By Belinda Siwen Shen
Area residents are appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board over the approval of a Charlesfort Development’s Kent Street building project that contravenes zoning bylaws.
“I’m concerned of the fact that [the approval] is going to, perhaps, set precedent for potential developers in the future – and ignore anything south of Gloucester with respect to what the zoning is,” says Jeannette St. Jacques, who lives on Lisgar Street, near the development.
The committee of adjustment, a body that deals with zoning issues in Ottawa, approved a revised plan by Charlesfort for minor variances to the Hudson Park condominium. This includes the construction of one building at 15 storeys and another at 17 storeys on Kent Street, between Lisgar and Nepean streets.
However, the zoning bylaw has a set height limit at 12 storeys, which applies to the area south of Gloucester Street.
St. Jacques says she doesn’t understand the reasoning for the approval of the new plan, adding that it doesn’t differ from previous plans that have neglected to respect the regulations of the by-law. She also cites the lack of sunlight and shadowing to be major concerns among residents.
But Doug Casey, owner of Charlesfort, stresses that these new revisions for the Hudson Park buildings were seen by the committee to be the most favorable and in the best interest of all parties concerned.
Casey says that by building higher, Charlesfort hopes to leave at least 51 per cent of the development grounds for open space and greenery.
“Kent is not that pretty,” says Casey. “The idea of creating open space is more inviting for people…it feels more livable.”
But not everyone agrees with the claimed additional benefits.
David Gladstone, a member of the Centretown Citizen’s Community Association’s (CCCA) development committee says that because the space is privately owned, it will therefore be accessible only to those living in Hudson Park.
Meanwhile, Somerset Ward councillor Diane Holmes says she supports the increased height of the Hudson Park buildings – citing that similar views held by many residents in the Everett building prompted her to change her initial opinion of not favouring the revised plans.
In addition, Holmes also wrote a letter to the committee of adjustment explaining that she favoured the Charlesfort proposal.
Casey also points out that the CCCA had initially supported their plan but has since withdrawn its support and presented a letter at the OMB hearing stating this change of opinion because a number of residents had opposed the plan.
Casey also says the CCCA did not file the letter in June, when opposing views first emerged from residents concerning the approval of the revised plans.
Gladstone, however, emphasizes that the association has always wanted the development to comply with the bylaw and the only way that they would act otherwise is by a strong community consensus.
Among other complaints expressed early in the development talks, many who oppose the higher buildings claim lighting to be their major concern.
“It creates the mini-Manhattan effect… the bald reality is that people who bought condos in the Everett’s did not anticipate that two or three buildings like theirs being built in immediate proximity,” says Gladstone.
However, Casey explains that the bylaw allows Charlesfort to erect an L-shaped, 12-storey building that would cover the entirety of their development site – something that they avoided in order to accommodate resident concerns over lighting issues.
The first day of the appeal hearing was held in Toronto on Oct. 25.
It will take another four to six weeks before the OMB rules on the appeal.