|
2. RIDEAU-VANIER
WARD 12 INTERIM CONTROL BY-LAW STUDY AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ÉTUDE AFFÉRENTE AU RÈGLEMENT
DE RESTRICTION PROVISOIRE DU QUARTIER 12 RIDEAU-VANIER ET MODIFICATION AU
RÈGLEMENT DE ZONAGE |
Committee recommendationS AS AMENDED
(This matter is subject
to Bill 51)
1. That Planning and
Environment Committee recommend Council approve the amendments to former City
of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98, former City of Vanier Zoning By-law 2380, and to
the City Council Draft-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law, in order to
establish new definitions and land use regulations applicable to special needs
houses, including shelters, group homes, residential care facilities including
homes for the aged and nursing homes, dwelling units for seniors, and community
health and resource centres, as detailed in Document 1.
2. That following
adoption of the implementing Zoning By-law, Interim Control By law 2006-452, as
amended by By-law 2007-443, be repealed.
3. WHEREAS
the Report ACS-2008-PTE-PLA-0011 recommends the general removal of zoning
permission for community health and resource centres in the residential area
bounded by Dalhousie, St. Patrick, and George Streets and King Edward Avenue;
AND
WHEREAS the Report recommends that existing community health and resource
centres in the said area should be given site-specific exceptions to recognize
their existing legal conforming use, but the report incorrectly identifies one
of the noted municipal addresses, and further excludes a third municipal
address;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council approve the following:
Rename “230 King Edward Avenue” to
230 Murray Street”, and
Add the municipal address “179 Murray
Street”,
Wherever references to existing community health and resource
centres and their addresses are listed in the Report and Documents to the
Report; and
That
pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17) no further notice be
given.
4. That
the following be direction to staff:
That prohibiting of shelters on Main Streets in the Official Plan be
reviewed.
RecommandationS modifiÉeS du Comité
(Cette question est visée par le projet de Loi
51)
1. Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement recommande au Conseil municipal de donner son aval aux
modifications à l’ancien règlement de zonage 93‑98 de la Ville
d’Ottawa, à l’ancien règlement de zonage 2380 de la Ville de Vanier de même
qu’au projet de règlement de zonage général approuvé par le Conseil municipal
afin de mettre en place de nouvelles définitions et une nouvelle réglementation
de l’aménagement du territoire s’appliquant aux logements spéciaux, dont :
les refuges; les foyers de groupe; les établissements de soins en résidence, y
compris les foyers pour personnes âgées et les maisons de soins infirmiers; les
unités d’habitation pour aînés; et les centres de santé communautaire et de
ressources, tel qu’il est explicité dans le Document 1.
2. Que l’adoption suivant la mise en œuvre
du Règlement de restriction provisoire 2006‑452 au règlement de
zonage, conformément à la modification du règlement 2007‑443, soit
abrogée.
3. ATTENDU
QUE le rapport ACS-2008-PTE-PLA0011 recommande l’abolition générale, dans le
secteur résidentiel délimité par les rues Dalhousie, St‑Patrick et George
et l’avenue King Edward, de centres de santé communautaire et de ressources
comme utilisation du sol permise par la désignation de zonage;
ATTENDU QUE le rapport recommande
que les centres de santé communautaire et de ressources existants dans ledit
secteur devraient bénéficier d’une exception particulière afin de reconnaître
leur usage dérogatoire légal, mais que le rapport désigne incorrectement l’une
des adresses de voirie et omet une troisième adresse de voirie;
IL EST PAR CONSÉQUENT RÉSOLU QUE le
Conseil approuve les modifications suivantes :
remplacer « 230, avenue King Edward »
par « 230, rue Murray »;
ajouter l’adresse de voirie « 179, rue
Murray »;
là où il est fait mention des
centres de santé communautaire et de ressources existants et de leurs adresses
dans le rapport et dans ses documents annexes;
IL EST EN OUTRE RÉSOLU QUE,
conformément au paragraphe 34(17) de la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire,
aucun autre avis ne sera donné.
4. Qu’il
soit prescrit au personnel de revoir l’interdiction de refuges dans les rues
désignées « rue principale » dans le Plan officiel.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 22 May 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0011).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 10 June 2008.
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and
Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning,
Transit and the Environment
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et
Environnement
Contact Person/Personne-ressource :
Richard Kilstrom, Manager/Gestionnaire, Community Planning and
Design/Aménagement et conception communautaire, Planning Branch/
Direction de l’urbanisme
(613) 580-2424
x22653, Richard.Kilstrom@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
That Planning and Environment Committee recommend
Council approve the amendments to former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98,
former City of Vanier Zoning By-law 2380, and to the City Council
Draft-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law, in order to establish new
definitions and land use regulations applicable to special needs houses,
including shelters, group homes, residential care facilities including homes
for the aged and nursing homes, dwelling units for seniors, and community
health and resource centres, as detailed in Document 1.
2.
That following adoption of the implementing Zoning
By-law, Interim Control By‑law 2006-452, as amended by By-law 2007-443,
be repealed.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
1.
Que
le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement recommande au Conseil municipal
de donner son aval aux modifications à l’ancien règlement de zonage 93‑98
de la Ville d’Ottawa, à l’ancien règlement de zonage 2380 de la Ville de Vanier
de même qu’au projet de règlement de zonage général approuvé par le Conseil
municipal afin de mettre en place de nouvelles définitions et une nouvelle
réglementation de l’aménagement du territoire s’appliquant aux logements
spéciaux, dont : les refuges; les foyers de groupe; les établissements de
soins en résidence, y compris les foyers pour personnes âgées et les maisons de
soins infirmiers; les unités d’habitation pour aînés; et les centres de santé
communautaire et de ressources, tel qu’il est explicité dans le
Document 1.
2.
Que
l’adoption suivant la mise en œuvre du Règlement de restriction
provisoire 2006‑452 au règlement de zonage, conformément à la
modification du règlement 2007‑443, soit abrogée.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
The objective of this study is to attempt to find land use solutions to a social planning issue, which is the over-concentration of social services within Ward 12 and, more particularly, the current distribution of shelters, drop-in centres, known as community health and resource centres, and residential care facilities. This issue is of interest to many stakeholders, each of which has different viewpoints and responsibilities to their respective audiences, whether the homeless, the local businesses or the local residents.
The proposed zoning strategy is recommended to be adopted for the whole of the urban area, to promote an improved and reasonable geographical distribution of these land uses throughout the city. While no existing use will have to shut down or relocated, the new zoning provisions will ensure appropriate locations and distribution of these non-residential uses and will provide more appropriately-zoned lands throughout the urban area available for the development of these uses.
This submission sets out a series of regulations that have the effect of:
- limiting the number of shelters in Ward 12 to four,
- prohibiting shelters along those streets in Ward 12, as well as all streets city-wide, that are designated Mainstreet in the Official Plan,
- prohibiting residential care facilities and community health and resource centres in the Residentially-zoned (R5) area adjacent to Murray and St. Patrick Streets and King Edward Avenue; and create site-specific exceptions to permit the existing centres in the R5-exception area, recognizing their current legal status as permitted land uses,
- prohibiting residential care facilities, shelters and community health and resource centres in all Residential Zones throughout the city,
- prohibiting residential care facilities and shelters in all Local Commercial Zones throughout the city,
- increasing the general pool of lands available city-wide to permit shelters, residential care facilities and community health and resource centres by permitting these uses in Commercial (non-Mainstreet and non-Local Commercial), Mixed Use and Institutional Zones, subject to regulations. In many instances, these uses will be newly permitted in former municipalities within the city, and
- increasing the minimum separation area required between shelters to 500 metres.
Financial
Implications:
There are no financial implications with this report.
Public
Consultation/Input:
There are many stakeholders with different interests in this issue, including Ward 12’s Business Improvement Areas, the local residents, the shelter operators, the community health and resource centres, including the drop-in centres and day programs, social housing providers, and all those interested in assisting those who are in need or at the highest risk, including tenant associations, social workers associations, as well as the travelling public accessing retail, entertainment, cultural and social services from across the city and beyond. Comments were received both in favour of, and with concerns expressed regarding, the draft zoning approach. As a result, modifications to the proposed zoning regulations were made, particularly as they relate to the density of shelters in the community, and the location of community health and resource centres in non-residential zones when near residential zones.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
La présente étude a pour objet de trouver des
solutions dans l’utilisation des sols pour répondre à un enjeu de planification
sociale, soit la surconcentration des services sociaux dans le
Quartier 12, nommément la répartition actuelle des refuges, des centres
d’accueil – appelés centres de santé communautaire et de ressources –
et des établissements de soins en résidence. Il s’agit d’un enjeu auquel de
nombreux intervenants s’intéressent. Ces derniers envisagent cet enjeu chacun à
leur manière et assument à cet égard diverses responsabilités face à leurs
destinataires respectifs que sont les sans-abri, les gens d’affaires locaux ou
les résidents du quartier.
Il est recommandé d’adopter la stratégie de
zonage proposée pour l’ensemble du secteur urbain, afin de favoriser une
répartition géographique améliorée et judicieuse dans l’utilisation des sols à
cette fin sur le territoire de la Ville. Il ne s’agit pas de mettre fin aux
utilisations actuelles ni de les délocaliser, mais bien d’adopter de nouvelles
dispositions de zonage permettant une localisation et une répartition
judicieuses de l’utilisation des sols autre que résidentielle et de procéder au
zonage opportun des sols du secteur urbain qui se prêtent à l’aménagement de
telles utilisations.
La présente proposition énonce une série de
règlements comportant les répercussions suivantes :
-
limiter
à quatre le nombre de refuges dans le Quartier 12;
-
interdire
l’aménagement de refuges dans les rues du Quartier 12 et les rues qui,
dans l’ensemble de la Ville, portent la désignation de rue principale dans le
Plan officiel;
-
interdire
l’aménagement d’établissements de soins en résidence et de centres de santé
communautaire et de ressources dans le secteur résidentiel zoné R5 adjacent aux
rues Murray et St. Patrick de même qu’à l’avenue King Edward; accorder
ensuite des dispenses particulières qui autoriseront les centres situés actuellement
dans le secteur d’exception de la zone R5, puis admettre la légalité
actuelle de cette utilisation autorisée des sols;
-
interdire
l’aménagement d’établissements de soins en résidence, de refuges et de centres
de santé communautaire et de ressources dans les zones résidentielles de la
Ville;
-
interdire
l’aménagement d’établissements de soins en résidence et de refuges dans les
zones LC (à rues commerçantes locales) dans la Ville;
-
accroître
dans l’ensemble de la Ville la superficie globale des sols destinés aux
refuges, aux établissements de soins en résidence de même qu’aux centres de
santé communautaire et de ressources par le biais d’une autorisation de telles
utilisations dans les zones dites commerciales (qui ne sont ni à rue principale
traditionnelle (TM), ni à rue commerçante locale (LC)), mixtes ou
institutionnelles, sous réserve d’une réglementation; dans de nombreux cas, il
s’agira d’utilisations nouvellement autorisées dans les anciennes municipalités
de la Ville;
-
accroître
la zone de séparation minimale exigée entre les refuges pour la porter à
500 mètres.
Répercussions financières:
Le présent rapport ne comporte pas de
répercussions financières.
Consultation publique /
commentaires:
De nombreux intervenants s’intéressent à cet
enjeu pour divers motifs, dont : les intervenants des zones d’amélioration
commerciale du Quartier 12; les résidents de ce quartier; les
administrateurs de refuge; les responsables des centres de santé communautaire
et de ressources, dont les responsables des centres d’accueil et des programmes
de jour; et les fournisseurs de logements sociaux. Les parties intéressées qui
viennent en aide aux personnes dans le besoin ou les plus à risque
s’intéressent également à cet enjeu, à savoir : les membres d’associations
de locataires et les membres d’associations de travailleurs sociaux; idem pour
les passants habitant Ottawa ou ailleurs et qui fréquentent les commerces de
détail, se rendent aux lieux de divertissement, visitent les attraits culturels
ou ont recours aux services sociaux dans ce quartier. Dans leurs commentaires
sur la stratégie de zonage proposée, les intervenants ont manifesté leur appui
et exprimé leurs préoccupations. La réglementation proposée sur le zonage a
donc fait l’objet de modifications, particulièrement en ce qui touche la
densité des refuges dans le Quartier 12 de même que la localisation des
centres de santé communautaire et de ressources à l’extérieur – mais à
proximité – des zones dites résidentielles.
BACKGROUND
This study, and the resultant recommended zoning strategy, were undertaken as required by the Planning Act, further to the imposition of Interim Control (IC) By-law 2006-452. The IC By‑law was enacted by City Council in response to increasing community concerns over the number and size of special needs housing, including group homes and shelters, and retirement homes and nursing homes, throughout Ward 12, save and except for a six-block area of Sandy Hill zoned R5C[87] under former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98, which had its own previous Interim Control By-law on the same land use; the By-Ward Market, and 433 Nelson, which is a hybrid part-group home/part-shelter for 30 residents.
This Interim Control By-law and Study arose out of a concern with the concentration of social services within the Ward, and the impacts, both direct and indirect, that have resulted in this high concentration of uses and services in a small geographical area within Ward 12.
This study and zoning strategy must deal solely with those land use matters as detailed in Section 34 of the Planning Act; including matters that govern what type of use may be prohibited or permitted, and what regulations affect the development on a lot, including lot size, height of building, yard setbacks, density and parking. Any social planning issues, regarding housing affordability, subsidized housing, type of residents within a dwelling, social housing and tenure may not be dealt with in a Zoning By-law. Further, the study does not review the specific types of social services that might be made available within any building, nor the type of client served, as there is also no authority under the Planning Act to regulate types of services or targeted client groups. Zoning may only be of assistance by lowering the potential for expansion or addition of specified new uses by redirecting such uses to other areas or zones, where the same uses could also serve their targeted populations. Only limited changes will be brought about by this, or any other, zoning strategy.
It is only through redevelopment that any change will occur, because the Planning Act does not grant authority to the City to remove or otherwise limit an existing land use, and may only establish regulations for future development.
During initial discussions with the Ward Councillor and stakeholders, it was determined that neither group homes nor retirement homes are of any significant concern, particularly given the prior Sandy Hill Interim Control Study and subsequent zoning amendment that introduced new group home sizes and separation distances, and the fact that there is 24-hour on-site supervision or support within both types of homes.
Residential care facilities, which include nursing homes and other types of institutionalized housing, were also not considered as posing much concern, although it is recognized that the use is not residential in nature but rather institutional. Most zoning by-laws restrict nursing homes to institutional or “public” zones only. The City Council draft-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law permits the use in all Commercial and Mixed Use Zones and Institutional Zones, which will increase the supply of available lands for a use that will be increasingly needed as the population ages.
Although not specifically listed in the Interim Control By-law as being a use to be studied, it is the various social services and the close concentration of these uses that are of greatest concern to the community. Specifically, there is great concern over the rise in drug trafficking, drug abuse, and illegal acts that occur near shelters; and because zoning cannot regulate people's behaviour or activities that occur on the streets or sidewalks, that the IC study was requested on shelters. The premise was that if shelters could be relocated, those illegal behaviours, particularly the drug traffickers, would cease, or at the very least leave the area in which the shelters are located. And while zoning cannot regulate behaviour, it can regulate land uses where these acts often occur in proximity to where traffickers attract those at risk. These acts result in negative impacts, worsening the health and safety of both the homeless and at-risk, as well as increased safety concerns amongst the residents, particularly in communal areas, such as streets, sidewalks, stores, parks and schools.
Because of this concern, the Interim Control Study also considers zoning regulations for community health and resource centres, which is an umbrella land use term that captures both centres such as the Sandy Hill Community Resource Centre, as well as those drop-in centres that have caused concern when close to drug trafficking sites and homeless shelters.
Recommendation 1
Description of Area and of Neighbourhood Concerns
Ward 12 is an inner urban neighbourhood that contains a mix of residential, commercial, service, cultural and institutional areas, with heritage buildings and areas, as well as tourist destinations such as the By-Ward Market. Because of its central location within the Nation’s Capital, the area experiences a great deal of local and international tourism.
Its central location has also resulted in the creation of four of the City’s eight large shelters, with a fifth group home/shelter hybrid also located in Ward 12. These shelters have been serving the homeless for upwards of 100 years, and their existence predates any municipal land use policy or zoning regulations. There exist more than 600 beds available within these shelters.
Ward 12 includes the neighbourhoods of Lowertown East, Lowertown West and Sandy Hill, as well as the whole of former Vanier; and combined, these neighbourhoods contain a large percentage of a variety of affordable housing options, as well as a number of social housing projects. There exist a wide variety of social services and drop-in centres. These services are provided not only for the local population, including the homeless residents of the Ward, but capture a much wider, regional audience due to their central location. Group homes are located throughout the Ward, and are reflective of the fact that there is a consistent distribution of group homes located across all of the city’s urban neighbourhoods.
The reasons for this study are many, with many emotions associated with this issue. The City agrees with stakeholders, including the shelter operators, that there is an over concentration of shelters and services within Ward 12. Indeed, some shelter operators expressed concern with the relocation of Operation Go Home across the street from a homeless men’s shelter, citing concerns with the visibility and negative impact of illegal trade outside the shelter that might be experienced by the very youth at the highest risk of becoming homeless themselves. Some social studies suggest that the over concentration of social services leads to fewer positive impacts for both residents as well as for those seeking the social service, the opposite of what would otherwise be expected to be positive impacts of efficiencies of scale, when like‑services are provided in proximity.
Other City programs that have been instituted over the last 18 months to address Ward 12 concerns include the City’s Panhandling By-law, increased police presence and enforcement through the Street Crime Unit, the introduction of “kindness meters”, where individual money offers may be placed to assist the homeless as a deterrent to panhandling, the Needle Exchange and other public health programs, the Inner City Health Program, Housing First, Streets to Homes, the Alliance to End Homelessness programs, and ongoing partnerships with interested agencies.
Council Land Use and Housing policies
The City has a number of policies, noted within the Human Services Plan (2003), the Official Plan (2003) and more recently the City Housing Strategy (2006), and other policy documents including Housing Needs in Ottawa, the Cost of Responding to Homelessness in Ottawa, as well as other general housing initiatives, including the Street to Home and Housing First initiatives. Council has adopted policies to end homelessness within 10 years, and create a more stabilizing environment, by creating permanent or semi-permanent housing with the necessary supports to ensure against the progression to, and habitual return to homelessness.
The City’s existing funding and partnerships with Day Programs, which
provide a wide range of services and activities for the homeless, is of prime
importance in undertaking to create a zoning strategy that does not hinder this
policy objective.
One of the City’s Housing
policies is that no more shelters should be created, and that no additional
shelter beds will be financed by the City.
This is so that funding is provided for the creation of permanent forms
of housing, many with supports, to provide alternatives to homelessness. Regardless of any zoning strategy, the
removal of any future funding opportunities for shelter beds will automatically
create a density cap.
The Official Plan outlines overall land use policies, including: achieving healthy, sustainable, inclusive communities; and retaining, and enhancing downtown cores so as to achieve a vibrant yet safe downtown - one which is economically and socially healthy.
The Shelter Accommodation policy specifies within which designations a shelter may locate, including General Urban Area, Developing Community, Central Area, Mixed-Use Centre and Village. It also enables the Zoning By-law to include area-specific provisions to regulate the size and location of this use.
Regardless of the more detailed policies, of prime significance is that the City is responsible for the provision of shelter for those in need, including during times of crisis, such as extreme weather conditions. This often results in requests by the City to the shelter operators that they provide more beds to house the clients during these particularly difficult times.
A meeting with shelter operators indicated the necessity of each shelter being able to provide greater emergency beds and cots in greatest times of need, in order to respond to the City’s request, as well as being able to “exchange” clients, as needs and circumstances arise.
Of particular note, is that the existing shelters have reached capacity, both within the existing buildings, and with respect to development potential on-site. Therefore any new additions would require site-specific exceptions to vary one or many zoning provisions.
Existing Zoning
The current zoning in former Ottawa permits shelters in the R6 and R7 zones, as well as in a number of commercial and mixed use zones, under the land use “special needs house” with no resident size limit. There are no shelters located anywhere outside of former Ottawa. The shelters located in the area of Murray and St. Patrick Streets and King Edward Avenue existed long before zoning was established.
Other zoning by-laws of former municipalities within Ottawa either prohibited the use, did not consider the use a viable option in suburban areas, or limited them to Institutional Zones, with the latter zones on very few lands thereby limiting further the potential for shelter development. The former Ottawa umbrella term “special needs house” captured shelters, group homes and residential care facilities, though the zoning regulations were tailored toward the low density type group home, including very small separation areas between houses, and no density controls other than for the small homes.
In the same small area, around Murray and St. Patrick Streets and King Edward Avenue, current residential zoning contains an exception that specifically permits community health and resource centres, which include all forms of drop-in centres.
This area-specific zoning has resulted in a high concentration of social services provided in a very small area, in a residentially-zoned neighbourhood, which has led to land use conflicts between these different classifications of land uses.
Community health and resource centres are restricted to the Institutional (PU) Zone under the former Vanier Zoning By-law 2380, while they are also permitted in all commercial and institutional zones in former Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98.
The remainder of the Ward consists of a variety of zone classifications based on land use patterns. Former Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 generally permits special needs houses, up to eight residents in low-density, and up to 12, up to 30 or without any cap in high density Residential Zones, while former Vanier Zoning By-law 2380 permits group homes up to 10 or 15 residents depending on the residential zone category.
Residential care facilities have been permitted in the higher density Residential zones, where “special needs houses” limited to either 30 residents or with no resident cap, as well as in various commercial, mixed use and institutional zones. This approach has been carried forward in the City Council draft-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law. This zoning approach will increase the amount of appropriately zoned lands available for this type of use, for which demand will continue to increase, primarily for nursing home sites. Former Vanier, as well as other former municipalities, limited this type of use primarily to Institutional Zones, with little option to locate elsewhere without a rezoning to permit the use.
Proposed Strategy
The fact that there are four shelters currently operating outside of Ward 12, indicates that this land use can exist outside of Ward 12 and may be able to meet the needs of the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless.
The City’s move towards funding permanent housing rather than funding any additional shelter beds is significant, in that though not a zoning control, the absence of any future funding for shelter beds results in removing the opportunity to permit any new shelter beds. Of course, in the interim, until there is an end to homelessness, in which there are so many stakeholders who share this goal, it would be unwise city-wide, to prohibit any new shelters under any land use strategy.
Comments from some stakeholders requested that no zoning strategy be imposed until there is new social housing stock available to permanently house all of the homeless. While the City seeks funding for social housing and strives, through various methods, to end homelessness, there is still a need for a zoning strategy to be applicable both in Ward 12 and city-wide; one that is in line with the policy objective, but also increases the overall pool of available lands zoned to permit and to regulate the concentration of shelters, residential care facilities, community health and resource centres and group homes.
The zoning strategy focuses on the distinctions between the land uses and their real and perceived land use impacts as well as on the overall cumulative effect of same-type uses within proximity to one another.
Shelters
The following
zoning strategy for shelters is recommended:
- The
new land use term “shelter” should be created in the former Ottawa and Vanier
Zoning By-laws, reflecting the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law term. This term
permits ancillary health care, counselling and social support services
within the principal shelter use;
- The use should be permitted in a variety of Commercial, Mixed Use, Institutional, Village and Rural zones in the city, thus increasing the pool of appropriately-zoned lands across the city for the use;
- The use should be removed from the Residential and Local Commercial Zones in old Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98, as well as in the Council-approved new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, as the use is non-residential in nature, and is of an intensity that is not compatible with the nature of local commercial uses;
- The use is not to be permitted in the Mainstreets designation in keeping with the Official Plan. Therefore, the use will not be permitted in the Traditional Mainstreet and Arterial Mainstreet Zones under the existing former Ottawa and Vanier Zoning By-laws, those streets that are zoned the equivalent of the proposed TM or AM locations in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law will not be permitted to have a “special needs house” or shelter abutting Beechwood Avenue, Montreal Road and McArthur Avenue, Rideau and Dalhousie Streets;
- No maximum bed count is recommended, either per shelter or per Ward, given the City’s role in ensuring the provision of shelter for those in need, and the flexibility needed by the shelter providers to be able to provide added cots when necessary or transfer clients from one shelter to another. The limitation of the use to certain zone categories is limitation enough. To further limit the size or density of the use would be counterproductive, and interfere with the adequate provision needed to meet the needs of the targeted population;
- Further, wherever any shelter beds are provided to serve the homeless, the use will be classified as a shelter and not as some other use, including a group home;
- The use will be limited to four in Ward 12, given that the Ward has more than 50 per cent of the City’s total number of shelters, with four large shelters and the hybrid group home/shelter. The hybrid group home/shelter, located and permitted at 433 Nelson, will continue to be permitted as the site is excluded from this Interim Control Study. However, given that the shelter should not be permitted in a Residential Zone, the density recommendation is only for four and not five shelters. In the short-term, all existing shelters will be legal non-complying in respect of this new cap;
- A minimum 500‑metre separation area between shelters, as proposed in the City Council draft-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law, will apply. Current minimum separation areas, applicable to special needs houses and group homes in the respective Zoning By‑laws, establish minimums lower than the proposed 500 metres. Despite the current small separation areas applicable to special needs houses, none of the existing shelters in former Ottawa meet the standards, thus the legal non-compliance in respect of this provision will also continue with the introduction of the new separation area.
Residential Care Facilities
The following zoning strategy for residential care facilities is
recommended:
- The new land use term “residential care facility” should be created in the former Ottawa and Vanier Zoning By-laws, reflecting the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law term. This term captures nursing homes, institutional homes for the mentally ill, as well as treatment centres. The use fell under the “special needs house, limited either to 30 residents” or no density limit under the former Ottawa Zoning By-law; and
- Remove permission for the use from the current R6 and R7 zones in former Ottawa, and proposed as R5 in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Of the three residential care facilities located in Ward 12, two are in former Vanier and one in former Ottawa, and all are permitted by site-specific exception.
Group homes
The following zoning strategy for group homes is recommended:
- The most recent group home regulations, as approved both during the Sandy Hill Interim Control Study and city-wide in the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, should be adopted in the former City of Ottawa and Vanier Zoning By-laws. Current group home sizes and separation areas will be replaced by the city-wide 10-resident-maximum per group home, and the minimum 300 metres separation between lots containing group homes.
Community Health and Resource Centres
The following zoning strategy for community health and resource centres
is recommended:
- The former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law regulation permitting community health and social service centres in the R5-exception zone affecting the area should be deleted, based on the study’s findings that too many shelters and community health and resource centres are located in a small area adjacent to Murray and St. Patrick Streets and King Edward Avenue,
- Existing centres at 216 Murray and 230 King Edward Avenue will be given site-specific zoning to reflect the current permission, the use will be permitted in all commercial, mixed-use and institutional zones throughout the city, once the City Council draft-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law is in effect. This will increase the overall pool of lands available for this type of use,
- The new Comprehensive Zoning By-law definition is recommended as it was the subject of much discussion and revision in concert with the City’s Health and Social Services Advisory Committee, despite concerns that were raised with a request that only certified medical practitioners be permitted to work within a centre. There is no land use basis on which to require certification or any other qualification of individuals who work in any business or service in a Zoning By-law,
- The use should be permitted only as an ancillary use within a place of worship or community centre when located in a Minor Institutional or Community Leisure Zone. The ancillary use would be subject to a maximum size of 30 per cent of the gross floor area of the building in which it is located, although the whole of a basement may be used as a community health and resource centre. This will limit the size of the use, and require that it be within another building, rather than stand-alone, to minimize any land use impacts between it and the residential neighbourhood surrounding places of worship and community centres, and
- Stand-alone community health and resource centres will be permitted in all commercial zones in the City Council draft-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Conclusion
The proposed zoning changes will permit a more equitable distribution of shelters, group homes, community health and resource centres, and residential care facilities; but they only permit and encourage future uses to locate elsewhere. No current permitted use will be required to shut down, reduce its current size or function, or relocate. The existing shelters will be permitted to continue at their current locations. However, they will not meet the increased minimum separation areas, as they are very close together, nor do they meet the current separation areas, so their current non-complying status in this regard is maintained. In addition, the four-shelter maximum will create non-compliance in the short-term, given the small fifth hybrid group home/shelter in Ward 12. This means, that over the long term, some shelters may need to redevelop and may relocate by looking elsewhere in the downtown or greater urban area, within the realm of the widened permission to locate in a variety of non-residential zones.
These few recommended zoning changes will result in no more shelters, residential care facilities or community health and resource centres in the residential area adjacent to St. Patrick and Murray Streets and King Edward Avenue. The maximum four shelters permitted in Ward 12 will ensure that new shelters would need to locate in another Ward. A greater number of zone categories will permit shelters, residential care facilities and community health and resource centres, thus providing a greater land pool from which one or more of these uses could be created.
Recognizing the need of the Day Program operators to be permitted to locate within a place of worship, while understanding the concerns of pedestrian traffic and loitering near residential neighbourhoods, recommending that the use be secondary only to places of worship or community centres when in the Minor Institutional and Community Leisure Zones, responds to both concerns.
Recommendation 2
Once Council adopts the study area zoning amendment, it is recommended, for administrative reasons, that Council also repeal the study area’s Interim Control By-law 2006-452 and 2007‑443.
CITY STRATEGIC PLAN
Sustainable Healthy and Active City:
E4 - In cooperation with Federal and Provincial partners, end homelessness in 10 years.
E7- Set a high level and a proactive municipal response to meet the social services, social housing, supported living and public health needs of Ottawa residents.
Planning and Growth Management
F1- Become leading edge in community and urban design including housing creation for those in the city living on low incomes and residents at large.
CONSULTATION
The notices regarding the adoption of the Interim Control By-law Number 2006-452, 2006-471 and 2007-443 appeared in The Ottawa Citizen and Le Droit. No appeals were launched against the interim control by-law or its renewal by-law.
A City web page was created under Public Consultation and kept updated as the study progressed. Meetings were held with the Ward Councillor, Ward Business Improvement Associations, including Downtown Rideau BIA, Vanier BIA and By-Ward Market BIA, Ward 12 shelter operators, and representatives of Action Sandy Hill and Centre 454.
A proposed zoning strategy document was sent to all affected stakeholders, including all community groups, shelter operators, and community health and resource centres in the Ward, as well as all technical agencies, and those individuals and groups who requested information. Various groups and individuals provided written comments, including the Ontario Association of Social Workers, Eastern Branch, and the Association of Tenants of Ontario. Comments were received both in favour of, and with concerns to, the draft zoning approach, and as a result, modifications to the proposed zoning regulations were made, particularly as they relate to the bed caps and to the location of community health and resource centres. Detailed responses to these letters are provided in Document 2.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 2 Study Area Location Map
Document 3 Consultation
Details
DISPOSITION
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward it to Legal Services Branch and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
Services Branch to forward the by-law rescinding Interim Control By-law 2006-452 to City Council.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 1
These details of recommended zoning are to apply to all of the geographical areas under the jurisdiction of former Ottawa and former Vanier, as well as City-wide under the City Council draft approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law, and not only to Ward 12, unless otherwise noted
|
Regulation |
Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 |
Vanier Zoning by-law 2380 |
Council-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law |
|
Definition |
-Delete the term “special needs house” and replace with
the definitions of “group home” and “shelter”, as appears in the new
Comprehensive Zoning by-law. Under
“group home”, include that “special needs houses of up to ten residents” fall
under the term; and under “shelter” include that special needs houses with no
resident cap fall under the term |
-Modify current “group home” definition to match that of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law. -Apply the definition of “shelter”, noted in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law |
-No change |
|
-Create a new land use “residential care facility” and apply the definition noted in the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law. -indicate that special needs houses of up to thirty residents, and those with no resident cap fall within this term |
-Create a new land use “residential care facility” and define as includes “nursing homes, a complex for handicapped persons and “homes for the aged” |
-No change |
|
|
-Replace “community health and social service centre” with “community health and resource centre” and apply new Comprehensive Zoning By-law definition |
-Create new term “community health and resource centre” and apply new Comprehensive Zoning By-law definition. Note in the definition, that the term includes a “ senior citizen drop-in centre”, a “counseling centre”, and a “community social service centre” |
-No change |
|
|
Zone Permission: Group homes |
-Continue to permit a group home in all residential zones, but amend paragraphs 196 (g), 199 (j), 202 (m), 242 (o), 247 (f), 253 (s) and 280x(s), by replacing the term “special needs house” with “group home”, and increasing the resident cap by permitting a “group home, up to ten residents” in the R1, R2 and R3, and by lowering the resident cap in R4, R5, R6 and R7 -Add “group home, of up to ten residents” in the I1 and I2 Institutional Zones and subzones, and in the Leisure L1, L2 and L3 zones |
-Amend Section 7.9 Group homes (b) Permitted Location, to delete the current regulation that limits group homes to the R1-R4 and PU zones, and replacing it with a new clause that permits a group home in any zone where a dwelling or dwelling units are permitted. -Add “group home” to the list of permitted uses in the R5, R6, R7 |
-No change |
|
Proviso Group homes |
- Modify the current densities in each applicable zone, to ensure a maximum of ten residents in all applicable zones |
- Modify the R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, PU to ensure a maximum of ten residents is permitted |
-No change |
|
Proviso Group homes |
- No change (see Section 146 (a) referenced below) |
- Amend Section 7.9 Group homes (a) Type of Dwelling, by deleting the restriction to locating a group home only in a detached single-family dwelling house and replacing the clause that will permit a group home to be created in any type of dwelling, with the proviso that the whole of the building must be occupied as a group home |
-No change |
|
Proviso Group homes |
-Delete Section 146 in its entirety and replace with a new GROUP HOMES Section 146 as follows: “146. In addition to the provisions of the zone in which it is located, a group home: (a) must be within a dwelling type which is a permitted use in the zone in which it is located; (b) the group home must occupy the whole of the building including all attached units within the residential dwelling; and the separation areas, required under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) do not apply to the attached units within which the group home is located; (c) must be separated from any other lot containing a group home, a distance of 300 metres from each property line of the lot on which the group home is located. Add a new (d), (e), (f) and (g) to reflect exactly the subsections 125 (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Council-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law, modifying reference numbers or letters as necessary. Delete Section 147 in its entirety. |
-Paragraph 7.9(c) Distance from other group homes: change 500 m to 300 m -Create new (d), (e) and (f) to Subsection 7.9 to reflect exactly the provisions of Section 125 (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Council-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law |
-No change to Section 125 |
|
Zone Permission: Shelters |
-Prohibit “shelter” in all zones and exceptions abutting Beechwood Avenue, Montreal Road, McArthur Avenue, Rideau and Dalhousie Streets that correspond to the TM and AM zones proposed under the Comprehensive Zoning By-law -list “shelter” in all other Commercial, other than as above and in Local Commercial, and Institutional Zones -Replace “special needs house” with “group home” and limit to ten residents in the Local Commercial CL zone and in all Residential Zones, so as to prohibit a shelter |
-Add “shelter” as a permitted use in the PU zone and in all Commercial Zones, other than where abutting Beechwood Avenue, Montreal Road, McArthur Avenue that correspond to the TM and AM zones proposed under the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and other than the local commercial, C1-B and C1-C zones |
-Amend Section 163 to delete “shelter” as a listed permitted use in the R5 zone - Amend Subsection 163 (6) to remove reference to a shelter -Amend Section 189 (2) to delete “shelter” as a listed permitted use in LC zone |
|
Proviso Shelters |
-Create a new section 189c that includes the regulations as detailed in Subsections 134 (1), (2) and (3) of the Council-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law. -Add a new subsection that limits shelters to a maximum of four in Ward 12 |
-Create a new Section 6.33 SHELTERS, and include the regulations as detailed in Subsections 134 (1), (2) and (3) of the Council-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law -Add a new subsection that limits shelters to a maximum of four in Ward 12 |
-Section 134 - add a new subsection that limits shelters to a maximum of four in Ward 12. |
|
Zone Permission: Residential Care Facilities |
-List the use as permitted in all Commercial and Institutional Zones and subzones, but not in the local Commercial Zone (CL) |
-No change |
-Delete the use from the R5 zone; delete paragraph 163 (1) (d) and delete Endnote 46 to remove all reference to permission for residential care facilities within the R5 subzones. -Amend Subsection 163 (6) to remove reference to residential care facility |
|
Zone Permission: Community Health and Resource Centres |
-Delete paragraph 255 (1) (b) of the R6 zone to remove permission for community health and social service centre in the area bounded by St. Patrick Street, Dalhousie Street, George Street and King Edward Avenue. -create exception zone to permit the existing community health and resource centres at 216 Murray and 230 King Edward Avenue, and delete the comma and “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and replace with a period. -Replace the term with “community health and resource centre” wherever the “community health and social service centre” term appears -Delete Section 520 (b) and (c) and create a new Section 520a in the Minor
Institutional Zone (I1), stating that: “A community health and resource
centre may be permitted as an ancillary use within a place of worship or
community centre, to a maximum 30% of the gross floor area of the building in
which it is located. Despite the
foregoing, the whole of a basement of a place of worship or community centre
may be used for a community health and resource centre.” |
-Replace “community social service centre” and “counseling centre” with the land use term “community health and resource centre” wherever the terms appear -ensure that existing community health and resource centres are given site-specific zoning to ensure their legal conformity. |
-Amend table 164B
Endnote 11 (b) of the R5 zone to delete permission to locate a
community health and resource area within the area bounded by St. Patrick Street, Dalhousie Street,
George Street and King Edward Avenue, and delete the comma and “and”
at the end of paragraph (a) and replace with a period. -Create an
exception zone to permit the existing community health and resource centres
at 216 Murray and 230 King Edward Avenue. -Delete the use
“community health and resource centre” from the list of permitted uses in the
Minor Institutional (I1) (Section 169) and Community Leisure Zone (L1) Section 173 -Create a new
Section 169 (2) and Section 173 (2) to permit a Conditional Use, stating that
a community health and resource centre may be permitted as an ancillary use
within a place of worship or community centre, to a maximum 30% of the gross
floor area of the building in which it is located; and also add that despite the foregoing, the whole of a basement
of a place of worship or community centre may be used for a community health
and resource centre; and renumber the
subsequent subsections accordingly. |
|
Parking |
No change |
No change |
No change |
|
Location |
-Add a new Schedule indicating the limits of old Ottawa within a Ward 12 map, as generally depicted in Document 2 |
-No change |
-Add a new Schedule indicating the boundaries of Ward 12 within the City, as generally depicted on Document 2 |
STUDY AREA LOCATION MAP DOCUMENT 2
CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 3
1) Ward Business Improvement Areas
Note: Much of these BIA comments were technically made within the Sandy Hill Interim Control By-law, but have been repeated here, as staff identified to the BIAs that these comments would be taken into consideration during the Rideau-Vanier Interim Control Study. In addition to these remarks, staff met with representatives of the BIAs on a few occasions to discuss their concerns and attended the Downtown Rideau BIA Response to the Impact of Homelessness in Downtown symposium.
The Downtown Rideau BIA, Vanier BIA and By-Ward Market BIA requested a maximum bed count of 350 for Ward 12, based on the approach taken in the City of Toronto. Other “starting points” of zoning that the BIAs requested included: restricting shelters to Arterial Roads, limiting the maximum number of beds per facility, a 250m separation distance between shelters, and public consultation prior to the development of any new shelter.
A circular separation distance for shelters of 500 metres, like that currently for group homes in Vanier, seems most appropriate for Ottawa.
Staff response
The requested maximum number of beds was based on a recent Ontario Municipal Board hearing in Toronto on municipal shelters. This was the “starting point”, as per the BIAs request and noted in the initial approach taken by staff, in the preparation of the initial strategy that was sent to a wide list of interested stakeholders. Regardless of the number chosen, which was 500, with the BIAs requesting 350, there exist roughly 600 beds, which means the shelters would all be non-complying. The Planning Act cannot require that any shelter beds be removed, only that no additions may be permitted, either to existing shelters, or in the creation of a new shelter or provisions of additional shelter beds. Of importance, too, is that the OMB decision is not as straight-forward as reasoned. The decision pertains only to shelters owned and operated by the City of Toronto.
This would not apply in the case of the Ward 12 shelters, none of which are owned or operated by the City of Ottawa. The City of Toronto criteria do not affect any existing or future shelter in Toronto that is not owned by the municipality. Second, the bed count number does not appear in a zoning amendment. It appears in the Toronto Housing Branch’s policy on funding shelters. It is in that policy, that the City of Toronto indicates that it will not provide funding to any shelter that locates in an area that has reached the 500-bed count.
Though the zoning strategy presented herein does not recommend a density bed cap either per shelter, or per Ward, the City of Ottawa will not fund any additional beds. Given that Toronto did not include bed caps in its zoning by-law, but rather as a matter of funding policy, excluding a bed count is considered reasonable from a zoning perspective. Of importance, as well, is the shelter operators’ main concern which includes a limitation on number of beds, when in fact it is the City that requests short-term increases in beds or cots during times of emergency crisis.
The shelter buildings and lots are at capacity so there will be no increase in any substantial way on these sites.
In addition, the City’s policy is to end homelessness and this policy translates into no new shelters, but rather in permanent housing choices, including transitional and supportive housing programs.
Restricting shelters to Arterial Roads would be too onerous, and would otherwise remove the majority of lands zoned appropriately to permit the use. Requesting that residents be notified of any new shelter development would be inappropriate if no development approvals are required. The Planning Act requires notification when any new development is created and that requires some form of development approval. If the zoning permits the use, and if the use were to meet the maximum Ward cap and other regulations, then only the site plan control approval process would be required. During the process, the public would be informed and would be invited to comment on the site design, but not on the appropriateness of locating a shelter in the area proposed.
Staff agree with the recommended 500 m separation distance requirements now in effect in former Vanier, and as proposed in the City Council draft-approved Comprehensive Zoning By‑law.
2) Shelter Operators
Staff met with the shelter operators in December 2007. They submitted a brief comment during the consultation on the recommended extension to the interim control by-law. They were in favour of extending the IC by-law so that there could be time for more consultation.
The meeting held with the shelter providers was successful. As noted above, their main concern is with any proposed bed count cap, particularly given that the city requests short term increases in beds and cots during crucial times of the year. Some of the operators will share or otherwise exchange various guests, and want the flexibility to do so. The shelters in Ward 12 are at capacity, so there is little expectation that any one of the shelters will expand.
Shelter operators also indicated that while they understand that shelters exist in other Wards, they indicated that they may not be interested in lands in any other Ward, given the proximity to the variety of services within Ward 12.
Staff Response
The operators’ concerns vis-à-vis any bed cap are reasonable, and as such, it was suggested to them that a cap on the number of shelters in Ward 12, rather than on the number of beds, would be more acceptable to them.
Staff’s principal reasoning for limiting the number of shelters in Ward 12 is based on the premise that there are four shelters operating successfully within Wards other than Ward 12. They indicated that shelters created for families are not the same as shelters for homeless men. Site visits to the other Ward shelters indicated that there was no land use impact visible, with no loitering outside the premises. This may be because of the client base, but zoning cannot distinguish between types of clients. From a land use perspective, all shelters are deemed to be one type of land use. If loitering is a problem, there are a number of approaches to diminish the loitering, including focusing the clients on day programs and other types of drop-in centres, as well as therapy and lifeskills training centres throughout the downtown area where they may attend on a daily basis.
3) Centre 454 – (Community Health and Resource Centres)
Representatives from Centre 454 met with staff and described the City’s funded Day Programs. There are eight Day programs, with seven of the eight being faith-based. Their affiliation with (and most funding provided by) their respective religious institutions, is significant because some Day Programs are run from a place of worship, while others are stand-alone. The Day Program providers were concerned with the recommended 100m separation distance requirement of a community health and resource centre when located in a Minor Institution or an Open Space zone, as suggested in the Initial Proposed Strategy paper that was circulated to all stakeholders in September 2007. Because these programs are non-profit, there is little funding available to cover leasing and tax costs, and some may want to relocate to their respective place of worship. With every place of worship located in a Minor Institutional Zone, it is expected that the relocation to, or continued use within, places of worship will become non-complying in respect of any new separation distance requirement. Indeed, even small separation requirements would not be able to be met, given that Minor Institutional Zones normally abut residential zones. They would be prohibited from locating in their own places of worship and existing operations would be restricted by their new non-conforming status.
Centre 454 suggested a land use compromise, that community health and resource centres should be permitted in Minor Institutional and Open Space Zones, but restricted to higher order roads only. This would eliminate the use on lots fronting on local roads.
Staff Response
It is true in that most places of worship are zoned Minor Institutional and that often, though not always, the zone abuts residential zones, thus negating any capacity to meet a separation distance requirement.
Concerns of the residents were with the location nearby of any community health and resource centre where the clients expected to be served might have anti-social behaviour as they travel through or near the residential streets.
The City provides core funding, on a renewal basis, solely from the City, and the City contributes other services to support Day Programs. These Programs represent a significant daily resource available to those who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless, and offer functions as simple as a shower, access to telephones, laundry services, sewing machines, amongst other programs available to help those at need including counselling, referrals, recreation, and in some cases meal programs, volunteer and employment opportunities, homework help, public health, housing search, and ODSP application assistance.
Day Programs fall within the land use term: “community health and resource centre”, such use of which is recommended be removed from the current R4 and R5 exception zones. Their continued permission within institutional zones should not be removed, as this is a reasonable land use within the institutional zones. Moreover, this use includes drop-in centres for various groups such as the homeless and at-risk, youth at risk, seniors, and other types of day programs to serve specific client groups. Since zoning cannot, on the one hand, permit a use, while on the other hand, restrict the target population expected to access that use, then wherever the land use is considered reasonable, all types of community health and resource centres should be permitted, subject to reasonable zoning regulations.
Staff have modified their recommendation, to remove any separation distance requirements, and do not agree with Centre 454’s alternative, to limit the use to higher order roads, as there are few to no such Arterials and Major Collectors within the Ward that have any Minor Institutional or Open Space zoning, so as to render any such regulation meaningless.
Given the purpose and function of different types of community health and resource centres, and the ongoing traffic associated with the use, it is reasonable to permit the use in a variety of non-residential zones. The recommendation to remove the use from existing R4 and R5 exception zones, stands with no objections. Existing centres within the affected residential area in Ward 12 (Murray Street, King Edward Avenue) will continue to be permitted through site-specific zoning.
Staff recommend that where a community health and resource centre is located in a Minor Institutional or Open Space zone and abutting a residential zone, that such use is ancillary only to a place of worship or other permitted use in the zone. In this instance, the use will continue to be permitted, but on a secondary basis, so that a stand-alone community health and resource centre would be prohibited in these zones when abutting a residential zone. The ancillary use would be limited to no more than 30 per cent of the gross floor area of the building in which it is located, or all of the basement, which ever is greater. This will limit potential land use impacts, including loitering. This is not an unreasonable strategy given that places of worship use their facilities for a wide variety of community purposes, including for AA, NA or OA meetings, ballroom dance lessons, etc. without any specific regulations for these secondary but very necessary uses serving the community, in a community-oriented zoning.
4) Action Sandy Hill
Action Sandy Hill (ASH) noted a number of concerns in their letter dated December 11, 2007. Firstly, they are concerned with the existing number of shelter beds, as well as with the initially proposed 500-bed cap for Ward 12, noting that the existing number is over 650 (there are roughly 604) and requested the number of beds per Ward 12 be less than 500.
Second, there is concern with permitting shelters in the Residential Fifth Density Zone (R5), regardless of the fact that this may have been the practice for many years. Concern is that should a shelter wish to relocate somewhere else within Ward 12, it could do so, including in R5 locations, some of which occur in Sandy Hill. They would prefer to see a shelter located in a commercial or institutional zone, and should an operator wish to pursue establishing itself in a location zoned residential, the onus should be on that organization to pursue the matter via a case-by-case rezoning.
Third, there is also concern with the proposed definition of “residential care facility”, as they feel this term should be less “open” and more restrictive, aimed at the elderly, and not open so as to allow the term to be misused by some to “establish a residential care facility that is in effect a super-sized group home.
Staff Response
There are roughly 900 beds currently available, with a total of eight shelters, all of which are located in former Ottawa, but of which four are located outside Ward 12. There is also one hybrid group home/shelter with a total of 30 beds, which was permitted under the current “special needs housing, limited to 30 residents” use in the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law, and from which both this and the Sandy Hill interim control studies derived.
Since the creation of the hybrid home, the umbrella term “special needs house” has been replaced with “group home”, “shelter”, and “residential care facility”. Each of these terms are separately defined and listed as separate land use terms, and regulated accordingly under the Council draft-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law. In fact, most of the work on the Comprehensive Zoning By-law in respect of the land uses affected by this Interim Control Study was undertaken by this, and the Sandy Hill, Interim Control studies.
No existing land use may be shut down as a result of an Interim Control Study. Results of the study may lead to changes in zoning strategy that will affect new development, whether on a new site, or by way of addition or expansion of an existing use. The current shelters will continue to exist, and will continue to be legal non-complying with respect to the newly proposed 500 m circular separation distance, as many do not comply with current separation requirements. This results in no new shelters or any new expansions without the need for a rezoning.
In addition, though staff has moved away from a bed-cap to a shelter-cap, the cap will be set at four. This means that no new shelters will be permitted anywhere in Ward 12.
It also means that until one shelter closes down, no new shelter will be permitted in Ward 12. Given ASH’s ongoing concern with the possibility of a shelter closing down and relocating within Ward 12 could lead to one locating in an R5 (as per the new R5 zone in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law), staff agree to delete the use from the R5. The removal of the use from a high-density residential zone is considered reasonable, because a shelter is not a residential land use, and functions more like a hotel than a residential dwelling. Moreover, Sandy Hill, along with Lowertown East and West, and other inner urban neighbourhoods such as Centretown, are old neighbourhoods, many of which were established long before the advent of zoning, or more particularly, the elevator, and hence the high-rise building, and their eclectic mix has often led to land use conflicts because of this mix. Although the City wants to ensure that there is a mix of dwelling types, and specifically affordable housing, in each neighbourhood, it might be best to leave the purist residential zones for residential purposes, and to rejuvenate downtown neighbourhoods by leaving residential lands for that purpose.
To summarize, there will be no bed cap, but rather an overall shelter cap, with no shelter use permitted in a residential zone.
Finally, the definition of “residential care facility” as appears in the Council-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law, was arrived at after much discussion, and as approved by the City of Ottawa’s Community Health and Social Services Advisory Committee. This term is meant to include any facility which provides permanent residence to individuals who require daily support, though the type of support might differ. Therefore, not only do homes for the aged, or nursing homes, fall within the definition, but so does the old term ”domiciliary hostel” which houses the mentally ill. As so often mentioned in this report, the zoning by-law cannot regulate what type of resident may reside within any dwelling, including residential care facilities, and must not attempt to try to remove any one client group from being able to access such facilities. Where the land use is appropriate, it is appropriate for any client base.
This term, “residential care facility”, replaces, in part, the term “special needs housing” where the term limited the resident count to 30, or to no limit. It has since been discovered that there are a few residential care facilities with 30 residents, but there exist numerous residential care facilities across the new City with more than 30 residents. Most of these uses are either non-conforming or non-complying and have been given conformity under the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Although the current R4 zoning in Sandy Hill allows special needs houses limited to thirty residents (other than the geographical area to which the Sandy Hill interim control study and zoning amendment), ASH may be correct in concluding that now would be the correct time to remove this non-residential land use from the residentially-zoned lots. In addition, from a City-wide perspective, this use is limited only to Institutional Zones in all other former municipalities.
Given that both shelters and residential care facilities will be permitted in a variety of commercial, mixed use, institutional, village and rural zones, which will increase the land base available for these uses, staff believe the removal of the possibility of this use from the residential zones of old Ottawa, as well as across the City, is considered reasonable planning.
5) Vanier Community Service Centre (Le Patro)
Their comments, in a written letter dated January 25, 2008, centered around the requirement that the issue of providing shelters as well as services to help those in need or at risk, including the need for community health and resource centres should be studied from a City-wide, rather than Ward-specific, perspective as all communities require a variety of community health and social services, and there are clients at risk throughout the whole of the City. And, further to the need to review this on a macro scale, that no decision should be taken in respect of any new or the displacement of any existing shelter and affiliated services aimed at the same population in need.
Staff Response
Indeed, the City Council-approved Comprehensive Zoning By-law was being undertaken at the same time as this study, so the zoning of the uses that are the subject of this Ward 12 Interim Control study were also being reviewed on a City-wide basis in a coordinated way. All of the uses discussed in this study, including shelters, group homes, residential care facilities and community health and resource centres, were given detailed review and consideration from the Ward 12, inner urban, suburban and rural perspectives.
6) Ontario Association of Social Workers
The Association sent written
comment to Planning and Environment Committee in response to the recommended
extension of the Interim Control. Their
comment was as follows: “There is a
crisis situation regarding lack of housing for disadvantaged groups in the
wider city of Ottawa. Only after
adequate housing with appropriate services has been provided in other Ottawa
communities would we consider supporting restrictions on the provisions of new
special-purpose housing in Rideau-Vanier Ward 12. The Association requested that PEC broaden the discussion to the
issue of lack of safe, affordable, accessible housing in Ottawa as a whole, so
that plans can be made to address the problem in a holistic fashion and not
piece-meal, as this By-law does by focusing on one area of the city only.”
Staff Response
The recommended zoning strategy to relieve some of the pressure brought about by the concentration of shelters, in association with other types of services within the study area, does not result in any shelter shutting down, nor in the removal of any beds, nor the inclusion of extra beds or cots as needs arise.
Zoning by-laws cannot ensure safe, affordable or accessible housing, and while these are serious and real issues in Ottawa, this interim control study is unable to deal with any non-zoning issue.
It is true that there is need for more types of supportive housing. Council’s policy direction is to end homelessness within ten years, while ensuring the continued increase in the number of permanent housing for those in need. Current and proposed zoning strategies will open up more lands throughout all of the city of Ottawa for shelters, group homes, residential care facilities, as well as retirement homes and all other forms of dwellings.
It is important to note, that until the upcoming June 2008 adoption of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, group homes were often restricted to one dwelling type only; to residential zones only; to large separation distance or density restrictions per population; and in some areas to type of resident, excluding certain types of homes, and so on. The Comprehensive Zoning By-law carries forward the current old Ottawa permission to locate in any dwelling type, so that the whole of a semi-detached, townhouse or rooming house may be converted to group homes, where all group homes throughout the City will be regulated the same, with only resident size and separation area to be required. The resident size has been accepted by group home operators who accept the land use concept that a group home no longer functions as one when the number of residents increases; with roughly 90 per cent of the existing some 300 group homes city-wide containing 6 to 8 residents.
Residential care facilities were often not permitted at all, or restricted to institutional zones only. This use, which includes nursing homes and permanent housing in an institutional setting for those in need of 24 hour care or supervision, will be permitted in a number of zone categories, thus opening up more lands for this use. There would be no size limitations, thus the use would be permitted without a rezoning in many commercial, mixed use, village, rural and institutional zones.
Housing which would provide permanent residence to those who are able to achieve independent living, but who require some supports would also be permitted either in the form of group homes and residential care facilities, or in any dwelling form where the supports needed are not 24 hours/7 days week, but which are needed on a regular basis for a part of the day to assist those in need of some assistance. Case workers assigned to clients would be on-site helping individual residents, but there would be no on-site supervision. This is similar to any home where support workers are brought to the home on a regular, sometimes daily basis, but which do not provide live-in support. In these cases, there is no zoning or land use issue other than the need for on-site parking for those visiting the site. It is recognized that much of the support structure would also be off-site, acclimatizing their client to the world, whether through assistance with groceries, banking, accessing treatment, and so on. However, the exact extent of the on-site support would need to be determined. If each resident has some daily on-site support, that could result in much greater traffic and parking generated.