Old Ottawa South

Through discussion with Admin. Chris, this TOPIC stream is being re-opened here to continue dialogue on
the INFILL TRIPLEX PROJECT at 71 Hopewell for contiued dialogue and information sharing.


Overlooking the administative chatter, there are numbers of newer posts with info in the older 71 Hopewell "Closed" Topic stream you may wish to read to catch up first.

Some added information / letters since worthy of note but not easily found are:
From the OSCA page "Latest News" letter by abutting neighbour
www.oldottawasouth.c...-development-example
and, as was submitted similarly by Bergwerff and Lindberg - neighbour to the rear - as found at:
www.oldottawasouth.c...ityCommentLetter.pdf

Don Brown, B.Arch.

To just note as a duplication as also in the "closed site"
... City Planner on this file is ERIN O'CONNELL e-mail (note -- with ' ) erin.o'connell@ottawa.ca

ABOUT THE MATURE TREES CUT DOWN: - 71 HOPEWELL SITE

In respect to the mature large trees having been cut from the site already (see neighbour's response entry), a 100' butternut and a 45' elm, the application to the City for permission to cut trees (newer regulation) was made for +/- 'to pemit construction of larger residence ' (or like).

The City does not / can not deny an owner the right if for a single family residence.

However, where a Site Plan application / review / process is requried for a development, all trees (especially major ones) etc are to remain in place until the successful conclusion of the Site Plan process.

It may be be that in this instance by semantics and / or an incorrect project description, the Owner received permission and a Permit to cut the trees that he would not have otherwise received. To whit also, teh trees were removed very quickly upon posting the permit in the window for neighbour's to see.

Ms. Astrid Nielsen , senior forester (in charge?) is looking into that Cutting Permit issuance file and whether further checks and balances / a tick off box should be added to the forms / questions asked declaring explicitely that a Site Plan would not be required for a proposed development etc. .
Maybe there should also be a requisite 1 or 2 week on-site posting period prior to any tree cutting to allow neighbours time to read and call to action if similar occured again.

Not sure if she informed Clive D.

DB

Don Westwood informs that a notice left at his door of meeting re the #71 Hopewell project is slated for Southminster Church, MONDAY night
-- he did not note the time -- check with neighbours ...

D B

I appreciate the continued concern and the effort required to continue this 'fight'. I gave up too easily on Grosvenor and now we have the 'Garages of Grosvenor' between Hopewell and Glen. Reading the guidelines in Stacie and Mats letter it seems that almost every guideline can be ignored. If you have any trouble explaining things to neighbours farther away send them to my corner, one front porch, three front doors and eight or nine cars on the east side of Grosvenor.

Let's hope this gets revisited via the petition at:

www.ipetitions.com/p..._ottawa_streetscapes

This is not just about 71 Hopewell, it's about the direction all whole development is taking in Old Ottawa South.

The meeting on Monday, April 19th with the developers ended with the developers saying they need support for variances: these variances were to be higher and closer to neighbours. The petition says, "Follow the infill guidelines."

Article at: www.oldottawasouth.ca.