Old Ottawa South

Don Brown posted this Comment on the Petition article; I thought it would be helpful to copy it here:

- INFORMATION AS TO: DEVELOPMENT AT 104 HOPEWELL AS NOW UNDERWAY :

- 3 STOREY SEMI DETATCHED (2 UNITS SIDE BY SIDE) EACH WITH SINGLE CAR GARAGE
- REQUIRED BY-LAW YARDS ... 3.0m FRONT / 1.2m EACH SIDE / 7.5m REAR --- ALL CAPABLE w/o VARAINCES
- REQUIRED LOT FRONTAGE ... 4.5m EACH ... LOT IS 9.6m WIDE --- CAPABLE
- REQUIRED LOT AREA ... 110 sq.m. EACH (220 SQ.M) TOTATL --- LOT 292 Ssq.m. --- CAPABLE
- MAXIMUM HEIGHT 11m --- HEIGHT OF PROPOSED UNKNOWN BY 3 sty. IS CAPABLE UNDER THIS
- BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED
- DEMOLITION PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED --- THIS IS A CONTROL DOCUMENT REALLY TO ENSURE PROPER
SIGN-OFF RE. SERVICES DISCONNECTS BY APPLICABLE AGENCIES
....... SO (DOCUMENTATION UNSEEN) ALL APPEARS CAPABLE AS NOW UNDERWAY WITHOUT VARIANCES OR NEIGHBOURHOOD CIRCULATIONS, UNLESS SUCH AN OBLIGATION EXISTS BETWEEN OSCA ETAL. & CITY
........ NO VARIANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED --- NO CITY RECORD OF ANY SOUGHT
........ ARCHITECTURAL MERIT TO NEIGHBOURHOUD VERNACULAR(S) UNKNOWN

To note:
@ 4.8m each lot frontage with a minimum of 1.2m required sideyard, each front wall would be a maximum of 3.6m wide which is sufficient only for the garage frontage without a door / corridor.
SO ..... these semi's will be all Garage door as frontage to street (possibly as close as 3m to lot line (tbv) with entry doors from the 2 sides at some 20 ft (6m) + rearward
..... minimal at best for there being any Ground Floor windows facing directly to the street
- maybe one very narrow or at 45 degrres out through a door alcove recess
..... level of main floor / Entry door relative to grade unknown ... could be low or elevated with walkway retining walls / railings

Don Brown, B.Arch.

Sandy Stewart, a neighbour of the 104 Hopewell development, sent the Web Editor an email on Friday, May 7, 2010, including two pictures of a mature tree being brought down by a developer's back hoe. Here is the letter:

"Hello,

"I am sending along a picture that is rather gruesome. It shows how stately old trees are being brought down these days in our neighbourhood by the ugly metal scoop of a back hoe.



"This 40' old tree did not qualify for protection by the city because apparently the circumference of its base was smaller than the 30 cm cut-off point. Unfortunately, even though it was at least 50 years old, and likely much older (as it was the same kind of tree that graces spots along the Queen Elizabeth Driveway), because it does not grow out large on its base no matter how old it gets --- down it came.

"I find it so sad that trees would be denigrated this way, and not cut down (if they absolutely have to be cut down) in a way that honours the life and habitat they have provided for many species of birds, insects, and small mammals for years and years and years -- to say nothing of the joy it gave me for the past 17 years as I watched it be a landing point for so many birds.

"Before it came down under the pressure of the scoop of the back hoe, and was mercilessly crushed into the existing rubble on the ground, I blessed it and thanked it for all the support to life that it had given.



"It came down so that an infill project could be built at the outermost edges of the property line. Shame."

Sandy Stewart

Come out and talk about Lansdowne, infill housing, Shoppers Drug Mart, or anything that matters to you about Old Ottawa South regarding zoning, development, etc.

Southminster Church, Galt Street entrance off Alymer, in the Ladies' Lounge.

RE: 104 HOPEWELL - AN UPDATE

Update to my posting (#150 ) above now that footings have been put in place:
- NOTE: plans still unseen so deductions from site observations only

- front wall of garage (West unit) at the +/- minimum 3.0m front yard setback so at most there may be a small roof area or canopy over the garages, or none at all (?)
- depth of footings would suggest that both main floors will be elevated to +/- same as neighbours ... if so, being at sides this will imply having elevated platforms / retaining walls or such --- inside entriy floors could be depressed as one step up from grade but not so likely
- East unit will have it's entry from the side with otherwise only it's garage door to street at ground level
- West unit also has door facing the street (only) as it's vantage to the street 3/4 way back from garage wall face line
- to do the above, the garages are quite narrow
- West unit garage wall is 12" offset from the East garage door wall
- the above would indicate also that the East unit has less frontage than the West unit ... a +/- 4.2m / 5.4m split
.............. semi-detatched requires 4.5m frontage x 2 = 9.0m, which the lot has, but if obliged for "each" as a 4.5m
minimum, then a variance would have been required - if my offset split is correct ***
- the West unit wraps around behind the East unit such that East unit may not have use / sight of the rear yard / sunshine (tbv)
...............also, the severed lands for the East unit, if not in some way sharing the back yard area, would also be short of the
110 sq.m. / unit as per Zoning By-Laws ***
- if this ell plan follows up through all floors, as likely, then this would imply that amenity area for the East unit would be by elevated deck(s) facing the street only ... maybe perhaps with a roof deck if a flat roof design above
...............listed as being 3 storey unit(s) in the Building Permit submission so "IF" if there is a roof-top deck atop 3 stories, yet another
consideration as to departure from neighbourhood vernacular and sight-line privacy, such that it could be at all, from on high

*** I will verify with Zoning Officer Monday re these two *** items being based upon an absolute per unit vs. averaged values over the 2 units

Don Brown

Added Info: RE 104 HOPEWELL SEMI-DETACHED -

Further to my post #163 and the 2 asterixed items therein:

- CONFIRMED: the Zoning By-Laws for a normal 2 part property severance / simple sale do require the frontage and lot area for each to be as per the Zoning By-laws - i.e., to the absolute dimensions (4.5m lot width / 110 sq.m. lot area) , not averaged


CAVEAT:
- though there is no footing poured on a dividing line "all the way to the back", it may be conceivable that there is a full front to back demising wall between units with a rear yard division thence behind and that the "ELL" Basement footing plan gives an illusion to what may be

>>> affect on lot area requirements:
- IF. indeed divided fully front to back, at +/- 4.2m wide x 30.48m deep, the lot area miimum would be satisfied
- IF, ell plan is the case only on the Basement and front to back at floors above, then an issue when coming to severance of the lands into 2 as it would not be, as required, a clear "Earth to Sky" path without intersecting one with the other
- IF, the ell plan is through all stories, lot area for the East unit would not be sufiicient for severance

>>> affect on frontage requirements:
- If, as it appears, that East and West side yards are both nominally 1.2m, then the East unit / property to the street being +/- 4.2m wide would not satisfy the Zoning By-Laws minimum of 4.5 per semi-detached unit
- East unit to garage separation line may yet be 4.5m wide but does not appear to be (TBV yet)

Odd remark from City By-Law officer: a Building Permit may be issued based upon the "AVERAGE" for two units and also be called a semi-detatched building on teh Building Permit (as is the case), even if later condominiumized ... it becomes a problems LATER if looking to formally sever the land / units if not meeting teh Zoning By-Law minima--- this is because the option of Condominiumizing the 2 unit building could negate the By-Law's intent re each unit meeting the By-Law.

SO: the neighbourhood may:
- be assuming a generic side by side semi with front and rear yards but actually getting one of the following ---
- a 2 unit condimium building
- an application "after the fact" to get approval for variances to "legitimize" the as-built building
- the Owner might get it since being as-built whereas otherwise to apply for up-froint they probably would not have

Intersting dilema may be brewing if indeed the building / lot is not more or less continuous front to back and short of 4.5m in lot width.

This would be so much easier and finite for comment if having Site and Building documents in hand.
Commencement of framing will also tell the tale.

Caution not to jump the gun until the actual documents can be viewed, etc.
The above is just a flagging of a possible issue or development route being employed at ths time.


Don Brown, B.Arch.

How common are 'after the fact' variance applications, and are there penalties involved? Also, would the building permit not require detailed architectural plans that are available to the public?