By Warren Waters
On Jan 27, the City’s Planning Committee approved two development applications that the Lowertown Community Association (LCA) opposed. City Council must always confirm any decision of the Planning Committee, so whatever your views, please express them.
At 641 Rideau, despite not meeting all the requirements of the Secondary Plan, a 25-storey tower is planned to replace five, three-storey apartment buildings. ACORN, a tenants’ union, held a protest against demolition on January 20 because Ottawa is losing seven affordable-housing units for every one being built. Along with approving exemptions from Plan requirements, the Committee approved a motion from Councillor Fleury to have the owner sign an agreement to pay the existing tenants’ moving costs, bridge any increased rents for a year by paying the rental difference, and give right of first refusal on similar-sized units when completed, (but only at market rates, not their existing rents, and only if they end up actually building rental units). Demoviction with a heart.
Also at stake is whether any Secondary Plan is just a suggestion to developers, changeable without any rationale except: “the requirements must change so the plan can be built”. Under our 2016 Upper Rideau Secondary Plan, building heights along Rideau east of King Edward are generally six or nine storeys. Council may approve additional heights as exceptions through density redistribution, but the Secondary Plan says exceptions are conditional on all six prerequisites being met. But the 25-storey proposal at 641 Rideau fails to meet half of those prerequisites, yet may still go ahead:
- the site does not abut the required two public realms (streets),
- the project has Floor Space Index of 6.9 instead of the maximum of 5,
- the plan does not meet Built Form Principles requiring the floor plate be a maximum of 750 square metres.
Planners simply asserted that all requirements were either met or not publicly noticeable enough to matter. If Council fails to support the Secondary Plan, making the exception into the rule, all other secondary plans are also vulnerable. Planning staff insist that this won’t be used as precedent, and that the existing Secondary Plan remains in full force. We judge them by their actions, not their words.
Notre Dame Cathedral parking lot behind 385 Sussex, will likely remain a “temporary” paid parking lot for another two years. The City appears unable or unwilling to enforce its agreements. The Planning Committee slashed the period from the three-year maximum requested to only two years (“… so as not to harm church revenues”), asking that the City and local community stakeholders also assist the Archdiocese to fulfil their 20-year-old promise to develop the site. The Archdiocese said they were willing to talk, but unable to do anything.
In 2003 the Archdiocese asked permission to demolish two heritage buildings at Parent and Guigues, and to build a surface parking lot on the property. It stated their long-term plan was to someday build a compatible structure on the site that would include underground parking, in part financed by revenues from a temporary parking lot.
As the buildings are located in the Heritage District, demolition could not proceed until Council had first approved plans for a replacement structure. However, after an appeal by the Archdiocese to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), a compromise deal was struck. The City allowed the demolition, but would only grant temporary zoning permission for parking on the site. For its part, the Archdiocese dropped its OMB appeal and undertook to come forward with suitable development plans within approximately 8 to10 years. The temporary zoning came into force in 2005 and was renewed in 2008, 2011 and 2014.
Today, 20 years after the Archdiocese first applied to demolish their buildings, nothing in the current application shows that the Archdiocese has made any effort, or even intends to fulfil its side of the agreement made with the community and Council in 2003 and 2004 (and as promised to the OMB, which confirmed the deal). Use of the property for surface parking is inconsistent with the City’s Official Plan and simply wastes a valuable location.
Lastly, the Board of the NCC has approved a study on a new interprovincial crossing that is basically kicking the trucking problem down the road. From the perspective of the downtown truck problem it’s a plan to do nothing. The Board says “diverting heavy truck traffic from the core will require more than a new crossing”. Not much is said about what more is required, and no one has a plan for it, so what could potentially be accomplished via this “more” is still wishful thinking. Matthew Fleury has written to the NCC and the Ontario Ministry of Transport pointing out the study’s many gaps, but we all need to raise the heat on the City, the NCC and the Ministry of Transport. The NCC assumes charging more to trucks will someday be able to get trucks out of downtown, but since no politician ever seems willing to charge more to trucks, it sounds like smoke without mirrors. Trucks are never going away without our efforts.
The LCA still lacks a Director of Transport, so everyone’s help here is essential. Warren Waters is c