95-101 Norman St | 34m | 9f | Completed - Page 3

waterloowarrior · #41 Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 2:26 PM**

appealed to the OMB

Norman Bates · #42 Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 4:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

appealed to the OMB

By who and for what purpose?

The reason why I'm asking is that I thought it was approved by council.

waterloowarrior · #43 Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

By who and for what purpose?

The reason why I'm asking is that I thought it was approved by council.

Not sure yet who appealed... Council approved in July but didn't have three readings of the by-law until the August 27 meeting. After that date staff have 15 days to get out the notice of the decision, and there are 20 days from the notice date to appeal the decision. The appeal puts everything on hold.

Proof Sheet · #44 Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

By who and for what purpose?

The reason why I'm asking is that I thought it was approved by council.

It was probably Action Sandy Hill

Urbanarchit · #45 Posted **Oct 7, 2014, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

It was probably Action Sandy Hill

You mean "Save Littly Italy"?

waterloowarrior · #46 Posted **Feb 5, 2015, 1:38 AM**

Prehearing in April
https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL141223

waterloowarrior · #47 Posted **Apr 30, 2015, 1:03 AM**

Hearing combined with Preston-Champange secondary plan hearing.. doesn't start until Feb 2016.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onomb/doc/2015/2015canlii21641/2015canlii21641.html

waterloowarrior · #48 Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 1:20 AM**

demolition control proposal... others applications are still at the OMB.
http://ottwatch.ca/devapps/D07-05-15-0004

waterloowarrior · #49 Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:16 PM**

approved
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onomb/doc/2016/2016canlii14697/2016canlii14697.html

Proof Sheet · #50 Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

approved
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onomb/doc/2016/2016canlii14697/2016canlii14697.html

Yikes. I know that the City was looking for a planning consultant on that file to represent Council interests. The consultant retained got grilled over the coals and his testimony didn't really help. Repeated cases like this should send a message to Council that they really need to have a winning case and that there not just throwing money at a losing cause.

Arcologist · #51 Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 6:14 PM**

Personally, I like this proposal.

It's nothing super fancy, but it's still decent in appearance. I can't see traffic becoming a huge problem either.

I don't know what all the fuss is about....

Marcus CLS · #52 Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 1:44 AM**

Quote from reasons for appeal: "Norman Street is not adequate to accommodate the increase in movement of larger service and emergency service vehicles given its limited pavement width"

I am a Land surveyor and the standard width of a Road allowance has always been 66 ft or 20.117 m. With the metric standardization in modern times new roads are 20.0 m(this includes BLVDs and sidewalks).

I live on a street that is most likely a 66 ft wide road allowance (created circa 1970's) and has 4 High rise apartment buildings 15 to 25 stories.

Norman Street historically has to be 66 Ft. given the age of when this neighborhood was created. The reason to appeal from this particular point is just Ludicrous because the standard width of a road including what is the actual paved portion has not changed for 100 years (oh sorry 17 cm less based on now accepted metric road width.)

They make it appear as if this is some tiny lane. What a joke.

Appeals to the OMB for frivolous reasons. What a joke. Your tax dollars at work. Make these Nimby's pay for stupid appeals. I have no problem with valid ones.

little italian · #53 Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 12:04 PM**

I live near Norman Street. In the winter months, when the snow is piled up, I've seen large trucks turn onto Norman Street and then have to back out because the road is too narrow for them. I've also seen large trucks get stuck, and lines of cars behind them have to back out.

Don't even get me started on how much illegal parking there already is on Norman street.

In regards to calling this appeal stupid, I call it stupid to have come up a rationalized plan to zone Norman street for 4-6 stories, and then to give 10 stories to the first person who asks.

Reading through the decision, comments like "some difficulty attributing any credibility to their evidence" and "the board is quite reluctant to attach any weight to any of his evidence" make this sound like a kangaroo court. They don't even point to counter evidence. What a joke.

I'm actually all for the development in this neighbourhood, btw. It just strikes me that the speed with which it is going from a residential neighbourhood to a 45 story neighbourhood is excessive, and that the neighbourhood is going to suffer as a result. Just look at the recent tragic accident at the Icon Claridge for evidence that developers here have thrown all caution to the wind in the pursuit of profit.

Norman Bates · #54 Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 1:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus CLS

Quote from reasons for appeal: "Norman Street is not adequate to accommodate the increase in movement of larger service and emergency service vehicles given its limited pavement width"

I am a Land surveyor and the standard width of a Road allowance has always been 66 ft or 20.117 m. With the metric standardization in modern times new roads are 20.0 m(this includes BLVDs and sidewalks).

I live on a street that is most likely a 66 ft wide road allowance (created circa 1970's) and has 4 High rise apartment buildings 15 to 25 stories.

Norman Street historically has to be 66 Ft. given the age of when this neighborhood was created. The reason to appeal from this particular point is just Ludicrous because the standard width of a road including what is the actual paved portion has not changed for 100 years (oh sorry 17 cm less based on now accepted metric road width.)

They make it appear as if this is some tiny lane. What a joke.

Appeals to the OMB for frivolous reasons. What a joke. Your tax dollars at work. Make these Nimby's pay for stupid appeals. I have no problem with valid ones.

Land surveying is a profession that would have really interested me. It just wasn't something that the guidance counsellors in school ever heard of. Back then they wanted everybody to become a tool and die maker. I'm guessing all those jobs have been supplanted by 3D printers.

Anyways, and to my point, I think you meant 11.7 cm less - not 17 cm.

waterloowarrior · #55 Posted **Mar 25, 2016, 1:50 PM**

The Norman Street ROW is 15.2 metres (50 feet) wide according to the City's mapping site, and the buildings are built right to the property line or may encroach.

waterloowarrior · #56 Posted **May 15, 2016, 6:29 PM**

Centretown Buzz - FEATURE: The OMB and Norman Street: an inside look
http://www.centretownbuzz.com/2016/05/14/feature-the-omb-and-norman-street-an-inside-look/

1overcosc · #57 Posted **May 16, 2016, 8:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by little italian

I live near Norman Street. In the winter months, when the snow is piled up, I've seen large trucks turn onto Norman Street and then have to back out because the road is too narrow for them. I've also seen large trucks get stuck, and lines of cars behind them have to back out.

Don't even get me started on how much illegal parking there already is on Norman street.

In regards to calling this appeal stupid, I call it stupid to have come up a rationalized plan to zone Norman street for 4-6 stories, and then to give 10 stories to the first person who asks.

Reading through the decision, comments like "some difficulty attributing any credibility to their evidence" and "the board is quite reluctant to attach any weight to any of his evidence" make this sound like a kangaroo court. They don't even point to counter evidence. What a joke.

I'm actually all for the development in this neighbourhood, btw. It just strikes me that the speed with which it is going from a residential neighbourhood to a 45 story neighbourhood is excessive, and that the neighbourhood is going to suffer as a result. Just look at the recent tragic accident at the Icon Claridge for evidence that developers here have thrown all caution to the wind in the pursuit of profit.

Just because it's a high rise doesn't mean it's not residential. Millions of Canadians live in high rises. They're people too.... something all these NIMBYs seem to forget.

little italian · #58 Posted **May 17, 2016, 1:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Just because it's a high rise doesn't mean it's not residential. Millions of Canadians live in high rises. They're people too.... something all these NIMBYs seem to forget.

I stand corrected. I should have written that it is going from a predominantly 2-story neighbourhood to one filled with 45-story buildings. But I also stand behind my view that this is excessive.

The term NIMBY is thrown around here, and elsewhere far too often, as an attempt to shut criticism down rather than engage in actual discussion. I am actually all for densification in my backyard. I recognize that this is the way forward, and that done properly it can come with lots of benefits including increased facilities and more walkability. But that does not mean that bigger is always better and might is always right. I don't agree with the extreme way in which development is being done here, or feel that developers and city planners even have community (current and future) interests front and centre. (See huge amount of surface parking and vacant buildings blighting this neighbourhood because developers would rather wait 10 years to build a 45-story building rather than put in a lower rise now; see the fact that a 10-story building is going up at the end of a super narrow dead end road with no consideration for the traffic consequences will be as annoying for current residents as it will be for future residents of said high rise, etc).

People use NIMBY to dismiss local expertise and experience out of hand, but the people who live in the neighbourhood and who know what is wrong with these streets bring valid concerns that, if listened to, can help make sure that this community will work well when all those high-rise residents do inevitably become our neighbours.

jitterbug · #59 Posted **May 17, 2016, 1:52 PM**

Well said, Little Italian. I work in the area (Champagne St) and make it a point to go out for walks in the neighbourhood nearly every day. I used to work in the Market (Murray St.) so can make some first-hand comparisons between the two districts.

Both areas are now under "threat" from high-rise developments and, while I think tall buildings have their place when done right, they're far from being a panacea of urban development. Little Italy, notably its main street (Preston) is ripe for redevelopment, to replace many of the shabby single homes that still line parts of the street. In my ideal scenario, Preston would be transformed into a traditional main street, with tasteful 4-5 storey blocks and ground-floor retail. This would complement the high-rise towers closer to Carling and on Champagne which would add a critical mass of residents to the neighbourhood. I believe you can have both types of developments, and is certainly preferable to 45-55 storey condos surrounded by a sea of vacant lots and run-down houses.

Beedok · #60 Posted **May 17, 2016, 2:53 PM**

The 45 story developments will help with all that though. Sticking large numbers of residents in a neighbourhood boosts local businesses and pushes those sitting on parking lots to develop as their taxes go up and parking lot profit margins go down. More inhabitants means a stronger neighbourhood.