Childs has three years left on her lease but was told it may be shortened, due to the start of construction.

Hoping something could be worked out with the developer to keep the shop at its current location, Childs said she has been told there is “zero chance” the bakery could stay.

Councillor Rick Craven, who also chairs the committee, noted although he is a big proponent of small businesses and was delighted to hear of Childs’ success, her lease problem was an issue with her landlord and not one for the city to solve.

But committee members did unanimously pass a staff direction to have the city facilitate discussions between Kelly’s Bake Shoppe and downtown business associations to help the bakery find a new location in the area.

David Bronskill, a lawyer from Goodmans LLP representing the developer, told committee members the issue with leaving Childs’ shop in place during construction is it would be difficult to protect the building during shoring of the site and having a drill rig present wouldn’t be particularly pleasant to patrons.

There are heritage attributes in the affected buildings of the development, which the city and landowner have discussed protecting and maintaining.

In its original proposal, Reserve Properties called for one storey of ground-floor retail, a four-storey podium, 22 storeys of residential units and one-storey rooftop amenity area — there would be 227 residential units and five levels of underground parking.

However, the staff report recommended 18 storeys (a 17-storey tower, with a three-storey podium, two levels of retail space and a one-storey rooftop patio).

According to Deputy City Manager Mary-Lou Tanner, staff’s recommendation conforms with provincial and regional growth plans and targets, and the City of Burlington’s approved, but not yet adopted, new official plan.

But Bronskill told committee members while he believed the 18-storey staff recommendation did conform with those plans, it didn’t express full “optimization ” of the downtown site, and he put forward alternative 19-storey and 22-storey building options.

When asked by Mayor Rick Goldring if he was inferring the developer would seek appeal if the staff recommendation was approved, Bronskill informed him he did not yet have instructions from his client whether or not they would file an appeal in that event.

“I can tell you it’s not our preference (the 17 storeys),” he noted.

City Manager James Ridge advised committee members if the application did end up at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (formerly the Ontario Municipal Board), the city would be in a much stronger position if council approved the 17-storey plan.

Downtown Councillor Marianne Meed Ward filed a motion, which failed by a 6-1 vote, to have the building’s height reduced to three storeys to a maximum of 11.

She stated anything higher was overintensification and unnecessary in meeting the city’s growth-plan targets.

Councillor John Taylor said he fundamentally disagreed with her because provincial growth targets have changed; adding council had a responsibility to act in the best interest of the Burlington community as a whole and within the legal planning frameworks it occupied.

He predicted the case would go to the new appeal tribunal, “for which there are no precedents,” and the city would be better poised for a successful defence if it went with staff’s recommendation.

Councillor Jack Dennison said he wouldn’t support a height of 11 storeys but would rather see the building at a maximum height of 15 storeys.

Craven, Goldring, and councillors Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster all landed on the side that the city needed to make plans to grow in a way that encouraged people to move to the downtown to keep it viable.

“You have to keep adding new people to your population in order to invigorate the economy,” said Craven.

“Change is going to come to the downtown, and these staff and this council have taken the brave steps towards managing that change,” he continued.

“It’s not our job to make sure everybody is satisfied. It’s our job to look out for the long-term interests of the majority, and sometimes that means the people who are here now have to accept it’s the future generations that deserve the break.”

Committee members voted 5-2 in favour of staff’s recommendation, with Meed Ward and Dennison as the sole dissenters.

They also passed a report detailing community benefits in exchange for extra height and density on the site, such as $250,000 dedicated to affordable housing units and improvements to the civic square, downtown transit terminal, and walking, cycling and active transportation connections in the area.

The committee's decision was ratified at the July 16 council meeting.

PB-67-18 Statutory Public Meeting and Recommendation Report 409 Brant Street

PB-68-18 S. 37 Community Benefits for 401-413 Brant Street