|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ZONING DICTIONARY | ZONING FORUM | CONTRIBUTORS |
| ZONING PROVISIONS | ZONING RESOURCES | SUBMIT MATERIALS |
| ZONING DIAGRAMS | SUBSCRIBE | CONTACT |
Please sign-in.
Not a subscriber?
Subscribe for unlimited access!
Contributions for Bob L.
Member Since: 2007-11-04 16:02:00
Total Contributions: 7
0 General Contributions |
||||
| Contribution: | Date Submitted: | |||
7 Forum Contributions |
||||
| Contribution: | Date Submitted: | |||
| RESPONSE: FSI is a way of controlling density as an alternative to units per acre or hectare. It can relate the amount of floor space to the amount of land area in order to ensure that the infrastructure is capable of accommodating the amount of development. It is usually used for higher density development not ground oriented housing. For example large shopping centres often have a maximum fsi of .25, large office buildings with underground parking that fill the site will have an FSI that matches the number of floors. The city of Toronto zoning by-law has since the 50's separated the density measure from the use zones so that a property will show on the map with a C4.R1.5.C2.0 meaning C4 uses with a max residential density of 1.5 fsi and commercial density of 2.0. this is an overlay system of zoning which is very flexible and is used extensively in London Ontario and Regina Sask. |
2006-05-24 11:04:35
|
|||
| RESPONSE: Typically the non-conforming status is relatively limited to the nature of what occurred before. Much depends on the impacts of the use on surrounding uses. If the different use attracts more customers and more deliveries, and those impacts cause problems, I think the use can be differentiated. The courts have been much more practical in recent years in interpreting statutes, going to the intent rather than the literal wording. A recent case at the Supreme Court in Canada dealt with the conversion of a country and western bar with legal non-conforming status to a strip club, and concluded that it was a different use. The decision is very well written and goes through all the relevant perspectives. If I find the citation I will post it. Bob L. |
2004-08-04 19:20:40
|
|||
| RESPONSE: Robin - I would be careful because the parking demand for fitness centres peaks at noon and at five or six. In most municipalities the parking, even on a stand alone site is not enough. I would be very surprised if the parking in an industrial condo would be enough. I can see the argument that it would serve the employees in the area and there also should not be any other negative impacts (except the parking). The indoor skate board park, which I presume would be a commercial operation, that is there would be a fee charged, would likely not have any impacts on anything. but would be hard to argue it conforms to the Plan. I can't imagine making money from an indoor skateboard park so there may not be an issue for long. |
2004-07-14 00:55:23
|
|||
| RESPONSE: Robin - I would be careful because the parking demand for fitness centres peaks at noon and at five or six. In most municipalities the parking, even on a stand alone site is not enough. I would be very surprised if the parking in an industrial condo would be enough. I can see the argument that it would serve the employees in the area and there also should not be any other negative impacts (except the parking). The indoor skate board park, which I presume would be a commercial operation, that is there would be a fee charged, would likely not have any impacts on anything. but would be hard to argue it conforms to the Plan. I can't imagine making money from an indoor skateboard park so there may not be an issue for long. |
2004-07-14 00:54:30
|
|||
| RESPONSE: Ron - the site is just getting going. I have not yet done any marketing other than at last fall's conference in Huntsville. There are about 20 subscribers so far, half American, half Canadian, but not enough to get a great deal of traffic as yet. So I would not be surprised if you did not get much of a response to your question. Bob Lehman |
2004-05-25 18:17:30
|
|||
| RESPONSE: Would a container, which is not attached to the ground and does not have a foundation, be considered a building in your jurisdiction. If not, it would not be subject to setback provisions. What is the broader issue - the use or the structure? I do have some experience with a property that is used to store containers for sale. They are considered in the same way that mobile homes or cars would be stored and displayed on the property for sales purposes. |
2004-01-14 03:16:37
|
|||
| RESPONSE: With no specific experience in that use I would first confirm that it is commercial use in that people pay to use the property. If not, it could simply be a Ducks Unlimited wetland that has fencing around it, and from which hunters are not kept out. There was a case in Canada recently with someone who stocked a property with some kind of game and was charged for allowing people to hunt for a fee. So I would suppose that the choice would be to zone for some form of commercial use or to zone as a conservation area of some kind. The basic question to ask is what you are trying to accomplish with the zoning. bob |
2003-11-13 23:55:59
|
|||
DICTIONARY |
PROVISIONS |
DIAGRAMS |
RESOURCES |
FORUM |
SUBSCRIBE
CONTRIBUTORS |
SUBMIT MATERIALS |
CONTACT
©2003 Lehman & Associates - All Rights Reserved - Site by Progressive Media Group Canada
