General Ottawa Planning Issues

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

I know people representing the owners and the opponents really were fighting over crumbs.

The Mature Neigbhourhoods overaly is sucking the vitality out of new rejuventation in older Ottawa neighbourhoods. Shawn Menard sounds like he won't be a friend of any of this kind of stuff although technically as a Councillor he is to stay away from Committee decisions.

If it went to LPAT recently how can they have another hearing in Janaury. Sounds like the neighbours don't know when to cut their losses. They lost once and I assume the same legal and planning representation won't be there again.

I guess it's either a request that LPAT review their decision or it's going to Divisional Court? Maybe they are teaming up with the gentleman who argued that minor variances were unconstitutional

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

I guess it's either a request that LPAT review their decision or it's going to Divisional Court? Maybe they are teaming up with the gentleman who argued that minor variances were unconstitutional

I read that decision and know people involved trying to get that approved. I also know people involved on both sides of the Broadway Avenue decision and apparently now Bernie Sander(s?) realizes that he can't fight an LPAT decision (hasn't been posted yet as far as I know) but is appealing to the good nature of the homeowner to pull the building back..yeah, good luck with that. He was interviewed on the station that brought us Lowell Green.

From what I understand, homes on either side made their upper level porches a part of the house etc in the 70's/80's and as a result the front yard setback is reduced if the building foundation isn't. The neighbours couldn't grasp that after many $ and time being spent.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

I read that decision and know people involved trying to get that approved. I also know people involved on both sides of the Broadway Avenue decision and apparently now Bernie Sander(s?) realizes that he can't fight an LPAT decision (hasn't been posted yet as far as I know) but is appealing to the good nature of the homeowner to pull the building back..yeah, good luck with that. He was interviewed on the station that brought us Lowell Green.

From what I understand, homes on either side made their upper level porches a part of the house etc in the 70's/80's and as a result the front yard setback is reduced if the building foundation isn't. The neighbours couldn't grasp that after many $ and time being spent.

CTV had a few more details.. guess we will find out in a couple of months.
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/neighbours-dispute-plans-to-build-modern-home-in-the-glebe-1.4177302

e case was dismissed, but say the tribunal’s final decision could come in Februrary.

A statement sent to CTV News says, "I can confirm that the appeal was dismissed and that the Tribunal has received additional materials since the hearing. After the Member reviews the material, a final decision will be issued by February 2019."

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

CTV had a few more details.. guess we will find out in a couple of months.
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/neighbours-dispute-plans-to-build-modern-home-in-the-glebe-1.4177302

From the CTV article

Hassan Moghadam bought the property at 21 Broadway Avenue. He plans to tear the red brick house down and build a new modern house.

“I really like that French European British style home,”

Not sure what a French European British home is.

[shawkr]

Germane: "Let Them Apply for Variances."

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by shawkr

Germane: "Let Them Apply for Variances."

Well written article albeit with an american 'land use attorney' slant. Many areas of Ottawa (parts of the Glebe and Hintonburg come to mind) allow triplexes as of right by the zoning (either R3 or R4) but place either a 12 m frontage or 360 m2 area requirement and literally none of the lots on a street meet those standards so, voila, it is Committee of Adjustment time.

[Multi-modal]

The 2018 Update of the Riverside South CDP is up for comment:

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-en...-south-community-design-plan-2018-update



I like all the high density on the transit corridor, but why are they limiting the mixed-use to the "community core", why not mixed use zoning along the LRT all the way to Bowesville Road?

[waterloowarrior]

here is the decision for 21 Broadway (Dec 11 memorandum of oral decision on Sept 20 2018). Looks like they submitted revised plans and turned part of the front into a big bay window so it could fall under the permitted projections.

Maybe the February 2019 date is related to a question about the implementation of the order.

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl180620-Dec-11-2018.pdf

[rocketphish]

OMB back from the dead: Ontario PCs reverting to old rules for planning appeals

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: May 2, 2019

The Ontario Progressive Conservatives are bringing back the old rules of land-use planning appeals, giving a provincial tribunal the power to override municipal decisions without giving consideration to city council’s position on a development file.

Neighbourhoods trying to protect their community plans welcomed the reform of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) under the previous provincial Liberal government, since the old OMB was perceived to be too friendly to land developers. Many Ottawa council members liked the changes, too.

Coun. Jeff Leiper said it appears the PCs have “gutted” the appeal rules that created the new Local Appeal Planning Tribunal (LPAT) and returned power to unelected adjudicators.

“I need to come to grips with what the implications of this are,” Leiper said Thursday. “On first glance, it appears to be a real reversal of a number of community wins that were fought for.”

Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark announced the changes in Toronto as part of a larger Housing Supply Action Plan meant to increase the number of homes in the province.

Municipal councils make land-use decisions allowing or restricting development. If someone doesn’t like a decision by council, the landowner or neighbours can appeal to a provincial tribunal, which was once called the OMB, but is now called the LPAT.

The previous provincial Liberal government created the LPAT and made appeal rules that compelled adjudicators to simply test if a municipal council’s decision conformed to local and provincial planning policies.

Under the previous OMB system, appeals happened as if there was no council decision in the first place. Adjudicators could hear new evidence that wasn’t presented to council before making a ruling.

Clark said the provincial government is “taking the best of both the OMB and the LPAT.”

The province will keep the name LPAT but use the old OMB rules.

There are older cases at the LPAT that are subject to the old OMB rules, since the Liberal-created rules came into play in April 2018.

The province says there are 100,000 units in Toronto subject to legacy OMB appeals. It wants to spend $1.4 million in the current fiscal year to hire more adjudicators to help clear the backlog.

Community associations liked the LPAT rules since they thought it gave them a better shot at predicting neighbourhood changes.

Sheila Perry, president of the Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa, said she was disappointed to hear the PCs are returning to the previous appeal regime.

“If the rules are going to be back to an adversarial system, that’s problematic and it doesn’t breed goodwill, and that’s my concern for communities,” Perry said.

Perry said the old appeal rules could bring more costs for community associations wanting to appeal council’s land-use decisions. Appeal hearings often involve lawyers and expert consultants.

The provincial PCs previously announced they were closing a LPAT support centre to help the public navigate the planning appeal process, which also drew concerns from community groups

“The feeling was, this was really well-spent money because when you have the support system, and it’s not abused, and we’re not all experts in this, you get good sound advice and that department was set up with that intent,” Perry said.

Jason Burggraaf, executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association, said the LPAT appeal system and OMB system both had their advantages and drawbacks, and everyone wants to see the appeal process move faster, but he credited the OMB system for focusing more on the best planning outcome for a site.

“One of the benefits is it removes the political considerations from the decision,” Burggraaf said.

The city is at the mercy of decisions made by the appeal tribunal, especially under the old, and now returning, OMB rules.

One of the classic OMB cases in Ottawa happened during the previous term of council when an adjudicator said a developer could have a taller building at Wellington Street West and Island Park Drive if it had a “wow” factor.

There has been frustration about the length of time it has taken for planning appeals be resolved by the tribunal, a point highlighted by Clark.

In one recent example in Ottawa, an appeal of a council decision to block demolition of a home in Rockcliffe Park took more than two years to wrap up, and the adjudicator’s decision finally arrived about 19 months after the hearing ended.

Clark said the province wants to give LPAT more power to deal with appeals on a timely basis.

One choke point is that adjudicators are juggling assessing new cases under LPAT rules, while old cases are assessed under the former rules.

While Clark said he’s heard concerns from municipalities about going back to the former OMB-style rules, he doesn’t think there can be two appeal systems running at once.

“Nothing is getting done. Everything is backed up. Things needed to change,” Clark said.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...erting-to-old-rules-for-planning-appeals

[CityTech]

^ Again, the new government takes the lazy way. The OMB and LPAT both had significant flaws and it would make sense to redesign the system. But nope, that would take thought, something the PC government seems incapable of.

[CityTech]

The focus of the Housing Supply Action Plan needs to take care of demand as well. So long as investors and other non-resident purchasers keep buying properties, demand will just rise to meet supply. There needs to be a strong push to increase supply, yes, but that also needs to be accompanied by measures to reduce the number of properties purchased by people who don't intend to use them as a primary residence.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by CityTech

The focus of the Housing Supply Action Plan needs to take care of demand as well. So long as investors and other non-resident purchasers keep buying properties, demand will just rise to meet supply. There needs to be a strong push to increase supply, yes, but that also needs to be accompanied by measures to reduce the number of properties purchased by people who don't intend to use them as a primary residence.

+1 to this. I also think we should look into banning or controlling AirBnB in the Ottawa due to houses and apartments are being bought and rented out for AirBnB to make a profit, which has a negative impact on housing affordability by taking properties for residents to live and and making them scarcer (while also taking properties zoned for residential and using them commercially).

[rocketphish]

Zoning in on a better Ottawa

By: Bruce Firestone, OBJ
Published: May 3, 2019 8:38am EDT

The late urban planning writer Jane Jacobs, the renowned author of the Death and Life of Great American Cities, had a theory: the closer government is to people, the more important it is to its citizens and the better its performance, productivity and delivery of services are likely to be. She called this the “subsidiarity principle.”

Cities, towns and villages provide a host of basic services, including water, sewers, roads, electricity, public transit, parks, libraries, schools, garbage collection, recycling, policing, firefighting and much more. I would argue these are all essential services that make a huge difference to a resident’s quality of life.

But municipalities, counties, townships, provinces and states exert a more subtle influence over urban residents in ways that have huge potential to affect their daily lives ?– through zoning codes and official plans that determine the shape, density and form that our communities take.

Several recent studies have suggested that zoning restrictions have played a huge role in skyrocketing housing prices while severely impeding economic growth.

In their groundbreaking study, University of Chicago economist Chang-Tai Hsieh and University of California at Berkeley professor Enrico Morerri argued that zoning restraints on new housing have prevented people, especially younger workers, from moving to or staying in clusters of innovation. They concluded that such constraints lowered aggregate U.S. growth by 36 per cent between 1964 and 2009.

Think of it this way: if zoning codes had been as open and permissive in 2009 as they were in 1964, the U.S. economy would have been one-third bigger. That’s an enormous increase in economic well-being amounting to nearly $7 trillion per year in additional gross domestic – or an extra US$21,432 per year per person, based on 2017 population estimates.

In the words of Harvard economist Edward Glaeser: “Arguably, land use controls have a more widespread impact on the lives of ordinary Americans than any other regulation. These controls, typically imposed by localities, make housing more expensive and restrict the growth of America’s most successful metropolitan areas.”

Here in Ottawa, the city’s planning department led by general manager Steve Willis is currently reviewing its official plan, with the goal of creating a “21st-century” document.

This work will be fundamental to creating a regional economy and future that is flexible, resilient and sustainable. It is imperative that the city creates a plan that doesn’t pick industry or individual winners and losers and doesn’t tie proponents up in red tape, but rather fosters creativity and makes the capital a more attractive destination for talent.

Ottawa has already started down the path towards less restrictive zoning practices.

In 2016, for example, the city changed its zoning bylaws to permit coach homes – also known as “granny flats” – in the backyards of existing houses. This seemingly small change opens the door to neighbourhoods that are more interesting, more diverse, denser and more intense – not to mention that coach homes can provide additional income for homeowners as well as create decent affordable housing in places where it is needed most.
Input needed

However, much more work still needs to be done to modernize our zoning rules and restrictions.

The new planning blueprint must have buy-in from a wide spectrum of interest groups and organizations – not only local politicians, but also urban as well as rural residents, BIAs, community associations, developers, environmentalists, tenants, not-for-profits, entrepreneurs, planners and others.

To that end, I urge you to offer your input on the new official plan in the following ways: Participate in a 90-minute online session I’m hosting on May 22 from noon until 1:30 p.m. at https://zoom.us/j/388405600; join a live, in-person panel discussion (time and date to be determined); or do a one-on-one online interview with me.

Please note that the online session, live panel discussion and one-on-one interviews will be recorded and uploaded to YouTube so that members of the public who can’t participate can see what their fellow denizens are thinking.

If you would like to attend the panel discussion or schedule an online chat, you can reach out to me at [email protected]. Please indicate what your top three issues are.

Your insights could help shape the city’s future. It’s time to make your voice heard.


Bruce M. Firestone is a co-founder of the Ottawa Senators, a broker with Century 21 Explorer Realty and a real estate investment and business coach.


Editor's Note: In the first of a three-part series, OBJ columnist Bruce Firestone explains how the city’s efforts to create a new official plan could set the stage for unprecedented economic growth – and how you can help make that happen

https://obj.ca/article/op-ed-zoning-better-ottawa

[CityTech]

Yes. Going forward we need to abandon the idea that neighbourhood/street "characters" have to be "preserved" and adopt a "build baby build" mentality. Whatever is economical to build, let developers build. Let developers buy up the bungalow belt areas and blanket them with triplexes. I'm hoping Ford's "Housing Supply Action Plan" is centred around limiting a municipality's authority to restrict development in pre-existing areas, while still holding the line on outward sprawl.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Yes. Going forward we need to abandon the idea that neighbourhood/street "characters" have to be "preserved" and adopt a "build baby build" mentality. Whatever is economical to build, let developers build. Let developers buy up the bungalow belt areas and blanket them with triplexes. I'm hoping Ford's "Housing Supply Action Plan" is centred around limiting a municipality's authority to restrict development in pre-existing areas, while still holding the line on outward sprawl.

Good luck with that outlook with many of the community associations in the 'pre-existing' areas of Ottawa

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Good luck with that outlook with many of the community associations in the 'pre-existing' areas of Ottawa

This is why the only hope for achieving this vision--which is absolutely necessary to ensure housing remains affordable, look what happened in California--is to have the province change the laws to make it harder for municipalities to restrict development.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by CityTech

This is why the only hope for achieving this vision--which is absolutely necessary to ensure housing remains affordable, look what happened in California--is to have the province change the laws to make it harder for municipalities to restrict development.

In many ways I agree with you but the pushback from local community groups, most if not all councillors, etc will be massive and it would take a mandate from likely the province with no means of overturning the new legislation to get it in place.

This kind of legislation would make the 'I don't like the fact that the new building is 2" higher than my house and 4" closer to the street than mine and as a result I'll get no sunlight into my house' objections seem minor.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

In many ways I agree with you but the pushback from local community groups, most if not all councillors, etc will be massive and it would take a mandate from likely the province with no means of overturning the new legislation to get it in place.

This kind of legislation would make the 'I don't like the fact that the new building is 2" higher than my house and 4" closer to the street than mine and as a result I'll get no sunlight into my house' objections seem minor.

I've said it before, but I support the sort of system Japan has in place for their zoning, both the way they do zoning and that it is administered nation-wide by the federal government. I would like more discussions with the community to create cities that aren't all identical and for local amenities and spaces be placed in ways people would like/ benefit from. But there's a problem where existing residents with community associations generally oppose a lot of change for personal/ selfish reasons that they claim is magnanimous or selfless, and then work to preserve the kind of urban patterns that creates so much inequity and overly-expensive housing prices like we have now, that also impacts our ability to have good, urban neighbourhoods.

Jane Jacobs had a lot of good ideas, but she was wrong about an awful lot, too.

[zzptichka]

The last thing Ford government will do is limit sprawl. Have you guy been living under a rock?

I don't feel like development is being restricted somehow in Ottawa. We have multiple approved urban projects that developers can't sell out. And why would they, the city and province are widening highways and reducing development charges in suburbs encouraging sprawl.

We should restrict development (in suburbs) if anything.

[rocketphish]

Planning changes could stretch city resources and ability to establish new parks, committee hears

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: May 9, 2019

Heads are spinning at Ottawa city hall over the consequential changes being proposed to land-use planning rules by the Ontario Progressive Conservative government.

“This is pretty bad,” Cumberland Coun. Stephen Blais said Thursday during a planning committee meeting, the first one since the PCs tabled their More Homes, More Choice Act in the provincial legislature last week.

It was a chance for councillors on the committee to receive staff’s interpretation of the draft legislation, which proposes changes across several laws, including those related to land-use planning, heritage protection and development charges.

After the city’s top planning lawyer, Tim Marc, provided an overview of how the legislation would impact the city, Blais immediately honed on a change that could impede park developments in new subdivisions.

Under the proposed changes, the city might not be able to acquire land for parks from developers, or cash in lieu of parkland, threatening the city’s goal of creating complete communities.

The city and the development industry work together so that parks are established in subdivisions at the same time as the homes and roads are constructed. It means families moving into the subdivision can start enjoying the parks, rather than waiting for the city to build the parks after the subdivision is done. Those arrangements could be at risk under the proposed legislation.

The provisions in the proposed legislation would “destroy” the city’s ability to quickly establish parks in new subdivisions, Blais said.

Also, the city would no longer be able to make one-off community benefit deals with developers in exchange for planning approvals allowing greater building densities or heights.

Instead, the province wants to give municipalities the ability to create a community benefit bylaw requiring developers to pay a “community benefits charge” for amenities, based on the value of the developer’s land.

Development charges would still exist for so-called hard services, like transportation, waterworks, sewers and policing, but the community benefits charge would roll in other services, like libraries, parkland and additional facilities needed in a community.

The planning department’s resources could be stretched if the province’s proposal, as it stands today, becomes law.

Stephen Willis, general manager of planning, infrastructure and economic development, said he would need a process for property appraisals and a process for collecting community benefit money.

“I can’t imagine doubling up the process with the same resources today,” Willis said.

The city is also concerned by a proposed rule that would force municipalities to spend or allocate 60 per cent of the community benefits money each year.

Willis said it would be hard for the city to save up for a large project, like a big park, if it’s forced to spend money from the account.

Willis said the province’s idea to compress timelines for considering official plan and zoning amendments won’t impact staff since they already try to process applications as efficiently as possible.

Besides, it takes a long time for a developer to get a hearing date at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal if the city doesn’t meet the legislated timelines, he noted.

Barrhaven Coun. Jan Harder, the chair of the planning committee, called for calm until the city can get more details from the province.

“I don’t want to overreact here,” Harder said. “I want to have information and then I want to make the right decisions and right recommendations for Ottawa.”

There’s not much time for the city to comment on the proposed legislation. The consultation closes on June 1.

Despite the proposed legislative changes at Queen’s Park, the planning committee on Thursday approved new local development charge rates.

Time is running out to get an updated development charge bylaw through city council, since the current bylaw expires June 11. If the city doesn’t have a new bylaw by then, it wouldn’t be able to collect development charge revenue.

Development charges are calculated based on growth projects required to accommodate new development.

Development charges are poised to increase by 23 per cent for single homes inside the greenbelt, four per cent for single homes outside the greenbelt and 18 per cent for single homes on municipal services in the rural area. Industrial development charges would increase by six per cent and all other non-residential charges will increase by 15 per cent.

Park projects supporting intensification are driving the high development charge increases inside the greenbelt.

Willis said municipal development charges represent between five and seven per cent of the price of a new single-family home.

The committee-recommended development charge rates will be considered by council on May 22.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...y-to-establish-new-parks-committee-hears