Ottawa Municipal Election 2010

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Dado

Of course they created a stumpy block version for the scaled-down version. That's a deliberate ploy. They usually do that.

Whatever height the zoning allows, developers have an incentive to craft a stumpy version that conforms to the height limit as a form of aesthetic blackmail as a counterpoint to a much nicer looking taller building. So developers that are quite capable of creating attractive 8-storey buildings in a 4-storey zone create stumpy 8-storey buildings in 8-storey zones where they want 15 or 20 storeys.

It's not a ploy; it's about money. If they go taller, it tends to look nicer because they tend not to be constrained by economics. When they are forced to go shorter, it looks stumpier because they try to fit as many units as possible to provide the greatest profit margin possible on that site.

It's not a ploy, it's what any businessman would do.

Umm, the City has never appealed anything on planning matters to the OMB (pre-amalgamation is another matter). Your statement doesn't even make any sense: developers [propose to?] go over the height limit because the City ... what? appeals its own decisions to the OMB?

The approval authority for planning matters is the City of Ottawa. It does not appeal its own decisions - it's the decisions of the City that are appealed by the applicant and/or a third party.

Decisions taken by the Committee of Adjustment can be appealed by the City as well the applicant and third parties, but for something to have been subject to approval only by the Committee of Adjustment it would have had to have been pretty minor - or should have been. Generally City appeals of CoA decisions are based on a claim that the variances were not minor and that a rezoning request was in order (hence beyond the jurisdiction of the CoA to approve), which would make the City the approval authority.

The Committee of Adjustment is supposed to be for genuinely minor things, particularly those that result from the existing historical built form deviating from what subsequent zoning permits, meaning that when someone attempts to alter or add to the building they can run afoul of the zoning because the existing building is already in contravention of the zoning. That's the sort of thing the CoA is around to sort out. But now the CoA is increasingly being treated as a means to attempt de facto rezonings through the back door rather than going by the proper route, which ultimately involves City Council.

Ah, I see now that not only was I confused, but I also didn't mean to put the city there. The point I was mainly trying to make (as convoluted as it was at the time) was that it certainly seems like almost every decision made in this city is appealed to the OMB, usually because some people get their panties in a knot over some "skyscraper" going up in an area where it makes sense.

[waterloowarrior]

OP is flexible on height... 4-6 storeys isn't a hard limit. Ashcroft/FoTenn provided justification based on the City's criteria for increased height in the OP, and as seen in the staff report the proposal met 3 out of the 5 criteria (they only needed to meet one)

[Dado]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

OP is flexible on height... 4-6 storeys isn't a hard limit. Ashcroft/FoTenn provided justification based on the City's criteria for increased height in the OP, and as seen in the staff report the proposal met 3 out of the 5 criteria (they only needed to meet one)

Well two of those three are ridiculous.

The first is that its height is conforms to prevailing heights or provides a transition. Well the only reason for that being the case is that Ashcroft has already been granted height increases on its properties across the road. This is just the sort of slippery slope reasoning that leads communities to go super NIMBY in the first place. It's also not altogether clear how a higher development than what is to be built across the street is an example of providing a transition to lower heights in the surrounding neighbourhood. Indeed, the 4-6 storey limit is more likely to do that.

The second suggests that the location is a gateway, or forms part of one. Well it isn't. That's at Island Park. Is the City going to oppose a future tall building at Island Park on the grounds that Westboro's "gateway" is now supposedly a block further west? What will probably happen is that the Ashcroft development's height along with the fact that the real gateway is supposed to be at Island Park will result in a justification for a 12+ storey building at Island Park to reestablish the gateway at its rightful position and create a "transition" to Ashcroft's developments.

The second also talks of increasing transit usage at a transit stop. Well any development anywhere near a transit stop has that potential. That would pretty much seem to be a carte blanche for extra height pretty much anywhere.

The third is so vague that just about any development would meet it.


What the Convent controversy shows is that Community Development Plans are basically worthless, even when passed as secondary plans. The community has no more certainty about what is and isn't allowed than they did before. All the community participation in developing the plan was for nothing. It was just a waste of their time and that of the staff who prepared it. Ultimately, this just breeds cynicism in public participation and the planning profession as a whole.

Perhaps Peter Hume's suggestion of absolute caps on height is the correct one - at least until the City's planners learn to stop making excuses for developers to violate the intent of their own plans.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Dado

Generally City appeals of CoA decisions are based on a claim that the variances were not minor and that a rezoning request was in order (hence beyond the jurisdiction of the CoA to approve), which would make the City the approval authority.

I would love it if the new Council listened to their staff on these types of things....in the last Council, there were applications recommended for approval by City Staff commenting to the C of A, the applications were approved and then City Council debated appealing the decision to the OMB despite City Planning and Legal Staff saying they had no leg to stand on etc.....

[waterloowarrior]

2010 election financial statements are posted online
http://ottawa.ca/city_hall/elections...ements_en.html