in ,

Council meets Tues. 1:30 on request to adjourn 374 Martha OMB hearing after land purchase

Proposed 28-story building at Martha/Lakeshore, subject of an OMB hearing in March 2016.
Proposed 26-story building at 374 Martha/Lakeshore, subject of March 2016 OMB hearing. Developer has requested adjournment of hearing after purchasing 380 Martha.

An Ontario Municipal Board hearing that began today regarding an application by ADI Developments for a 26-storey building at 374 Martha St. will reconvene March 16 after City Council meets Tuesday to consider a request for adjournment.

Counsel for the developer requested an adjournment of the hearing after announcing at the start of today’s proceedings that ADI Developments had acquired the adjacent parcel at 380 Martha and wants to incorporate that into the development proposal.

The original proposal wrapped around 380 Martha Street, in an L shape. The owner of 380 Martha was one of the parties to the OMB hearing; with the sale to the developer they will no longer object to the proposal or call evidence at the hearing.

City council will meet on Tuesday at 1:30 to receive instructions from legal counsel and make a decision regarding the requested adjournment. The agenda for the council meeting is here: Council Agenda March 15

The purpose of this meeting is for the discussion of a Confidential legal department update and will be closed to the public in accordance with Sec. 239 2(e) (f) of the Municipal Act, 2001

Votes of council must take place in public.

At the request of the OMB, Council is required to make a decision and notify the board by 3:30 on Tuesday. Once that decision is conveyed to the OMB, it becomes public.

If the adjournment request is not accepted by the OMB, the hearing would proceed using the previously scheduled three week block that began today.

If the adjournment request is accepted, the earliest the board could schedule a two week hearing into a revised proposal is early in 2017.

The OMB hearing will resume on Wednesday, March 16 at 10 a.m. in City Hall, Room 247. The hearing is open to the public.

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. It is beyond me why there is development of any building on the waterfront ?!? This type of structure blocks the view for many, many others who have paid a pretty price to live near the lake shore. Chicago is my benchmark for how to treat a city’s waterfront… but nobody seems to listen…

  2. There is no point in proceeding with a plan that is no longer relevant. Ask the OMB to dismiss this hearing completely and let ADI start the process over with the city by submitting the plans they have after acquiring the adjacent property. I agree with Don Fletcher, ADI needs to deal with the city “in good faith” not through thr OMB.

  3. This purchase could have been done long ago, and the proposal evaluated as including it. This is just more dirty tricks by ADI to confound the situation.

    It really makes very little difference in the overall evaluation of the merits of this project within the overall planning framework.

    An earnest effort at assembling a site parcel large enough for a revised ADI proposal, and a reconsideration of staff planning opinion, would include the parcel to the west containing low-rise medical related offices I believe.

    The staff report says the following (page 56):
    “In fact, the one-storey commercial building located
    west of the subject property is located approximately 0.15 m from the mutual
    property line and the proposed development has requested a 0 m setback from
    this property line. This means that the first four storeys of the proposed
    development would be built right to the shared property line and there would be a
    space of approximately 0.15 m between the existing commercial building and the
    proposed 28-storey building.”

    What I find really disturbing too is that the public is just being notified of this need for a Council decision on an adjournment by TOMORROW!

    This kind of last minute finagling is just the kind of crap that I have feared all along this process.

    The legals and planning have emphasized all along that the city has a very strong case.

    If legals and planning advice to Council is to vote to support this adjournment, then as far as I am concerned we have been lied to and misled this whole time.

    There is nothing offered here by ADI to warrant an adjournment. It’s a pittance in perspective.

    If OMB rules against them, they can always reapply with a new proposal.

    What they are asking is for the city to drop their case from proceeding, for the city to take the hit.

    No way to vote for this nothing offer to derail the public process yet again.

    Do not support this adjournment Councilor.

      • I didn’t mean to give the impression that I was critical or blaming anyone, but that the process unfolded like it did. Sorry for that impression if I gave it.

        I means the decision will be made before most citizens are even aware of it, or have an opportunity to make their views known.

  4. Neither a i) proceed as-is or ii) delay OMB hearing option should be agreed to by the City without reserving the right to require ADI (at the City’s sole discretion) to file a completely new application. ADI needs to be brought to a place where they negotiate with the local municipal government (not OMB) in “good faith” and that will not come about unless the City of Burlington assumes a strong stance.

What's your take?

Annual closure of King Road to protect endangered Jefferson Salamander starts March 15

Feedback due March 15 for New St cycling options; My Take; Claire’s Take