HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2016, 1:11 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,728
Burlington developer seeks to adjourn OMB hearing on Martha Street condo
(Burlington Post, Michael Gregory, Mar 14 2016)

In a surprising turn of events, Adi Development Group has asked that its Ontario Municipal Board hearing for a 26-storey condo downtown be adjourned until at least the fall after acquiring a neighbouring property late last week.

The request was made by the developer's solicitor at the opening day of the hearing at city hall today.

"We do not make this adjournment request lightly," said Adi's solicitor Denise Baker during the proceedings.

"Allowing for the adjournment will allow my client the opportunity to work with the city to potentially avoid a contested hearing altogether, or at the least result in a reduction of the number of issues..."

Burlington city council is meeting tomorrow to decide whether it agrees with the request concerning the property at the corner of Martha Street and Lakeshore Road.

Adi is seeking amendments to Burlington’s Official Plan and zoning by-law to build the mixed-used tower known as Nautique Lakefront Residences at 374 Martha St.

On Friday, the developer closed a deal to buy neighbouring 380 Martha St., which is approximately .086 acres.

Quinto M. Annibale, a solicitor retained by the city, said it would be outside the OMB’s jurisdiction, in accordance with the Planning Act, to proceed with a hearing given the change in scope.



Read it in full here.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2016, 9:28 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,728
Burlington highrise battle adjourned until 2017

(Hamilton Spectator, Michael Gregory, Mar 16 2016)

An Ontario Municipal Board hearing on Adi Development Group's proposed 26-storey waterfront condo development has been adjourned until next year.

When the hearing resumed Wednesday, the OMB agreed to put the proceedings on hold until Feb. 2017.

Earlier this week, the solicitor for the Burlington developer had requested the OMB hearing be postponed until at least the fall after revealing that Adi had purchased a bungalow neighbouring the 374 Martha St. property last week.

Adi is seeking amendments to Burlington's official plan and zoning bylaw to build the mixed-use tower known as Nautique Lakefront Residences at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road.

Burlington city council met behind closed doors with its solicitor on Tuesday and decided that it would not oppose the adjournment request.

Shortly after the meeting, Mayor Rick Goldring said Adi's application continued to be "very important" to city hall given the height and density.

"We want to make sure that all new buildings and infill projects make sense and are appropriate for the locations," he said.

"This particular site, at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore, is an important gateway to our downtown, so the building must be designed in an appropriate way."

The city and developer are now scheduled to meet again on Feb. 21, 2017, for a 10-day hearing.



Read it in full here.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2016, 2:01 AM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,461
Can someone please change this back to "proposed" from "approved"? Because clearly it's not the latter and it may be a while until it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2016, 6:59 PM
LikeHamilton's Avatar
LikeHamilton LikeHamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,701
BURLINGTON HIGH-RISE: City councillors reject revised plan for 26-storey condo at Lakeshore Drive

Hamilton Spectator By Teviah Moro 13 Oct 2016

BURLINGTON — City councillors have rejected a revised plan for a 26-storey condo tower across from the lakefront, setting the stage for an Ontario Municipal Board battle one called "the scary part."

"In my 10 years on council, I do not remember a development application proceeding in this manner," Mayor Rick Goldring said Wednesday.

"This is extremely unusual and it's not the way we have been doing business in the past, but we've been thrust into this particular situation."

Adi Development Group wants to build its 240-unit Nautique on a small lot at the corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street.

The city has rejected making the official plan and zoning amendments that would allow the developer to build to the desired height and density.

Burlington's official plan allows for a maximum of eight storeys where Adi wants to build.

In March 2015, the developer appealed its original application — 28 storeys and 226 units — to the OMB because council hadn't made a decision within the 180-day limit set by provincial legislation.

A year later, Adi was granted time to revise his plan to incorporate a recently purchased parcel next to the parking lot eyed for the tower.

The OMB also ordered the city to review Adi's revamped plan — 26 storeys and 240 units — and hold a public meeting on the matter by mid-October.

A staff report calls the new application "overdevelopment" and not "good planning."

CEO Tariq Adi defends his proposal, arguing it will breathe more life into downtown by bringing in younger condo owners who will spend money in the core.

The Nautique's "world-class design" also has ample parking with its 241 spaces on six underground levels, Adi says.

But the developer also points to a 22-storey luxury condo complex, the Bridgewater, and hotel that New Horizon is already building just across the street on the lakeshore as a measure of the city's hypocrisy.

But Adi's plan has been met with considerable backlash with residents worrying about the traffic congestion, parking problems and looming presence it could pose for the area.

"The waterfront is no place for tall buildings," Deedee Davies told councillors at Thursday's development and infrastructure meeting.

Building height should start low at the waterfront and rise as Burlington slopes into the escarpment, she said. "That way everyone gets to share our beautiful waterfront."

The 22-storey Bridgewater is "already a bad precedent," and Adi's Nautique will "open the floodgates," Davies warned.

Coun. Marianne Meed Ward agreed: "Tall buildings tend to lead to more tall buildings."

But the Ward 2 councillor said the Bridgewater comes with public shoreline access.

"So what are we getting with the Adi development? Just a tall building and I think the community loses."

Adi has argued the chance to discuss benefits is "out the window" with his application before the OMB.

A failure to hash out a "reasonable solution" with Adi puts the city in a bad spot, Coun. Blair Lancaster suggested.

"So now we're into the scary part. This is the risky part … We're now handing over our decision to the OMB."

Council must give a final endorsement of the planning staff report that rejects Adi's revised proposal on Oct. 24.

An OMB pre-hearing is scheduled for Oct. 27 with a full hearing set for Feb. 21. 2017.

tmoro@thespec.com

905-526-3264 | @TeviahMoro

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/69...keshore-drive/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2016, 8:45 PM
Hawrylyshyn's Avatar
Hawrylyshyn Hawrylyshyn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,835
If Burlington doesn't want it we'll take it in Hamilton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2016, 10:12 PM
davidcappi's Avatar
davidcappi davidcappi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,992
Quote:
If Burlington doesn't want it we'll take it in Hamilton
Yeah, seriously.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2018, 11:16 PM
thomax's Avatar
thomax thomax is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,380
The OMB approved it ---> http://ward2news.ca/development/just-omb-decision-released-adi-proposal-martha-lakeshore-allows-26-storeys/

This thread needs a name update from [Burlington] Nautique | ? | 26 fl | Proposed to [Burlington] Nautique | ? | 26 fl | Approved
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2018, 1:43 AM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,461
On it goes... the city has asked the OMB to review their decision that favoured the developer.
https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8...ding-approval/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2021, 2:21 PM
johnnyhamont's Avatar
johnnyhamont johnnyhamont is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,115
7 stories deep, foundations beginning




UrbanToronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2021, 4:44 PM
TheHonestMaple's Avatar
TheHonestMaple TheHonestMaple is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,717
wow that's deep!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2021, 4:51 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,519
I believe this is the second deepest parking garage ever built in the province, behind only the 8-level Shangri-la parking garage in Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2021, 4:59 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,461
Should be lots of fun driving up and down all the ramps. Never mind navigating each level to and from a parking spot, as it looks like it will be pretty tight amongst the support columns... it's a fairly small site, isn't it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2021, 5:04 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,519
relatively, yes, but the interior parking dimensions would still have to meet the standard dimensions (6m drive aisles, etc).

Having a parking spot on P7 would definitely be a gigantic pain though. My last apartment had parking on P3 and that was more than enough haha.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2021, 5:21 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
relatively, yes, but the interior parking dimensions would still have to meet the standard dimensions (6m drive aisles, etc).

Having a parking spot on P7 would definitely be a gigantic pain though. My last apartment had parking on P3 and that was more than enough haha.
For a long time I lived in a building that opened in 1967. The underground parking was quite generous, and it only had one level so access was easy.

The last time I parked underground it was at the Homewood Suites downtown here. I don't know if it has more than one level, but there is much less wiggle room! I imagine standards have evolved as cars got smaller over the decades, but with so many large SUVs and pickup trucks around today there can be little space between vehicles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 10:07 PM
Berklon's Avatar
Berklon Berklon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hamilton (The Brooklyn of Canada)
Posts: 3,042
Looks like people who put down deposits 7 years ago are getting screwed over.

Apparently they have to find up to 300k more for the units they already agreed to buy due to increased costs, or get their deposit back with a 6% interest.

https://www.chch.com/buyers-are-bein...t-to-be-built/

Ridiculous. They waited this long for construction to start and it's not even at ground level and they're supposed to fork over a lot more money while waiting another 2+ years before they can even set foot in their unit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 10:35 PM
TheRitsman TheRitsman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,016
"We should be letting developers do whatever they want"
__________________
Hamilton Downtown. Huge tabletop skyline fan. Typically viewing the city from the street, not a helicopter. Cycling, transit and active transportation advocate 🚲🚍🚋

Follow me on Twitter: https://x.com/ham_bicycleguy?t=T_fx3...SIZNGfD4A&s=09
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2022, 12:09 AM
TheHonestMaple's Avatar
TheHonestMaple TheHonestMaple is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,717
On one hand it's unethical and shitty of the developer, on the other hand these buyers signed the contract - no one forced them to. I'd be super pissed too though. It's a really shitty thing for them to do, a clear and obvious attempt to make even more money on these units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2022, 1:28 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,461
How is this legal?

Or is there standard fine print about such options when deposits are put down and initial paperwork is signed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2022, 1:31 PM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRitsman View Post
"We should be letting developers do whatever they want"


Yep.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2022, 1:56 PM
TheHonestMaple's Avatar
TheHonestMaple TheHonestMaple is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamingViking View Post
How is this legal?

Or is there standard fine print about such options when deposits are put down and initial paperwork is signed.
The buyers would have signed an agreement that stated if the costs of the project increase then the buyer would have to put down a larger deposit to make up for it. It's totally legal of course, and in some situations quite reasonable. What if the costs of materials or labour jump by huge amounts before constructions is complete? Or what if there is some sort of unforeseen cost increase, like they found some sort of underground condition that caused them to have to increase the size of the foundation, etc etc. What if some sort sort of building code or city council requirement changed between pre sales and construction that caused the design to change. There's loads of reasonable scenarios where a developer may legitimately have to charge buyers more down the line.

However, some developers use this to make more money on rising housing prices which it seems like the case here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Suburbs
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.