Update: Comments to the City for the Byron, Roosevelt and Ravenhill Proposal

4 12 2018

Thank you Westboro!

Comments to the City for the Byron, Roosevelt and Ravenhill project, where the developer has applied for a zoning by-law amendment (from R3R to R4G) to add another residential unit to the triplexes he has built, were due November 27 . . .  and you rallied to the cause!  Some 30 residents took the time to contact Councillor Leiper, the City and the community association, outlining their opposition to this unnecessary and dangerous change in zoning in a residential area of our community.


Your Board of Directors also filed a thoughtful, detailed rationale opposing the amendment and the earlier email post below is an excellent summary prepared by savewestboro@icloud.com  group.


Why are we opposed?  Well, it’s pretty simple: we’ll be polite and say the developer “misrepresented” what he was intending to build. Triplexes were permitted at this location; the developer received the go-ahead from the City’s Committee of Ajustment to knock down 8 residences and put up 14 triplexes and 4 semidetached equaling 50 residences.  He has just about finished 6 of the triplexes.  Now, call us crazy, but attached is a picture of the so called triplexes . . . amazingly, they include a fourth mail box, air conditioner and hydro meter. Doesn’t look like a triplex to us.



So yes, the developer actually built fourplexes, adding a residential space in the basement of each, which means 14 more residential spaces.  Now he has to ask the City to change the zoning, which would support the increased intensity. The new zoning opens the door to other changes later down the road.


It is clear he went ahead and built what he wanted and now expects the City to grant him his zoning change and additional intensity.


We say no. This is not good planning – it is policy by stealth.  We deserve better.  The matter will be heard by City Planning Council in the New Year – we will keep you posted.  Join us in continuing to protest this project.


Bulldog.com: Will Councillors Fold On New Development Rules?

24 09 2018

Will Councillors Fold On New Development Rules? Benn

Bulldog columnist Ron Benn looks at the proposal from city staff to allow high-rises just less than half a kilometre from a main street:

The problem is not just limited to extending the up-to-12-storey zone to 400 metres from main streets.

It appears to be compounded by the introduction of the concept that where Secondary Plans were allowed to be more restrictive than the Official Plan, that when these amendments are passed, the Secondary Plan can be less restrictive than the Official Plan. In the context of the report, if the Official Plan limited the building heights to 12 storeys within 400 metres of a main street, the Secondary Plan could not allow greater than 12 storeys. Under the proposed changes, the Secondary Plan could say “notwithstanding” (see its not just Doug Ford who gets to use that word) the Official Plan, buildings greater than 12 storeys, including those that are greater than 30 storeys are permitted for this neighbourhood.

Today the development industry has to go through the difficult process of changing the Official Plan, a document that addresses the city as a whole. A process that draws far more attention from the public and needs to be approved by a majority of councillors across the city. Tomorrow, the development industry need only try to get a specific Secondary Plan amended to allow them build their 31+ storey buildings beside bungalows and two-storey homes in specific neighbourhoods. Once that occurs, then the need for individual rezoning applications goes down by a factor of 10, or more. Will the councillors for wards not affected by the specific Secondary Plan pay close attention to the changes being lobbied for? Based on the voting records for applications to rezone specific properties for higher buildings a serious reader would be challenged to think they would.

Divide and conquer is an age-old strategy. In this case, it appears that the city’s planning department has joined the development industry on the conquerors side of that equation. The only question is whether the councillors who sit on the planning committee are willing to fight to retain the authority that goes with their responsibilties, responsibilities that will not disappear with these proposed changes, or will they just capitulate again?

Request to Residents Regarding Rochester Field

29 01 2018

Dear Westboro neighbour:

On Tuesday past, Ottawa Planning Committee approved a proposal for the NCC to build two six storey multi-use buildings on Rochester Park between Fraser
Ave homes and the Keg Manor. Yes there’s supposed to be a laneway between the two buildings but we know how well that worked with the passage Ashcroft
built so we can’t see the convent from Richmond Road.

We are asking residents to contact the Mayor and City Council to ask them to vote NO when this item comes to Council Wednesday January 31st.

What was approved is not what the NCC and the City agreed to with a Memorandum of Understanding that the NCC presented to residents in March 2016. We would like this item to go back to Planning Staff so all parties can come up with a better and friendlier proposal.

If the NCC is a good neighbour this could be resolved by March 1st.

Following are the emails for the Mayor and Council.


Gary Ludington, Chair

Rochester Field: Comments due by October 16, 2017

10 10 2017

Please see the attached poster (below) for additional information.

Now is your chance to tell the NCC and the City how you feel about mid/high rise development on Rochester Field.

Email comments by Oct 16 to:
City of Ottawa Planning or bruce.finlay@ottawa.ca
110 Laurier Ave W, 4th floor, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
613-580-2424 x 23463

Contact City Councillor Jeff Leiper:


Contact Mayor Jim Watson:


Speak at the Planning Meeting at City Hall:
Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue W.
Nov 14, 9:30 AM
Contact Melody Duffenais to register
613-580-2424 x 23463

rochester field flyer new

1946 Scott Street: Site Plan Control Proposal and Minor Zoning By-law Amendment

1 10 2017

From the City of Ottawa:

This is the formal circulation of the planning application noted above. Below is a link to the application on the City’s Development Application Search Tool where you will find information about the application and all of the submitted plans, reports, surveys and accompanying documents you will need to review the application. Also attached is the application summary.

Link to the Site Plan Control Application on DevApps is here.

Link to the Zoning By-law Amendment Application on DevApps is here.

Please comment directly to the File Lead through the “Send comments to the file lead” link of DevApps.

Note that the deadline date for comments is October 25, 2017.

Public Meeting: Developement Application for 1445-1451 Wellington Street West

4 12 2013

An application has been posted to the City of Ottawa website for a new development at the northeast corner of Wellington and Island Park by Mizrahi Developments.

They have also sent out an invitation for the public to attend an information session about the development: Mizrahi Developments invites you to a public meeting to discuss their proposed development at 1451 and 1445 Wellington Street West on Thursday December 12, 2013 at 7.00pm.

The meeting will be taking place in the studio of the Great Canadian Theatre Company (located at 1233 Wellington Street West).

All documents regarding details of the development are available on the city’s website.

Katherine Hobbs (Councillor of Kitchissippi Ward) will be in attendance.


OMB decision on the Review – Proposed Urban Uniform Developments for 335 Roosevelt

11 02 2013

Posted on behalf of Westboro Citizens for Appropriate Development

Westboro C.A.D. have received the OMB decision of the review (requested by Uniform Developments) of the May 2012 decision that ruled that the high rise proposal was not in conformity with the Official Plan. Uniform applied to the City for an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) to allow the higher maximum zoning and allow their proposal, and they also filed for a review of the May 2012 decision.

In the review, Uniform argued there was a denial of natural justice as they had not had the chance to present their case. The recent OMB decision agreed that Uniform should be given the chance to present their case. So the case is to be continued. To quote the decision itself: “Specifically this hearing should continue before the original member where it left off but with the inclusion of the appeal to Uniform’s Official Plan Amendment (OPA) if launched.”

Here is the decision: http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl120109-jan-17-2013.pdf

So we know we will be going back to the OMB at some point, and we know that we will want to be involved in the City hearing and decision on the OPA requested by Uniform. But we don’t know the details of the process or the timeframe.
So stay tuned. We will get back to you on the details and let you know how you can help.

For more details, please contact the Westboro Citizens for Appropriate Development
Follow @WestborCAD on twitter
Add us to your Google+ circles
Join our Facebook group, Like our Facebook page

A new kind of development in Westboro

18 11 2009

Sky bungalows in Westboro

Sometimes small things such as the use of different words has a major impact that was not anticipated. We discovered such a change when we saw the sign at 430 Byron Avenue for the Bungalows of Westboro. The developer told us they expected to build within the Zoning By-law. That’s when we discovered the small change in wording.

In the 1998 Zoning By-law which has now been replaced by the City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 2008-250, triplexes were a permitted use. The zoning permitted a triplex per the following: “triplex house limited to a converted three unit house.” In other words an existing house could be converted to have three units but you could not build a triplex outright.

In the new by-law what is permitted is now defined as a “three-unit dwelling.” Sadly we missed this small change which now appears to have a major impact as one sees from the new definition: “Three-unit Dwelling means a residential use building originally constructed to contain three principal dwelling units divided horizontally.” NOTE that converted is no longer in the definition.

The new by-law permits the building of a three unit on a lot size similar to that of a single detached home but to a height of 11 metres. A single or semi-detached home has a height limit of 8 metres in our community.

Granted there are some streets where a three-unit might be appropriate, but the City’s “Urban Design Guidelines for low-medium Density Infill” states:

“Allow the front door (the public entrance) to dominate the façade (front wall) as opposed to the garage. The use of quality materials and an eye-catching entrance is preferable over recessed and shadowed entrances and Create design excellence, using visual cues from the neighbourhood, through the following elements:

  • Quality materials
  •  Textures and colours used in wall treatments
  • Articulation of design features such as projections, recesses, front porches, stoops, balconies
  •  Cornice lines, chimneys, etc.
  •  Size, shape, placement and number of doors and windows
  •  Form of the roofline

… and create building faces that are detailed with inviting entrances and living spaces close to the ground that offer eyes on the street and contribute to the amenity of the public realm.”

Building these kind of “three units” on a residential street consisting of homes of 8 metres in height is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. When there is no requirement for a site plan or minor variance we can only hope that City Staff will be vigilant during the building permit stage.

The Building Permit stage is sometimes the only time an infill project will be reviewed (it may be exempt from Site Plan Control By-law 2002-4 as amended; the Building Code and all other Zoning By-law provisions have been met; it is not a Designated Heritage Building or within a Heritage Conservation District under the Ontario Heritage Act and there is no requirement for a severance). At this stage all applicants will receive a copy of the design guidelines and will be encouraged to comply.

As always, we’d love to hear your thoughts. Below are some views of the location of proposed development on Byron Avenue.

Sky bungalows in Westboro

Sky bungalows in Westboro

%d bloggers like this: