You are not logged in.

#1 2012-04-10 01:36:23

mr.nelson
Member
Registered: 2008-02-06
Posts: 416

Food fight going to OMB

The city of Stratford is facing two appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) relating to the No Frills supermarket development city council recently approved for Huron St. at O’Loane Ave.
Legal counsel for 1812501 Ontario Inc., the company which has an agreement of purchase and sale with Infrastructure Ontario for the former Ministry of Transportation lands in the west end, has appealed council’s decision.
So has the owner of the Giant Tiger franchise.
The appeal on behalf of the numbered company says the planning justification report submitted by Zelinka Priamo Ltd. in support of the supermarket application did not take into account the commercial application for the Infrastructure Ontario lands or the potential for
development on the lands.
The appeal finds fault with the Supermarket Demand and Impact Analysis Report prepared by urbanMetrics Inc. in support of the development and with the peer review of the report conducted by Tate Economic Research Inc. on similar grounds.
The appeal argues the supermarket application “does not conform” to Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 10 and that the proposed supermarket is at a scale that constitutes large format retail and therefore requires an Official Plan amendment.
“This premature approval may very well jeopardize the orderly and proper development of the OPA 10 area and compromise the planned function of this commercial node. It is essential that both applications be reviewed by the city and its consultants synchronously as to their individual and combined merits to assure appropriate planning,” the appeal states.
Those arguments were all presented during the public approval process but were rejected by council based, at least in part, on planning advice the city received from consultants.
Steve Vanderkuyl, owner of the Giant Tiger franchise in the city’s west end, is also appealing to the OMB with regard to the supermarket project.
As he claimed during council deliberations, Vanderkuyl says market research impact did not take into consideration the impact the development would have on Giant Tiger which has about 40% of its sales floor devoted to grocery and grocery-related items.
The proposed No Frills food store is not a neighbourhood use as it will draw from a wide area, he says in his appeal.
Mayor Dan Mathieson earlier expressed confidence that the city's decision would withstand an OMB appeal.
The two notices of appeal are contained in material to be considered by city council at its meeting Tuesday night.


You Can't Fix Stupid!

Offline

 

#2 2012-04-10 10:32:48

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: Food fight going to OMB

I, for one of many no doubt, am getting increasingly annoyed at the ability to use the OMB as the scapgoat for commerical and competitive issues in the marketplace. Someone plans on building something that might compete with your operation (GT)...or in one case...potential operation (the numbered company) and you cry foul to the OMB and the whole process grinds to a halt.

Certainly a conveniant way to muzzle competition...use a taxpayer funded government entity to hamstring an approved development...by forcing a protracted legal process on the situation....all because...you...the plaintiff...don't agree with their...the defendant's business plan. In the case of the numbered company this is a bit rare as they have nothing even proposed for the lands that are noted...in fact...they have not even closed the transaction with Infrastructure Ontario.

Offline

 

#3 2012-04-10 12:58:33

rankinfile
Moderator
Registered: 2007-12-28
Posts: 843

Re: Food fight going to OMB

I think their argument is with your comment "...use a taxpayer funded government entity to hamstring an approved development..."  The argument here is with the "APROVAL PROCESS" which resulted in the approved development.  The two appellants are stating that the process was flawed in that they did not account for GT grocery sales and how the new competition would impact on an existing business (which can certainly be argued as competition), and the size of the development vis a vi the proposed large scale development across the road--(again development "approved" by the existing plans).

This OMB is an appeal against a faulty process--sub-standard reports, which did not give "appropriate" consideration to existing business nor council supported new development on the old MTO property which was flogged as a great place for Walmart et al.  Council pushed for the Ont. gov. to sell the MTO property so a large new commercial complex could be established, then pulled the jug out from the developer with a "new" development across the road.

Surely, there must be an appeal outlet against faulty council decisions.

Offline

 

#4 2012-04-10 13:11:04

Jones
Member
Registered: 2008-01-24
Posts: 70

Re: Food fight going to OMB

I was at the council meeting for the public meeting...... MTO / Infrastructure Ontario first stated they began this process in 2008 ..... Not sure why the city is to blame.  If the city has been promoting them as a site since Walmart why is it the city to blame?  Seems like people want time to stand still form them.  As to whether the reports are flawed, that is a legimate beef at the OMB.

Offline

 

#5 2012-04-10 14:30:21

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: Food fight going to OMB

As noted time does not stand still....GT is facing competition from a new Walmart (someday)...and a new no-frills.....GT also "claims" a large percentage of its sales...like very large percentage....is from Groceries....ok fair enough. If that is the case then why does the grocery componant only make up a small percentage of your floor space?

As for the MTO lands....the developer is trying to leverage his "potential" development against something that has already been approved. If the developer had purchased the property and had the plan of development approved by the city and had tenants waiting to build and move in....then yes he would have a point......but of course he doesn't have the most critical of these done and that is ....purchased the property.

Offline

 

#6 2012-04-11 12:42:54

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Food fight going to OMB

MTO = Future new Sobeys

Offline

 

#7 2012-04-11 14:31:18

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: Food fight going to OMB

spankie wrote:

MTO = Future new Sobeys

That could well be the case Spanks....but that is years off. The site is no doubt covered in contaminated soil...zoning will have to be done...no doubt everyone in the area will object to literally everything proposed....so the OMB will yet again be asked to rule....

Objecting to shovel ready development because you MIGHT development something years from now should not be taken seriously and the OMB should toss it out.

Offline

 

#8 2012-04-14 18:25:04

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Food fight going to OMB

Well this is Stratford and we really don't want any new business here because lord knows it's not like anyone here needs jobs or anything. We'd rather see this town waste away to nothing than have anything change without a fight. Then people wonder why no businesses have any interest in this town.

Offline

 

#9 2012-05-03 12:32:36

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: Food fight going to OMB

the OMB has been a tool used by corporations to fight each other for a long time. I recall nursing homes fighting it out.  the truth is that if a corporation can protect its profits for 6 months or a year of say a million dollars for $250000 omb and legal fees then that is good business.  as far as giant tiger goes even though the grocery floor space may not be a majority , it may be true that their sales figures may reflect a majority of grocery items so they may have a legitimate beef.........

Offline

 

#10 2012-05-03 16:04:06

Stratfordian
Member
Registered: 2011-11-11
Posts: 127

Re: Food fight going to OMB

spankie wrote:

Well this is Stratford and we really don't want any new business here because lord knows it's not like anyone here needs jobs or anything. We'd rather see this town waste away to nothing than have anything change without a fight. Then people wonder why no businesses have any interest in this town.

It wouldn't be a "new" Sobeys, they want to move the existing one to a new location.  And the Mayor pointed out that as Sobey's owns their existing plaza, the likelihood would be that they would not allow a new grocery store to take the place of the old Sobey's.

Translation - no net gain.

Also, as noted, they have not yet even purchased the MTO lands.  So as the Mayor also noted, they cannot plan in the face of a potential, possible hypothetical store maybe moving someday at a point in time no one knows about.

Last edited by Stratfordian (2012-05-03 16:04:44)

Offline

 

#11 2012-05-03 17:12:25

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: Food fight going to OMB

Stratfordian wrote:

spankie wrote:

Well this is Stratford and we really don't want any new business here because lord knows it's not like anyone here needs jobs or anything. We'd rather see this town waste away to nothing than have anything change without a fight. Then people wonder why no businesses have any interest in this town.

It wouldn't be a "new" Sobeys, they want to move the existing one to a new location.  And the Mayor pointed out that as Sobey's owns their existing plaza, the likelihood would be that they would not allow a new grocery store to take the place of the old Sobey's.

Translation - no net gain.

Also, as noted, they have not yet even purchased the MTO lands.  So as the Mayor also noted, they cannot plan in the face of a potential, possible hypothetical store maybe moving someday at a point in time no one knows about.

Certainly my point....lets go to the OMB so my hypothetical shopping center doesn't have to compete with a approved and shovel ready store.

In the case of GT....calling into question the analysis done by a competitor as his grounds to make an economic decision he is taking his risk on.....right....you would have every store owner complaining to the OMB that the new kid on the block should not be allowed to  open because his business plan is flawed and yours is some how right?....absolute nonsense. This is a free market....at least we would like to think so....its not up to GT to "vet" a competitors business plan and grant approval for him to open his business any more than it was anyones business that GT expanded there space a few years ago.

The whole OMB concept is not to make judgement calls on the merit of a business....its to settle planning and building issues. The two objectors clearly have other motives and they have nothing whatsoever to do with planning and buildings issues. What they do have to do with is competition and the chance to snuff some of it out through a body that was never intended for that purpose.

Offline

 

#12 2012-05-03 17:56:28

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: Food fight going to OMB

the omb has the power to rule on objections as frivolous in the beginning of the hearing.......

it is perfectly legal to launch an appeal and it it is up to the objector to prove that the objection is valid......................

lets see where the chips land.......................

Offline

 


Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB