Posted by: HamptonIona | July 25, 2013

236 Richmond Zoning By-law Amendment Application

The Hampton Iona Community Group has received the following announcement (see below) from the City with respect to a proposal submitted for the redevelopment of 236 Richmond Road (southeast corner of Richmond Road and Tweedsmuir.  The application can be found on the City’s website at:

Current zoning for the site allows for 4 to 6 stories with a maximum height of 15 metres.  The developer is asking for a rezoning to allow for 9 stories with a height of 32.5 metres (more than double the currently allowed zoning).

The Hampton Iona Community Group welcomes comments from the community so that we may have a better understanding of the community’s view of this rezoning application. Please respond to our website if you have any comments.

Additionally, if you have any questions or comments at this time for the City, you can contact Stream Shen ( who is the planner handling this file or Councillor Hobbs (


From the City

An Zoning By-law Amendment application has been received for 236 Richmond Road.


Site Location:
The site is municipally addressed as 236 Richmond Road and is located at the south-east corner of Tweedsmuir Avenue and Richmond Road.


Description of Site and Surroundings:

The site has an area of 1,351 square metres and is currently occupied by a single storey building. The building originally was a service station and more recently, the site has been a used car sales lot. The area is characterized by a mix of low-profile residential, office and commercial uses. Surrounding the site are retail and office uses to the north, a LCBO to the east, a gas station to the west, and a vacant lot to the south.


Details of Requested Zoning By-law Amendment Proposal:

The purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to amend the existing Traditional Mainstreet Zone – TM[83]H(15)  to Traditional Mainstreet Zone – TM[XXXX]H(32.5). The Exception would include the following:


1.       To permit a maximum height of 32.5 metres (9 storeys)

2.       To permit a corner side yard setback of 0 metres on Tweedsmuir Avenue

3.       To permit a rear yard setback of 0.2 metres for the parking garage and a setback of 5.2 metres for the principle building

4.       To eliminate the 45 degree angular plane restriction

5.       To permit a reduced driveway aisle width of 5.8 metres

6.       To permit 6 small car parking spaces


The proposed development is a 9 storey, 32 metre, mixed-use building with 70 residential units and 4 commercial units on the ground floor facing Richmond Road. The proposed Gross Floor Area (GFA) is 6,319 square metres with 86% of the GFA devoted to residential and the remainder to commercial. A total of 60 parking spaces will be provided by a 3 level underground parking lot (15 spaces for retail, 29 for residential and 12 for visitor parking). 29 bicycle parking spaces will be provided underground and 4 spaces will be provided above grade. Amenity space will be provided through a combination of private balconies, communal spaces and rooftop terrace.


If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Stream Shen

Development Review, Urban Services Branch

4th Floor, 110 Laurier Avenue West, K2P 2H9

Phone: 613-580-2424 Ext. 16098




  1. I urge you most strongly to object to this becuse it violates the Secondary Plan – which is formally and legally a part of the Official Plan.

    As such, a zoning amendment of the sort that is proposed can not legally be approved – unless the Official Plan is amended first.

    Amending the OP would bring forth the facts that this proposal would further overload the roads and the sewers – and impose further burdens on taxpayers.

    The OMB decided, in the only case brought before it on this matter (the north end of Roosevelt) that the Secondary Plan has legal force.

    The leaders of HIGC have previously decided to abandon the appeal on the convent property – and not to defend the Secondary Plan – arguing that it had no force.

    That is clearly not true since the appellants on the Roosevelt property won their appeal – and the OMB decision confirmed that the Secondary Plan is legally binding on the City.

    Yes, the developer has appealed – but not on the question of non-conformity of the proposal with the Secondary Plan (and thus the OP) is not the basis of the appeal.

    Even since that decision of the OMB, HIGC decided not to fight the proposed development on the north-west corner of Kirkwood and Richmond – another development proposal that was far higher – and that imposed far more intensification – than the OP and the Secondary Plan (that is part of the OP) contemplate or allow.

    I most strenuously urge the leaders of HIGC not to back down this time – even if the developers offer you another $200,000.

    Decisions must be driven by the dictates of sound planning and public accountability of officials to the plans that the City develops and the Province approves – and not by sharing the profits that developers get from zoning decisions that are made by a City council that snubs its nose at its citizens and its own formal plans.

    If HIGC had not backed down last time on the convent property – we might have another OMB decision upholding the secondary plan – and we might not have had the City approve the additional non-conforming development at the north-west corner of Kirkwood and Richmond – and we might not have this proposal to contend with.

    Standing on principle is what matters, here.

    The principle is set forth in the OP and the Secondary Plan.

    If those documents (and the massive and expensive process that the Planning Act requires the City to go through to get them prepared, discussed and approved) don’t mean anything, then there are most serious grounds to challenge the decisions of the City on projects that massively over-intensify the neighbourhood – harm the functioning and liveability of the neighbourhood, impose huge burdens on the infrastructure – and impose very high costs on taxpayers rather than on the developers who gain great windfall profits from such neighbourhood-overwhelming re-zonings.

    It’s time to stand up against the greed of those who want to exploit our community – and who are not part of the community – being neither residents nor part of the business community that servers the community.

    Since City staff and City Council spend their time insisting that they can get around the clear intent of the Official Plan and the Secondary Plan, it is important that the Community stands up for it – and for the rational planning processes that are demandded by the Planning Act of Ontario.

    The Community must defend rational planning must be supported – against the ad-hocracy of unrestrained greed.

    Charles Ficner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: