Community Submission: Jorgen Hoeven, Hintonburg Resident
Jorgen Hoeven, a Hintonburg resident, submitted this 14-page analysis on March 12, 2026 — one day before the formal comment deadline. He reviewed the developer’s own planning documents, the city’s traffic study, and the relevant provincial and municipal planning rules before writing it.
The full document is available to download as a PDF.
His five core arguments are below, written for a general audience. A glossary of planning terms is at the bottom of this page.
1. The developer is claiming it’s allowed to build more than it actually is
This is the submission’s most technical argument, but it has a simple bottom line: the developer has miscalculated how much floor space it’s permitted to build, and the error inflates the baseline by about 59%.
Here’s why it matters. Under current zoning, there’s a cap on how much total floor space can be built on this site — expressed as a ratio called a Floor Space Index (FSI). Think of it like this: if your lot is 1,000 square metres and your FSI is 6.0, you’re allowed 6,000 square metres of floor space total, spread across however many floors you like.
The developer calculated its permitted floor space by multiplying the lot size by 8 storeys. That’s not how FSI works. When Hoeven applies the correct formula — lot area multiplied by the FSI limit — the amount the developer is actually permitted to build comes out to about 17,700 square metres. The proposal asks for 28,100 square metres. That’s roughly 10,400 square metres more than currently permitted — a 59% increase.
The developer’s planning documents frame this as simply asking to remove a height limit. Hoeven argues this framing obscures the fact that what’s actually being requested is a massive increase in the total amount of building — with no cap on floor space at all.
2. The density would be wildly out of proportion with what the planning rules expect for this location
City planning rules don’t apply the same density expectations everywhere. This particular block sits on what’s classified as a Minor Corridor — a street-level designation that carries a lower density target than the major transit hub areas nearby. The city’s Official Plan sets a minimum density of 60 to 80 homes per hectare for sites like this one.
The proposed development would produce roughly 1,314 homes per hectare — more than 16 times the expected level for this designation.
To put the height in concrete terms: if built as proposed, this tower would be the second tallest building in Ottawa, behind only the Claridge Icon on Carling Avenue. Every comparable tower in the city sits directly on a major arterial road or faces the sprawling federal Tunney’s Pasture campus. This site is across from a park, a two-storey tavern, and low-rise homes.
The submission also revisits the last time this site went through a major planning process. In 2014, the Ontario Municipal Board — the provincial appeal body for planning decisions — approved a maximum of 18 storeys after four rounds of design revisions. The board’s written decision said 18 storeys “will not be a dominant or overwhelming building within its surrounding context.” The current proposal is more than twice that height, and the neighbourhood around it hasn’t changed.
3. Promises about affordable space and keeping existing tenants aren’t legally binding
The developer has said, at public meetings, that it wants to retain existing tenants in the new building and provide affordable commercial space. Hoeven’s submission points out that none of this is written into the application in any enforceable way.
The Wellington West Community Design Plan — a city-approved local planning document — specifically calls for this area to support small, independent businesses, with ground-floor retail units capped at 200 square metres to prevent large chain formats from taking over. It also calls for the Parkdale Park and Market area to remain the civic and commercial heart of the Wellington West neighbourhood.
The submission asks: what happens to current tenants — including Mino ‘Weesini food bank — during what the developer has indicated could be a four-year construction period? How will they afford to return if commercial rents in a new 38-storey building are at market rate? Verbal commitments made at an open house carry no legal weight once the project is approved.
Hoeven’s position: if the city grants any additional building rights beyond what is currently permitted, it should require concrete, written, enforceable commitments to community benefit in return.
4. The traffic study uses decade-old data and the building violates a city by-law on driveway placement
On the traffic study:
The Transportation Impact Assessment — the study the developer submitted to show the building won’t cause traffic problems — has several significant weaknesses:
- Some intersection traffic counts are from 2016, collected in winter, and don’t reflect current volumes or the busier market season (Parkdale Market runs seven days a week from May to October)
- The study assumes zero background traffic growth over its forecast period, despite major planned development nearby on Scott Street and the Tunney’s Pasture federal campus
- The study applies a large reduction to its vehicle trip estimates on the basis that residents will take the O-Train — but Tunney’s Pasture is a western terminal station, meaning anyone heading toward Kanata or western Ottawa can’t use the LRT and will drive
Hoeven also notes, from daily experience, that Parkdale Avenue is already bumper-to-bumper during morning and evening rush hours all the way from Scott Street through the Armstrong intersection. The Spencer/Parkdale corner is routinely blocked. Turning left out of Spencer Street onto Parkdale during peak hours is already difficult. Adding 322 underground parking spaces — all exiting onto Spencer — makes that worse.
On the by-law violation:
This is a straightforward finding. A city by-law (By-Law 2003-447) requires that any apartment building with more than 300 parking spaces must place its driveway entrance at least 60 metres from the edge of the nearest main road. The proposal places the Spencer Street ramp at 30 metres from Parkdale Avenue — half the required distance — and offers no plan to address this.
The developer’s traffic consultant argues the rule doesn’t apply because Spencer Street is a local road. Hoeven disputes this: the rule is triggered by the building type (an apartment building), not by the road classification. He describes the consultant’s argument as “simply wrong and misleading.”
His point: if the development were scaled back to what’s currently permitted, the number of parking spaces would drop to roughly 200, which would bring it into compliance with the by-law without needing any exception.
5. Approving this sets a precedent that could affect the whole neighbourhood
Planning decisions don’t happen in isolation — past approvals become arguments for future ones. Hoeven traces how this has already played out on this block.
In the 2014 OMB case, the developer (Tega Homes) used an exception that had been granted to the adjacent property at 7 Hinton Avenue as justification for getting a similar exception for 340 Parkdale. The OMB agreed. This is how planning precedent works: one exception becomes the basis for the next.
Hoeven notes that Tega Homes also started with a 36-storey proposal in 2014, which was negotiated down to 18 storeys over four rounds of design review. The current proposal opens at 38 storeys. He asks: is this a negotiating tactic? And if the city responds by meeting somewhere in the middle, it would still approve a building far taller than what the planning framework actually supports.
More importantly: if 38 storeys is approved at 340 Parkdale, that decision becomes the new baseline for any future application at 7 Hinton Avenue or elsewhere in this part of the neighbourhood.
Suggested changes to the proposal
Hoeven respectfully offers these recommendations for city planning staff:
- No increase in total floor space — allow the developer to consolidate and redistribute the existing permitted amount across the full site, but cap it there
- Restore the commercial unit size limit from the Wellington West Community Design Plan (max 200 m² per ground-floor unit), to protect space for small independent businesses
- Require an updated traffic study using current data, with the full analysis sections that were previously waived
- Require a plan for loading and garbage trucks — currently they’d use Spencer Street, reducing it to one lane
- Scale back parking to under 200 spaces, which would bring the project into compliance with the city’s driveway placement by-law
Glossary
Floor Space Index (FSI) — A number that caps how much total floor space can be built on a lot. An FSI of 6.0 on a 1,000 m² lot means 6,000 m² of floor space is permitted, regardless of how many floors it’s spread across.
As-of-right — What a property is already permitted to build under existing zoning, without needing any special approval or amendment.
Official Plan — The City of Ottawa’s main long-term land use document, setting out where growth should go and at what scale. Developers who want to exceed its limits must apply for an Official Plan Amendment (OPA).
Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) — A change to the site-specific zoning rules. This proposal requires both an OPA and a ZBA.
Secondary Plan / Community Design Plan (CDP) — More detailed planning documents that apply to a specific neighbourhood, layered on top of the Official Plan. The Wellington West Community Design Plan (WWCDP) and Scott Street Community Design Plan (SCDP) are the key local documents here.
Minor Corridor — A city designation for streets like Parkdale Avenue that are important connectors but aren’t the highest-density zones. Lower density targets apply here than on Mainstreet Corridors or near transit hubs.
Mainstreet Corridor — A higher-density designation for major commercial streets like Wellington Street West and Carling Avenue, where taller buildings and higher densities are more appropriate.
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) / Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) — The provincial body that hears appeals of municipal planning decisions. The OMB (now renamed the OLT) approved an 18-storey maximum for this site in 2014 after hearing appeals from the developer and the city.
Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) — A traffic study submitted by the developer to demonstrate the proposed building won’t cause unacceptable traffic problems. City staff review it; it can be challenged if the methodology or data is flawed.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) — Development near transit stations, which is often permitted to assume fewer residents will drive. The developer applied a TOD reduction to its vehicle trip estimates based on proximity to Tunney’s Pasture station.
Dwelling Units per hectare (DU/ha) — A way of measuring residential density. A single-family neighbourhood might have 15–25 DU/ha; the city’s target for this site designation is 60–80 DU/ha; the proposal would deliver 1,314 DU/ha.
Private Approaches By-Law — A city rule governing how and where vehicles can enter and exit private properties from public roads. For large apartment buildings with 300+ parking spaces, it requires driveways to be set back at least 60 metres from a main road.
Precedent — In planning, a decision to allow something on one property can be used as an argument that the same should be allowed on similar properties nearby. This is a recognized and significant factor in how planning decisions compound over time.