Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
64 Margaret Ave and 217/229 Victoria St N | 6 fl | Proposed
#16
(10-31-2017, 08:57 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Those setbacks are required for a reason.

Citation needed about reasons behind any of the details of zoning by-law.
Reply


#17
(10-30-2017, 05:55 PM)panamaniac Wrote: It has been a while, but there seems to be some action on this one.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/776...tage-area/

the neighbours need to relax and trust the city staff...if they do not get the technical terms as mentioned trust the city staff who do and represent the public interest not the developer
Reply
#18
(10-31-2017, 10:16 PM)mpd618 Wrote:
(10-31-2017, 08:57 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Those setbacks are required for a reason.

Citation needed about reasons behind any of the details of zoning by-law.

I for one would like to know why the zoning bylaw specifically mentions “picture framing”.

Also why I once saw one of those zoning amendment advertising posters on a gas station. The proposed change was in effect from “gas station” to “gas station with convenience store”. Utter nonsense. It would be about as reasonable for me to need a zoning change to put a swing in my backyard.

I think we could throw out at least half of the zoning bylaw and never miss it.
Reply
#19
(10-31-2017, 10:16 PM)mpd618 Wrote:
(10-31-2017, 08:57 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Those setbacks are required for a reason.

Citation needed about reasons behind any of the details of zoning by-law.

Are you asking why setbacks are required, or why a specific setback is required for a specific zoning? I bet the latter doesn't exist. Edit: so probably it's wrong to say "those" setbacks are required for a reason. Who knows why those and not larger or smaller ones.

Viewfromthe42 said "setbacks are not required," and strictly speaking that's true. But it has to be pretty rare for a 0 setback from a property line to be allowed for a new building. If there's no access to the rear of the property from another street, you need some setback from the lot lines to access that part of the building, or to maintain it.

My issue with all of these variances (generally) is that it's impossible for property owners to do their due diligence in deciding whether an adjacent property is likely to be developed in a way that would aversely effect them. That's a subjective determination, of course. For all we know, these residents when deciding to purchase the properties looked at the zoning of the lot next door, and decided that, if it happened, they could live with a fifty-foot-tall building fifteen feet from their yard. Now variances are being granted and it turns out what they thought the neighbouring property was zoned for was a polite fiction.
Reply
#20
Again, zoning is what a property is allowed to do without question. It is a misconception people have, but if anyone in Kitchener thinks that the pace of heritagization of the downtown (over 1/3 currently) is sustainable without either putting missing middle into those areas, or having tall, large buildings on the periphery, they are very much uninformed. Anyone who thinks that any of Weber, King, Victoria, Duke, Charles, or many other major arteries or connectors will be nothing but 2-3 storey buildings with rare 6 storey ones is also very much not paying attention to how any city, let alone ours, grows.
Reply
#21
(11-01-2017, 07:33 AM)MidTowner Wrote:
(10-31-2017, 10:16 PM)mpd618 Wrote: Citation needed about reasons behind any of the details of zoning by-law.

Are you asking why setbacks are required, or why a specific setback is required for a specific zoning? I bet the latter doesn't exist. Edit: so probably it's wrong to say "those" setbacks are required for a reason. Who knows why those and not larger or smaller ones.

Viewfromthe42 said "setbacks are not required," and strictly speaking that's true. But it has to be pretty rare for a 0 setback from a property line to be allowed for a new building. If there's no access to the rear of the property from another street, you need some setback from the lot lines to access that part of the building, or to maintain it.

My issue with all of these variances (generally) is that it's impossible for property owners to do their due diligence in deciding whether an adjacent property is likely to be developed in a way that would aversely effect them. That's a subjective determination, of course. For all we know, these residents when deciding to purchase the properties looked at the zoning of the lot next door, and decided that, if it happened, they could live with a fifty-foot-tall building fifteen feet from their yard. Now variances are being granted and it turns out what they thought the neighbouring property was zoned for was a polite fiction.

I think one revolutionary but obvious change would be to make setbacks an easement held by each property owner over nearby properties. So, roughly speaking, there would be an inverted pyramid extending up and out from each property, and any development that proposed to occupy any other property’s inverted pyramid would have to obtain permission from that property owner. Of course the permission could be purchased, and probably would be in some circumstances.

So, to build a garage at a zero setback from my neighbour, all I need at most is their permission; it isn’t the business of anybody else how close I build to my neighbour’s property line. To build a 100m tall building, I need the permission of every property close enough that its inverted pyramid is less than 100m away from the ground at my property. The zoning code would specify different slopes for the edges at different altitudes and in different zones. For example, in a low-rise residential zone, it might be something like straight up for 2m, then up at a 45-degree angle for 100m, then straight up to the sky. In a downtown area, it might be straight up for 100m, then up at a 45-degree angle for 200m, then straight up to the sky.

Also, I wouldn’t make a distinction between fences and buildings. It’s really none of my business whether the 2m tall structure on my neighbour’s property line is a fence or one wall of a building.
Reply
#22
(11-01-2017, 08:48 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [quote pid='44435' dateline='1509535999']
Also, I wouldn’t make a distinction between fences and buildings. It’s really none of my business whether the 2m tall structure on my neighbour’s property line is a fence or one wall of a building.

[/quote]

I think your idea is neat, and I don't want to seem negative about your post generally. Just a comment on this part: when you build a fence on the property line, the other half becomes your neighbour's fence. Okay, maybe not in every sense, but the neighbour can paint it if he wants, and the municipality will generally stay out of disputes about fences on a property line- if a neighbour doesn't want a fence, generally the solution is to build it set back a foot.

When 0 setbacks are approved, there's generally some sort of easement granted for maintenance. If your neighbour builds a 2m wall on his property line, and then you subsequently want to build a 2m wall on your property line, aren't they now a party wall? Is it okay if your neighbour ties into your roof? He'd have to, wouldn't he? You may have a dispute about how that's done.
Reply
#23
(11-01-2017, 09:45 AM)MidTowner Wrote:
(11-01-2017, 08:48 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [quote pid='44435' dateline='1509535999']
Also, I wouldn’t make a distinction between fences and buildings. It’s really none of my business whether the 2m tall structure on my neighbour’s property line is a fence or one wall of a building.

I think your idea is neat, and I don't want to seem negative about your post generally. Just a comment on this part: when you build a fence on the property line, the other half becomes your neighbour's fence. Okay, maybe not in every sense, but the neighbour can paint it if he wants, and the municipality will generally stay out of disputes about fences on a property line- if a neighbour doesn't want a fence, generally the solution is to build it set back a foot.

When 0 setbacks are approved, there's generally some sort of easement granted for maintenance. If your neighbour builds a 2m wall on his property line, and then you subsequently want to build a 2m wall on your property line, aren't they now a party wall? Is it okay if your neighbour ties into your roof? He'd have to, wouldn't he? You may have a dispute about how that's done.
[/quote]

Yes, small setbacks for buildings do introduce property-line-related issues that don’t exist with larger setbacks, and for buildings more so than for fences. At the same time, I think it is a matter between the two property owners, probably aided by statute and common law, rather than a matter for zoning to forbid/require certain particular resolutions. The current approach in most zones seems to be to take the easy way out and require space, much of which ends up being utterly useless. Think of how many houses in many areas of the city are separated by maybe 1-2m of space divided equally between the two properties, with a fence between them. The space ends up being completely useless. Even if every house were just shifted over to reach the property line on one side, you would then have a more useful 1-2m space on the other side between that house and its neighbour.

The effect is even greater with large setbacks required for some zones. Some of these make some sense where zones meet — for example, I believe an MR4 small apartment building requires a fairly substantial rear setback, which if it is against a single-family backyard might make sense. But if it’s two MR4 buildings backing on each other, who cares? And even if it is a single-family backyard, the owner might be willing to take $10000 to allow the MR4 apartment to come a couple of metres closer to their backyard, and if they are, it isn’t really the business of the City to tell them they can’t.
Reply
#24
(10-31-2017, 10:32 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I for one would like to know why the zoning bylaw specifically mentions “picture framing”.

Also why I once saw one of those zoning amendment advertising posters on a gas station. The proposed change was in effect from “gas station” to “gas station with convenience store”. Utter nonsense. It would be about as reasonable for me to need a zoning change to put a swing in my backyard.

I think we could throw out at least half of the zoning bylaw and never miss it.

Indeed the zoning bylaw in Kitchener (and most other cities) tends to micro-manage the property classifications, as well as many other aspects.  Like the Income Tax Act, it would be much better after a major simplification.  But like the Income Tax Act, this is difficult from a political point of view.
Reply
#25
This development was begrudgingly approved by city council. This article from the Kitchener Post makes it seem like the proposal is the tallest building ever planned.

https://www.kitchenerpost.ca/news-story/...-district/
Reply
#26
(11-16-2017, 06:46 AM)rangersfan Wrote: This development was begrudgingly approved by city council. This article from the Kitchener Post makes it seem like the proposal is the tallest building ever planned.

https://www.kitchenerpost.ca/news-story/...-district/

Did Etherington or any other councillors vote against approval?
Reply
#27
(11-16-2017, 06:46 AM)rangersfan Wrote: This development was begrudgingly approved by city council. This article from the Kitchener Post makes it seem like the proposal is the tallest building ever planned.

https://www.kitchenerpost.ca/news-story/...-district/

The city staff encouraged the extra floor in order to get mixed use; this is very good to see.
Quote:“We originally had proposed a five-storey building and it was staff’s suggestion — and we totally agreed — to bring the building out of the ground to have potential retail frontage on Victoria Street,” he said.
Reply
#28
I have no patience for this idea that heritage must be preserved in all ways at all costs from all change. When it starts to take away the future of an area's residents by choking them out, who are we even preserving this for? One of the most remarkable things about resilient cities (ones in Europe for which a 50 year old building would be "new" and a 250 year old structure would be a "recent imitator of classic architecture") is how they let the city live and breathe, and rarely does any of these cities of hundreds or even thousands of years old buildings feel as choked off as a neighbourhood of a bunch of private residences which might have hit three digits of age in a few individual cases, if lucky, with "heritage" often being defined solely as "built before I was born."
Reply
#29
(11-16-2017, 12:48 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I have no patience for this idea that heritage must be preserved in all ways at all costs from all change.

Nobody seriously has that idea.
Reply
#30
[quote pid='44935' dateline='1510849954']

The city staff encouraged the extra floor in order to get mixed use; this is very good to see.
Quote:“We originally had proposed a five-storey building and it was staff’s suggestion — and we totally agreed — to bring the building out of the ground to have potential retail frontage on Victoria Street,” he said.

[/quote]

Definitely is! That's exactly what should be happening along this part of Victoria.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Margaret Ave Condominium Project rangersfan 6 5,710 08-28-2016, 04:10 PM
Last Post: rangersfan

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links