Source: http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/item.aspx?itemid=375324
Timestamp: 2018-07-18 08:39:48+00:00
Document Index: 274894507

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 1', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'arts 1', 'arts 1', 'arts 1', 'art 15', 'art 18', 'art 15', 'art 15']

Title: R4 and Multi-Unit Residential Zoning Review
Meeting Date: 2018-May-22 2018-May-22 2 Ward: City Wide
Show Text Report_R4 and Multi-unit Zoning.docx
Submitted on May 11, 2018
David Wise, Program Manager / Gestionnaire de programme, Policy Planning / Politique de la planificaiton
(613) 580-2424, 13877, David.Wise@ottawa.ca
File Number: ACS2018-PIE-EDP-0016
SUBJECT: R4 and Multi-Unit Residential Zoning Review
OBJET: Révision du zonage résidentiel R4 et à logements multiples
3. That Planning Committee recommend Council extend Interim Control Bylaws 2017-245 and 2017-278 for one additional calendar year;
4. That Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 as shown on Document 1 and detailed in Document 2; and
5. That Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee approve the Consultation Details section of this report be included as part of the ‘brief explanation’ in the Summary of Written and Oral Public Submissions, to be prepared by the City Clerk and Solicitor’s Office and submitted to Council in the report titled, “Summary of Oral and Written Public Submissions for Items Subject to Bill 73 ‘Explanation Requirements’ at the City Council Meeting of 13 June 2018” subject to submissions received between the publication of this report and the time of Council’s decision.
1. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250, comme l’illustre le document 1 et comme l’expose en détail le document 2;
2. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme donne son approbation à ce que la section du présent rapport consacrée aux détails de la consultation soit incluse dans la « brève explication » du résumé des observations écrites et orales du public, qui sera rédigé par le Bureau du greffier municipal et de l’avocat général et soumis au Conseil dans le rapport intitulé « Résumé des observations orales et écrites du public sur les questions assujetties aux “exigences d’explication” aux termes du projet de loi 73, à la réunion du Conseil du 13 juin 2018 », à la condition que les observations aient été reçues entre le moment de la publication du présent rapport et le moment de la décision du Conseil;
3. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil de prolonger la validité des règlements de restriction provisoires 2017-245 et 2017-278 pour une année civile supplémentaire.
4. Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales recommande au Conseil d’approuver une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250, comme l’illustre le document 1 et comme l’expose en détail le document 2;
5. Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales donne son approbation à ce que la section du présent rapport consacrée aux détails de la consultation soit incluse dans la « brève explication » du résumé des observations écrites et orales du public, qui sera rédigé par le Bureau du greffier municipal et de l’avocat général et soumis au Conseil dans le rapport intitulé « Résumé des observations orales et écrites du public sur les questions assujetties aux “exigences d’explication” aux termes du projet de loi 73, à la réunion du Conseil du 13 juin 2018 », à la condition que les observations aient été reçues entre le moment de la publication du présent rapport et le moment de la décision du Conseil.
The R4 Zoning Review follows several recent zoning studies aimed at ensuring more compatible infill and intensification in established low-rise neighborhoods in the urban area. The review began in response to the continued development of buildings in the inner urban area containing dwelling units with unusually large numbers of bedrooms.
Dwelling units with six, eight or even twelve bedrooms have occurred. Such oversized units (commonly referred to by the public as "bunkhouses") create much higher occupancies and densities than was intended or anticipated by the zoning. They also raise concerns about garbage storage and management.
The overall impact is to create occupancies that come close to the definition of a “rooming house” in areas where this use is restricted, but in a manner that is not subject to regulation as a Rooming House by municipal licensing, nor to the zoning restrictions applicable to a rooming house. Further, the densities associated with these developments are in excess of the planning intent for these building typologies and create garbage, servicing, and community impacts that create adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.
Phase 1 recommendations provided in this report will address clear and pressing weaknesses in the Zoning By-law in order to:
• Clarify the distinction between a rooming house and a dwelling unit, to ensure consistency in permitting and by-law enforcement
• Prohibit further development of dwelling units with unreasonably large bedroom counts in multi-unit dwellings
• Appropriately balance the rare need for oversized dwelling units (ODUs) (i.e. for statistically unusual households) against the need to effectively plan for and regulate density
• Ensure that large residential buildings provide adequate space to store and manage garbage and recyclables
This document contains the zoning amendments proposed as Phase 1; these are immediate measures that will close the door on excessive-bedroom buildings and address some of the more pressing performance issues associated with intensive low-rise in established neighbourhoods. Phase 2 proposals will constitute a separate set of recommendations to address the broader, macro-level pressures that have driven the development of bunkhouses in place of more appropriate and compatible multi-unit housing including low-rise apartments, and will seek opportunities to lift barriers that are preventing these more appropriate housing forms from occurring in pre-zoned established communities. These will be brought forward to Council at a later date.
Interim Control By-laws 2017-245 and 2017-278 are recommended to be extended for one additional calendar year into 2019 to allow time for Phase 2 work to occur, and for harmonization of the Zoning By-law with other municipal by-laws. Staff will report back to Planning Committee with an update on Phase 2 prior to the lapsing of the Interim Control By-laws presently in force.
La révision du zonage R4 fait suite à plusieurs études récemment menées en vue de mieux intégrer les aménagements intercalaires et la densification aux quartiers de faible hauteur établis du secteur urbain. Cette révision a été entreprise en réponse à la construction continue d’immeubles dans le noyau urbain contenant des unités d’habitation comportant un nombre exceptionnellement élevé de chambres.
La présence d’unités d’habitation contenant six, huit ou même douze chambres a été constatée. De tels logements surdimensionnés (souvent appelés « pavillons-dortoirs par le public) donnent lieu à des taux d’occupation et des densités bien plus élevés que ce qui était prévu par le zonage. Des préoccupations concernant l’entreposage et la gestion des ordures ont également été soulevées.
Globalement, il s’agit de créer des occupations se rapprochant de la définition de « maison de chambres » dans les secteurs où cette utilisation est interdite, mais de manière à n’être soumis ni à la réglementation sur les maisons de chambres du processus de délivrance de permis ni aux limitations de zonage applicables à une maison de chambres. Par ailleurs, les densités associées à ces aménagements dépassent les limites prévues pour le secteur et créent une surcharge sur le plan des déchets, des services publics et des services communautaires, nuisant ainsi au quartier environnant.
Les recommandations de la Phase 1 figurant dans le présent rapport porteront sur les lacunes claires et urgentes du Règlement de zonage :
• afin de clarifier la distinction entre une maison de chambres et une unité d’habitation, pour assurer la cohérence entre la délivrance de permis et l’application du règlement;
• afin d’interdire d’autres aménagements d’unités d’habitation dotées d’un nombre déraisonnablement élevé de chambres dans des habitations à logements multiples;
• afin de maintenir un juste équilibre entre le besoin peu fréquent de logements surdimensionnés (c.-à-d. pour des foyers statistiquement hors du commun) et le besoin de planifier efficacement et de réglementer la densité;
• de manière à ce que les grands immeubles résidentiels disposent d’un espace adéquat pour le stockage et la gestion des ordures et du recyclage.
Le présent document contient les modifications de zonage proposées au titre de la Phase 1; il s’agit de mesures immédiates qui viseront à restreindre les immeubles comptant un nombre excessif de chambres et à régler certains des problèmes de rendement les plus urgents associés aux petits immeubles denses dans les quartiers établis. Les propositions de la Phase 2 constitueront un ensemble distinct de recommandations, qui concerneront les pressions plus générales, à plus grande échelle, ayant motivé la construction de pavillons-dortoirs plutôt que des logements multiples appropriés et compatibles, notamment de petits immeubles d’appartements, et viseront à rechercher des possibilités d’éliminer les obstacles qui empêchent la présence de ces formes d’habitation plus appropriées dans les collectivités établies déjà désignées par un zonage. Ces propositions seront soumises au Conseil à une date ultérieure.
Il est proposé de prolonger la validité des règlements de restriction provisoires 2017-245 et 2017-278 pour une année civile supplémentaire, jusqu’en 2019, afin de permettre le déroulement de la Phase 2 et l’harmonisation du Règlement de zonage avec d’autres règlements municipaux. Le personnel rendra compte au Comité de l’urbanisme en faisant le point sur la Phase 2, avant l’expiration des règlements de restriction provisoires actuellement en vigueur.
The R4 Zoning Review follows several recent zoning studies aimed at ensuring more compatible infill and intensification in established low-rise neighborhoods in the urban area:
• Infill Phase One (2010-2015) dealt with front yards, the location of parking and other aspects of streetscape character.
• Infill Phase Two (2012-2016) dealt with height, rear yards, building massing and rear yard amenity areas. Between the two Infill studies, with extensive consultation over several years with residents and industry, building envelopes have been reduced to ensure appropriate building massing for established low-rise neighbourhoods.
• Residential Conversions (2013-2014) eliminated converted dwellings as permitted uses to address issues related to impacts on neighborhood character resulting from the conversion of houses to apartment buildings on undersized lots.
• The Minimum Parking Review (2015-2016) reviewed parking requirements for the inner urban area.
The present review was begun in January 2016 and was initially focused on the R4 (Residential Fourth Density) family of zones. The review began in response to the continued development of buildings in the inner urban area containing dwelling units with unusually large numbers of bedrooms.
Dwelling units with six, eight or even twelve bedrooms have occurred. Such oversized units (commonly referred to by the public as "bunkhouses") create much higher occupancies and densities than was intended or anticipated by the zoning. They also raise concerns about garbage storage and management, and whether such units are more appropriately classified and regulated as rooming houses.
These issues have been found predominantly in R3 and R4 zones, but also occur in other zones, especially in the inner-urban area. In September 2016, the scope of the R4 review was expanded to include a review of all residential zones currently impacted by this type of inappropriate development.
"The R4 Zoning Review will address those issues most commonly found in inner-urban, low-rise multi-unit development. While the focus will be on the R4-zoned areas, the review may also touch on aspects of the zoning by-law applicable to other inner urban zones, such as the R3 zones in the Glebe and Old Ottawa East. Although the focus is on the inner-urban wards (i.e. Wards 12 through 17) the review may to a lesser extent have implications city-wide, particularly in areas with a significant amount of R4 multiple-unit zoning." (Project Website, September 2016).
In July 2017, Council adopted Interim Control By-laws 2017-245 and 2017-278. These By-laws served to halt the problematic development types in Sandy Hill, the Glebe, Old Ottawa South, Heron Park and part of Overbook, where they are particularly prevalent, and to allow the present zoning study to be completed. At that time Council re-affirmed the project scope to include all residential zones where these typologies have occurred or have opportunity to occur.
“AND WHEREAS, on July 12, 2017, City Council passed a resolution directing that the ongoing R4 study being undertaken by the Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department of the City of Ottawa be expanded to include R1, R2 and R3 zoned lands within the study area and continue to review the land use planning policies associated with low-rise single detached and multi-unit dwellings for the purposes of assessing the land use planning impact of such dwellings where they contain more than four bedrooms;” (Council Motion, July 12, 2017).
Following extended consultation, including draft recommendations released in March 2017, the R4 Zoning Review's recommendations are being brought forward in two phases. Phase 1 will address clear and pressing weaknesses in the Zoning By-law in order to:
• Clarify the distinction between a rooming house and a dwelling unit, to ensure consistency in permitting and by-law enforcement.
• Prohibit further development of dwelling units with unreasonably large bedroom counts in multi-unit dwellings.
• Appropriately balance the rare need for oversized dwelling units (i.e. for statistically unusual households) against the need to effectively plan for and regulate density.
• Ensure that large residential buildings provide adequate space to store and manage garbage and recyclables.
The Official Plan is the primary Council-approved document that provides direction on how the City will develop and manage intensification. The Plan considers how the City will plan for future development of residential housing, and how it will accommodate intensification. When forecasting future growth and housing needs, the Planning department uses a methodology that considers an anticipated household population per housing type, based upon and regularly updated in keeping with census results as provided by Statistics Canada. These forecasts are in turn used by other planning documents and departments to consider service and funding needs, including the Infrastructure Master Plan, Development Charges By-law, and other strategic planning documents.
The Official Plan contains the following policies with respect to development in established communities:
• The interior portions of stable, low-rise residential neighbourhoods will continue to be characterized by low-rise buildings (as defined in Section 4.11, Policy 7, i.e. up to four full storeys in height). The City supports intensification in the General Urban Area where it will enhance and complement its desirable characteristics and long-term renewal. Generally, new development, including redevelopment, proposed within the interior of established neighbourhoods will be designed to complement the area's pattern of built form and open spaces. (OPA 76, Section 2.2.2 (15)).
• Applications to amend the zoning by-law within urban areas to eliminate residential apartments as a permitted use, or to change the permitted use so that the effect is to down-zone a site, will not be permitted unless there is an equivalent rezoning to ensure no net loss of apartment potential or maintenance of unit yield potential through other forms of multiple-unit housing. (OPA 76, Section 2.2.2 (16)).
• Infill and redevelopment within the interior portions of stable, low-rise neighbourhoods will occur in accordance with policy 15 of Section 2.2.2. Where development is proposed that requires an amendment or variance to the Zoning By-law with respect to lot area, yards and/or building setback, or building height, and which varies from the established area’s pattern of built form and open spaces, the appropriateness of the proposal will be considered in light of the following measures:
o Building height, massing and scale permitted by the zoning of adjacent residential properties as well as the prevailing patterns established in the immediate area.
o Prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space permitted by the zoning of adjacent residential properties as well as the prevailing patterns established in the immediate area.
o The need to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale as set out in policy 12 of this Section. (OPA 76, Section 4.11(14)).
The Plan notes that established communities will remain stable without necessarily remaining static, permitting intensification to occur where it is in scale and character with the surroundings. This indicates that it is Council’s intent that established communities evolve from a detached housing pattern towards more intensive low-rise ground-oriented housing patterns, but to maintain the residential character as this evolution occurs.
The department has noted that multiple established communities across geographic areas of the city have seen developments occurring in low-rise apartment, semi-detached and triplex housing typologies that have high numbers of bedrooms per dwelling unit far in excess of what had been considered, and do not appear to be operating as single housekeeping units.
Rather, these buildings are operating in a manner more in keeping with the definition of “rooming units” whereby residents are renting rooms that “… constitute a separate, independent residential occupancy, but which is not self-contained and which requires access to other parts of the principal dwelling or building intended to serve the residents, including shower or bathtub facilities, kitchens, eating areas or bathrooms and appear to provide independent cohabitation opportunities. (Zoning By-law 2008250)”
In June 2017, Council considered this issue with respect to waste management practices in Sandy Hill arising from these developments. The report noted “… contributing to this growing issue is the conversion of buildings that were traditionally single family homes, to oversized dwelling units, commonly known as bunkhouses, which has resulted in an increase in the accumulation of waste and challenges related to waste storage, a phenomenon that would not be occurring if those bunkhouses had been built as true apartments with proper considerations for the storage of the amount of waste accumulated, including the location of waste receptacles, and the size and quality of bins.”
The department has concerns that the densities and community impacts associated with this style of development is out of scale and character with established communities, do not provide proper waste management commensurate to the density, are creating built typologies that are not adaptable for future household patterns, and create living arrangements that are not appropriately regulated and may pose public health concerns.
The department has recognized and clearly indicated to industry that development of this nature, where building envelopes are maximized and high numbers of bedrooms are provided per dwelling unit, do not meet the intent of the R1 to R4 zones and do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. Nor does development of this nature meet what the Official Plan intended to occur in established communities.
Overview and Planning Rationale for Zoning Provisions
The following changes to the Zoning By-law are proposed. We have made an effort to organize the proposed changes in an order that makes their combined effect as clear as possible. In some cases, commentary is included to explain the reason for the amendment.
1) New definitions of previously undefined terms.
The zoning strategy relies on several new terms that are currently not defined. The following terms and definitions would be added to the current Section 54 (Definitions):
1a) Define "bedroom" as follows:
"Bedroom means a room used or designed for use primarily for sleeping."
The intent of the definition is to bring clarity to both internal City review procedures, and to applicants submitting development plans to the City. This is a straightforward definition that is necessary to give meaning to other changes proposed in this amendment.
1b) Define "residential unit" as follows:
"Residential unit means a self-contained set of rooms located in a building, designed to be lived in by one or more persons, and which contains sleeping, kitchen and bathroom facilities that are intended for the exclusive use of the residents of the unit; and is not a mobile home or other vehicle."
The new term "residential unit" includes several characteristics that currently partly define a "dwelling unit", but that also are applicable to other residential uses such as rooming houses, group homes and retirement homes. "Residential unit" will become a category that includes all these uses. Creating this definition has minimal effect on its own: it is a structural change that allows us to draft clearer rules that apply to all kinds of residential units.
1c) Define "household" as follows:
"Household means a person or group of people who:
(i) may or may not be related;
(ii) live together as a single housekeeping establishment; and
(iii) exercise a meaningful degree of collective decision-making and responsibility for the management of the interior of the residential unit."
The concept of a single housekeeping establishment has been critical in court cases that sought to distinguish between a rooming house and a dwelling unit. A group of people who come together, rent an apartment together on one lease, take joint and several responsibility for paying the rent and bills, choose new roommates, and cooperate and share responsibility for cleaning, chores, taking out the garbage, buying toilet paper etc. is clearly a household.
Conversely, several individuals who rent rooms directly from a landlord, do not choose their roommates and/or are not responsible for the basic upkeep of the common areas of the unit, are not a household. Their unit would not be a dwelling unit but a rooming house.
1d) Define "total floor area" as follows:
"Total Floor Area means the total area of all floors contained within the inside face of the exterior walls of a building, including any basement, finished and unfinished spaces, and any attached private garage; but excludes any attic or crawl space with a floor-to-ceiling height of less than 1.2 metres."
Total floor area is used as a trigger for the garbage storage and management requirements. Unlike the established term "gross floor area" or GFA, it includes everything that is inside the building envelope, including garages, corridors and other spaces that are excluded from the calculation of GFA.
2) Limit dwelling units to four bedrooms or less.
A "dwelling unit" is the zoning term for what most people would call a house, an apartment or condominium unit: a single, complete housing unit occupied by one household. The main effect of redefining "dwelling unit" is to prohibit the construction of unreasonably large units with six, eight or even twelve bedrooms that create much higher occupancy than is intended by the zoning. In doing so, the change more closely aligns the letter of the By-law with its intent.
2a) Redefine "dwelling unit" as follows:
"Dwelling Unit means a residential unit that:
(i) is used or intended for use as a residential premises by one household and not more than three roomers or boarders; and
(ii) contains no more than four bedrooms."
The new definition will have the effect of prohibiting any dwelling unit in any multiple-unit building (i.e. any building containing more than one dwelling unit) from having more than four bedrooms. The presence of a household (not merely several individuals renting rooms from the landlord) is also necessary to qualify as a dwelling unit, and clarifies the distinction between a dwelling unit and a rooming house.
The other changes brought by this re-definition of "dwelling unit" are structural and do not materially change its effect. Several elements of the current definition will be moved into the definition of a "residential unit." The right to keep up to three roomers or boarders is an existing permission, relocated from elsewhere in the Zoning By-law.
3) Permit "oversize dwelling units" of up to eight (8) bedrooms, but only in a detached dwelling.
3a) Define "oversize dwelling unit" as follows:
"Oversize dwelling unit means a residential unit that:
(i) is used or intended for use as a residential premises by one household and not more than three roomers or boarders ; and
(ii) contains more than four, but no more than eight bedrooms."
3b) Amend the definition of "detached dwelling" as follows:
"Detached Dwelling means a residential use building that contains only one principal dwelling unit or oversize dwelling unit."
Together, 3a) and 3b) provide for units that contain up to eight bedrooms, but go on to restrict such units to detached dwellings only. This is because other building typologies such as "duplex dwelling", "three-unit dwelling" or "low-rise apartment dwelling" continue to be defined as containing a certain number of "dwelling units," not "oversize dwelling units".
An oversize dwelling unit will not be permitted in any multiple-unit dwelling typology i.e. any building with more than one principal dwelling unit, including semi-detached dwellings; three-unit dwellings; low-rise apartment dwellings or any residential use building other than a detached dwelling. It is intended that to permit an oversize dwelling unit in such buildings would constitute a major change and would not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
3c) Amend Parts 1 through 15 to ensure that any standards applicable to a dwelling unit or a building containing dwelling units, also apply to an oversize dwelling unit or building containing oversize dwelling units.
3c) ensures that oversize dwelling units (which, under the current zoning, are simply dwelling units) are subject to the same rules and trigger the same standards as dwelling units, except as specified in this amendment.
3d) Amend Section 133 (Secondary Dwelling Units) to specify that a secondary dwelling unit is limited to two (2) bedrooms when located in any building containing an oversize dwelling unit, provided that the total number of cumulative bedrooms does not exceed eight (8).
3e) Amend Section 142 (Coach Houses) to specify that a coach house may occur on a lot containing an oversize dwelling unit, provided that the total number of cumulative bedrooms does not exceed eight (8).
Previously, staff contemplated prohibiting Secondary Dwelling Units in any typology containing an Oversized Dwelling Unit, including Detached Dwellings. Staff have revised this proposal in light of the policy context surrounding Secondary Dwelling Units.
3d) and 3e) appreciate that while oversized dwelling units in detached dwellings will be allowed as-of-right, the majority of ODUs will consist of five or six bedroom units. Section 16(3) of the Planning Act requires that municipalities permit secondary units to occur in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse. Further, s.3.1(1) of the Official Plan permits secondary dwelling units to occur in a detached, semi-detached, duplex or townhouse dwelling subject to the establishment of criteria to govern compatibility of these units with the main dwelling and surrounding land uses. Similarly, per the above policies, coach houses may only occur in a building or structure ancillary to a principal dwelling, provided that the principal building contains a single residential unit. A Secondary Dwelling Unit or Coach House should not be permitted with or within a multi-unit building containing an over-sized dwelling unit (indeed, as noted above, the intent of the proposed zoning is to prohibit oversize dwelling units in multi-unit buildings altogether). However, staff are of the view that it is appropriate for a detached dwelling to accommodate as-of-right an oversize dwelling unit and a secondary dwelling unit or coach house with restrictions on the total number of cumulative bedrooms available in both the principal dwelling and secondary dwelling. Detached homes occur on an individual lot, with side yards on either side of the building, and are better able to accommodate the physical requirements for garbage and other land use impacts associated with larger households, or with a combination of principal dwelling and associated secondary dwelling.
These changes will ensure that second units, whether within the main dwelling (secondary dwelling units) or in an accessory building (coach houses) will be limited on a lot where an oversize dwelling unit exists. This will have the effect of limiting the maximum number of potential bedrooms on a lot with a detached-dwelling to a maximum of eight.
4) Redefine and regulate the use "rooming house."
4a) Redefine "rooming house" as follows:
(i) is not used or intended for use as a residential premises by a household; or
(ii) contains more than eight bedrooms.”
4b) Amend Part 5 (Residential Provisions) by deleting the current "Section 132 - Rooming Units in Private Dwellings," and replace with the following "Section 132 - Rooming Houses" as follows:
1) No more than one rooming house is permitted in a building.
2) Despite 1, two rooming houses are permitted in a building where they are separated vertically by a party wall in a semi-detached configuration.
3) Any building containing a rooming house may contain an office accessory to the rooming house.
4) No rooming house may occupy a building containing dwelling units or oversize dwelling units.
5) Despite 4), a building containing a rooming house may contain one secondary dwelling unit.
6) No rooming unit in a rooming house may contain more than one bedroom.
7) Where permitted in the R1, R2, R3 or R4A through R4L zones, a rooming house is subject to the height, yard, lot width and lot area requirements of a detached dwelling."
The intent of Section 132, Rooming Units in Private Dwellings, is either duplicated or superseded by the changes described in this report. It is proposed that this section be deleted and the resulting vacant slot for Section 132 be used for a set of standards applicable to rooming houses.
The current definition of "rooming house" includes certain criteria that can be interpreted to mean even if a unit is operating like a rooming house, it may technically not be one under the zoning. As a result, many existing residential units do not quite meet the definition of either a dwelling unit or a rooming house. The proposed definition clearly distinguishes a "rooming house" from both a "dwelling unit" and an "oversize dwelling unit".
The proposed amendment establishes these rules as standards that apply to rooming houses, not characteristics that determine whether it is one or not.
The proposed amendment also provides for the case where two rooming houses occupy two halves of a semi-detached building; such configurations are not uncommon and generally predate the existing zoning. Provided such buildings meet all other zoning standards for rooming houses and are properly licensed, staff sees no issue in providing for two rooming houses in a building under those specific circumstances.
Another issue with the current definition of "rooming house" is that it indirectly prohibits this use in a mixed-use building. The proposed definition has the effect of allowing rooming houses in mixed-use buildings (for instance, above ground-floor businesses on a Traditional Mainstreet). In doing so, more opportunities for this affordable housing form are created in appropriate locations.
Taken together, the proposals described in 1) through 4) above have the effect of:
• Limiting any dwelling unit to a maximum of four bedrooms, unless it is located in a detached dwelling.
• Limiting any detached dwelling to eight bedrooms.
• Treating any unit with more than eight bedrooms as a rooming house.
• By default, treating any residential unit as a rooming house if it does not meet the definition of any other residential unit type.
• Allowing rooming houses in mixed-use buildings where they are currently not allowed.
Figure 1 provides the proposed clarification of the relationship between occupancy, bedroom counts and land use definitions as described above.
Figure 11: Proposed relationship between occupancy, bedroom count and land use definition.
5) Remove the distinction between purpose-built rooming houses and converted rooming houses or rooming units as defined land uses.
5a) Delete the term "rooming house, converted" and its definition from Section 54 (Definitions);
5b) Replace every instance of "rooming house, converted" in the Zoning Bylaw with "rooming house," including maintaining the same standards and limitations that currently apply to converted rooming houses.
The current zoning distinguishes between purpose-built rooming houses, versus buildings that were originally built as something else (e.g. a detached dwelling) but later converted to rooming house use. In some zones, a converted rooming house is permitted but not a purpose-built one; converted rooming houses are typically more restricted in terms of how many rooming units they may contain.
The 2014 zoning study around converted apartment buildings concluded that the ability to almost completely rebuild and enlarge the "existing" building immediately before conversion makes the distinction meaningless; such a distinction is at best ineffective, and at worst it opens up loopholes in the zoning. The 2014 study removed all distinction between purpose-built and converted multi-unit dwellings, and it is now proposed to extend this principle to rooming houses. Where converted rooming houses are currently a permitted use, a rooming house will be permitted subject to the same standards.
6) Remove the zoning distinction between a rooming house and a group of rooming units as defined land uses, and limit the number of bedrooms in a rooming unit.
The current zoning also provides for "rooming units" as a permitted land use, as distinct from a rooming house; the distinction exists mainly to allow rooming units in mixed-use buildings. Because of changes to the definition of "rooming house," this distinction becomes meaningless; any collection of rooming units will now constitute a rooming house.
6a) Replace every instance of "rooming unit", when it appears in the list of permitted land uses in any zone, with the use "rooming house," subject to any existing standards or limitations that currently apply to rooming units or collections of rooming units.
While "rooming unit" as a permitted land use is no longer useful, the term does continue to serve a purpose as a unit of measurement. For instances, in some zones rooming houses are allowed only a certain number of rooming units; in other instances, parking or amenity spaces is calculated according to the number of rooming units that are present. This function will be maintained, while the concept of a "rooming unit" as a land use in and of itself will be removed and replaced with a rooming house.
6b) Amend the current definition of "rooming unit" as follows:
"Rooming unit means a room, or a suite of rooms including no more than two bedrooms, that constitutes a separate, independent residential occupancy, but which is not self-contained and which requires access to other parts of the residential unit intended to serve the residents, including shower or bathtub facilities, kitchens, eating areas or bathrooms."
A rooming unit is typically for a single occupant, with no more than one bedroom; this restriction would be applied to rooming houses. However, some residential care facilities and retirement homes have two-bedroom rooming units, for instance for couples where one partner requires more intensive care than the other. It is proposed to amend the definition of "rooming unit" to limit rooming units to two bedrooms by definition. The proposed 132(6), above, goes on to limit rooming units in rooming houses specifically to one bedroom.
7) Minimum standards to enable garbage management in large buildings.
This proposal responds to past issues where buildings are built as one typology, such as a detached dwelling, and then expanded and/or converted to house a much higher number of occupants producing much more garbage. The proposed standards will ensure that when any building over the 400m2 (4,300 sq.ft.) size threshold is constructed (or a building altered so as to exceed that threshold) it retains the physical ability to move garbage from the rear yard to the street. If such a building contains a rooming house, oversize dwelling unit or more than two dwelling units, there will also be a requirement for enclosed garbage storage either in an accessory building or inside the principal building.
7a) Add a provision in Part 5 (Residential Provisions) as follows:
#) In any R1, R2, R3 or R4 zone, any building exceeding 400m2 in total floor area must:
a) Include a path for the movement of garbage containers between a garbage storage area and the street line or travelled public lane, and such path must be:
(i) not less than 1.2m in width;
(ii) unobstructed by any projection or accessory structure to a height of 1.5m above the path surface;
(iii) uninterrupted by any window well, depression or grade change that would impede the movement of a wheeled garbage container;
(iv) for that part of the path located outside a building, paved or finished with hard landscaping; and
(v) notwithstanding the above, a service vent or utility may encroach no more than 0.3m into the above path.
b) A garbage storage area must be provided with any building containing:
(i) a rooming house;
(ii) an oversize dwelling unit; or
(iii) more than two but not more than six dwelling units.
c) The garbage storage area required by b) must:
i) be located within
(1) the principal building, or
(2) an accessory building located in the rear yard;
ii) have a total volume of not less than 3.5 cubic metres with a minimum floor area of not less than 2.0 square metres; and
iii) be located adjacent to the path required by Clause a).
d) Notwithstanding the above, a building containing a Townhouse or Stacked Townhouse is exempt where the Total Floor Area of the part of the building occupied by a principal dwelling unit, including an associated secondary dwelling unit, is less than 200 square metres as calculated from the party walls.
The 1.2-metre path will normally be in a side yard, but may be met by a carport open at both ends, a porte-cochere (coachway), or a dedicated area accessible from within a garage. The key characteristic is that area must be available for the long-term storage and management of household waste, and the path must be sufficient to allow a wheeled garbage bin or dumpster to be moved along its entire length. It is recognized that there are hydro, natural gas and direct vent mechanical projections associated with required building systems that must be permitted to occur within a side yard. Allowance has been made for limited occurrences, such that an unobstructed path of 0.9m will continue to be available.
The 400m2 size threshold refers to total floor area inside the main building, not "Gross Floor Area" as defined by the Zoning By-law. Total floor area includes all floor area that is contained within the principal building, including spaces such as garages, corridors and service areas that are excluded from calculations of Gross Floor Area.
The above recognizes that challenges with respect to waste management occur where more than two dwelling units occur, and where there is no opportunity to require site-specific waste management strategies through Site Plan Control in consultation with Waste Management. As such, the minimum path requirement and garbage storage area provide a closing of the gap for large buildings with unit counts between three and six, where there are currently no requirements for on-site waste management.
The proposed garbage storage area of 3.5 cubic metres with a minimum floor area of 2.0 square metres would have to be located inside a building, whether the main building or an accessory building. The proposals circulated on March 8, 2018 proposed a minimum of 7 square metres for waste storage; this figure was based on two recyclable bins, three garbage bins and one bin for organics. The 3.5-cubic metre volume requirement with a 2.0-minimum floor area is consistent with the Solid Waste Management By-law for low-rise buildings and can accommodate three 320-litre waste carts or a variation of carts and boxes for garbage and/or organics and recyclables. This change recognizes that it is most critical to ensure that the majority of the garbage produced mid pick-up cycle be contained in a fully enclosed area and that keeping some recyclables and/or organics outside does not pose a major nuisance concern.
Concerns were expressed by industry for townhouses and stacked townhouses where these buildings typically contain more than three vertically attached dwelling units and the total building area will always exceed 400 m2. It is also recognized that most of these dwelling types will also generally trigger Site Plan Control. As such, a special clause has been added to only capture those cases where a large principal dwelling unit is proposed. Staff recognize and intend that semi-detached and triplex typologies will be the primary building forms captured by this requirement as it is in these forms where the majority of concerns have occurred.
The three-unit threshold for enclosed garbage storage includes both principal and secondary dwelling units, and applies regardless of whether the units were purpose-built or the result of a conversion.
8) Other incidental amendments
8a) Amend the definition of Residential Use Building as follows:
"Residential Use Building means a building composed solely of residential units; and residential use and residential premises have corresponding meanings."
The existing definition specifically references building typologies and can create confusion in interpretation. The proposed wording simplifies the text while maintaining the same meaning.
9) Amendments to zoning exceptions
9a) Amend zoning exceptions that limit a rooming house to 50 per cent of a building’s floor area
A number of exceptions to the Zoning By-law stipulate that a rooming house cannot occupy more than 50 per cent of a building's floor area. There are site-specific rationales for some occurrences, such as when a diplomatic mission has an associated rooming house in the same building. These also date to the intent to allow a converted rooming house that would re-purpose an existing dwelling (implicitly without major changes to the structure or massing), but prohibit a purpose-built rooming house. As noted above, the zoning rules around conversions were generally changed in 2014 as the original intent was not only proving impossible to enforce but in fact served to create loopholes to actively undermine that intent. However, these exceptions have remained with respect to rooming houses and converted rooming houses, and create conflict with the current zoning (which says a rooming house by definition occupies the whole of a residential use building) and the proposed zoning (which carries forward that intent by specifying that a rooming house cannot occupy a building with other dwelling units). Accordingly, these exceptions will be amended or removed for consistency.
9b) Establish zoning exceptions to accommodate any existing, lawful and licensed rooming houses that would otherwise become nonconforming or noncomplying under the proposed amendments.
The proposed changes are not intended to target existing rooming houses that have been established in conformity with existing zoning and have the required licenses to operate. There are a number of such rooming houses that might incidentally be rendered nonconforming or noncomplying due to changes in the definition. Such rooming houses will be explicitly protected through site-specific zoning exceptions.
10) No Transition Provisions.
No transition provisions are proposed. Any development that has not received a building permit when the amendment is adopted by Council will be required to comply with the zoning as amended.
The proposed zoning amendments are intended to prevent certain undesirable forms of development that, under the existing zoning, were permitted as of right. However, related concerns about the use of the minor variance process have been linked to the issues at hand. What follows is intended to elaborate on the intent of the zoning as amended, and how it is hoped that variances would be considered. Although the Policy Planning Branch does not have direct influence over the Committee of Adjustment nor over the review of variance applications, the following is being provided to succinctly set out the underlying intent of the changes being introduced through this report.
A primary goal of this amendment is to address the planning impact of multiple unusually large units being concentrated on a single site. A variance to allow more than four bedrooms in a dwelling unit (or, in other words, to allow an oversize dwelling unit in anything but a detached dwelling with no second unit) would not be consistent with the intent of the zoning as amended by this report.
There have been concerns about the use of variances that appear to frustrate the intent of existing zoning and Site Plan Control, and would continue to do so if they are not specifically identified. In particular:
• Sequential applications within a relatively short timeframe, whereby a new building is built or an existing one substantially modified and/or expanded shortly before applying for a variance or Site Plan Control to convert the recently-modified building, should be viewed critically with respect to the intent of the zoning. Applicants who build a new building or fundamentally alter the massing of an existing one, and then apply for a variances a year or two later to convert that building, should not expect the same consideration as a long-standing building that has stood largely un-altered for many years or decades.
• There has been concern that applications that are presented to the Committee of Adjustment (including floor plans) providing a certain context and assumptions about the ultimate intent, might then be modified after approval to materially change this context. Variances have been sought and approved for three-unit dwellings on undersized lots where each unit is represented as family-sized units with three bedrooms. Then, once the variance is approved, the applicant modifies the floor plan to create, as of right, more enclosed rooms indistinguishable from bedrooms. It becomes a reasonable question whether the Committee would have approved the variance had it been shown the materially different and potentially much higher-occupancy plans. The Committee of Adjustment will be encouraged to provide some clarity in its decisions, possibly tying variances to conditions or general conformity with the plans and/or elevations submitted, in a way that limits such material after-the-fact changes.
• All other things being equal, applications that seek many variances should be treated as less minor than those seeking fewer variances, even if the individual variances are each minor by themselves. The Committee should use its own judgment in determining whether a set of variances together exceeds the threshold for a "minor variance." However, the Committee is reminded that a minor rezoning process, with more thorough public notification and consultation, exists for changing multiple zone standards applicable to a site.
More generally, the Committee should expect to be presented with applications that accurately represent all stages of the project from start to finish. Applications that have been preceded by recent permits or construction that would serve to prejudice subsequent discretionary approvals (particularly approval of site plan and elevations) for the final product, should be seen as counter to the intent of the zoning and of the Official Plan.
More recently, variances have been sought to allow pairs of semi-detached dwellings on undersized lots, which include very large "secondary dwelling units" designed for the same occupancy as the principal units. The result of such variances is essentially to allow a four-unit apartment building with four full-sized units (indeed, unusually large units relative to the majority of rental apartments in Ottawa) on a lot that would otherwise permit only a detached dwelling plus a secondary unit. Such variances represent, in staff's view, a significant departure from the intent of the zoning.
The Committee retains the authority to decide whether a given variance is or is not consistent with the intent of the zoning and the Official Plan. Excellence in site planning and design, and compatibility with the surrounding context, are part of the latter.
Ultimately the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that it is consistent, not on the Committee to demonstrate that it is not. It is expected that the Committee will not be unduly restrictive in its decisions; however, when the context or recent permit history on a subject property raises the suspicion in the Committee's mind that the process is being misused, it should not hesitate to refuse such an application. This principle holds true not just in the R4 zones but city-wide as well.
The intention of Phase 1 actions are to place immediate restrictions on excessive-bedroom buildings and to address some of the more pressing performance issues associated with intensive low-rise in established neighbourhoods.
Phase 2 will examine the more fundamental land economics issues driving growth in the R4 family of zones that led to these undesirable outcomes. Phase 2 actions are critical to meeting the challenge of long-term growth, affordability and housing supply of the city. In particular, there is a need and requirement for the City to provide opportunity for well-built, family-oriented and future-adaptable apartment buildings – which the R4 zone is intended to accommodate, and can accommodate with good design. Phase 2 will not place further restrictions on the ability to develop appropriate multi-unit housing. Rather, Phase 2 will look at what changes may be made to remove barriers and encourage the development of appropriate new and compatible housing typologies, including low-rise apartments, in established communities.
Proposed work plan items may include:
• Review design controls and regulatory oversight of new development to support integration and compatibility of new development into established neighbourhoods, including revision of the “Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Rise Infill Housing” to provide clear, graphical guidance for development of compatible low-rise infill housing.
• Undertake a “Missing middle” housing typology review to consider opportunities and constraints involved in developing good quality, family-oriented multi-unit housing and developing the appropriate performance standards and policy supports to encourage it. This includes a review of low-rise multi-unit housing typologies, associated unit caps, and performance standards as permitted in the R2, R3 and R4 zones.
• Revise Secondary Dwelling Units zoning provisions to ensure it is meeting its intent.
• Provide input towards the Development Charges By-law to consider how rates may be changed to favour family-style apartment units and capture costs associated with density.
• Provide input towards a review of Cash-In-Lieu of Parkland policies to look for opportunities to capture full value for parkland contributions from building additions and conversions.
• Harmonize the Zoning By-law, Rooming House Licensing By-law, Site Plan Control By-law and other municipal by-laws to ensure effective enforcement and consistency.
The above items will be added to the future proposed Department Work Plan.
The above changes to the Zoning By-law will be effected through multiple departments and service areas throughout the city in coordination, and will require further adjustments to municipal by-laws to ensure harmonization and the ability to enforce proper building design and compliance with approved plans after the fact. A key element is therefore to ensure clarity and consistency between the Zoning By-law, Building Code, Committee of Adjustment and Licensing to as great a degree as possible under applicable law. The definition changes to the Zoning By-law will provide the structural and legal framework for how the City intends for low-rise development to be regulated, but there will be a need to provide clear direction and consistency between City departments.
If approved, Planning will issue a series of technical memoranda as follows:
• Bedroom schedules per unit will be a required element of all approvals through a Development Review process, Committee of Adjustment request for relief, and for Building Code applications. This schedule will form part of the approvals documentation and will be a required part of submitted plans. Post-approval alteration of floor plans and building layout that impacts this schedule will require review and amendment of the submitted plans by the relevant approval authority. Deviation from this schedule post-approval without the above approval will be subject to enforcement.
• Where required, waste management pathways, garbage storage areas and limitations on projections into a required path in a side yard will be clearly noted on all submitted plans and form part of the approval package.
Practise and Interpretation Bulletins will be developed between Planning Services, Building Code Services, By-law and Regulatory Services and the Committee of Adjustment to ensure consistent interpretation of the above as necessary. A working group composed of members from Zoning and Interpretation, Building Code Services, Bylaw and Regulatory Services and Development Review Services will meet on a regular basis to monitor implementation and report back to Planning Committee within two years of passage of the by-law.
Concurrent with the R4 Zoning Review, By-law and Regulatory Services staff has been, in collaboration with Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development staff, conducting a review of the Rooming House Licensing regulations – specifically, the definitions contained therein. If approved by Council, the same definitions related to rooming houses proposed in this report will be brought forward in the Rooming House Licensing By-law Review report to Community and Protective Services Committee on June 21st and Council on June 27th.
Extension of the Interim Control By-law
Interim Control By-laws 2017-245 and 2017-278 are recommended to be extended for one additional calendar year into 2019 to allow time for the above Phase 2 work to occur, for monitoring and implementation of Phase 1 regulations, and for harmonization of the Zoning By-law with other municipal by-laws. Staff will report back to Planning Committee with an update on Phase 2 and the implementation of Phase 1 prior to the lapsing of the Interim Control By-laws presently in force.
The changes to definitions of terms including dwelling unit and rooming house will, in principle, affect residential uses in all zones city-wide, including in the rural area. In practice, the effects will be concentrated on the inner urban area and in neighbourhoods around colleges and universities.
The limit of eight bedrooms in a detached dwelling could affect large houses in the rural area, if someone wishes to build a house with more than eight bedrooms.
Public notification was undertaken in accordance with the Council-approved Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy for Zoning By-law amendments, and was preceded by extensive consultation with community groups, industry and other stakeholders over an eighteen-month period beginning in September 2016.
The public consultation timeline is summarized, and comments from the public are summarized and addressed, in Document 3.
In accordance with Bill 139, if the proposed zoning by-law is enacted, it can only be appealed on the basis of inconsistency with the Provincial Policy Statement or lack of conformity with the official plan. Were the zoning by-law amendment appealed, the preparation of the necessary documentation for the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the making of submissions to the Tribunal could be done within staff resources.
As the zoning by-law amendment is a City initiated amendment, there are no appeal rights should the zoning amendment not be adopted.
The interim control by-law amendment is subject to appeal in accordance with the practice prior to the amendments to the Planning Act made by Bill 139, i.e. to one hearing only where live testimony evidence would be heard.
Healthy and Caring Communities, Governance, Planning and Decision-Making, Economic Prosperity
Document 1 Lands Affected
Document 2 Details of the Proposed Zoning
Document 4 Frequently Asked Questions
Document 5 Peer-Review Memorandum from Urban Strategies
Document 1 – Lands Affected
Document 1a: 204 Donald Street
Document 1b: 99-101 First Avenue
Document 1c: 5-9 Ralph Street
Document 1d: 495-497 Cumberland Street
Document 1e: Henderson Avenue, Nelson Street, Somerset Street East and Osgoode Street
Document 1f: 150B Lebreton Street
Document 1g: 348-350 Queen Mary Street
Document 1h: 26-32 Bell Street North and 788 Somerset Street West
Document 2 – Details of Proposed Zoning
1) Amend Section 54 (Definitions) as follows:
a) Add the following definition of "bedroom"
b) Add the following definition of "residential unit":
c) Add the following definition of "household":
d) Add the following definition of "total floor area":
e) Add the following definition of "oversize dwelling unit":
f) Delete the current definition of "dwelling unit" and replace it with the following:
g) Amend the definition of "detached dwelling" by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "principal dwelling unit," so that it reads as follows:
h) Delete the current definition of "rooming house" and replace it with the following:
i) Delete the current definition of "rooming unit" and replace it with the following:
j) Delete the term "rooming house, converted" and its definition.
k) Delete the current definition of "residential use building" and replace it with the following:
l) Amend the definition of "group home" by deleting the words "single household living arrangement" and replacing them with the words "single housekeeping establishment."
2) Amend Section 133 (Secondary Dwelling Units) as follows:
(a) Amend 133(2)(c) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "principal dwelling unit"
(b) Amend 133(2)(d) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "principal dwelling unit; and
(c) Insert wording similar in effect to the following as 133(2)(e):
"(e) Where the principal dwelling contains an oversize dwelling unit, no secondary dwelling unit is permitted where:
(i) the oversize dwelling unit contains more than six bedrooms;
(ii) the secondary dwelling unit contains more than two bedrooms; or
(iii) the total number of bedrooms in the principal oversize dwelling unit and the secondary dwelling unit exceeds eight."
3) Amend 142(5) as follows:
(a) by inserting wording similar in effect to the following as 142(5)(e):
"(e) Where the lot contains an oversize dwelling unit, the total number of bedrooms on the lot may not exceed eight."; and
(b) by renumbering the current 142(5)(e) as 142(5)(f).
4) Amend Part 5 (Residential Provisions) by deleting Section 132 (Rooming Units in Private Dwellings) in its entirety and replacing it with wording similar in effect to the following as Section 132 (Rooming Houses):
"Section 132 - Rooming Houses
2) Despite 1), two rooming houses are permitted in a building where they are separated vertically by a party wall in a semi-detached configuration.
7) Despite 161(5), where permitted in the R1, R2, R3 or R4A through R4L zones, a rooming house is subject to the height, yard, lot width and lot area requirements of a detached dwelling."
5) Amend Part 5 (Residential Provisions) by adding wording similar in effect to the following as Section XXX1 (Waste Management)
"Section XXX1 - Waste Management:
1) In any R1, R2, R3 or R4 zone, any building exceeding 400 square metres in total floor area must:
(i) not less than 1.2 metres in width;
(ii) unobstructed by any projection or accessory structure to a height of 1.5 metres above the path surface;
(v) notwithstanding the above, a service vent or utility may encroach no more than 0.30 metres into the above path.
6) Amend Parts 1 through 15 as follows:
(a) Amend 171(1) by replacing the words "ancillary rooming units" with the words "ancillary rooming house".
(b) Amend 171(2) by replacing the words "rooming units" with "rooming house".
(c) Amend 185(2) by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(d) Amend 187(2) by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(e) Amend 188(1) by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(f) Amend 188(2)(a) by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(g) Amend 188(3)(a) by deleting the words "rooming unit" and replacing them with the words "rooming house".
(h) Amend 188(7)(b) by replacing the words "rooming units" with "rooming houses".
(i) Amend 189(2) by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(j) Amend 192(6)(a) by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(k) Amend 193(1) by replacing the words "rooming unit" with "rooming house".
(l) Amend 197(2) by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(m) Amend 198(1) by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(n) Amend 198(2) by replacing the words "rooming unit" with the words "rooming house".
(o) Amend 198(6) by replacing the words "rooming unit" with the words "rooming house".
(p) Amend 198(7) by replacing the words "rooming unit" with the words "rooming house".
(q) Amend 229(1) by deleting the words "rooming house".
(r) Amend 230(5) by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(s) Amend Exception [1977] by replacing the words "place of worship and ancillary rooming units" with the words "place of worship and ancillary rooming house," and by replacing the words "a maximum of three ancillary rooming units are permitted in a place of worship" with "an ancillary rooming house containing a maximum of three rooming units is permitted in a place of worship".
(t) Amend Exception [2283], Column III by replacing words "rooming unit" with "rooming house".
(u) Amend Exception [2284], Column III by replacing words "rooming unit" with "rooming house".
(v) Amend Exception [2285], Column III by replacing words "rooming unit" with "rooming house".
(w) Amend Exception [2286], Column III by replacing words "rooming unit" with "rooming house".
(x) Amend Exception [2287], Column III by replacing words "rooming unit" with "rooming house".
(y) Amend Exception [2288], Column III by replacing words "rooming unit" with "rooming house".
(z) Amend Exception [2334] by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(aa) Amend Exception [317r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(bb) Amend Exception [396r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(cc) Amend Exception [404] by replacing the words "rooming unit" with the words "rooming house".
(dd) Amend Exception [448] by replacing the words "rooming units" with the words "rooming houses".
(ee) Amend Exception [472], Column III by replacing words "rooming unit" with "rooming house".
(ff) Amend Exception [679r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming unit".
(gg) Amend Exception [680r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming unit”.
(hh) Amend Exception [681r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming unit".
7) Amend Parts 1 through 15 as follows:
(a) Amend 155(2) by deleting the words "rooming house, converted" and replacing them with the words "rooming house".
(b) Amend 155(2)(b) by deleting the words " a maximum of seven rooming units, or a maximum of one dwelling unit and six rooming units." and replacing them with the following: "(i) Where there is no secondary dwelling unit, a maximum of seven rooming units is permitted; (ii) Where there is a secondary dwelling unit, a maximum of six rooming units is permitted".
(c) Amend 156(3) by deleting the words "rooming houses, converted" and replacing them with the words "rooming houses".
(d) Amend 157(2) by deleting the words "rooming house, converted" and replacing them with the words "rooming house".
(e) Amend 157(2)(b) by deleting the words " a maximum of seven rooming units, or a maximum of one dwelling unit and six rooming units." and replacing them with the following: "(i) Where there is no secondary dwelling unit, a maximum of seven rooming units is permitted; (ii) Where there is a secondary dwelling unit, a maximum of six rooming units is permitted".
(f) Amend 159(2) by deleting the words "rooming house, converted" and replacing them with the words "rooming house".
(g) Amend 159(2)(b) by deleting the words "a maximum of seven rooming units" and replacing them with the following: "(i) a maximum of seven rooming units is permitted; and (ii) no secondary dwelling unit is permitted".
(h) Amend 161(1) by deleting the term "rooming house, converted" from the list of permitted uses.
(i) Amend 161(1) by deleting the words "A maximum of seven rooming units permitted in a Rooming House, Converted. (By-law 2014-189)" and replacing them with the following: "(d) In the case of a rooming house in the R4A-R4L zones, (i) a maximum of seven rooming units is permitted; and (ii) no secondary dwelling unit is permitted".
(j) Amend 163(1) by deleting the term "rooming house, converted" from the list of permitted uses.
(k) Amend 169(1)(b) by deleting the term "rooming house, converted" from the list of permitted uses.
(l) Amend 171(1)(b) by deleting the term "rooming house, converted" from the list of permitted uses.
(m) Amend 185(2), 187(2), 188(1), 188(2), 188(29)(d), 189(2), 191(1), 192(6), 192(9)(b), 192(9)(e), 192(11), 192(15)(c), 194(4)(a), 195(2), 197(2), 198(1)(a)(i), and 198(6)(d) by in each case deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(n) Amend 223(1) by deleting the term "rooming house, converted" from the list of permitted uses.
(o) Amend 229(1) by deleting the term "rooming house, converted" from the list of permitted uses.
(p) Amend 230(5)(a) by deleting the term "rooming house, converted" from the list of prohibited uses.
(q) Amend 230(9)(a) by deleting the term "rooming house, converted" from the list of prohibited uses.
(r) Amend 235(1) by deleting the term "rooming house, converted" from the list of permitted uses and replacing it with the words "rooming house".
(s) Amend 235(1)(d) by deleting the words " a maximum of seven rooming units or one dwelling unit and six rooming units are permitted in a rooming house, converted;" and replacing them with the following: "In the case of a rooming house, (i) Where there is no secondary dwelling unit, a maximum of seven rooming units is permitted; (ii) Where there is a secondary dwelling unit, a maximum of six rooming units is permitted".
(t) Amend Section 137(6)(a) by deleting the words "Rooming House or Converted Rooming House" and replacing them with the words "or Rooming House".
(u) Amend Section 137(6)(b) by deleting the words "Rooming Houses and Converted Rooming Houses" and replacing them with the words "and Rooming Houses".
(v) Amend Table 101 by deleting row R23.
(w) Amend Table 111, row a) by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(x) Amend Table 137, Row 1, Column I by deleting the words "or Rooming House, Converted".
(y) Amend Table 161A, Column II by deleting the words "rooming house" in rows A through L.
(z) Amend Table 162B by deleting endnote 14.
(aa) Amend Table 162B by deleting endnote 15.
(bb) Amend Table 164B by deleting endnote 29.
(cc) Amend Exception [1738], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(dd) Amend Exception [2042], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(ee) Amend Exception [2153], Column III by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(ff) Amend Exception [2326], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(gg) Amend Exception [2334], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(hh) Amend Exception [317r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(ii) Amend Exception [396r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(jj) Amend Exception [679r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(kk) Amend Exception [680r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted"
(ll) Amend Exception [681r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(mm) Amend Exception [814r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
(nn) Amend Exception [815r], Column IV by deleting the words "rooming house, converted".
8) Amend Parts 1 through 15 as follows:
(a) Amend 3(1)(b) by adding the words "oversize dwelling units, " after the words "dwelling units," so that it reads as follows:
(b) Amend 71(1)(c) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "dwelling unit".
(c) Amend Table 101, Row R4, Column II, III, IV and V by in each case adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "dwelling unit".
(d) Amend 127(1) by adding the words ", oversize dwelling unit "after the words "dwelling unit".
(e) Amend 127(1)(e) by adding the words ", oversize dwelling unit " after the word "dwelling".
(f) Amend 127(3) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "dwelling unit".
(g) Amend 127(9) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "within the dwelling unit".
(h) Amend 127(9) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "within the dwelling unit".
(i) Amend 127(9)(a) by adding the words ", oversize dwelling unit" after the words "if within a dwelling unit" and adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "home-based businesses per dwelling unit".
(j) Amend 127(9)(b) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words " required parking for the dwelling unit".
(k) Amend 128(2) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "per principal dwelling unit".
(l) Amend 128(3) by adding the words ", oversize dwelling unit" after the words "permitted in the dwelling unit".
(m) Amend 128(8) by adding the words ", oversize dwelling units" after the words "principal dwelling units".
(n) Amend 128A(3) by adding the words, "oversize dwelling unit," after the words "Any number of home-based businesses are permitted in the dwelling unit".
(o) Amend 128A(5) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words " permitted per principal dwelling unit".
(p) Amend 129(a) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "in any principal dwelling unit".
(q) Amend 129(c) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "principal dwelling unit".
(r) Amend 129(d) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "principal dwelling unit".
(s) Amend Table 131 Column II Row (6) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after each instance of the words "dwelling unit".
(t) Amend 139(18)(b) by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words " dwelling unit".
(u) Amend Table 158B, endnote 4 by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "dwelling unit".
(v) Amend Table 158B, endnote 5 by adding the words "or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "dwelling unit".
(w) Amend Table 164B, endnote 20 by adding the words, "oversize dwelling unit" after the words "dwelling unit".
(x) Amend Table 236, Row (a), Columns II and III; Row (b), Columns II and III; Row (d), Column II; and Row (h), Columns II and III by adding the words " or oversize dwelling unit" after the words "dwelling unit".
(y) Amend Part 15 (Exceptions) such that the following intent is achieved: Where an exception applies to a zone where an oversize dwelling unit is permitted by virtue of a detached dwelling being permitted, and where that exception has the effect of applying a standard or restriction to dwelling units or on the basis of the number of dwelling units, amend the exception so that a detached dwelling containing an oversize dwelling unit is counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of that standard or restriction.
9) Amend Part 18 (Zoning Map) as shown in Document 1.
10) Amend Part 15 (Exceptions) as follows:
(a) Add the following rows as Exceptions [XXX1] through [XXX8]:
Additional Land Uses Permited
Despite 132(1), up to two rooming houses are permitted in a building.
[XXX2]
Despite 132(4), a rooming house may occupy a building with one principal dwelling unit.
-the minimum front yard setback is 1.5 metresand the maximum front yard setback is 3 metres.
-Despite 132(4), a rooming house may occupy a building with one principal dwelling unit.
-the minimum front yard setback is 1.5 metres and the maximum front yard setback is 3 metres.
- Despite 132(1), up to three rooming houses are permitted in a building.
[XXX5]
TM11[XXX5]
-minimum rear yard setback: 1.2 metres.
-maximum building height: four storeys or 15 metres.
-Despite 132(1), up to two rooming houses are permitted in a building.
R4S[XXX6] S232
- ancilliary uses related to a post secondary educational institution
- rooming house limited to 50% of gross floor area of building.
- no additional parking required if less than four units in a converted dwelling.
- parking for any building or use owned or operated by the University of Ottawa or affiliated college may be situated on any lot owned by the said university or affiliated college except for any University of Ottawa lands contained in a strip of land 30.4 metresdeep abutting the west side of Henderson Avenue between Laurier Avenue East and Templeton Street where surface parking is prohibited, and the University of Ottawa is required to landscape any vacant lands in this strip of land for the interim period between the demolition of existing structures and the construction of new structures.
- University of Ottawa may distribute its permitted gross floor area over its land, provided that with every application for a building permit, a detailed account of gross floor area used and remaining is submitted, indicating that the cumulative gross floor area permitted over the University of Ottawa ownership in the aforesaid area is not exceeded
TM[XXX8]
- any lot that is 605 square metres or greater in area must be developed as a mixed-use project where for every square metre of commercial floor area developed an equal or greater amount of residential floor area must be developed.
- Despite 132(1) and 132(4), up to three rooming houses are permitted in a building, and may occupy a building with principal dwelling units.
[XX10]
11) Amend Part 15 (Exceptions) as follows:
(a) Amend exceptions 349, 479, 480, 483, 491, 492, 779, 780, 781, 784, 805, 808, 809, 822, 827, 834, 839, 857, 888, 906, 934, 976, 1347, 1348, 1357, 1509, 1666, 1681, 2132, 2219, 2347 and 2399 by deleting from Column V the words "rooming house limited to 50% of floor area," and any alternate phrasing to that effect
Document 2a: Summary of changes in Document 2
Recommendation 1) amends existing definitions and introduces new ones, primarily in order to limit bedroom counts in dwelling units and clearly distinguish between rooming houses and dwelling units.
Recommendation 2) establishes limits on secondary dwelling units in house that contains an oversize dwelling unit (i.e. more than four bedrooms).
Recommendation 3) establishes limits on coach houses on a lot where the principal dwelling contains an oversize dwelling unit.
Recommendation 4) removes the current Section 132 governing rooming units in private dwellings, whose provisions are either duplicated or superseded by other changes in this report. It replaces the existing Section 132 with a set of regulations governing rooming houses.
Recommendation 5) introduces waste storage and management requirements for large residential buildings.
Recommendation 6) is a technical amendment that removes the distinction between groups of rooming units and a rooming house. It has the effect of ensuring that any collection of rooming units is treated as a rooming house but otherwise maintains the same effect.
Recommendation 7) is a technical amendment that removes the distinction between a converted and purpose-built rooming house, but otherwise maintains the same restrictions and permissions as currently apply to these uses.
Recommendation 8) is a technical amendment that ensures that zoning treatment of oversize dwelling units continues to be the same as for dwelling units, except for the limits on bedroom counts and the prohibition of oversize units in buildings other than a detached dwelling.
Recommendations 9) and 10) establish zoning exceptions on existing, lawful and licensed rooming houses to prevent them from becoming legally nonconforming or noncomplying as a result of the changes proposed herein.
Recommendation 11) removes provisions restricting rooming houses to 50% of a building's floor area, thereby eliminating a long-standing contradiction within both the existing and proposed zoning.
A project website was established on August 31, 2016, which described the intent and scope of the project. The likelihood that the study would ultimately affect lands beyond the R4 zones, and would likely affect residential zones throughout the inner urban area and to a lesser extent city-wide, was emphasized at this time. The beginning of the project was announced through an email sent to all community associations in the City's Public Notification List, as well as a list of development industry representatives. A Discussion Paper was posted on November 3, asking interested parties to submit comments by December 16, and a reminder sent on December 9, 2016.
A set of Draft Recommendations was published on the project website on March 2, 2017, and stakeholders and community groups invited to comment. In the summer of 2017, Urban Strategies was retained to provide a peer review of the work carried out to date.
Formal circulation of the final recommendations were circulated per City policy on March 9, 2018, directing interested parties to submit comments by April 9 (a 31-day commenting period).
Staff also met with Community Association representatives and individual stakeholders upon request throughout the consultation period.
The following section deals with comments, observations or statements made in response to the circulated zoning proposals on March 8, 2018. Questions are generally addressed in Document 4, Frequently Asked Questions.
Please include a definition of "total floor area" if this term is to be used in the by-law amendment.
The proposed Zoning By-law amendment does include a definition of "Total Floor Area" as follows: "Total Floor Area means the total area of all floors contained within the inside face of the exterior walls of a building, including any basement, finished and unfinished spaces, and any attached private garage; but excludes any attic or crawl space with a floor-to-ceiling height of less than 1.2 metres."
Coach Houses should not be allowed on a lot containing a single detached oversize dwelling unit.
3d) and 3e) appreciate that while oversized dwelling units in detached dwellings will be allowed as-of-right, the majority of ODUs will consist of five or six bedroom units. Section 16(3) of the Planning Act requires that municipalities permit secondary units to occur in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse. Further, s.3.1(1) of the Official Plan permits secondary dwelling units to occur in a detached, semi-detached, duplex or townhouse dwelling subject to the establishment of criteria to govern compatibility of these units with the main dwelling and surrounding land uses. Similarly, per the above policies, coach houses may only occur in a building or structure ancillary to a principal dwelling, provided that the principal building contains a single residential unit. A Secondary Dwelling Unit or Coach House should not be permitted within a multiuse building containing an over-sized dwelling. However, staff are of the view that it is appropriate for a detached dwelling to accommodate as-of-right an oversize dwelling unit and a secondary dwelling unit or coach house with restrictions on the total number of cumulative bedrooms available in both the principal dwelling and secondary dwelling. Detached homes occur on an individual lot, with side yards on either side of the building, and are better able to accommodate the physical requirements for garbage and other land use impacts associated with larger households, or with a combination of principal dwelling and associated secondary dwelling.
These changes will ensure that second units, whether within the main dwelling (secondary dwelling units) or in an accessory building (coach houses) will be limited on a lot where an oversize dwelling unit exists. This will have the effect of limiting the maximum number of potential bedrooms in a detached-dwelling, plus any second unit, to a maximum of eight. Staff will consider further amendments to Section 133 in Phase 2.
Sandy Hill should be downzoned. There is no amount of intensification that is appropriate in Sandy Hill, and all intensification should be directed to underdeveloped areas such as Rideau Street.
There is no planning rationale for downzoning urban neighbourhoods that have been zoned for apartments for decades, and that remain firmly capped at low-rise development. Doing so would, among other concerns, go against the City's own planning policies.
A distinction between apartments in a low-rise building and townhomes need be included in this new zoning proposal. Townhomes must be either categorized differently from apartments and single detached house, or to be clearly treated by the proposed zoning as if they were detached dwellings. A townhome would usually have three bedrooms and a finished basement that can easily accommodate two more bedrooms. A family or single housekeeping unit in a townhome should be five not four as the new R4 zoning is proposing.
After due consideration, staff does not recommend allowing more than four bedrooms in a townhouse dwelling unit.
Why is a unit with four bedrooms only to have three roomers? If four students rent a four bedroom apartment or townhome they will be four roomers not three. Why would three students pay for four rooms to leave the fourth room empty? It is an extra expense they cannot afford.
The proposed Zoning By-law amendment does not prevent a household of four people from occupying a four-bedroom unit as a single housekeeping establishment. In the example given here, of students renting an apartment, those four individuals constitute a single housekeeping establishment (i.e. a household) if they live together as a household and exercise substantial control and responsibility for the inside of the unit. They are not roomers or boarders. The provision for up to three "roomers or boarders" extends an existing right for a household to take in up to three people who do not form part of the household unit but share the unit with the resident household.
The new proposed Zoning By-law is not clear if existing buildings and townhomes will be grandfathered. And if not, what does the City expect owners of these buildings do specially if they were designed with six bedrooms per apartment.
The Planning Act S.34(9) grandparents existing buildings and uses that were lawfully-established at the time the zoning changed. This grandparenting is known as "legal nonconforming" or "legal non-complying" rights (as in, they do not conform or comply with current zoning, but are still legal because they were lawful at the time they were established.) Such developments, called "nonconforming" for short, enjoy the right to continue, but are subject to restrictions on how they may be expanded or altered.
There exists currently no restriction on the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit. As such, an existing six-bedroom dwelling unit in a multi-unit building would be considered "legally non-complying." The expectation is that such apartments would be operated by a single housekeeping establishment and in conformance with all other by-laws of the City.
The proposed Zoning By-law amendment does not address having adequate parking for multiple-unit residential units. The parking in our area is extremely limited and it is often difficult to find an available parking spot.
Minimum parking requirements were reviewed and updated in 2016; further review of parking is beyond the scope of this project.
Some of the measures proposed in Phase 1 are already addressed by interim by-laws (bedroom counts), and any attempt to make those measures permanent should await an evaluation of the success of the interim bylaws as well as the results of the study to be commissioned under Phase 2.
An Interim Control By-law is a temporary measure that acts to stop a certain class of development while a zoning review is undertaken to change the zoning in a more permanent way. Allowing the Interim Control By-law to run its course (it can only apply for a maximum of two years) before amending the underlying zoning would defeat the purpose.
We oppose allowing oversize dwelling units (ODU's) of up to eight bedrooms in a detached dwelling in the R3 and R4 zones. Within Old Ottawa East, our R4T subzone has a minimum lot width of 7.5 metres and a minimum area of 195 square metres, which is insufficient to permit an ODU without a major negative impact on streetscape character. We believe that the 15-metre wide, and 450-square metre minimums allowed in the R4M subzone would be the minimum capable of containing an ODU. Furthermore, ODU’s should only be allowed if minimum lot widths and minimum lot areas are regulated, i.e. the more bedrooms, the wider and larger the lot should be.
After due consideration, staff does not believe it is justified to require larger minimum lot sizes solely on the basis that a house contains more bedrooms if it is occupied by a single housekeeping establishment (i.e. a bona fide household.) If it is NOT occupied by a single housekeeping establishment, it becomes a rooming house and is regulated as such, including restrictions on where such a use may locate.
We would recommend that a single detached dwelling unit be allowed a maximum of six bedrooms, rather than eight.
After due consideration, staff believes that an eight bedroom limit for oversize units strikes the appropriate balance between controlling density and providing for rare but not unheard-of bona fide households of up to eight people. A six-bedroom limit would be overly restrictive.
Oversize dwelling units should only be permitted on lots fronting on and having direct vehicular or pedestrian access to an Arterial or Major Collector Road.
After due consideration, staff does not believe it is justified to require a detached dwelling with five-eight bedrooms to locate on arterials or collectors, if it is occupied by a single housekeeping establishment (i.e. a bona fide household.) If it is NOT occupied by a single housekeeping establishment, it is not a detached dwelling but a rooming house, and is regulated as such, including restrictions on where such a use may locate.
Allowing oversized units in multi-unit buildings seems to open the door to future abuse. What is the “major rezoning” that would be required to allow such a thing?
The proposed amendment would not allow oversize dwelling units (i.e. unit with more than four bedrooms) in ANY building typology other than a detached dwelling. Oversize units will not be allowed in any multiple-unit form, including duplexes, triplexes, semi-detached and low-rise apartment dwellings.
A zoning by-law cannot completely rule out the possibility of a builder applying for changes to that by-law. A major rezoning is a very involved, time-consuming and expensive process; it's the same process that developers have to go through to allow e.g. a high-rise apartment tower instead of a three-storey building. The Report language will make clear to e.g. the Committee of Adjustment that a minor variance to allow an oversize dwelling unit is not in keeping with Council's intentions.
The proposed changes to the 30% landscaping and associated amenity areas should be the subject of more detailed examination and included in the Phase 2 Actions rather than as part of Phase 1.
Proposed changes to the 30% landscaping requirement in apartment dwellings, as well as to amenity area requirements, will be considered in Phase 2.
The actions proposed in the “missing middle housing typology review” are logical, but if a study is to be commissioned to address “opportunities and constraints to developing good-quality, family-oriented multi-unit housing and developing appropriate standards and policies to encourage it”, the study should be applied to all multi-unit housing sizes within the targeted zones.
We would like to see added a ratio of bedroom size to the overall square area of the unit, or some formula that would ensure an adequate size for the bedrooms compared to the respective common areas. We would support the application of a formula that would ensure a minimum ratio of common area per bedroom in a dwelling unit.
Bedroom sizes are regulated by the Building Code, and so zoning has no ability to regulate them further. Similarly, minimum sizes for common areas such as living rooms, kitchens, etc. are under the Building Code's authority and cannot be regulated by zoning.
We oppose allowing Over-Sized Dwelling Units a maximum of eight bedroom unless there can be a minimum required lot size or overall square footage of the home. If there is a need for homes with larger bedroom counts within the Greenbelt, then a lower maximum should be considered in addition to minimum lot sizes. We recommend five bedrooms, and with additional limits regarding the ratio of bedrooms to overall square area. (Heron Park Community Association, Feb 15 meeting.)
Detached dwellings are already subject to a minimum lot size. Requiring a larger minimum lot size, solely on the basis that the detached dwelling that may house a larger household, is not appropriate.
Any building with five+ bedroom with unrelated adults should be considered de facto a rooming house. The onus then falls on the owner to demonstrate that it is not. (Heron Park Community Association, Feb 15 meeting.)
Zoning cannot legally distinguish between related and unrelated persons, and must treat five unrelated individuals the same as a five-person family unit. (Planning Act S.35(2): "The authority to pass a [Zoning By-law] by-law does not include the authority to pass a by-law that has the effect of distinguishing between persons who are related and persons who are unrelated in respect of the occupancy or use of a building or structure or a part of a building or structure... "
Zoning can, however, distinguish between five persons living as a single housekeeping unit (i.e. a group of people, whether a family or a group of roommates, living as a household and exercising control over the inside of the unit) from five individuals renting rooms directly from the landlord.
We strongly urge that the height be reduced to a defensible 9 metres (3 metres per floor) in R3 Zones. (Heron Park Community Association, Feb 15 meeting.)
Building heights have been extensively reviewed through the Infill 2 process. Further review of heights is beyond the scope of the R4 Zoning Review.
Even if short term solutions are found that will deter the building of more "bunkhouses" this will not address the real problem. The demand for cheaper accommodation in inner city neighbourhoods now being met by over-sized dwelling units will only continue to increase. Phase II will only succeed if it encourages new kinds of inexpensive, multi-unit housing that will meet the needs of those who currently have little choice but to rent space in these out-of-scale, poorly designed, de facto rooming houses. (Lowertown Community Association.)
Staff agrees with this view. Phase 1 is focused on resolving ambiguities and closing loopholes in the current zoning that permit bunkhouses to be built. However, the underlying need for housing that makes bunkhouses a viable proposition for builders in the first place, and that is otherwise frustrated by zoning rules that prevent more appropriate multi-unit infill and intensification, will be addressed in Phase 2.
The report does not address the issue of the need for student housing.
The question of whether housing is for students or non-students is beyond the power of zoning to address.
Provide a transition clause in any new By-law.
The purpose of a transition clause is to provide a reasonable time frame to complete projects that were begun before changes to zoning were contemplated. The changes proposed as Phase 1 were first published in detail in Discussion Paper #2 on March 2, 2017. That document explicitly stated that no transition clauses were being contemplated. Builders have had over a year to complete any projects initiated under the current zoning.
Strategy should include changes to R4 performance requirements to enable and encourage developers to build forms of housing that will meet the demand for modest, affordable, low-rise accommodation in inner-urban communities – while still turning a profit on land -without resorting bunkhouse forms.
The size of a unit in a large triplex would allow for the inclusion, in addition to the permitted four, of more rooms (den, studio, office, etc.) that could also be used as bedrooms. The difficulties By-law Enforcement would face to prevent the abuse of such arrangements would be challenging in the extreme.
The cap on bedrooms, together with the other changes proposed in Phase 1 and that will be brought forward in Phase 2, will act together to make it less attractive for a developer to build bunkhouses and more attractive to build something more desirable for the neighbourhood.
There is no single move that will prevent oversized dwelling units, and the illicit use of rooms as bedrooms is indeed very hard to enforce. However, the zoning currently does not state or imply any limit on how densely a unit can or should be occupied. It is essential to have zoning rules that reflect our planning intent.
Support having a requirement in the zoning for garbage management facilties, but the 400 square metres floor area threshold is too high and should be lower, e.g. 300 square metres or 250 square metres.
The 400 square metres threshold was chosen to capture the point at which buildings become likely to be converted to very high occupancies (whether lawfully or not). Setting a lower threshold would inadvertently affect a large number of smaller, bona fide dwelling units and would be excessive for such developments.
The proposed garbage provisions are excessive. A 1.5-metre wide path is excessive and any path should reflect the required interior side yard setbacks of the zone (min. 0.3 metres). A 75-square foot garbage accessory building seems very large.
After due consideration, the requirement for a 1.5-metre corridor has been reduced to 1.2 metres. Please note that the corridor does not mean a side yard that extends up the whole height of the building; it simply provides that at the ground floor level, such a corridor must be provided. Upper floors would still be allowed to project, cantilever or otherwise locate above such a corridor, within the limits of the yard requirements.
The 7-square metre waste storage area proposed in the March 8 circulation was derived from the area required to accommodate two rolling 360 litre recycling bins (black and blue) as well as three 360 litre garbage bins, plus space for an organics bin and space to maneuver these bins in and out of the structure. However, following several comments about the size of the garbage storage area, the revised proposals call for a reduced envelope which is enough to house the most problematic kind of waste i.e. the garbage as opposed to recyclables.
Regarding the proposed garbage storage requirements, we do not believe that developers should be allowed to shift their garbage area from internal use to external, at the expense of amenity space and landscaping requirements.
The proposed zoning does not allow the builder or owner to shift a required garbage storage area from the inside of the building to the outside; currently there is no requirement for a garbage storage area at all, whether within the main building or not. The proposed standard that would allow garbage storage in an accessory building was deemed to be the most effective way to ensure that a minimum amount of enclosed garbage storage would be established in a configuration likely to be used properly.
The requirement to enclose any wheeled dumpster-type bins (dumpsters are not all flat based with no wheels) in small garage sized accessory buildings may be problematic. We would recommend that: The proposed requirement for garbage, which is not stored within a principal residence to be enclosed in an accessory building, should not apply to dumpsters that are larger than the largest green bins and, typically, emptied by trucks especially equipped for that purpose. For such dumpsters, a shoulder-high surrounding fence should suffice and should be required.
Staff are not in agreement that the requirement to enclose garbage in an accessory building is onerous. The Low-Rise Design Guidelines (Policies 7.1 and 8.1) have long recommended that garbage stored external to the principal dwelling should be screened and located within an accessory building. Best-practise has considered that an exterior garbage area should be enclosed and properly ventilated so as to avoid nuisance and adverse impact on neighbours – particularly in low-rise infill scenarios. Waste management requirements do not preclude the ability for containers to be rolled in and out of an accessory structure with appropriate design – indeed, this occurs in many developments across the city.
At the recent (April 3rd) Infill monitoring information session, Planning Infrastructure and Economic Development acknowledged the inappropriate ‘postage size’ rear yard amenity provisions for corner lots – i.e. Infill II / Zoning By-law Alternative Lot Area Provisions for Urban Areas on a corner lot . I suggest this corner lot provision needs to be amended as soon as possible. It would be a major oversight to maintain this incorrectly worded provision until 2019.
Staff acknowledges this comment; however, any updates or modifications to the provisions of Infill 1 and 2 are more appropriately dealt with through the monitoring process on those amendments.
In comments submitted last year, a number of community associations complained about Committee of Adjustment rulings which frequently appear to disregard the intent of Zoning By-law provisions. We were assured in response that, while respecting the Committee’s independent status, the Planning Department would endeavour to improve communications with the CofA in order to ensure members are provided with all the relevant information needed to make informed decisions on applications for variances from the By-law. We would appreciate reassurance, at this point, of the Department’s determination to ensure that C of A members are well aware of the purpose and intent of by-law provisions and, in particular, of recent amendments to performance requirements. Further, it is our conviction, and we would urge, that Planning staff should speak to these intentions more assertively at Hearings where, in the past, the Department has too frequently offered “No comment.” We hope you will agree, and that the Department will take steps in this direction.
The Policy Planning Branch does not have direct influence over the Committee of Adjustment nor over the review of variance applications. However, this report includes a discussion of the issue noted above, and may be taken as the will of Council when the report is adopted. This in turn will provide greater clarity to both Development Review staff and the Committee of Adjustment itself regarding the zoning's intent.
We welcome attempts to clarify by-law definitions vis-à-vis rooming houses and dwelling units. In particular, the definition of "single housekeeping unit" is open to considerable interpretation and needs to be tightened, and made easier for by-law officers to enforce.
The defined term "household" (originally proposed to be "single housekeeping unit") is rooted in concepts that have been tested and upheld in case law, and avoids aspects that make it vulnerable to appeals or court challenges. It is, in staff's view, the most robust definition possible given the planning intent and the powers and limitations of zoning.
We support the proposal to limit the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit in a multi-unit building to four. We feel that four bedrooms are adequate to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of family configurations while balancing the danger of excess rooms being subsequently rented out.
This review should also consider ruling that any dwelling unit that rents out more than one bedroom be considered as a rooming house.
Staff does not believe there is a valid planning rationale for such a move. The existing zoning provisions that allow a unit's occupants to take in up to three roomers or boarders, without being considered a rooming house, is proposed to be maintained.
We are disappointed that the Review has put off giving any thought to revising performance requirements which currently limit diversity in R4 zone, effectively precluding modest low-rise apartment buildings and promoting mammoth triplex-type developments which neither fit nor satisfy housing needs in our R4 zoned neighbourhoods. In addition, the abrupt imposition of full-scale Site Plan Control requirements on buildings containing four or more units also effectively discourages the construction of modest low-rise apartment buildings, and encourages the construction of over-sized triplexes. We regret, therefore, that the March 2017 to “Apply a streamlined Site Plan Control process to dwellings up to 12 units” has been dropped.
Consideration of revised performance standards to allow more appropriate and adaptable low-rise apartment dwellings, as well as of the thresholds for Site Plan Control, will be addressed in Phase 2.
Document 4 – Frequently Asked Questions
Why was four bedrooms chosen as the limit for a dwelling unit?
Ninety-two per cent of households in Ottawa have four people or fewer1: fewer than one in twelve households would need more than four bedrooms.
Staff believes that the four-bedroom limit on dwelling units strikes a reasonable balance between accommodating most households, while still respecting the intent of the zoning to regulate density by preventing multiple such unusually-large households to be concentrated in one building.
Ninety-six per cent of rental apartments in Ottawa have two bedrooms or fewer.2 Four bedrooms per unit in a multiple-unit dwelling is therefore a reasonable limit that is adequate for the vast majority of apartment households while still respecting the intent to limit density and the common understanding of what is meant and intended by an apartment.
Four bedrooms also brings the zoning by-law into closer alignment with the Fire Code, which treats "lodging... provided for more than four persons in return for remuneration" as a rooming house. Thus, while zoning does not and cannot distinguish between renters and owner-occupied dwellings, the Fire Code does. Four bedrooms ensures the greatest possible coordination between zoning and the Building and Fire Codes, making it less likely that a unit will be treated as a dwelling unit by one and a rooming house by the other.
Does anyone legitimately need eight bedrooms? Why are oversize dwelling units up to eight bedrooms allowed as-of-right in a detached home? Why not limit oversize units to five or six bedrooms?
In setting limits on bedroom counts, the City needs to balance the need to control density against the need to accommodate the wide range of household sizes that exist. In setting a limit of eight bedrooms, Planning staff is choosing a number that seeks to err on the side of caution in accommodating the very small number of very large families that may be seeking housing.
Table1: Distribution of households by household size in Ottawa. 3
Statistics Canada tells us that 3 per cent of households have more than five people; it is presumed that most but not all of this 3 per cent would be six-person households. Limiting oversize units to five or six bedrooms introduces an unacceptable risk that the zoning will "zone out" too many bona fide households.
Conversely, staff estimates that bona fide households of more than eight people are rare enough that it is reasonable to expect larger units to have to go through a minor rezoning process.4
Since zoning cannot distinguish between families and unrelated persons, the eightbedroom limit provides for the possibility of houses with households of up to eight roommates living together. However, the roommates would have to constitute a single housekeeping establishment (i.e. a household5), exercising joint responsibility over the inside of the unit. Conversely, a house where eight bedrooms were being rented out individually by the landlord, and where other characteristics point to individual occupancies rather than a single cohesive household, would be considered a rooming house and subject to all of the zoning, building code, fire code and licensing restrictions applicable to that use.
Why are oversize dwelling units of up to eight bedrooms allowed only in detached dwellings?
Detached homes occur on an individual lot, with side yards on either side of the building, and are better able to accommodate the physical requirements for garbage and other land use impacts associated with larger households.
The level of activity in a very large household, especially if it is a group of adults keeping different schedules, is such that it is appropriate to keep such households from sharing walls and floors with neighbouring, smaller households. Someone living in a multi-unit building has a reasonable expectation that the other households in the building will be in a typical size range.
Allowing up to eight bedrooms only in a detached dwelling provides for the rare household that needs that much space, but prevents such provisions from concentrating several such unusually large units on a single site and frustrating the planning intent.
What do these changes mean for Townhouses?
Townhouses are not detached dwellings under the Zoning By-law. They are considered a multi-unit building typology and will be limited to four bedrooms per unit. In addition, oversize dwelling units would not be permitted to occur in a townhouse as of right.
Do the proposed rules preclude an owner-occupied (separate dwelling unit) rooming house? If so, why?
The proposed zoning will allow a single secondary dwelling unit to occupy a building with a rooming house. This carries forward the intent of the existing definition of "rooming house" which provides for a dwelling unit, except where current rules (notably with respect to converted rooming houses in R3 and R4 zones) do not permit a dwelling unit. Whether that unit is occupied by the owner or not, is not a matter for zoning.
Why are you not considering downzoning (i.e. rezoning R4 areas to R3, R2 or R1?)
Downzoning would go against the City's Official Plan (OP) policies. The OP is clear that intensification is supported even in the interior portions of established neighbourhoods, subject to compatibility. The OP also explicitly discourages "...applications to amend the Zoning By-law to eliminate residential apartments as a permitted use, or to change the permitted use so that the effect is to down-zone a site...."6 Several other policies, including those relating to affordable housing, also argue strongly against downzonings.
The Official Plan is clear that the interior portions of low-rise residential neighbourhoods will be characterized by low-rise ground-oriented buildings of four storeys and less, and new development will complement and enhance its desirable characteristics and long-term renewal. Some neighbourhoods, like Sandy Hill, have been zoned to allow triplex and low-rise apartment buildings since the City's first zoning by-law in 1964.
Why are you not considering Floor Space Index or other massing restrictions to stop these oversized buildings?
The City has provided, through previous planning exercises (Infill 1 and Infill 2) significant controls for bulk, massing and height of new development and refined the building envelope appropriately in keeping with low-rise neighbourhoods. The effect of these exercises typically reduced the permitted envelope by 12 per cent - 20 per cent by increasing front and rear yard requirements.
These revised controls are recent, and have been the subject of multiple hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board. In addition to controls provided by the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay (which affects many of the inner-urban neighbourhoods zoned R4), additional controls regulate required amenity areas, rear-yard setbacks, building height, and allowable projections.
The City does not support introduction of further FSI controls in areas zoned R4 as existing controls are in keeping with Official Plan policy.
Why not use the Heritage Overlay to control these kinds of excessive and oversized buildings?
Designation of a heritage conservation district, and establishment of a heritage overlay, is intended to provide protection for areas that have cultural, architectural, historical, contextual and/or natural interest. They are based on a rigorous analysis under the Ontario Heritage Act to document these attributes and identify how the application of heritage protection warrants limitations on individual property rights.
Any heritage protection must clearly justify how the public value of maintaining a particular landscape and its existing buildings, outweighs the net environmental, health, public-finance, equity and quality-of-life benefits of allowing those sites to redevelop.
Extension of a heritage overlay, without sound analysis and justification per the criteria for a Heritage Conservation Area as established by the Ontario Heritage Act, and aimed primarily at restricting development by de-facto down-zoning would set a bad precedent city-wide, be subject to appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) and would likely not be supportable.
The City has internal processes by which areas of the City may be considered for protection by this tool, and a methodology followed to ensure that a full public consultation occurs and all property owners impacted by this change are made aware of the justification, and the constraints imposed on their property arising from this designation.
Why not require that dwelling units have a percentage of their interior space assigned as communal living space, and/or require a minimum bedroom size?
The minimum size of interior spaces is regulated by the Building Code and so zoning has no authority to regulate minimum size of rooms within the unit, whether bedrooms or communal areas such as living rooms, kitchens, etc.
How will this help with enforcement of illegal rooming houses?
Licensing and enforcement staff have noted that concerns over dwelling units with excessive bedrooms include issues of public health and safety, where these units are not being occupied by household units and are operating more as unlicensed rooming houses. This is an issue in that the City requires licensing of rooming houses to ensure proper operation and inspection for the safety of their residents, and requires additional fire separation requirements and other life safety measures for larger rooming houses with multiple residents.
There has been a mismatch between the intent of the Zoning By-law and other regulatory by-laws that impact rooming houses. The intent is to create a harmonization across the municipal regulatory context to assist with licensing and enforcement. The proposal aligns the proposed definitions in the Zoning By-Law with provisions of the Rooming House By-Law (which will be amended concurrently with the Zoning By-law to ensure coordination).
If a property does not meet the definition of another type of property (i.e. group home or retirement home), it will be considered, by default, a rooming house. This will make it easier to identify and enforce illegal conversions where the property is operating a rooming house under the guise of a “household” or other property type not subject to licensing regulation. Additionally, this option will assist in avoiding further issues with property owners that claim to be operating a “group home” (licensed by the Province) in an attempt to avoid further licensing regulation involved with operating as a rooming house. This would apply city-wide and allow for the proper tools in identifying true “rooming houses”.
How will you distinguish between dwelling units occupied by a household, versus a rooming house?
Previous appeals and court cases have examined the difference between a dwelling unit and a rooming house, and whether occupancy was by a single housekeeping establishment or not. Unfortunately, these cases have largely ruled out simple, obvious indicators that would definitively identify a rooming house.
What this amendment terms a "household" draws on the basic planning unit recognized in planning law, of a separate housekeeping unit similar in nature to a family unit but without any requirement of its members being related. Such units have long been recognized as the "basic planning unit" for controlling residential densities.
While no single characteristic has been determinative all by itself, there are a number of signs that something is a dwelling unit and not a rooming house:
• All adult occupants of the unit sign the same lease, for the same rental period;
• Subletters, new roommates and boarders are chosen jointly by the occupants, not by the landlord;
• The occupants, not the landlord, are jointly and severally responsible for paying the utilities;
• The remaining occupants are responsible for making up any shortfall in the rent for the unit in the event that one of them moves out during the rental term;
• There are generally no locks on the bedroom doors, and all parts of the unit are in principle open to all occupants.
Such characteristics point to a level of trust and communal living between the occupants, and together indicate a household.
Conversely, the more of these characteristics are absent, the more atomized are the occupants, indicating a rooming house. Strong indicators that the unit is not a household would include:
• The rooms are rented or offered for rent on a per-room basis, at a price reflective of the room and not the whole unit;
• The rooms are rented or offered for rent for differing terms;
• New occupants of the unit are solicited and chosen by the landlord (including when the occupants select from "short lists" of candidates pre-selected by the landlord);
• Residents have individual agreements with the landlord or sublet from a primary leaseholder who does not live in the unit.
Other factors would not be definitive and could be found in either a rooming house or a dwelling unit; however, they would tend to underscore whether the unit is operating as a dwelling unit or a rooming house:
• Whether it is the occupants who are responsible for furnishing the unit, especially in common areas such as living room, kitchen, etc. (more likely for a household);
• Whether the utilities are in the occupants' name or names (more likely for a household);
• Whether there are locks on all or most of the bedroom doors (more likely to be a rooming house).
Another flag suggesting a rooming house would be if the rent for an oversized unit is much higher than a typical unit, because the rent is calculated a function of (number of bedrooms) times (number of rooms available to rent.) For instance, we have seen units in Sandy Hill with six bedrooms, renting for $4200: $700 per bedroom. This is unusually high rent for apartments in Sandy Hill.7 It is not directly the City's business how much units rent for. However, when a very high rent is being charged for a large number of tenants, if it is indeed a household, this implies a very high risk being assumed by each tenant. In other words, in the notional household occupying that six-bedroom, $4200 unit, one tenant could conceivably find herself liable for up to the entire $4200 per month if her roommates fail to pay up. In such circumstances, we would have to ask the question, what is more likely: that these six roommates have agreed to take on an enormous financial risk on each other's behalf, or that they are in fact renting rooms directly from the landlord with no financial exposure to their roommates' liabilities? Such a situation might warrant further investigation.
Doesn't this amendment unfairly target student housing?
No, it does not. The proposed zoning makes no distinction whatsoever according to whether the occupants are students or not. Students and non-students alike remain free to live together as households in apartment units or houses, and to rent rooms in lawful and licensed rooming houses. The oversized units that are outlawed by this amendment are equally problematic whether they are occupied by students or non-students.
Doesn't this amendment unfairly target renters?
No, it does not. The proposed zoning makes no distinction between rented and owner-occupied dwellings. As an example, four people renting an apartment together as roommates, operating as a household, and collectively sharing all of the financial risk and responsibilities for care and upkeep of that unit, are indistinguishable from a family of four: both are a household.
By limiting dwelling units to four bedrooms, aren't you discriminating against large families?
No, it does not. The proposed zoning makes no distinction between families and non-family households. It treats a family of eight people exactly the same as a group of eight roommates living together as a household, and provides them exactly the same housing options. It makes the determination that a household (whether a family or a group of unrelated people) needing more than four bedrooms should be located in a detached dwelling. A unit with more than eight bedrooms will need a variance or rezoning, regardless of whether the occupants are a family unit or a group of roommates living together as a household.
What does the City expect owners of multi-bedroom buildings to do after passage of this by-law?
The Planning Act S.34(9) grandparents existing buildings and uses that were lawfully-established at the time the zoning changed. This grandparenting is known as "legal non-conforming" or "legal non-complying" rights (as in, they do not conform or comply with current zoning, but are still legal because they were lawful at the time they were established). Such developments, called "nonconforming" for short, enjoy the right to continue, but are subject to restrictions on how they may be expanded or altered.
There exists currently no restriction on the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit. As such, an existing six-bedroom dwelling unit in a multi-unit building would be considered "legally non-complying". The expectation is that such apartments would be operated by a household and in conformance with all other by-laws of the City.
Won't this amendment prevent the development of affordable housing?
The oversized "bunkhouse" units that are outlawed by this amendment are no more affordable than more typical apartment units. Bunkhouses rent for $550-$700 per bedroom, which is comparable to what normal-sized (two- and three-bedroom) units rent for. On a per-unit basis, bunkhouse units rent for $3500-$4200 per dwelling unit, which is unaffordable to most households.
Average rents for one- to three-bedroom units in Ottawa, including in areas like Sandy Hill and the Glebe, are actually cheaper than bunkhouses on a per-bedroom basis. For instance, the average two-bedroom unit in Sandy Hill is $1312 per month, or $656 per bedroom; a three-unit is $560 per bedroom. (Table 1, Table 2.) Compared to these figures, there is nothing particularly affordable about bunkhouses that are rented at $600-$700 a bedroom.
Table2: Average rent by zone and unit size, 2016
Carlington/Iris
Chinatown/Hintonburg/Westboro N
New Edinburgh/Manor Park/Overbrook
Westboro S/Hampton Park/Britannia
FORMER OTTAWA
Table 3: Average rent per bedroom by zone and unit size, 2016.
Source: CMHC8
Are these changes limited to only to inner-city R4 zones?
No. It has been clear since the project was launched in September 2016 that there would likely be changes to residential zones City-wide, but that the changes would be most relevant to the R3 and R4 zones in the inner-urban wards. These recommendations include changes that, in principle, affect all residential uses City-wide, and will have bearing on all zones across the City – urban and rural.
In practical terms, their effect will be most directly felt in the inner-urban wards (12 through 17) and particularly in the R3 and R4 zones in those areas; this is because the changes are primarily designed to counter certain forms of development (i.e. the socalled "bunkhouses") that have been most prevalent in those inner areas.
The broad scope of the project has been emphasized in all consultation documents since September 2016.
How is regulating the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit going to help? Developers can (and some already do) simply label excess bedrooms as offices, dens or libraries when they apply for a permit. Once the building is built, those rooms end up being rented out as bedrooms anyway.
Regulating the number of bedrooms should influence how development decisions are made, even if enforcement is difficult. Investment decisions are made based on an expected return, and adjusted according to the risk. Currently, with no legal limit on the number of bedrooms that can be built (and then rented) the "bunkhouse" model is a low risk investment. But if such a unit is established with the intention of repurposing dens, offices etc. as unlawful bedrooms, the risk of future enforcement makes the investment less attractive and encourages builders to consider a different form of development.
Building Code Services will also require that plans show bedrooms clearly labelled as such on the plans; such plans become part of the Building Permit and any subsequent use of the rooms counter to what was shown, and counter to zoning, would be grounds for enforcement.
Given the new restrictions relating to bedrooms, will applicants now be required to submit floor plans?
Applicants will continue to be required to submit floor plans when they apply for a building permit. As noted above, plans will be required to label bedrooms so that Building Code Services staff can confirm zoning compliance. (FoTenn)
Your definition of bedroom is pretty simple and people might easily mislabel rooms. Why don't you have a more detailed definition that has the effect of capturing any room that could be turned into a bedroom, so we can be sure that "offices," "libraries", etc. don't get converted to bedrooms after the fact?
This approach was considered and rejected for several reasons.
Limiting the number of rooms of a certain set of characteristics would penalize developers seeking to openly provide units with home offices, dens and other legitimate room functions.
Staff is confident that limiting bedroom counts (i.e. rooms used primarily for sleeping) is a lawful and defensible means of controlling density, which is explicitly within the power of zoning to do. But expanding the definition of a bedroom to capture a range of rooms that aren't necessarily intended or used as bedrooms, crosses a line: we would effectively be limiting the total of [bedrooms plus home offices, dens, libraries etc.] in everybody's home, because we're afraid a small minority of builders might deceive us. Not only is this heavy-handed, but Staff believes it is not lawful: while zoning can regulate density (and therefore bedrooms) it cannot regulate the internal allocation of space to home offices, dens, game rooms etc.
Finally, more complex and comprehensive definitions aren't necessarily more robust, and can still be gotten around, sometimes with even worse outcomes than the status quo. For instance, the City of Waterloo has defined "bedroom" in detail9, describing any room that could conceivably meet the Building Code requirements of a bedroom. Among these details is that it excludes rooms less than 7 square metres in area, or that have no windows. Under those rules, someone could design rooms that are 6.9 square metres in area and then still rent them out illegally as bedrooms. Worse, they could establish rooms with no windows, and then rent those out.
Ultimately, limits on bedroom counts are only enforceable once it can be shown that a room is being used as a bedroom. In this respect, the proposed simple definition is just as robust as a more complicated one, as well as being more defensible at appeal.
The only reason they're able to fit so many people into these units is because the buildings are allowed to be so big. Why don't you restrict the size of the building envelope and/or the floor area of individual units, thereby limiting how many tenants they can fit in?
Permitted building envelopes have already been reduced by 15 per cent – 20 per cent through Infill Phases One and Two. Further restrictions on the building envelope are not appropriate.
The Official Plan calls for a range of housing types catering to a variety of households; indeed, many members of the public have expressed concern over the migration of families out of the downtown core. An individual unit of 1,000 or 1,500 square feet may be very appropriate for a family or other household of e.g. three or four people, and we don't want to preclude that.
It's not clear that reducing floor areas would physically prevent high-occupancy dwellings. Minimum floor areas for bedrooms, living rooms, etc. are specified by the Building Code, which is beyond the City's power to change. The Building Code's minimum standards effectively allow a very high number of bedrooms to be fit into a very small space. (For instance, under the Building Code's minimums, one could technically fit nine bedrooms into a thousand-square-foot unit, and still be Code-compliant.) The likely result would be smaller units with the same high occupancy and even less indoor communal space. Limiting building envelope and floor areas would penalize conventional developers long before it began to impact the small sub-set who specialize in oversized dwelling units.
The oversized units built so far actually have significant internal communal spaces, well in excess of the Building Code minimums. Bedrooms are typically also substantially larger than the minimum Building Code requirements. Such oversized units do have problematic bedroom counts and occupancies well in excess of a typical apartment; however, the oft-stated view that they contain as many bedrooms as can be physically squeezed into the space is not true.
What elements of Phase 1 are to be monitored? Will monitoring be handled by individual departments or by a resource in one that bridges the various groups involved?
Planning will be made aware of individual applications that appear to be skirting the intent of the zoning; we have the ability to pull individual applications in for Site Plan Control and we expect that Building Code Services will alert us to any such applications.
If deemed a Health & Safety concern will By-law be able to piggy-back on Fire Services for access? Can Fire Services support the additional pull on their resources?
Yes. There are separate planning reasons for limiting "dwelling units" to four bedrooms, but it so happens that a four-bedroom limit aligns to some extent with the Fire Code's threshold for treating a unit as a rooming house. Although zoning can't regulate whether people are renters or not, Fire Code is different. Under the Fire Code more than four people renting rooms is a lodging (rooming) house. So when a dwelling unit turns out to have five+ bedrooms with one tenant renting each, it also triggers Fire Code. They don't need a warrant to go in and investigate.
An outstanding weakness is the Committee of Adjustment, where decisions are worded in a way that do not effectively preclude material changes to the project after a variance is granted. A related concern is the weak wording of challenges expressed by the PIEDD team. Has this issue been identified in the R4 and if so, how will it be addressed?
Phase 2 of this study is expected to deal with ensuring that the Committee of Adjustment is aware of all facts around an application and ensures that appropriate conditions and restrictions are made explicit in written decisions to ensure that the end product is consistent with the Committee's intent.
Why don’t you consider rooming houses as commercial operations and tax them differently?
Rooming houses and multi-unit apartment buildings are considered to be residential-class buildings by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in compliance with the Assessment Act and regulations set by the Government of Ontario. While the tenure may differ from a household, the activity and use that occurs is residential in nature. Any change to a tax rate would require provincial legislative changes and development of a separate rate class, and a clear basis for doing so, subject to court appeal.
Will the 120-square metre limit on unit floor area be included in the proposed zoning amendment? (i.e. the floor area limit currently imposed through Interim Control By-laws 2017-245 and 2017-278?)
The proposed zoning amendment does not include a limit on unit floor area. The floor area limit was appropriate for an Interim Control By-law designed to temporarily stop certain kinds of development while a more comprehensive study could be completed. Through this review, it was determined that a 120m2 limit on floor area would be counterproductive, discouraging family-sized units as well as rendering many existing and legitimate dwelling units noncomplying with respect to the zoning.
What does “Consider design controls and oversight on new development through varying levels of Site Plan Control to support integration” actually mean? What design controls and oversight currently exist, in what ways are they inadequate, and how should they be changed?
This question will be addressed in depth as part of Phase 2. However, as an example, we would point to the more specific wording around compatibility in the Official Plan as amended by OPA150, which remains under appeal but once in effect, would support much more effective design review through the site plan control process:
"4.11.5 Proponents of new development will demonstrate, at the time of application, how the design of their development fits with the existing desirable character and planned function of the surrounding area in the context of [among other things]...:
b. Façade and roofline articulation;
c. Colours and materials;
d. Architectural elements, including windows, doors and projections;
e. Pre- and post-construction grades on site; and
f. Incorporating elements and details of common characteristics of the area."
Document 5 – Peer Review Memorandum from Urban Strategies
1 2011 Census. Statistics Canada. 2012. Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released June 27 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E.
2 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2016. Rental Market Report, Ottawa-Gatineau CMA (Ontario.)
3 2011 Census. Statistics Canada. 2012. Census Profile. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-XWE. Ottawa. Released June 27 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E.
4 Census data groups all "6 or more persons" households into a single number, so we cannot say definitively how many of these households have six, seven, eight or more people. However, we can make an estimate if progressively larger households are progressively more rare. There are roughly one-third as many five-person households than four-person households. If we project this rate of decline through larger household sizes (i.e. if there are one-third as many six person households as there are five-person households, and there are one-third as many seven-person households as there are six-person households) then we find that households with 7 or fewer members account for 100% of Ottawa households. By providing for up to eight bedrooms, we err on the side of caution by providing for households that *theoretically* are so rare as to not exist at all.
5 The March 8th circulation proposed the term "single housekeeping establishment" but in the interest of avoiding jargon and making the by-law as intuitive as possible, we are instead using the term "household" with the exact same effect.
6 This policy does go on to say "... unless there is an equivalent rezoning to ensure no net loss of apartment potential or maintenance of unit yield potential through other forms of multiple-unit housing." But no equivalent rezoning is proposed here.
7 For comparison, the average 3+ bedroom unit in Sandy Hill/Lowertown rents for $1680/month.
8 CMHC, Rental Market Report, Ottawa-Gatineau (Ontario part), 2016. Table 1.1.2: Private Apartment Average Rents by Zone and Bedroom Type (Ottawa-Gatineau CMA, Ontario part)
https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/catalog/productDetail.cfm?lang=en&cat=79&itm=33&fr=1487182695704
9 From the City of Waterloo Zoning By-law:
BEDROOM means a habitable room within a DWELLING UNIT that is not:
a.) a living room open to all occupants of the unit, and a dining room open to all occupants of the unit (the “Common Areas”);
b.) areas used for sanitary purposes, such as but not restricted to a washroom;
c.) areas used for cooking purposes, such as but not restricted to a kitchen;
d.) areas occupied by mechanical equipment, such as but not limited to furnaces, hot water heaters, and laundry equipment;
e.) stairways or hallways;
f.) rooms less than six (6) square metres in area where there are built-in cabinets and or closets;
g.) rooms less than seven (7) square metres in area where there are no built-in cabinets and or closets; and
h.) a room without a window or alternative source of natural light.
Artist: Moerman, Tim
Author: Moerman, Tim
Date Time Original: 2018:04:23 11:53:29
Date Time Digitized: 2018:04:23 11:53:29
Xmp:CreateDate: 2018-04-23T11:53:29.421
Creator: Moerman, Tim
Image Width: 1467
image10.tiff
image11.tiff
image12.tiff
image13.tiff
image14.tiff
Image Width: 1278
Created: 2018-05-11T16:52:00Z
Modified: 2018-05-11T17:19:00Z
Filename: \\cmap185\E_drive_sire\SIRE\Root\Cabinets\Published_Meetings\49\521035.docx
1st 1 2018-May-22 ARAC
2nd 1 2018-May-22 PLC