(07-30-2016, 12:21 AM)kevinchoi519 Wrote:(07-14-2016, 03:57 PM)Owen Wrote: The concern is the setbacks of the towers in the proposed development - every city in Canada that has guidelines regarding tall building setbacks from property lines (there are about 15 of them), would require between 10.0m and 12.5m setback for a building of that size. The counter argument was that many cities don't have guidelines - but this is normal: Only large cities that start to see development vertically bother to spend the time developing guidelines - all the big cities are the ones that have guidelines - most recently, Waterloo even implemented setback guidelines for the Northdale community (you guessed it, requiring +10.0m setback.) City of Kitchener planning originally approved Momentum's development at 3.0m setback, but then after our objection in fall of 2014 it was moved to 6.0m, which city council ultimately approved, based - at least in part - on incorrect information presented to council by the planning dept which indicated that 6.0m setback was acceptable in some municipalities (Victoria, BC.) It was revealed during the hearing that this was an error. The 6.0m allowed in Victoria only applies to buildings with a much smaller floor plate, and their guideline for buildings of Momentum's size is in line with the 10.0m to 12.5m range.
All we've ever wanted is for them to move the tower to a setback that is more in line with best practices, but they really don't want to - they even claimed it was impossible to move, so I hired Peter Turner of Turner Fleisher architects (http://www.turnerfleischer.com/) as an expert witness for the hearing. He assessed the development and said the tower was easily movable without great expense - so I'm really not sure why they were so stubborn about it. My understanding of the OMB is that it is essentially a court based on good planning principles - and everything I've seen and heard during the course of all this (now going on 2 years!) is that proper tower setbacks are good planning - so I'm optimistic, but it really could go either way - I've also been told that with the OMB, your odds are never better than 50:50 - so we'll soon see!
On the bright side, our objection to the development led city council to ask city planning to develop tall building guidelines in the fall of 2014 - an initiative that finally seems to be underway this spring.
so do you own all the properties next door and a have a preliminary plan to build a tower or what is the issue owen ? if the city creates tower separation guidelines...they would be "guidelines " not a by-law or zoning regulation fyi ...but would your case to the omb not be more valid if you actually had a plan to develop your property ? will it not be impossible for that given the properties on arthur place are land locked and not on a public street rather a private lane ?
My comment about the development of tall building guidelines does not relate to our case or the 100 Vic development - any future guidelines won't impact either of those. The point was that hopefully things will be done properly in the future with other developments in Kitchener. In terms of the Arthur Place properties, I own 7 of them as well as the Arthur Place lane itself (it is not a city street), and Amarjit Singh (Councilor Singh's father) owns the two properties fronting Victoria street (86 Vic, and 92/94 Vic.) Mr Singh also appealed at the OMB (he had his own separate planner and lawyer), and the owners of the other properties on Arthur Place not owned by Mr Singh or myself registered as participants in the OMB hearing. The point is, together, the owners of the entire block of Arthur Place lands (houses up both sides, the lane, and the houses fronting Victoria) were represented in the OMB appeal. In terms of having a preliminary plan - no, we don't have any kind of plan - I am not a developer - I'm just a property owner looking out for my interests - and the thing is, planning does not work on a "first come, first serve" basis - the whole point of planning is to plan ahead (which is essentially the opposite of just letting things happen on a first come first serve basis.) For a whole host of reasons (you would had to have attended the hearing to hear them all) having tall buildings set back from property lines in the 10m to 12.5m range constitute good planning - and the OMB is a court based on good planning, so like I said before: While nothing is certain, I'm optimistic that the ruling will require them to move the tower to a proper setback.