1946 Scott Street condo and house prices

This boutique-scale condo is proposed for the corner of Scott and West Village Private.  Yesterday's post dealt with the conflicting planning documents, and how each party relies on the document (level) that best suits their arguments.

I was surprised at the hearing how often the proponent was asked extremely detailed questions about the building. Would the side bedroom windows of the condo have a view across park and then obliquely across the street into the second and third floor windows of the houses on WVP?

Did the proponent have a detailed traffic plan from a consultant showing the impact of his 26 parking spaces on the traffic flow of Scott Street and turn volumes onto Lanark?

Was the west wall of the building concrete or steel stud, given its proximity to the Hydro station next door (which was a whole 'nother story of last minute objections made by Hydro, some of which struck me as ludicrous).

Was the exterior brick colour of the building really as bright orange as shown on the magic-marker coloured drawings? Where was the landscape consultant's report on how to construct foundations to avoid root damage to an on-site oak tree that was to be saved?

The proponent, I discovered, had been to the CofA once before. His architect had drawn detailed constructable floor plans for the building. The plans were then redone, with new suite layouts, new structural calculations, new drawings, more negotiations with the City, and brought back to CofA. The new plans made the building thinner, filled it out closer to the lot lines at the request of the City, etc.

I couldn't help but think how much all these steps cost. And opponents of this project or other projects make the most of picking flaws, requiring more expensive studies when common sense indicates some of the objections are on pretty thin ground. Who pays for all this? The developer of course, but these costs get passed on to the home buyers. You know, the young couple looking for their first step onto the housing escalator by buying a small condo right on the transitway that pops them into work. Or the elderly widow selling her bigger hard-to-maintain older home to get a no-maintenance apartment.

I have no idea what the amount is, but it has to be significant wastage of money to constantly redo detailed plans to meet various objections, to hire endless consultants, to hire a planning presenter at the CofA, the city staff time ... all for issues such as height and setbacks that in my view should have been settled well before the proponent starts to plan his project. Of course, the putative builder cannot meet all the rules because there are so many of them, and they conflict with each other!

This isn't the first case I have seen at CofA. Last year I saw a developer who proposed a low rise apartment-style building infill in New Edinburgh. The local community association prevailed that the developer go away and bring back a townhouse development instead. Which was then turned down by neighbours because it was too close to the side lot line. Redrawn, then presented again to fresh objections from a new party who now complained it was too close to the rear lot line. The proponent faced endless objections caused by satisifying the first objectors, when they met the zoning rules with their first proposal. Oh vey! Eventually, a harder-nosed developer will simply cease consulting neighbors and build what can be mostly accomodated within the existing rules, whether the neighbors like it or not. So sad.

And house or condo buyers pay the price for this system. And taxpayers for the City planners and detailed planning studies like a CDP that the same community associations that help draft them ... then go on to object to their implementation.  And taxpayers again, who then get to subsidize the construction and repair of social housing units because the badly-regulated market doesn't deliver them cheap enough housing that the same planning process (like "smart growth") worked hard to squeeze out of the market. It's enough to make one cry.

It seems to me there should be a two-step process: the proponent works out with the city the size and shape of the proposed building on the lot and the conflicts between the zoning, infill guidelines, CDP and Official Plan. Once it is agreed what can be built, then the battle moves on to the specifics of the design.

1946 Scott Street condo

For edutainment, I went to the Committee of Adjustment hearing on this condo a few weeks back. The six storey condo is proposed for the corner of Scott at West Village Private (WVP). Also at the intersection is Lanark Avenue. Directly across the street is the Metropole condo, the tallest in the city.

The proponent wanted several variances. For example, reduced side yards and building the structure closer to the street. It turns out that the builder was being forced to ask for these by the City, because the zoning requires certain setbacks but the Community Design Plan (CDP) for the area calls for buildings along Scott from this site west to Churchill to be built close to the street, with a wide streetscaped sidewalk in front, the buildings are to abut each other tightly with no side yards, etc. to look like a traditional main street (eg West Wellington, Richmond Road in Westboro).

Opponents of the plan, who had a professional planner as one of their presenters, objected to various issues. Parking was a sore spot. Residents of the WVP didn't like that the builder was having less than one parking space per unit and felt there would be spill over parking into their street. Perfectly reasonable ... except the City forbids the proponent to provide the normal 100% parking because his condo is within x metres of a transitway station.

Other objections focussed on the ground floor commercial space, possibly a convenience store. Once again, the proponent was happy to make the building 100% residential but the City demanded commercial space on the ground floor to animate the street and sidewalks per their traditional mainstreet designation.

There were detailed objections to the condo based on close readings of the zoning bylaw and the city's infill guidelines. The condo proponent based their request for adjustments on the City's official plan that demands more intense infill and the CDP which specifies the lots along Scott are to be developed with a continuous row of six storey buildings with commercial at the sidewalk level.

I sympathized with the neighbours who might not want a six storey building overlooking their back yard, and saw traffic issues. Some of their other complaints struck me as trivial. They used the zoning laws as their tool of choice.

I sympathized with the condo proponent who is being told by the City that if he wants to build he has to violate those same zoning bylaws in favour of the CDP requirements for a traditional main street. I subsequently learned that the hierarchy of rules is

•  Provincial planning directives,
•  under that is the City Official Plan,
• under that is the CDP,
•  under that is the individual lot zoning.
• The infill guidelines sort of float inbetween the zoning and CDP levels.

These various levels of plan frequently lead to contradictions when it comes to developing an individual site, eg the CDP demand for a continuous line of building frontages vs the zoning requirement for generous side yard setbacks. These contradictions seem to get resolved by the advice of the planning dept. as ratified by the Committee of Adjustment.

In this case the CofA heard all sides, and decided the contradictions between the zoning bylaw and CDP were so great that the zoning needs to be clarified/changed. The proponent can wait for that to happen (a process that will be subject to much lobbying...), or the proponent can appeal the decision to the OMB which often rules based on the higher level of planning document, eg the CDP.

to be continued in next post