ADI Development wins their case at the OMB.

News 100 redBy Staff

February 13, 2018




Nautique, the ADI Development project has been approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

The ADI Group has won their argument before the Ontario Municipal Board to build a 26 storey structure at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road.

Details to follow.

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

17 comments to ADI Development wins their case at the OMB.

  • emile godin

    it is called progress not all like it but things and places grow or die lets get use to it you will not stop it like stopping the tide coming in

  • Penny

    My question would be who represented the City at the OMB. Did the City hire outside Counsel with expertise dealing with the OMB or use their internal lawyers. This has nothing to do with the ability of the City’s legal staff, I am saying that to go before the OMB both planners and lawyers need to have a special skill set.

    Why is it that the City of Burlington doesn’t win at the OMB and then blames it on not having a new Official Plan in place? What defence did the City mount in defending their Official Plan?

  • Perry Bowker

    Disaster. Despite the whole Provincial exercise to re-boot the OMB, it’s the same old story – one-off review of single application, ending up by re-writing the city’s Official Plan for it. OMB’s motto: as long as you do the application process right, it doesn’t matter if the answer makes no sense.

  • George

    Why is it not evident to EVERYONE that some shenanigans started the whole OMB process which surely the city was predestined to lose?
    The City, the Mayor, the planning department DID NOT REPLY TO ADI DEVELOPMENT in time automatically causing the OMB process. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??

    This stinks to high heavens

    Content has been edited.

  • J. Christie

    I hope no one is surprised!! We have been fighting huge intensification for a long time now and it seems no one is really listening. ADI is a prime example.

  • Glenda D

    Our planning department staff are not experienced enough and no match for developers. ADI walked circles around them.

  • Rob Narejko

    It would be extremely informative if Council could explain why allowing the Adi development is ‘absolutely devastating ‘ for the downtown core (Councillor Meed-Ward) and ‘extremely disappointing ‘ (Mayor Goldring) while two (maybe three) blocks away, across from City Hall, are two buildings of similar height approved by this same Council. Also, directly across from the Adi development, on the south side of Lakeshore, Council approved the Bridgewater luxury hotel and condos.

    Why oppose Adi and approve the others?

    Something isn’t aligned …

    • Perry Bowker

      You are mistaken: Meed-Ward and Mayor Goldring also voted against Carriage Gate. It’s the other 5 councillors who should be hanging their heads – again. Of course, maybe it was just normal NIMW (Not In My Ward) behaviour.

  • Joseph Gaetan

    Having attended the deliberations,wish I could say I am surprised. Starting soon Burlington will have one season,construction season.

  • Judy

    I am totaly disgusted!

  • craig

    As expected it seems ADI presented a better case than the city did

    • ADI just presents a case consistent with everything the staff are saying they want.

    • Gary Scobie

      Absolutely right Craig. The City not only didn’t defend our current OP well, it didn’t defend or explain well what would become the proposed new OP that was already in the works at the time.

      The Anchor Mobility Hub and Urban Growth Centre designations were well used by the developer’s experts to convince the OMB that height was justified. An ominous omen for the future of the downtown.

      • Bernstein

        I just read the decision (linked on Councillor Meed Ward’s webpage for those looking for it). I hope that everyone with an interest in the downtown and the Official Plan discussion takes the time to read the decision, not just the news articles and the comments on them.

        To me, the Board decision was pretty illuminating on how impactful the Provincial policy and Growth Plan are on our downtown. The fact our downtown has an Urban Growth Center designation and a designated major transit station (absurd, as it currently exists) cannot be understated. The Board’s analysis of those policies makes it very clear that the province is requiring significant growth in both transit and population in our downtown. From this decision, one gets the feeling that even if city council wanted to keep height in the downtown to 4 or 8 stories, there is no way the Province would approve (or not appeal?) the Region’s approval of the City’s new plan. It doesn’t look like the current city Official Plan is defensible against the current Provincial policy and Growth Plan. Seems like an argument to move forward with the new plan that (I am assuming) would meet the new provincial requirements.

        I am not sure I understand Mr. Scobie’s comment that the City didn’t explain the new official plan as part of the hearing. How could they defend or explain something that didn’t exist yet? Maybe there is a way that I am not aware of, or that I am looking at this too simply, but I can’t see how the Board could have considered testimony from a city planner saying that this is what the city’s new policies will be, when it isn’t written down yet let alone approved by city council.

        To me, the anger and frustration being expressed to the current city council is misplaced. Where we find ourselves now is a direct result of the province identifying downtown as an urban growth center and a major transit station. I am not sure if the city had any input to that when that was decided back in the mid 2000s, but that is the city council people should be frustrated with. The horse has left the barn!

        I have read somewhere on here or in the comments that the City should move the urban growth center designation to another area in the city like Oakville has. Is this even possible? If it is, that’s a provincial decision. Have to remember that Oakville downtown is a heritage district. Would have to think that designation played into the province putting the growth center somewhere else in that town.

        • Gary Scobie

          You have made some excellent points. You are right that the proposed OP is not yet approved, but it is certainly written down. I believe that the OMB Commissioner, from her comments, would have welcomed some kind of defense by the City based on what the City has in mind for the future intensification of the downtown, but the City did not seem to use this tactic.

          The Commissioner certainly used and referenced the future intensification plans of the Province through the Anchor Mobility Hub and Urban Growth Centre designations for our downtown core that the City openly accepted in 2005 and incorporated without disagreement in the Official Plan passed on October 10,2006, just weeks before the 2006 Municipal Election on November 13th.

          Those decisions and designations started us on the path to where we are today in 2018, where we have lost the ability to determine our own future downtown re-development. Oakville chose in 2005 to not accept these designations for their downtown. They still today control their own destiny for their downtown re-development, not the Province. They may have issues today with their downtown (some decline is evident), but they also have the tools and the power themselves to determine how to remedy these problems. I respect them for it.

          In Burlington, it is now apparent that we surrendered our power long ago in 2006 and have to try to find how we can regain at least some of it. I believe that a new OP may assist us, but not the one that is being pushed for rapid approval, again before another municipal election this fall. A case of deja vu?

          • Did you note the part where the OMB did not have reasoning from Council?

            That says to me the comments and reasoning of Council members have weight.

            The problem is that they do not have a defensible definition of incompatibility – since all increases in density are good, infinite density is better.

            The city can control height though, this is specifically stated in the Provincial Policy Statement.

            But if your own planners go in saying this height is compatible at this location? Obvious loss.

        • Tom Muir

          Bernstein, good points. Especially the point that directly follows.

          You said; “I am not sure I understand Mr. Scobie’s comment that the City didn’t explain the new official plan as part of the hearing. How could they defend or explain something that didn’t exist yet? Maybe there is a way that I am not aware of, or that I am looking at this too simply, but I can’t see how the Board could have considered testimony from a city planner saying that this is what the city’s new policies will be, when it isn’t written down yet let alone approved by city council.”

          I guess you are not aware that planning and councilors, and the Mayor, constantly refer to the proposed OP that does not exist yet, in their neighborhood meetings, Public meetings, and Council meetings, as justification for their recommendations and decisions.

          The fact that in the Adi appeal hearing this plan was not referred to, is, I think, a function of the time since that appeal was launched, and that you are correct that this plan does not strictly speaking exist, so appeals would focus on the OP that needs to be amended in the application, which is the existing OP.

          THere are likely other reasons, but my point is to point to the stark contradictions that exist in what the city and planners do on the one hand of promoting developments regardless of approved, existing OPs, and not opposing a development in an OMB appeal in the same way.

          I say that the city Planning is out of control, and has lost control. The Adi OMB appeal win really blows up both the existing OP, and the proposed OP that, as you say, and I agree, does not yet exist.

          This Adi win changes everything in the OP discussion going on right now, and the city double down rush to approve the proposed OP that does not exist, will not stop the developers from fiercely challenging what it says is permitted, and push for what they want.

          They are already applying for more than both the existing OP, and the proposed non existent one permit. The Adi OMB decision cites the existing OP and says it is not adequate, and until the Region approves the proposed OP, once approved by our Council, the existing will be the OP that has to be amended and argued.

          To me, this is a losing proposition that the city has gotten us into, and there is not yet an ounce of accountability to be found.

          In addition, developer applications also constantly refer to these same non-existent plans in the planning justifications part of their applications.

          If you want to look at the to date planning documents for 35 Plains Rd E, 51 PLains Rd E., 92 Plains RD. E, 484 Plains Rd, E., 421 Brant St, 409 Brant St., and I could go on further, as I think that with few exceptions, if any, both developers, planners, and city are going along with this trashing of due process, in order to get what they want.

          Applications reflect mostly what the non existent proposed OP states and permits, not the existing OP, that has to be amended to get what is asked for, and this is modeled on something that doesn’t exist.

          Are you confused yet?

          You should be, and outraged too.

          I have this point written down for a couple of years worth of submissions to the public meetings process on development applications and approvals. These are all on the public record.

          Glad to see that you picked up on the point in your own way.