Building Height Top-Ups Could Reach 25%
This is an excerpt from the newsletter of Bay Councillor Theresa Kavanagh:
The (finance) Committee approved amendments to the Official Plan and related planning policies to delegate minor zoning applications to staff for decision. To help simplify and shorten the process for certain zoning amendment applications, the proposed changes would update the criteria for considering an amendment to be minor.
City staff would be delegated authority to consider surplus farm severances. These routine applications occur when a lot zoned Agriculture (AG) is purchased to be used for agricultural purposes while the farmhouse lands are severed and must be rezoned to prohibit future residential development.
The criteria would also …include applications seeking a height increase up to five storeys or 25 per cent of the current permitted building height. That would ensure height-increase requests are proportionate to existing permissions and would prevent an applicant from seeking significant additional height through a minor rezoning. Applications that do not meet the amended criteria would still be processed as major re-zonings.
These recommendations will rise to Council on Wednesday, November 13.
This newsletter excerpt is courtesy of the city-wide community group Your Applewood Acres (And Beyond) Neighbours.
For You:
Sprung Structures: City Squanders Opportunity
Sprung Structures: Respect Councillors, Public: MULVIHILL
Refugees Need Warm Clothes For Winter
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
Yes, that’s one view on building height top ups. But If you’ve been paying attention to N2 neighbourhood zoning (the lowest density in urban Ottawa), it started off with 2 storeys. While planning was still consulting about 2 storey N2, it turns out they are considering increasing that to 3 storeys based on recommendations from GOHBA as I understand. Now we toss in a 25% increase, so we are up to 4 storeys. So since draft 1 of the zoning bylaw has come out, we’ve effectively doubled the heights in neighbourhood N2 zoning. But we also have a maximum density in the zoning bylaw of which in N2 would allow 6 dwelling units on a 50′ by 100′ lot. But if you go to the calculator on Jeff Leiper’s website, that could be 8 units – because the zoning allows that lot to be severed with a vertically attached building that conforms to the federal requirement to allow four units per serviced lot. Then tucked into the approved omnibus official plan “clarifications” is a statement relating to Table 3b that, “c) May determine different maximum built form permissions, and minimum density requirements where applicable, as appropriate to lot fabric, neighbourhood context, servicing and proximity to Hubs, Mainstreets, Minor Corridors, rapid-transit stations and major neighbourhood amenities.” That to me says that the built form (which includes heights) can now ignore built form specifications for N2. So it looks to me like anything goes.
In what world is a five-storey height increase seen as not “significant”? It doesn’t matter how many storeys they’re plunking an extra five on top of, it’s still a “significant” addition.
Go out and look at a five-storey building and tell me it’s something you don’t notice. Then visualize it on top of another building and tell me it doesn’t alter the original structure significantly.