Old Ottawa South

No sorry, the photo is correct. It is showing the back of the property, which at this hour confused my sluggish brain.

There's also a video from the news clip on the same page that shows the property (front view) and a quick glance at the drawings for the proposed "monster house". Plus interviews with the owner and one of the neighbours.

Christine Leadman was interviewed on CBC this morning about the proposed infill at 39 Western. She made a number of points that I thought were interesting.

First, she wanted to make clear that this infill is not 'intensification' as it does not increase residential density and decrease the carbon footprint per unit. Although I agree that this is not an increase in density, it does nevertheless fall into the category of intensification as directed by the official plan (which perhaps is problematic) in that this development is an increase in investment and will lead to increased taxes within the urban area where infrastructure already exists. The OP does not clearly distinguish between environmental goals (such as decreased carbon footprint) and economic goals (increased investment in the existing urban area).

Second, this infill is being portrayed as a zoning issue. I would argue that it is in some ways related to zoning but not fundamentally. If this were a zoning issue, the fight would be similar to 71 Hopewell in that the zoning allows for a massive multiple unit building where there was previously a small single. However, current zoning does not actually permit the proposed infill for 39 Western - it required variances. It is also replacing a single with a single. So this is not about the existing zoning being inappropriate (even though it probably is). Where I think zoning is relevant is where it lacks a tools to limit floor space index. The reason that one can do a maximum build-out is partially because there is no appropriate floor space index limiting the building area to a certain percentage of the lot. Without this index, and with a few variances here and there, you end up with monster infill. The other way zoning is relevant is that the owner is using zoning allowances as leverage/threat to build a larger three storey building if he doesn't get his way at the committee of adjustment. Another relevant issue is that of private property rights (i.e. individualism) versus the greater community good, and negotiating a balance between the two.

Kathleen Petty brought up what we have been discussing here in OOS - that the way to address inappropriate zoning and infill is to use neighbourhood based planning tools within the official plan to tailor zoning and design guidelines to specific neighbourhoods. Hopefully this media coverage will contribute in some way to increased neighbourhood involvement in planning.

Don

Gwen asked that I also copy my response upon listening to the CBC RADIO ONE report about "Infill' and "71 Hopewell" as I had posted Friday directly to the OS news article about the 'show'. -- It would help to listen to the show replay on-line too, though not requisite:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A significant point was missed (as I heard the CBC Radio One discussions) with respect to specifically 3 or greater unit project infills as with #71 HOPEWELL further to comments between host Alan Neil, reporter [Laurie Fagan], Janet Jull, Brendan McCoy and others.

Comments below do not speak to depth, height etc issues for 1 and 2 unit structures ... that is a different Zoning consultation / concern.

For more detailed background detailing the following, for those on-line to the OSWatch Forum site, it appeared in "Latest Redevelopment Proposal - 71 Hopewell" as my posting #154.

In the CBC discussion, statements were made / discussed that with more recent "Urban Design Guideline" it takes time for the Zoning By-Laws to catch up, etc. True as it stood stated.

However, if one steps back and asks "why is a 3 unit townhouse even being considerred on the 50 ft. lot at #71 Hopewell Avenue, prior to the 1998 re-write of the Zoning Bylaws, a density provision in the By-Laws prevented such.
Since then, and long before the re-write of the newer Official Plan, the newer Urban Design Guidelines and the newer 2008 Zoning By-Laws, it became "possible" for #71 Hopewell (and like) to have near double the previous maximum density provisions. ( 64.7 units per Hectare as proposed vs. 37.5 before 1998 )

So, why when the 2008 By-Laws were being intensively reviewed, consolidated etc did the density provision not get challenged / reinstated, even if for selected neighborhoods by way of an exception? Given the amount of talent and effort + time taken in this last rewrite it would have been as easy then as ever.

By-Law revisions are brought forward all the time and adopted as passed in fairly quick order, vs. awaiting another major evaluation and re-write. If the will exists at City Hall to assess a neighbourhood as worthy of density protection, especially where it was in place before, then why not ASAP now?

This is easy to review and with a broad stroke put a "moratorium" Re-Zoning on those Zones where the density factor was glibly, perhaps, removed. One staffer for 1 day would gather together which zones / sub-zones were so affected in 1998. Maybe as with the "Intensification" buzz-line, it was Ontario driven. (shades of Bill 124 back then)

Adding one extra unit to where 2 were permitted does not exactly jump out as major reason for such change under the guise of intensification. A few here and there would add much fewer units than what the newer "Secondary Dwelling Unit" provisions has added to the potential for the "existing as-built" singles, semi-detached and duplexes to create.

So, the question really goes back to pre 1998 as to why this density provision was ever removed, what neighborhood consultations (City wide) were had, with, or without adequate explanation of the consequences.

Do any Owners of that pre 1998 time remember anyone stating that the By-law rewrite (1998) would thence permit 3 door townhouses on 50 ft lots, etc ???

Let Brenda McCoy know of your recollections, yay, or nay -- it may prove very important for you.

Your collective concerns etc to Brendan as well.

D.B. 10/6/10