By Pepper Parr
March 10, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearings are relevant and for the most part – as dry as unbuttered toast – they are also where some big money gambles get resolved.
Burlington has two hearings on the docket – Ward 4 Council member Jack Dennison’s appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision that did not permit his request for a severance of his 308 Lakeshore Road property.
A designated home, bought under a power of sale which current owner Councillor Jack Dennison wants to have severed into two lots.
His OMB appeal was first heard on April 29, 2013 – yes three years ago. That hearing was adjourned as was the May 29th, 2014 and the September 23, 2014 hearing.
The appeal was heard on April 21st, 2015 and continued on June 22nd 2015.
Nine months later – and still no decision. This was thought to be a pretty simple severance request; something isn’t right here. But don’t expect an explanation from the OMB – one day the decision will be posted on the OMB web site. The lawyers involved will be notified that a decision has been made and they will get a copy. OMD decisions cannot be appealed – so in the fullness of time Jack Dennison will know if he can sever a portion of his property.
City council knows what this appeal has cost – will they make the amount spent public?
Will Dennison run for his council seat in 2018? If the public gets wind of what it has spent on this case and if there is a credible candidate – he could be in trouble.
Jack Dennison announcing the sale of his Cedar Springs health club.
Retirement might be in the works for Dennison – he recently announced the sale of his Cedar Springs sports club.
Early rendering of a proposed 28 storey structure that cantilevered over the street at the upper level. Tarif Adi explained at the launch of the development that the idea was to have the building look like a “billowing sail” that would be seen as a statement for people entering the city from the east on Lakeshore Road.
The second significant matter on the OMB docket is the appeal the Adi Development Group has made to the OMB claiming that the city “refused or neglected to make a decision on the Official Plan change and zoning application” made by Adi for the development of a 28 storey structure on an .070 piece of land at the intersection of Martha and Lakeshore Road.
The public got its first look at the proposed development on Oct. 9, 2014, Burlington Art Gallery at 7 p.m. It was not a happy meeting. Many of the people in the room realized then that this project was headed or the OMB.
While Council didn’t hold a vote on the application until very recently – the development was contentious from the day it was first shown at a public meeting.
The Gazette has written extensively on this development and was the recipient of a libel claim by the Adi Development group. The Gazette was asked to apologize for three articles it published and to take them off their web site.
An apology was published and the three articles are no longer no longer available to the public on the Gazette web site.
The proposal is complex. No one on council liked the project – or at least that was what they said publicly – Ward 1 
Councillor Rick Craven re-tweetd a notice of the public event. For a council member on record as being opposed to the development – the re-tweet seemed inappropriate – bu then Adi has a massive development planned for Aldershot – maybe that explains his enthusiasm.
In a staff report on the proposed development the planners said:
Refuse the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, submitted by Andrew Ferancik, Walker Nott Dragicevic Ltd., 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, ON, on behalf of ADI Development Group Inc., to permit a mixed use development consisting of 226 residential apartment units and 348 m2 of ground floor commercial development, on the property located at 374 Martha Street.
Unfortunately, this recommendation didn’t get to a city council meeting for a vote. By the time the city council meeting took place Adi had filed their appeal to the OMB.
Council did hold a vote a number of weeks ago.
It is a complex situation and the city didn’t exactly wrap itself in the corporate flag – they looked like the Keystone cops for a short period of time – but sloppy administration isn’t reason to approve a proposal that doesn’t meet most of the public policies the planners think they should meet.
Adi submitted the following reports to support their application:
1. Planning Justification Report (prepared by WND Associates, September 2014)
2. Functional Servicing Report (prepared by Urbantech West, August 2014)
3. Geotechnical Investigation (prepared by Landtek Limited, February 2014)
4. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Landtek Limited, February 2014)
5. Traffic Impact Study (prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd., August 2014)
6. Noise Feasibility Study (prepared by Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Ltd., September 2014)
7. Pedestrian Wind Study (prepared by Novus Environmental, August 2014)
8. Shadow Studies (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)
9. Site Plan (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)
10. Tree Inventory & Preservation Study (prepared by Adesso Design Inc., June 2014)
11. Floor Plans (P1-P5, Levels 1-28, Rooftop Terrace Plan and Roof Plan)
12. Elevations (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)
13. Sections (prepared by RAW Architects, August 2014)
Planning staff explained that OPA and rezoning applications are subject to the following policy framework: Provincial Policy Statement, 2014; Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; The Big Move; Halton Region Official Plan; Burlington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 2020.
Saud and Tarif Adi
They provided summaries of their position on all of the policy statements.
Planning Opinion on the PPS:
While the proposed development is consistent with the PPS in principle, the proposal represents over-intensification on a site that is too small and does not provide adequate setbacks, buffering, amenity space or parking standards. The significant reduction of numerous development regulations that are required to facilitate this intensification proposal on the subject property and the failure to satisfy the City’s Official Plan policies described in Section 8 of this report results in an application that is not consistent with the PPS.
Planning Opinion on Places to Grow:
The subject applications generally conform to the principles of the Growth Plan by accommodating intensification in an area that is designated for intensification, and more specifically, within the Urban Growth Centre. However, the subject applications are not proposing an appropriate scale of development and the proposed development does not achieve an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas. The City’s existing intensification strategy is well positioned to meet the minimum density target established in the Growth Plan without significant changes to the existing Official Plan policies and permissions. The City does not require the overdevelopment of one small property in the Urban Growth Centre in order to achieve the minimum density target.
Planning Opinion on the Big Move:
The proposed development generally conforms to the vision of the Big Move. However, the City can meet its targets without the proposed over-intensification of this site.
Planning Opinion on the Regional Official Plan:
While Region staff generally has no objection to the proposed development on the basis that it conforms to the Region’s growth policies, City staff is evaluating the applications on the basis of land use compatibility. The proposed development represents the over- intensification of a very small site, does not provide an urban form that is complementary to existing developed areas and does not achieve an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas.
Planning Opinion on the City of Burlington’s Intensification Strategy:
The City has conducted several conformity exercises and has developed a comprehensive approach that balances the protection of neighbourhoods and the accommodation of compatible intensification in appropriate locations. As outlined in Section 7 of this report, staff is confident that the density targets established in the Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan and City Official Plan will be achieved by 2031 without amendments that significantly depart from the City’s Official Plan.
Mobility hubs at the GO stations is close to a no brainer – it is the possible hub in the downtown core that has yet to be thoroughly thought through. Council decided that closing the terminal on John Street to save $8000 a year was not a bright idea.
Planning Opinion on the Mobility Hub Opportunities and Constraints Study:
The MHOC Study has no policy implications at this time, but staff is of the opinion that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the principles and preliminary directions stemming from the MHOC Study. Staff also notes that future master planning exercises for Mobility Hubs will determine detailed site-specific requirements should changes to the Official Plan be deemed appropriate. In the interim, prior to the completion of a Downtown Burlington Mobility Hub master plan, development proposals will be required to meet the Official Plan policies that are in effect. If Council approves Mobility Hub objectives that are incorporated into the Official Plan as a result of this Official Plan Review, then de elopment proposals will be required to me t those objectives until such time as the master planning exercise is completed.
Planning Opinion on the Urban Growth Centre Targets:
Based on the development patterns that have taken place in the Urban Growth Centre in the past ten years, staff is of the opinion that the City of Burlington is well positioned to achieve a total of 200 residents and jobs per hectare by 2031 taking into consideration the existing Official Plan permissions and zoning regulations within the Downtown.
Planning Opinion on the City of Burlington’s Official Plan:
The proposed development represents residential intensification and is therefore subject to the housing intensification objectives and policies in the Official Plan. The proposed development provides additional housing in the form of residential intensification, but the proposed development is not compatible with the scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood and does not meet the objective of the housing intensification policies.
The nearest residential buildings are the one storey detached residential dwelling to the north and the three storey townhouses to the northwest of the subject property. A five storey retirement residence is located on the east side of Martha Street and a 12 storey apartment building is located further northeast from the subject property. The proposed four storey podium which contains a three level parking garage with a 24 storey tower above at this location does not integrate well with the existing neighbourhood and does not provide an appropriate or a compatible transition between the existing and proposed residential buildings.
In fact, many of the taller residential buildings in the area are located northeast and southeast of the subject property and the existing buildings have greater setbacks from the street and from adjacent properties. The block containing the subject property generally has a lower density built form with building heights ranging from 1-3 storeys and the proposed development does not provide setbacks from the street nor from adjacent properties.
A more recent rendering of what has been named the Nautique
The proposed development fails to satisfy a number of intensification criterion including
• the provision of off-street parking;
• the achievement of compatibility with the existing neighbourhood character in terms of scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, coverage, parking and amenity areas to provide a transition between existing and proposed buildings;
• the provision of adequate buffering; the compromised redevelopment potential for the abutting property located at 380 Martha Street;
• the requirement for intensification proposals to be well integrated with the existing neighbourhood in terms of built form, scale and development profile in order to provide a transition between existing and proposed residential buildings;
• the building height, massing and density lead to the overdevelopment of a very small lot; and
• the proposal represents overintensification.
The proposed development fails to satisfy the residential intensification policies of the Official Plan and does not represent good planning.
Planning Opinion on the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines:
The proposed development is not in keeping with the City’s Downtown Urban Design Guidelines for high rise development for the following reasons:
• the building setbacks are not sensitive to the existing built form;
• the building does not propose stepbacks to reduce the perception of building bulk from the street;
• the building does not utilize the results of the visual angular plane study to determine the appropriate building height and/or massing;
• the tower is not located away from the corner of the two intersecting streets;
• the building height, mass and architectural design present a tall, boxy structure that does not reinforce human scale;
• the impact of the high rise development on adjacent properties has not been appropriately minimized through a transition of height, mass, separation and landscaping;
• three levels of above-grade parking that address the street are proposed;
• the proposed development does not clearly express a podium at the street level with a proportion and massing that is consistent with the surrounding built form;
• the proposed development has not been designed to provide a height transition to the surrounding lower scale developments to minimize the shadowing and wind impacts; and
• the negative impacts on adjacent properties related to overshadowing and overlooking have not been addressed through building setbacks, stepbacks, height and massing.
The Nautique sales office on Brant street in a building owned by the Region
Planning Opinion on Zoning By-law 2020:
The zoning changes requested are excessive. The site as proposed would be overbuilt and should not be approved.
The siting of the proposed development is partially responsible for the perceived scale and massing of the building. The building will address the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street and proposes no setbacks along the adjacent property lines to the west and to the north. The building footprint will cover almost all of the lot and leaves no room for vegetation or separation distance from adjacent buildings.
The siting does not provide any “breathing room” between the proposed building on the corner property and the adjacent buildings to the north and west; the proposed building will appear “crammed” into the block. The siting of the proposed development is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.
Is the development selling? Do people want to buy units in the proposed 26 storey structure? Adi has not released any sales figures. In a news report they said they have received more than 3000 expressions of interest – those are not sales; just people kicking tires.
Adi has promoted the project heavily within the real estate community and are offering generous commissions. They held an event at their sales office on Brant Street for the real estate agents offering Valet parking.
By Pepper Parr
