By Pepper Parr
March 14, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
Can Mayor Goldring keep his council focused and on topic in order to meet the two hour limitation he was given by the Chair of the ADI development appeal now before the OMB.
The Mayor is going to have to be brisk and focused when he chairs the Special meeting of Council Wednesday afternoon as they work through what they want to give their legal counsel in the way of instructions on the latest twist in the Nautique development that ADI took to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Can a substantially revised development still be appealed on its original grounds? ADI purchases property to the north of their Nautique development site.
The ADI Development Group appealed their application to build a 28 storey structure to the OMB because they didn’t like the fact that the city did not give them a decision on their project within the required 180 day timeline.
Now they have the temerity to ask the city to go along with an adjournment for six months or more – and it will be more because there is no room on the OMB calendar until the 1Q of 2017.
There is also a bigger issue – the addition of a significant chunk of property to the development proposal would suggest that the OMB can (some say should) throw the appeal out and let ADI make a new application to the city.
The Mayor might have been better advised to call the meeting for 9:30 am – there is going to be a lot to talk about and there is significant doubt that this council can get through the jibber jabber they do when they debate in time to meet that 3:30 deadline put in place by the Chair of the OMB hearing.
City council recently approved the salaries for city council and reported on what council members were given in the way of expense and benefits money. On has to add about $60,000 to the number shown – this is what the council members get paid for their work as members of the Regional council.
Recorded votes are not the norm for Burlington’s city council. In this instance Ward 2 Councillor Meed Ward votes against – it will be interesting to see if she demands a recorded vote for whatever comes out of the closed council meeting on Tuesday.
The debate that takes place, in a closed session of city council, which the Gazette believes is one of those occasions when the discussion should take place in camera; however the vote on what the city decides to do should take place in a public session where the public gets to learn what the question was and how individual members actually voted.
This is an important decision that gives the city an opportunity to bring a developer to heal.
One can hope that Ward 2 Councillor Marianne Meed Ward will do her duty and once again ask for a recorded vote – don’t let your constituents down Councillor.
An adjournment or a completely new proposal, this project will not likely just go away.
An adjournment would have this appeal continue in early 2017 with a decision sometime next year.
A new proposal with another 180 day timeline, the new 90 day extension available, another possible appeal to the OMB and additional cost to the city only service to delay a decision until 2018.
It’s likely with all these delays the 2018 election would take place before an OMB decision.
Just like the pier, the next council would pick up the pieces and blame the previous council for the issue.
Let’s not go there, get this settled in this councils term and vote accordingly in 2018.
I strongly agreed but let’s settle the issue now. What possible benefit can there be to the City in agreeing to an adjournment? It’s difficult to believe that the City’s case would be strengthened with time. So, if the City does agree to the adjournment (and I understand that they have), then they should be very clear to the public concerning the rationale for their decision. However, I’ll wager that they fall back on the privilege of the closed meeting in which the position was decided. This whole affair is beginning to smell.