in ,

ADI revises application to 26 storeys; OMB hearing in March

Proposed 28-story building at Martha/Lakeshore, subject of an OMB hearing in March 2016.
ADI has revised their proposed 28-story building at Martha/Lakeshore to 26 storeys; OMB hearing is in March 2016.

ADI development group is submitting a revised proposal for 26 storeys (down from 28) when the Ontario Municipal Board hears the development application in March 2016. City staff and council have previously indicated to ADI the city does not support the original 28 storey application, and considers it “overdevelopment” of the site, at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road in downtown Burlington.

Information about the revised proposal was conveyed via public witness statements released Dec. 21. Burlington’s Assistant City Solicitor Blake Hurley released the following information to the public and the participants in the hearing regarding the revisioned proposal:

“The parties exchanged witness statements on December 21, 2015. In ADI’s witness statements, its expert witnesses confirmed that ADI is seeking approval for a revised proposal that differs somewhat than what was proposed in its applications. The revised proposal:

  • Reduces the height of the building from 28 to 26 stories;
  • Reduces the residential unit count from 226 units to 192 units;
  • Deletes the proposed encroachment of the building out over the city road allowance;
  • Reduces the number of levels of underground parking from 5 levels to 4 levels;
  • Reduces the floor area ratio from 12.5:1 to 11.1:1
  • Reduces the number of vehicle parking spaces from 218 to 196

as well as a number of other technical and design changes.

Given that the parties have not received any direction from the Board, and that the participant statements are due on January 11, 2016, the City has added .pdf format copies of the background documents and reports in support of these revisions to the 374 Martha Street update page of the City’s website. These further documents/reports in support of the changes noted above are found under the heading “Revised Supporting Documents”, and include a planning justification addendum, architectural drawings, a landscape plan, a traffic impact study, a servicing and stormwater report, and a parking study. The 374 Martha Street page of the City’s website is located at the following link:

Revised Documents – ADI development

It is these revisions that will be before the Board for approval.”

My Take: The revisions do not address the major concerns of staff or residents regarding this development; 26 storeys is still significant overdevelopment of the site. I would welcome a revised application that respects the vision of the city’s Official Plan for this site, which is four storeys, with ability to go to eight storeys with planning justification and provision of community benefits to offset the additional height.

Written by Marianne Meed Ward

I was inspired to seek public office because I believe, like so many of you, “I can do something about that” on the issues we face. As councilor, my role is to take a stand on what’s best for residents and go to bat for it. Pushback is inevitable from those who don’t have the community’s interests at heart. I will stand with you and for you, to achieve the best interests of our city, without caving to unacceptable compromise in the name of consensus.


Leave a Reply
  1. Does C work for ADI? Who would buy a suite in a building that has not been approved, knowing the likelihood of it being rejected?

  2. The Ontario governments growth plans for the Greater Golden Horeseshoe encourage towns and cities ( Burlington ) to grow upwards through densification rather then outwards through car-dependant urban sprawl. This is to protect our green space and provides us with an estimated 2.6 billion annually in non-market benefits in local municipalities for water infrastruction as well as supporting more public transit . Not everyone is opposed to this project .. The fact is that 75% of this building has already been sold .

    • Dear C:
      I have no idea when ADI purchased the property and at what price, but I am quite sure that the zoning has not become more restrictive since. Given that it would be difficult to cost-justify a 4/8 storey condominium on that site, why would a developer purchase such a property, other than with the assumption that the zoning could be overturned?

      I suspect that the OMB will ultimately use neighbouring building heights (17 – 22 stories) to “limit” this development as a way of compromise, but this still would largely disregard the City of Burlington’s Official Plan. Does anyone know where our provincial MLA, Eleanor McMahon stand publically on this file???

      Regardless, this is still a free country where we can all respectfully voice opposing opinions without recrimination (thankfully), so enjoy your coffee on your future balcony, on whichever floor that might be!

    • More anonymous speak, that has no evidence to support it.

      Where does the $2.6 billion come from?

      What are the non-market benefits that come to the city for infrastructure and transit, and where does it come from?

      Where does the Growth Plan say 26 or 28 story densification comes from everywhere on tiny lots that obey no by-laws at all?

      In any case, you err when you say car dependency won’t exist because every unit has cars stacked vertically for every unit. More and more cars in less and less space – come on, stop the music, and ignoring the planning reports.

      And where is the evidence that the building is 75% sold? In fact none of the building is sold because the building doesn’t exist in any permissions at all.

      Whatever buyers of an option to purchase exist they are buying a piece of paper, and a diagram of a dream unit – they are speculators, not owners of anything but the paper and dream.

      Personally, I don’t believe any of it as just sounds like a fairy tale, dealing in fantasy and con.

      Get real and show the evidence for what you say.

      • I’d be interested too Tom. I guess they don’t mind putting down large deposits on something they won’t see for 2 plus years and have no idea what they are getting. Pictures always look good. I’d be curious to know what the Condo fees are, or are they “Pending”.

        For a Just and fair society I’ve always believed in following the rules

        I guess their visitors don’t drive there is not much parking on downtown Streets and the parking lots are full.

        I see Saxony Condo’s downtown are so far following Burlington’s plan of 4 floors!

  3. Dave, Signing this blog with the letter “A” is a personal preference due to the fact that any supporters of this project are being personally attacked and investigated. I do not know anyone naive enough to sign an online forum with their first and last night name for all of humanity to witness. Burlington is a very small place.

    Tom, 500 square foot units are just some of the units; there are units that go up to 1300 square feet. You mention renters, I’m sorry is there something wrong with renting? The lowest rent price of one of these units will be around $1600. Do you have any idea how much rent has risen in the Burlington and surrounding area, especially downtown in the last 5 years?

    Any developer or smart business man or woman is looking make a profit. Do you work for free? Of course more units mean a higher profit but this of course means a higher cost. Any developer in their right mind would never build a 4 story building on a Lakeshore lot, it is not 1962. Do you have any idea how much that property must have cost ADI? Why do you think it has been left as a parking lot for all of these years. Even an 8 story building would not be justifiable.

    I bought a two bedroom two bath and I cannot wait to enjoy being right downtown waving to all the passerby’s while sipping my coffee on my balcony looking over the lake. It’s going to be awesome.

    • A, as far as I’m concerned, you can be anyone, saying anything you want, for any motives, and hiding behind a pseudonym. And in my view, you have written a lot of stuff that has an answer for everything, and is self-serving, that I don’t trust.

      And others think the same, but you aren’t alone unfortunately

      Where is your proof that “supporters are being attacked and investigated”. Again, you can say what you want in hiding. Never heard of it.

      I don’t think anything is wrong with renting, but this is supposed to be a condo building that people are buying an option to purchase a speculative unit in. Can you show that there are renters that are buying an option to rent?

      And you seem to know all about rental costs, so my point was 500 square feet, although not all units, are a tight fit for families, and I said “rental like” was only a comparison, not a criticism. It’s just very expensive costs for so small, and the parking space underlined this point.

      I know of people buying the units and renting them because some people cannot afford the cost of buying. That’s another issue.

      ADI has an option only on the property from what I know, so they haven’t actually bought the property and actually own it. The OP and city zoning is up to 8 stories, so why would ADI have actually paid the hard cash for something at 26 stories that most everyone in the city and city hall is opposed to?

      It’s such a tiny space, and a parking lot of such size could support a price that allows 8 stories, and would if it’s really for sale at that density. That’s what it’s really worth.

      The simple answer is that anyone that wasn’t solely interested in speculating hardball, and working the system to the limit, would not do such a thing as pay up front for 26 stories. It doesn’t really matter that it’s not 1962 for this site, as nothing in the city is priced at 1962.

      That’s what you have done – paying for nothing more than an option on an imaginary unit.

      Dream on about your awesome balcony coffee, but everyone is not looking at the lake.

  4. Of course it is over-development and ignores the city’s Official Plan, etc.. Shame on ADI and congrats to the City for taking them to the OMB. Sure hope we get reasonable results…

  5. It is apparent that A and C are a 2-man band tub thumping support for the ADI project. And C says that “not everyone is opposed”. I see only A and C in support and everyone else opposed.

    The post telling about the 500 square foot units to live in, and 320 square feet for the car, are incredibly telling if you are paying attention. 500 is very tight, and is more like short term rental-like than long term living.

    These units go for about $500 a square, plus condo fees, and all the other costs of residence.

    My understanding is that ADI has options on the site, so whatever they build will produce a profit if the market land valuation has anything to do with what can be built. Right now it’s a parking lot, with not much value based on the income generated, if any.

    This present proposal is an arrogant speculative real estate play, nothing more.

    The trouble is the policy framework statements are so vague (people should really read them in the staff refusal report for this project), that they can be manipulated and interpreted arbitrarily. Read the latest ADI planning justification report for the 26 stories and see what a consultant can be hired to say.

    Fight on, no deals, 8 floor max.

  6. 1 – How curious that all the pro development comments are signed with a single initial. They look and read like planted comments from the developer’s office (hint: the first comment starts with the letter A)

    2 – How is it that driving through downtown today some of the marketing hoarding is back up on that Lakeshore lot, weeks after the city pulled it all down.

  7. I think you’re technically right, John.
    It is unfortunate that the City didn’t respond within 180 days, but it is unlikely that this would have changed anything regarding ADI appealing the file to the OMB. Let’s face it, ADI’s proposed 28 or 26 stories is not anywhere close to the City of Burlington’s 4/8 storey zoning, so it was not something that was ever going to be negotiated easily between these 2 parties (i.e. enter OMB). The Official Plan is indeed not a law, but it provides a detailed guideline for developers to work with that represents the residents of Burlington (via our elected officials) vision and desired plan for our city, and it should not therefore be completely ignored (as ADI appears to have done and continues to do). We can cheer Marianne on, but the decision is now sadly in the exclusive hands of the unelected OMB. Let’s really hope they get it right!

    • Don
      The city legal department has advised, ADI filling an appeal for the city not responding or disagreeing with a decision makes no difference, to them. Does it make a difference to the residence of the city to see their elected officials make decisions ?
      The OMB is not elected however, they receive their mandate from the elected provincial government. ADI, in their appeal, provided a legitimate planning reason supporting their application, compelling enough for the OMB to proceed with a hearing.
      Getting it right, according to provincial plans and policy, is what the OMB does.
      Our idea of getting it right may be based on different criteria, a good reason for council to use all available means to resolve differences.

  8. You may want to research some of the condo prices and price per parking spot. Some of the prices in this building are are more than a house would be downtown. It is a lifestyle that people choose, its called change. Unfortunatley some people cannot handle or deal with change and that’s OK; but it is inevitable. I purchased a unit and I hope the people downtown Burligton and it’s residents will welcome me to this city with open arms. I’m starting to wonder what kind of people live there now, and it’s worrying me.

  9. C
    The OMB hasn’t overturned the city’s decision, the city did not make a decision within the 180 days, that was the reason ADI appealed to the OMB.
    The OMB is there to resolve disagreements, they can only follow the laws governing developments.
    Burlington’s Official Plan is not one of those laws, only a guideline.

  10. Thanks john I think you get it ? Not everyone is apposed to this project . Different strokes for different folks ! Although I do find it unreal that the OMB can just come in and overturn the cities decisions like that . But why didn’t they answer the ADI development after the 180 days ??? Seems strange to me ? Perhaps its time to update some of the downtown development areas . Burlington is s growing fast due to all the positive comments on the internet due to our fabulous city !

  11. The price might be right if your able to live in a home under 500 sq. ft.In perspective an average parking spot is 320 sq. ft.

  12. Exactly C.

    I don’t see the difference between this carefully designed condo development compared to the “MONTROSITY” 22 storey hotel and condo building directly right on our waterfront downtown. Here is a quote from Marianne back in 2014 in response to the 22 storey Delta hotel and Bridgewater development going up downtown,

    ““Burlington downtown has really been changing over the past 10 years we’ve seen a lot of business come in, a lot of residential. So this project fits within that, but the most important and special part about this project is that its on the waterfront but they’ve preserved public access. I think that’s the key here, that people in Burlington care very passionately about their waterfront.”

    How does a big conglomerate hotel chain housing many outside tourists show respect to Burlington’s residents downtown and their passion for the waterfront? I haven’t seen any negative articles or “blogs” about the Bridgewater condo development or a Delta hotel chain going up downtown. It seems like these posts regarding the Nautique development have been carefully thought out; perhaps trying to focus Burlington residents attention on one development while leaving a huge eye sore right on the waterfront in the dark.

    A quote from the mayor regarding the Delta & Bridgewater, “We think this project is very becoming in a city that’s ranked best medium size city in the GTA. We’ve got a wonderful waterfront in our front yard, but this particular landmark development is critical to our waterfront downtown development and our views are that downtown is only going to be enhanced by this particular project.”

    Development is a reflection of economic growth. I don’t see how this is any different than what is already happening downtown.

    I would like to hear some comments on the Delta hotel and Bridgewater 22 storey going up downtown.

    • The Bridgewater project has been written about on Type Bridgewater into the Search bar, or follow this link: We will continue to provide information about this project as it gets built. Regarding My Take: I do not support tall buildings directly on the waterfront. As residents know, this project was approved before my time on council. As part of the development, a public walkway has been built along the shoreline and will be opened for public use when the project is complete. As a strong supporter of public access directly to the waterfront, I am pleased to see this public waterfront walkway. I also support more jobs and businesses downtown, which will be advanced through the hotel and retail along Lakeshore. I have made these comments publicly on a number of occasions. The selective quote above is neither accurate nor complete. Regarding the differences between the Martha/Lakeshore proposal and the Bridgewater proposal – that is something the OMB will consider if comparisons between the two buildings are made at the hearing to justify the Martha/Lakeshore project.

  13. I have lived here for 43 years and I travel along lakeshore everyday for work . This building is ‘not ‘ causing the traffic problems downtown the city did that when they made lakeshore one lane .

  14. … Call me crazy.. but I like the Nautique and can’t wait to embrace this ” New hip Building ! Why shouldn’t more people be able to enjoy the views and scenery instead of four floors ? ?

      • Are you in favour of the Delta Hotel going up downtown? If so how is it different? Also, if you do live downtown – how will it directly affect you and your daily life? I’m am interested in specific examples in regards to life changing reasons.

      • Ian
        I don’t live downtown or support large condo projects, it’s not exclusive to downtown or those that already live there.

        Perhaps the people that do support this proposal would simply like to live downtown and find this project’s location, amenities and price suitable.

        • John, while I undertand your comment, I believe that the vast majority of those who live downtown and those who would live downtown are attracted to the area precisely because it isn’t like the Toronto waterfront. I might even entertain a buiding that exceeds the maximum 8 story limit (under special circumstances) by just a few stories, if it were not for the unbelievable arrogance and disdain for the citizens of Burlington exhibited by ADI.

          • Ian
            The Martha St. proposal is a mess, ADI and the city could have played a little nicer however, ADI has worked with the city on other projects.
            The Sutton project was appealed to the OMB, ADI and the city negotiated an agreement, changing the Official Plan prior to the hearing. (Ward 4)
            ADI and the city have been negotiating site approval for 300 townhouses at the Aldershot Go station, apparently playing nicely as the approval is a few week away. (Ward 1)
            The ADI Thomas Alton proposal is in progress, council will have to vote on this in April to be within the 180 day timeline, have we learned anything ? (Ward 6)

            As Marianne advocates, when discussing important issues we should not assume motive.

            Negotiation works both ways, it’s easy when someone agrees, leadership and skill is needed when there is disagreement.

      • I’d like to know too Ian. So far over 96% of responses are articulating well-thought out reservations with consideration to infrastructure, character and zoning issues and the matters of principle wrt developers being able to count on municipal plans being overruled by the OMB. So far I only see 2 comments of full support so it appears the downtown residents have spoken.

  15. We totally agree with your take on the whole thing. Taking two floors off a building that is 20 floors too high is hardly meeting us half way! Au contraire. It is insulting. We say hang tough on this one.

  16. Citizens are naive to think things don’t happen beyond the scenes when it comes to such large decisions like this. We will have to wait and see what happens after the OMB hearing. Until then, prepare yourself for a new and vibrant downtown which is coming in the next few years.

  17. Come on. We all know Marianne is talking a big game, but when push comes to shove she’ll vote yes; she wants those tax dollars.

    • A
      You may be correct about wanting the tax dollars however, Marianne and the rest of council did vote to reject this project. Unfortunately when they did vote, as Marianne has posted, they were no longer the decision makers.
      There is no game to talk here, council can’t determine the final outcome and haven’t been able to since Mar. of 2015.


  19. I completely support your take on this issue Marianne. We do not want or need another huge high rise in downtown Burlington.
    I also note that this development is asking for reduction in the number of parking spaces required.. This is the same as the proposed development at 730/760 Brant Street. Council should strongly resist this. It is imperative that adequate parking be available for both residents and visitors.
    I also support the comments from the previous commenter, Joan, re the OMB. The Government should investigate why it seems that the developers always get their own way when the OMB is involved.


  20. Please put a stop to these hirise buildings …our waterfront so beautiful…tall ewe have enough already…traffic already is a nightmare….

  21. If the City and it’s residents are against the ADI development then it should not be allowed to go ahead. If the OMB allows this development in an overcrowded downtown, then they themselves should be investigated by the Wynne government for there is no justification to override the city and residents.

  22. I agree with Marianne, I don’t want overdevelopment and want to keep our small town feel/heritage. How do other cities like Burlington deal with this every growing development concern?

  23. I agree with your viewpoint entirely, Marianne, as do most of the comments posted in this forum. We do not need another high rise luxury condominium. Unlike Vancouver and Toronto, which have a large and active ‘swinging’ and culturally diverse downtown and attract lots of tourists, Burlington derives most of its charm from the older sections and the wide open view of the waterfront that all can enjoy. Left to the developers and city ‘planners’ this is soon to be a thing of the past. Given the low occupancy rate of some the current new luxury condos(e.g. Pine and Pearl, the luxury retirement high rise) and the empty, declining downtown where so many of the restaurants and small businesses close after only a short period and cannot make a living, this city will soon be devoid of any unique character or interest. Most people will want to simply drive past, while many of us will consider relocating.
    The reduction from 28 to 26 storeys is tokenism and is still excessive. Sadly, despite local opposition from the city residents, there is no integrity or meaning in the ‘review’ process and it appears that there is nothing we can do to stop the bureaucratic enabling of exploitative developers. Time to move to somewhere more enlightened where heritage and local interests are preserved.
    Sue W.

  24. Why do we bother with having official city plans when Developers think they can snub them to maximize their profits? Four to eight stories is more than adequate and in keeping with what downtown should be. I do not support this overdevelopment downtown.

  25. I agree strongly with all of the points raised by everyone in the 36 emails above!

    Marianne, all Burlington Councillors and Mayor – we are saying it loud and clear – we don’t want another 26 storey high rise destroying the historical and beautiful charm of our beloved downtown Burlington !!!!

    A quote from Tariq ADI, Special to The Globe and Mail

    Published Thursday, Apr. 16, 2015 5:00AM EDT

    Last updated Friday, Apr. 17, 2015 9:25AM EDT

    Tariq: ” I get up at 5 a.m. I found if I didn’t, I wasn’t getting everything done. I keep pushing the guys in the office to try it but they say I’m crazy. I have a saying: 7 a.m. is when normal people wake up, 6 a.m. is when the millionaires wake up and 5 a.m. is when the billionaires wake up. I want everybody in the 5 a.m. club.”

  26. I agree the buildings are far too high and too many people would be living in the area. Lack of parking sites for visitors and tourists will be a real problem downtown Burlington (as it already is) If the OMB okays this it will open up too many possibilities for future developments throughout Burlington – not the kind of city Burlington should be. Also, I’m very Skeptical of any of Adi Developments proposals. Can’t figure how they are advertising in Aldershot for their development by the Aldershot Go Station and already posting starting costs for unit. I feel they just push forward on anything whether it’s right or legal or whatever. Don’t care what the province wants regarding high density. People are cramped together in smaller spaces, not enough parking and not suitable to raise a young growing family.

  27. I agree with you !26 is too much. Really I must obey the laws why not the developers!!!4 stories is the law 8 could be acceptable. M>A.

  28. ADI appears to believe laws do not apply to them. That’s a bad start. I believe they have another over reaching Burlington. Our reasons for saying no are legitimate,, what a shame it is taking so much of the city’s time and energy.

    • Susan
      I agree we don’t need another high-rise on the lakeshore however, ADI is following the law.
      ADI currently has two other proposals on the go.
      One in Aldershot, where site plan approval will be issued shortly.
      The other at Thomas Alton Blvd, the application is looking for almost double the density and height.
      Council will have to vote on this one sometime in April, after that ADI can legally appeal to the OMB.

  29. The sheer arrogance of ADI is unbelievable! Let’s see if the patronage appointments on the OMB can rule against a developer for once!

  30. What’s the point of having an official plan and bylaws, etc. if city council allows their plan to proceed.

    Enough is enough. I’m with you. And as an aside; no member of council should have a say if they accept donations from developers. If the OMB was an elected body by the citizens of Burlington that would be one thing, but they are not.

  31. Marianne, I agree with your take completely. The downtown area will lose all the charm that makes it what it is if huge developments like this are allowed in that sort of location. Not to mention the traffic nightmare it will introduce. The ‘village’ atmosphere of downtown Burlington makes it a destination for people from far around. It will lose that draw completely if it turns into just another urban jungle of concrete and glass towers.

  32. This developer doesn’t seem to get it. We do not want 26 stories on this corner. It is simply too much density as well as not the proper location for a building of this magnitude. It does not fit in with the dwellings immediately beside it. Traffic at this strange bend in the road is already a danger. Stick to your guns Marianne, I support the original four story. Bldg.

  33. Too much building for that space. I would agree with a 4 to 6 story limit. Also, that corner is already a blind corner, with too much traffic.

  34. People locate in areas for a number of reasons. One of those is the lifestyle. South Burlington is the oldest area. Most live here based on the individual designs of homes, lots, trees, and one of the rarest advantages for any municipality, the lake. Anyone would agree that change was long overdue at the bottom of Brant St., and east to Martha. However, why just highrise bldgs.? Many of our American friends have taken advantage of their lakefront and restricted what can be built and demanded developers submit plans designed more for the people and excess to the waterfront. Our City leaders are following the downtown Toronto thought process with a high wall of condos along the lake. In discussion with our reps, they too often put the blame on the Provincial government’s Places to Grow legislation, claiming they didn’t have any choice but to submit to monster homes and highrise. Wrong! This legislation does not force municipalities to over build, it simply puts more emphasis on infilling while following City’s present zoning requirements. As to the OMB, those that feel the same about this topic need to contact our local MPP and the Liberal leader and demand this body be overhauled. As mentioned in another post, why do we elected officials and pay City staff to layout designs for our City based on what we the tax paying citizens wish to see, only to be ignored by a Provincial body that has a well known history of siding with developers. Finally, as to traffic, those that have tried to travel along Lakeshore between 3 -7 pm on most weekdays know how it is backed up in both directions presently and growing. We all have read and realize the future travel designs are based on getting us out of the car and into public transportation. This will happen, but what are we to do for the next 10- 15 yrs while waiting for this to become a reality. Between Brant and Martha there are approximately 6 highrise towers on the planning table presently. How can anyone claim these won’t add to our present traffic issues. Pity the person being rushed??? to our new hospital along Lakeshore from east of Brant St.

  35. Definitely a token two storey removal. No, No No. Traffic is bad enough downtown now, I agree with the comments of stick to the official plan and stop letting developers change things only for their benefit.

  36. The current proposed ADI development for this site is far too much for this corner. The City has a plan which was developed with considerable expert input and community consultation and it should be respected. This corner currently causes some challenges for traffic and ADI’s proposal would greatly exacerbate the problem. This company has already overreached with its’ signage ‘jumping the gun’ and seems to have little respect for this community and its’ citizens. I strongly urge you to stay the course and reject any plan that does not comply with the City plan.

  37. It is not difficult for most of us to understand that a 26-storey building represents a gross variance from a 4/8 storey zoning for this site. ADI understands this but has demonstrated no genuine interest in working with the City of Burlington, perhaps because they can’t make a 4/8 storey condo financially viable. My understanding of the unelected OMB’s role is to adjudicate LEGITIMATE disputes, which this is clearly NOT. If the OMB does not just “through this application out”, we really need to question their role/ authority and use any and all political pressures to affect a change there.

  38. This size is overkill and doesn’t fit the pattern of condos downtown. Traffic already crawls with the Spencer Smith Park bottleneck. The streets in the area are not conducive to handle the traffic. Downtown is getting extremely difficult to visit for those who live outside of the area.

  39. I am sad to see what’s happening to my hometown. The infrastructure can’t handle this intensification all over the city. The north-south routes especially north of the QEW seem to be in a permanent traffic snarl and the new cheek-to- jowl cookie-cutter housing developments in the north-end don’t have any soul – just becoming another Mississauga or Milton.

    Developers seem to know that they can pay lip-service to Burlington’s plan since OMB will ultimately okay. Take a look at the skyscraper condo wasteland on your approach to Toronto downtown on the Gardiner to see what lies in store for Burlington’s waterfront if this continues.

  40. Yes I agree that a new condo of 4 stories (maximum 8) is all that the downtown should absorb as the traffic just would NOT allow more. Look at Ontario St with all the cars going along at 60+ kph on a 40kph limit to avoid the Lakeshore with it’s one lane and stoplights at nearly every intersection but none at the top where Ontario St is. If a 20 story tower was added then Lakeshore Rd. between Jos. Brant Hosp and Martha should be converted back to 4 lanes and remove the concrete islands and the unecessary lights to keep them moving on a traffic artery instead of a residential street.

  41. I agree with you completely, Marianne. The downtown core is already stressed from traffic and parking problems during peak periods. ADI’s reduction in building height by 7% will not resolve the problems that will be caused by this project.

  42. Mary… Bob Simpson is right, the OMB should not have the right to over rule the city. What is the point of zoning, when it gets changed all the time. One has to wonder why the city allows these developers to ruin the downtown and NOT be more strict or is it the taxes that they covet? The new bldg.on the water by the hotel will enhance the closed in feeling and ruin the views for the opposing bldg. across the st. Do NOT repeat that mistake for the future, NO tall bldgs. on the water side ever.

  43. The OMB is notorious for being sympathetic to developers. Lucky us. This building at such a height simply creates another immense wind tunnel. Anything higher than 15 stories should not be permitted, regardless of how attractive the building may or may not be. I am stating the obvious when I say it is just another money grab by developers.

  44. The OMB should not be the primary decision maker in a city—particularly when a development is so far outside the official plan.

  45. Marianne I agree with your take on this.
    It still infuriates me to see a developers submit a plan which they know is 3 times higher than the current zoning with out any thought for the impact on those who live in the area, or their wishes
    So now their appeasement is to lower their plan from 28 floors to 26 floors so as to appear as a caring developer?
    It obvious they are not getting the message or….they just don’t care! I think it’s more the latter.

    Please keep up the good fight on this! The overwhelming majority of the people you represent in our ward agree with you!

  46. Why bother with an official plan at all when a developer can go to the OMB and have it struck down! My take is that the height should comply with the city’s vision through the official plan. Our elected representatives should have the authority to decide what’s best for our community and not have that right taken away by the OMB and a developer who has no long term vested interest in downtown Burlington.

  47. This is pure tokenism on ADI’s part. They do not care about the zoning or what the people of Burlington wish. Our downtown core is overdeveloped and becoming a concrete jungle like Toronto. Keep up the good work and continue your opposition to them.

  48. It seems like they are not interested in working with the city and having our best interests. There are guidelines in place for a reason, and if we let the developer get approval and then go over our heads when they want to make a significant change it sets a very bad precedent. Over development is a becoming a real problem in Burlington, especially in the core.

  49. from a lovely place to live it is becoming a hell hole. Traffic on all major streets is getting like Toronto.
    We do not have the infrastructure for a large influx of people.Yes the hospital is e tending but it was inadequate already. Despite an increase of taxes it will not be enough to cover the increased overheads needed to keep

    Guess you can’t fight empty heads that are all for show without substance.

  50. Unfortunately my take is too little too late…we already have way too many tall buildings in the downtown core…what difference is one more going to make. How about all those people who bought condos in the buildings on the north side of Lakeshore, who will now be looking into the windows of the next too big building which is going up across the street instead of the lake view they have been enjoying. Do I want another tall building down on the Lakeshore…NO…but if history is any indication…it will happen anyway.

  51. What is the water table limit. Did they discover going down too far would cause problems? I see most of the units have only one parking spot as there are only 4 additional spots..Development in the downtown should definately be limited to height and number of units

  52. This is definitely overdevelopment of the site and the area. It would dramatically effect parking and traffic. Development in the downtown should be limited to height and number of units. . I would be opposed to the present revision at this site .

  53. Can’t wait until thia building goes up, it’s going to be beautiful. The all glass design is going to add a great modern touch to downtown.

    • I agree. There are too many too tall buildings in the downtown area. I do not want Burlington to end up like Vancouver- you can’t see the water anymore, unless you live in a high rise! I also disagree with the government’s densification. Burlington should be able to grow without losing its unique quaintness.

    • this is not Toronto or VAncouver, we live in an area, where there are many older well established homes, the people are proud of their homes do not need to be living in a fish bowl

What's your take?

Habitat proposes rezoning/Official Plan amendment at 2384 Queensway Dr.

Outdoor ice rink coming to Central Park