A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Zoning Universe

May 22, 2017 admin

Written by: John Forster
Photo by: Buster McNamara

Recently, out of the blue, I received a letter from the City of Ottawa. A developer was proposing to turn the 100-year-old house next door into a seven-unit apartment building.

The letter advised that they required “minor” variances from the zoning laws to proceed and if I had concerns, I could appear at a Committee of Adjustment hearing. During work hours. In Nepean. In two weeks.

Sadly, if you live in Sandy Hill, this is not uncommon. Three houses in one block of Chapel have already been converted into big-box rentals. Developers buy a house and build a large—usually ugly—box, occupying most of the rear yard. It can include 20 or more bedrooms; they are known as “Bunk Houses.”

The Committee of Adjustment consists of people with expertise who provide an independent decision. However, they can only review proposals against four criteria:

Do they meet the intent of the Official Plan?
Do they meet the general purpose and intent of the zoning by-law?
Are they desirable for the appropriate use of the land?
Are they minor in nature?

The process is challenging. The developer had a professional consultant who has done dozens of these applications and had six months to prepare. They had already met with City planners, who supported the project although it required reducing setbacks by 80% and the minimum lot width allowed by 33%.

I don’t know about you, but my knowledge of zoning laws is a bit rusty. We had effectively two weeks to learn about official plans, zoning bylaws, infill guidelines, streetscape character analysis, neighbourhood compatibilities, etc. The first test was to find all this information. It is not in one central place online and there are multiple versions of some documents.

However, our community is fortunate to have Action Sandy Hill (ASH) and its president Chad Rollins who are a wealth of knowledge and experience. ASH wrote a letter against the proposal and Chad made a very effective presentation to the Committee.

Another element in our favour was public support. My wife and I distributed letters to the surrounding homes. We reached out by email to a group who had organized against a development at Chapel and Rideau. Within three days, we had 40 households signed up against the proposal. Several neighbours on Chapel took time off and made great presentations at Committee. I believe this strong show of community support made an impression with the Committee.

Following our five-minute presentations, the Committee adjourned to consider its decision. After two weeks of suspense, the Committee rendered its decision—the apartment building was not approved!

However, before we could bask in the glow of victory, we heard that the proponents have appealed to the OMB. The applicant can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Or they can submit a new proposal for a Bunk House.

So where does that leave those of us who want to see Sandy Hill continue as a livable, diverse, affordable community with a balance of housing that welcomes students, those new to Canada, young families as well as those who have made their home here for 50 years?

First we must support Action Sandy Hill. They care about our community and are a great help in any battle to preserve it. If you are not a member, join.

Second, come to the aid of any neighbour who is fighting a bad infill project. Email support, write the councillor, come to hearings.

Third, we need to recognize that the City planning department’s interests appear to be very different than the community’s interests. We need to change the City’s vision of Sandy Hill.

Fourth, we cannot succeed fighting bad infill projects one at a time. The issue is the zoning bylaws and the lack of clear rules around what is good urban infill. The R4 zoning in Sandy Hill is under review. Get informed. Get involved. Pressure our municipal politicians for change.

Second, come to the aid of any neighbour who is fighting a bad infill project. Email support, write the councillor, come to hearings.

Third, we need to recognize that the City planning department’s interests appear to be very different than the community’s interests. We need to change the City’s vision of Sandy Hill.