11-19-2014, 12:53 PM
On one hand, it makes sense for an area zoned for towers to have setbacks equal to the distance you want to have as a minimum between balconies/windows. No one would buy a balcony 3m from the adjacent tower, where you could use a ladder to go between towers.
But at the same time, there needs to be flexibility. If the smallest size tower that could be built (accommodating units, hallways, services, etc) needed to be at least 10m wide, and I have a property that is 10m wide, I am not sure we should expect larger adjacent properties to take all the setback to allow for them to build on their property. Nor would I think that, if a 10m setback was required, and a tower needed to be 10m wide, that a development should be eternally halted because an adjacent owner of a 10m wide lot could someday have his lot combined with more lots on their side for the possibility of creating a tower.
We would never tell a business owner he can't create a convenience store on his lot because an adjacent property may someday be assembled with other adjacent properties, and the assembled property owner might want to build a convenience store there someday, which the present day convenience store proposal would make impossible for any number of reasons.
This is far from a simple issue. There is likely to be similar concern for the St. Sophia church in Waterloo. And this won't be the last time these discussions come up.
But at the same time, there needs to be flexibility. If the smallest size tower that could be built (accommodating units, hallways, services, etc) needed to be at least 10m wide, and I have a property that is 10m wide, I am not sure we should expect larger adjacent properties to take all the setback to allow for them to build on their property. Nor would I think that, if a 10m setback was required, and a tower needed to be 10m wide, that a development should be eternally halted because an adjacent owner of a 10m wide lot could someday have his lot combined with more lots on their side for the possibility of creating a tower.
We would never tell a business owner he can't create a convenience store on his lot because an adjacent property may someday be assembled with other adjacent properties, and the assembled property owner might want to build a convenience store there someday, which the present day convenience store proposal would make impossible for any number of reasons.
This is far from a simple issue. There is likely to be similar concern for the St. Sophia church in Waterloo. And this won't be the last time these discussions come up.