtown to its Waterfront, enhancing public spaces, worthy of the distinction of its Landmark location, providing a positive contribution to the City and the Region.
Several issues have been discussed in this Decision, and several findings have been arrived at by the Tribunal. Many of the findings pertain to the sorts of modifications and/or revisions that could be made to the draft Alternative OPA and a future revised plan/design for the Property so that it may address issues of land use compatibility, and may be able to satisfy the statutory requirements for approval, and will result in a re-development that represents good planning. It is up to the Applicant and the City to work towards such an outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
Simply put, the Proposed Development and Planning Applications push the limits beyond what is good planning. The Tribunal finds that the Planning Applications do not satisfy the statutory requirements under the Act, and that the Proposed Development represents an over-development of the Property.
Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development is not of proper intensity, scale and height, does not “fit” in this location and planning context, nor is it compatible with the adjacent public park lands and private lands east of Elizabeth Street, and it does not represent good planning.
The Tribunal concludes that there is much “more work to be done” on the Proposed Development, involving technical study and re-design.
The Tribunal has had regard for City Council’s decision of refusal, albeit it on an earlier proposal.
The Tribunal finds that the Planning Applications are lacking in merit and are not consistent with the PPS, do not conform with the Growth Plan, do not conform with the ROP, and are not in keeping with the policies of the COP, as amended.
The Tribunal has found that the opinion evidence provided in the Hearing supports a finding that a mixed-use tall building with two towers in this location, of heights in the range of 25 – 27 storeys, could be appropriate from a planning and urban design perspective in the event that a re-design addresses the issues discussed herein.
The Tribunal has had regard to matters of Provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act and is not satisfied that the draft OPA will promote high-quality urban design and facilitate intensification in an appropriate location, scale, intensity and height on the Property. As noted above, the Planning Applications do not represent good planning.
In terms of the public interest, the City’s COP policies for the Property should be updated in the near term, to provide assurance to the Public and the Applicant, all of whom have put in considerable time and effort to date. As noted previously, the Participants support the findings and Preferred Concept from the WHPS. The Tribunal did look at the alternative OPA and ZBLA presented by Mr. Smith, but the City did not ask that the Tribunal consider an approval of these draft amendments, and that said, the Tribunal did not find them to be appropriate based on the evidence in the Hearing in any event.
The Tribunal finds that the appeals pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34 (11) of the Act should be denied for the reasons set out above.
FINAL ORDER
- THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are dismissed and the requested amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Burlington and the requested amendment to the City of Burlington Zoning By-law 2020, as amended, are refused.
- The effective date of the Tribunal’s Final Order is October 17, 2024.
Discover more from Burlington Gazette - Local News, Politics, Community
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, we really won’t know the outcome until the outcome but my $$ are more aligned with Lynn’s comment based on past precedent and experience. The only saving grace may be the ongoing weakening of condominium development economics as Don points out. In general, the best cards are probably held by Vrancor.
For me, personally, the downtown is already ruined and I fully realize that this opinion is not shared by everyone. I level accountability at the feet of the current and previous three councils, the current and past provincial governments, the OMB/OLT as nauseum, the feckless Heritage Committee, the current and past Committees of Adjustment, and the extravagant self-interest of the development community. But really, when the buzz saw hits does it really matter which tooth makes the deepest cut?
Our understanding is that the “more work needs to be done” as it applies to the City refers to updating the OP to implement broad items such as the Regional Urban Structure. The “more work needs to be done” for the Applicant contemplates the potential of a new development application being prepared which would need to consider the various technical/ design deficiencies identified in the OLT decision.
The operative word in the OLT discussion (para. 158) on heights in the range of 25-27 storeys is “could”. If the Applicant is unable to address the various technical issues identified (which were many & substantial), lower heights will be required. We at Citizen’s PLAN B believe that this is the most likely outcome, the timing of which will depend on the changing economics of condominium development (currently weakening) for the developer’s investors.
“The Tribunal has found that the opinion evidence provided in the Hearing supports a finding that a mixed-use tall building with two towers in this location, of heights in the range of 25 – 27 storeys, could be appropriate from a planning and urban design perspective in the event that a re-design addresses the issues discussed herein.”
Completely predictable. It’s all quite a farce, imo.
In the end, of course, there will be too-tall buildings allowed at the heights the developer hoped for all along (after asking for more first — nudge, nudge, wink, wink) and we will lose more lake views and greenspace, and the downtown will be further hemmed in and overcrowded, while the developers and city both pretend they have only the best interests of Burlington in mind. I’m sure the lawyers are happy.