Attika | 18 fl |Approved

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Boxster

WHAT...you are pulling my leg right?

Nope.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06...-royal-assent/

[Boxster]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Nope.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06...-royal-assent/

I have seen it all!!!Just can't believe it! Even Condo boards which represent the owners cannot enforce their own rules.

WOW...

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by McC

Classic OMB suck and blow on page 10:

"The test however, is [...] not whether an eight storeys development is appropriate."
then in the very next paragraph:
"The Board agrees that it [...] is a superior development to what an eight storey development would provide."

And even worse later on the Page:

"The Board also finds that the proposed development represents an appropriate response to provincial policies, which has as an objective to contain urban sprawl and encourage intensification where services and municipal infrastructure are already in place."
when the ruling has absolutely nothing to do with intensification:
"the property at 233 Armstrong and 3 Hamilton is permitted to develop with a Floor Space Index that is generally equivalent to an 8‐storey building without being subject to a maximum height limit of 8‐storeys (27 m)." i.e. they are permitted to build the exact same floorspace as prescribed in the CDP, therefore the same level of intensification.

This will likely arm Richcraft with enough ammunition to get their property at Bullman-Parkdale-Scott re-zoned well above the maximum prescribed in the Scott St CDP (the 45-degree angles give a cap of something like ~22-25 storeys, IIRC).

And most egregiously, they are applying the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement to an application fromage 2013.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

And most egregiously, they are applying the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement to an application fromage 2013.

Usually applications are grandfathered based on the policies in place when they made their application, but the 2014 PPS has a provisions that applies it to in-stream applications at the time of the decision (including OMB decisions).

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Usually applications are grandfathered based on the policies in place when they made their application, but the 2014 PPS has a provisions that applies it to in-stream applications at the time of the decision (including OMB decisions).

Weird. So it was measured against a standard that didn't exist when council decided to not approve it? I missed that when I went over the PPS.