1

Centretown Citizens Community Association

January Board Meeting – Draft Agenda

Tuesday January 17 2017 - 19:00 to 20:30, Richmond Room, Ottawa City Hall

Contents

1. Welcome and Call to Order ............................................................................................................... 2

2. Adoption of the Agenda .................................................................................................................... 2

3. Somerset Ward Councillor’s Report .................................................................................................. 2

3.1 Question Period ...................................................................................................................... 2

4. Approval of 13 December, 2016 Minutes ......................................................................................... 2

5. Presentation by CCHC and SWCHC ................................................................................................... 2

6. Executive Reports.............................................................................................................................. 2

6.1 Presidents Report & Executive Review .................................................................................... 2

6.1.1 Email Ratification .................................................................................................................. 2

6.1.2 Centretown Buzz ................................................................................................................... 2

6.2 Membership Secretary ............................................................................................................ 2

6.3 Treasurer .................................................................................................................................. 2

7. Membership & Communications Committee ................................................................................... 3

7.1 Winter CCCA Event. ................................................................................................................. 3

7.2 Communications ..................................................................................................................... 3

8. Library Special Committee ................................................................................................................ 3

9. Seniors Committee ............................................................................................................................ 4

10. Trees & Greenspace Committee ................................................................................................... 4

10.1 Dundonald Park ..................................................................................................................... 4

10.2 Urban Forest Management Plan ........................................................................................... 5

11. Planning Committee...................................................................................................................... 5

11.1 Planning Committee Summary ............................................................................................. 5

11.2 OMB Submission ................................................................................................................... 6

12. Transportation Committee ................................................................................................................. 7

13. Other Business……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

Attachment I – Treasurer’s Report ............................................................................................................... 1 Attachment I – Planning Committee............................................................................................................. 3

2

1. Welcome and Call to Order

2. Adoption of the Agenda

3. Somerset Ward Councillor’s Report

3.1 Question Period

4. Approval of 13 December, 2016 Minutes See separate Attachment to the agenda DRAFT 13 December, 2016 Board Meeting Minutes

5. Presentation by CCHC and SWCHC Following the last year's outreach efforts and making this the year of "Getting to know your community

neighbours". Our first guest will be the CCHC’s Executive Director Simone Thibault, who will present the

services offered at the Centretown Community Health Centre and the organization's participation on the Library

issues and introducing a Harm Reduction expect from the Somerset West Community Heath Centre,

Stan Kupferschmidt.

6. Executive Reports

6.1 Presidents Report & Executive Review Regrets Tom Whillans

6.1.1 Email Ratification

Due to the Board winter break, no follow up on the subject during the month of December.

6.1.2 Centretown Buzz President Tom Whillans message - January Buzz Hello Centretowners, Your neighbourhood community association would like to wish everyone a happy new year and a successful 2017. Here's to the sesquicentennial, it's our big year (especially in Centretown, the heart of the nation's capital). Keep your eye on our events calendar for important announcements about the central library, Elgin street, urban gardens and more. Please feel free to reach out to me at president@centretowncitizens.ca if you have anything to discuss. We hope to hear from you.

6.2 Membership Secretary Submitted by Maria Luisa Marti

Total increase to the CCCA’s network from October 18 to December 31 2016: 71

No increase to the CCCA Community Network (DB) during month of December.

6.3 Treasurer Submitted by Alice Nakanishi

For complete Treasurer’s report see Appendix II

Updated CCCA’s financial records at TD in November, 2016 to correct that CCCA is incorporated under the province of Ontario and is not federally incorporated. Signing officers for 2016/2017 are Tom Whillans - President, Maria Luisa Marti -Membership Secretary and Alice Nakanishi, Treasurer

3

Motion: That CCCA authorizes payment up to $30.00 to renew the centretowncitizens.ca web domain name with Ethical Web Services Inc. for one year, i.e., from Feb. 12, 2017 to Feb. 11, 2018.

Motion: That CCCA authorizes payment of $30.00 for Federation of Citizens’ Association’s (FCA) annual membership fee for 2017.

7. Membership & Communications Committee Submitted by Maria Luisa Marti

No meeting of the CMC during the month of January

7.1 Winter CCCA Event. ACTION (As agreed at Board meeting 13 December 2016) A separate CCCA task force will be established to organise and plan the event. This group will be identified during the next board meeting and the planning will commence.

Need to schedule meeting and create budget : proposed site Orange gallery.

Call for volunteers and creation of event committee.

7.2 Communications Trees and Greenspaces will be integrated into the CCCA’s online Network as of February. Their

new email will be announced by the T&G Chair Tom Whillans

Efforts to cut down on emails seem to have succeeded, comments, suggestions welcomed

Drop box is being tested as alternative for Board internal communications.

Need for volunteers to create monthly member newsletter.

8. Library Special Committee Submitted by Joan Spice

Just after the December 13 CCCA Board meeting, Library/City staff held a technical meeting on December 15 at City

Hall. They recommended site for the new Central Library is site # 8 on the Inventory of 12 Candidate sites. Site 8 is

bordered by Commissioner Street to the east, Albert to the south, Empress to the west and Wellington to the north.

Media coverage has been extensive and in any cases quite balanced and favourable to our concerns– e.g. articles by

Joanne Chianello (CBC reports Dec 15 and 17), David Reevely (Citizen, Dec 15), and Citizen Editorial Dec 16 .

Our first important action for 2017 was a meeting with Councillor McKenney on January 6. CCCA President Tom

Whillans, Natasha Beaudin (CCHC) and I attended this meeting which focussed on the Public Open House that will

take place next week on Jan 18 at City Hall at 6 to 8 m. It is sponsored by our Councillor and the 4 other Councillors

in the “urban core” including Councillors Nussbaum, Fleury, Chernushenko and Lieper. We agreed to hand out

thousands of flyers throughout Centretown. CCCA, CCHC and Bookmark the Core members have put out thousands

of flyers over the past week. We will still be flyering and postering this weekend and possibly on Monday and

Tuesday before the Open House meeting http://catherinemckenney.ca/en/2017/01/central-library-open-house/. If

members wish to help distribute flyers, pls contact me at jspice@bell.net.

Another Citizen article on the challenges of 2017 includes the following comments on Lebreton Flats and the Library.

“Local politicians spent 2016 trying to extinguish the flames of several hot fires”. ... The second “fire” is LeBreton

Flats. “It took the NCC more than 20 meetings with Eugene Melnyk’s RendezVous LeBreton group to determine that

the two bodies could officially negotiate to develop the site. Clearly the hard part is just starting. At some future

date, Ottawa will boast a new central Library. Council must approve the recommendations this coming year. But it’s

unlikely foes of the proposed location west of Bronson Avenue have closed the book on this yet.” This is a challenge

to the CCCA. Let’s not prove them wrong and more importantly let down the residents of Centretown who want the

new Central Library to stay in Centretown.

4

CBC reporter JoAnne Chianello reinforces concerns about the future of Lebreton Flats when she cited the words of

the CEO of the NCC who said that he was “choosing his words carefully” when he said we are “cautiously optimistic”

about getting a deal.

It’s very clear that LeBreton Flats is not a done deal – this is just one more good reason why the City should not make

a decision on putting a library there when there is no deal.

Next steps for the CCCA will be discussed at the January 17 Board meeting. They will include organizing for

presentations to the Library Board meeting when it meets on Tuesday January 31.

If you want to help or have suggestions, questions or comments, please send along to Co-Chairs John Howell

(john.howell@canada.ca and me at jspice@bell.net or call 613-230-2442. I can also provide electronic copies of the

articles mentioned above.

9. Seniors Committee Verbal Report to be provided at the meeting.

10. Trees & Greenspace Committee CCCA Trees & Greenspace met on January 10, 2017, Acting Chair Brian Beaven

Discussions & Decisions

Planters on McLeod: Discussion on financial commitment to help with the upkeep of the planters. T&G chair has contacted councillor on this matter. Deferred untill February

Tree Planting in honour of Diane Holmes: The committee discussed and informed two new members to the nature of the initiative.

Maple Groves Project : In the absence of any report on the ideas for location of the groves proposed by Councillor’s office, this matter was deferred to February

Winter event – UofO Greenhouse tour and next steps, deferred to February

Presentation for the Ottawa Biosphere Ecocity Council:Presentation at an event Feb 25, 2017. Possible partnership with CCHC. deferred to the Feb meeting.

Off-Bank Community Garden – Next steps, Mural: T&G reviewed plans for the garden this spring including lotteries for the plots. Committee is looking for help in maintaining the two plots designated for the Trees and Green Spaces committee. Several people expressed interest. Some discussion on the Mural idea to update new members but, this focus of the discussion was deferred until February

10.1 Dundonald Park Dundonald Park Working Group & Children’ Garden discussion on the CCCA’s role and further development of the partnership with the group, for a more formal relationship in sponsoring the DPWG&C. It was pointed that although most matters related to this group do not relate directly to the CCCA’s T&G mandate, Dundonald Park is a key heritage Park and greenspace in Centretown and we are providing support re: the Children’s Garden. The discussion on the location and nature of the Garden a the Dec meeting of the DP Working Group needs to be clairified but do not anticipate any problems. Chair is developing an outline on the framework for the joint venture. Further discussion was deferred until February

5

10.2 Urban Forest Management Plan Discussion on the document and implications for Centretown. Stephen T.led this discussion and

concluded that the report was generally sound for a report whose scope was the entire metropolitan urban area of Ottawa and the Greenbelt. There was an orientation for new members about what the term “urban forest” meant. Stephen expressed concern that the scope of the overall report left matters of key concern to the downtown and Centretown in particular not adequately addressed. Brian raised application of intensification to city developmentplanning as an example of how greenspace in Centretown was being put at risk. The Urban Forest Management Plan will remain an active agenda item for TGSC in the coming months.

11. Planning Committee Submitted by Charles Akben-Marchand

11.1 Summary The Planning Committee met on Monday, January 9, 2017, at City Hall and discussed the following items. Note that Motion PC-2 will need to be acted on immediately after the meeting because the Committee of Adjustment meeting is the following day: 1. Presentation from FoTenn regarding a proposal for 494-496-500 Lisgar Street - A total of five representatives from PBC Group and FoTenn Consultants came to present preliminary (pre-submission) plans for this site, and provided printed copies of the preliminary plans (these were circulated by e-mail to the CCCA Planning Committee with the committee meeting agenda). They are willing to hold a public consultation meeting if needed. - The plan would demolish the existing four buildings on the property (three of which abut the property line) and construct a four-storey, 21-unit 1- and 2-bedroom rental apartment building. The building fits within the 14.5m height limit for the R4T zone, and 8-10 underground parking spaces will be provided, including 1 visitor parking space, which exceeds the zoning minimum of 5. 18 indoor bicycle parking spaces will be provided in a secure room. - Relief sought includes: reduction in driveway width from 3.6m to 3m, reduction in side yard setback beyond the first 21m from the front line (6m required, 1.5m sought i.e. for the back 11.6m of the building), and reduction of rear yard setback from 10.28m (25% of lot depth) to 8.5m. The roof projections (mechanical room, elevator, stairs, and small lobby) will exceed the square footage permitted by the Infill by-law; however, the Infill by-law did not consider that an elevator would be required. There would not be any indoor amenity space on the roof aside from a minimal elevator lobby. - Planning Committee members discussed access, bike parking, roof projections, and the tree in the City right-of-way in front of the property (which, according to the City's tree inventory was last measured at 52cm, qualifying it for "distinctive" status if I'm not mistaken). - This has not been formally submitted to the City, but will be seeking a Minor Zoning Bylaw Amendment (sic) and a concurrent Site Plan Amendment (the former will go to Planning Committee). MOTION PC-1: That the CCCA support the zoning changes for the proposed development at 494-496-500 Lisgar Street as presented to the CCCA Planning Committee on January 9, 2017, with the following caveats: - That serious attempts be made to preserve the tree in the City Right-of-Way, in consultation with the City's Forestry department; and - That rooftop projections be kept within a reasonable height, i.e. 3m, so as to minimize shadowing on adjacent properties. 2. 412 Lisgar Committee of Adjustment Application: - This goes to the CofA's January 18 meeting (item #15) - CofA notification is here: http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=359189 - There is a concurrent Site Plan application for this site which we discussed in November/December but decided not to comment on because it was based on the assumption that the Committee of Adjustment would approve the rezoning. - The Site plan application information, including plans, is here: http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__0AH9RP

6

- The demolition of the previous building may have also been done without a permit MOTION PC-2: That the CCCA write to the Committee of Adjustment prior to January 18, 2017, objecting to the numerous reductions sought for this property on the grounds that this development should not become the norm for small-scale infill developments, i.e. a building which tries to fit too many units onto a very small site. Specifically: - The construction of an 8-unit apartment building on a lot whose area and width is significantly less than the minimum required by the By-law - The reduction in amenity area, which would not be so drastic a reduction if there were fewer units; - The elimination of parking spaces, whereas the zoning by-law requires 4 parking spaces for 8 units. This creates a barrier to occupancy of this building by seniors and individuals with mobility or personal service requirements, despite the physical accessibility of the units themselves; - The underprovision of bicycle parking spaces (only 4 unprotected outdoor spaces) for 8 units, 4 of which are 2-bedroom units; - The placement of waste storage in outdoor bins at the property line within 1 metre of adjacent residences; and That the CCCA write to the City Planner regarding the concurrent Site Plan Application (D07-12-16-0111) with these objections. 3. R4 Zoning - Maria-Luisa Marti provided a report from the Federation of Citizens' Associations "R4 Focus Group" meeting on Jan 5, 2017 - Details and a proposed motion have been submitted directly to the Board (see belowfor summeary and Attachement II for draft FCA letter) - More info at ottawa.ca/r4zoning..

R4 Zoning review Summary: Shared with CCCA Board on the 13 of January 2017 The main points of concern in Centretown for the residential low rises are:

1. Lack of diversity of built - Only one type of dwelling being built. 2. Need to Encourage rentals - affordable housing 3. Respect for distinct character of neighbourhoods, including Heritage 4. Lot consolidation (Blurring the lines between zones and subzones)

We are not opposed to responsible infill intensification. Centretown's concerns revolve around the lack of two or three bedrooms rental apartments being built (family units). Presently the predominant built is small bachelors or 1 room units not encouraging families to move into Centretown. We do not have any problem with micro units or smaller units. but we want to create diversity in the type of homes in the established neighbourhoods. We would like for the City to start looking at how many single units , 2 BR and 3 BR are being built in one area. This would help develop target areas that should be intensified as opposed creating ghettos of singles and this would also help stop the destabilization of established neighbourhoods. The FCA representatives of the core wards, where concerns seem to be more significant, met several times and agreed to meet with the City on the 11th of January the letter has been shared with all 59 FCA network members. Motion: The CCCA supports responsible infill intensification, however we have concerns regarding the R4 review as proposed. It be agreed the CCCA send a letter to the City 's R4 Review lead planner (Tim Moerman), endorsing the FCA document (see Attachment II, Planning Committee)

11.2 OMB Amended submission As per 13 December 2017 Board meeting discussions: added to document (underlined and bold)

7

As requested by Joan Spice Q 7. If you have had experience with the Citizen Liaison Office, describe what it was like — did it meet your expectations?. The CCCA has had limited experience with the CLO but found the office to be helpful and quickly responsive. However, from discussion with other CAs, it is clear that the existence of the CLO is not well known and this needs to be improved.

Q 8. Was there information you needed, but were unable to get? N/A and as per Christine Leadman’s request Q 24. Do you have other comments or points you want to make about the scope and effectiveness of the OMB with regards to its role in land use planning? The Board should consider the disproportionate level of influence created as well as possible conflict of interest when City Planners are summoned by developers to support their proposals. City staff should not be asked to define "good planning" against communities or in some cases the City itself. "

12. Transportation Committee Verbal Report to be provided at meeting

13. Other Business o Board member Malaka Hendela would like to discuss /raise awareness on: School services in

Centretown - OCDSB, the proposed Elementary School Framework could work, there might be more general

school services issues that the CCCA board could start to consider.

o Elgin Street redesign: Elgin Redesign, members noted that there was a meeting on Wed Jan 11

where the plan was formally presented to the public. Further discussion deferred to Feb meeting

1

Attachment I – Treasurer’s Report

Centretown Citizens Community Association

2016/2017 Fiscal Year

(September 1st, 2016 - December 31, 2016)

DRAFT

General Fund

Tree Fund Total

Income:

001) Membership Fees (Prior Fiscal Year (Sept., 2015 to Aug., 2016)) 20.00 20.00

002) Membership Fees (Sept., 2016 to pre-Oct. 18, 2016's AGM) 20.00 20.00

003) Membership Fees (At or Post Oct. 18, 2016's AGM) 10.00 10.00

004) Donations - General, Prior Fiscal Year (Sept., 2015 to Aug., 2016) 2,703.19 2,703.19

005) Donations - General, Current Fiscal Year 338.10 338.10

Fundraising Events:

006) Movie night held at Dundonald Park, Aug. 5, 2016 315.18 315.18

007) Interest Earned From GICs 8.28 0.00 8.28

008) Subtotal: 3,414.75 0.00 3,414.75

Expenses: 009) PayPal Transaction Fees Incurred Prior Fiscal Year (Sept., 2015 to Aug., 2016)) 74.07 74.07

010) PayPal Transaction Fees Incurred pre-2016 AGM (Sept., 2016 to Oct. 17, 2016) 1.94 1.94

011) PayPal Transaction Fees Incurred Post-2016 AGM (Oct. 18, 2016 to Aug. 31, 2017) 1.77 1.77

012) Volunteer Canada Annual Membership Fee For Sept. 1, 2016 To Aug. 31, 2017 (Volunteer Canada, Chq No. 000050, Dec. 13, 2016) 125.00 125.00

013) Banking Fees - Account Fees 0.00 0.00

014) Subtotal: 202.78 0.00 202.78

015) Surplus: 3,211.97 0.00 3,211.97

Funds:

016) Beginning Balance @ September 1, 2016: 3,413.14 7,402.52 10,815.66

017) Ending Balance @ December 31, 2016: 6,625.11 7,402.52 14,027.63

018) Change in Funds 3,211.97 0.00 3,211.97

Bank Account, Investments: 019) Chequing Account, Ending Balance @ December 31, 2016: 4,545.92 5,331.98 9,877.90

020) TD 1 Yr Cashable GIC, November 16, 2016 to November 16, 2017, @ 0.4000% p.a. 2,079.19 0.00 2,079.19

021) TD 1 Yr Cashable GIC, July 12, 2016 to July 12, 2017, @ 0.400% p.a. 0.00 2,070.54 2,070.54

022) Total Funds 6,625.11 7,402.52 14,027.63

Outstanding Income/Refunds:

023) Membership fees received post-2016 AGM (Oct. 18, 2016 to Aug. 31, 2017) via PayPal. Funds held by PayPal 0.00 0.00

2

024) Donations received in prior fiscal year (Sept., 2015 to Aug., 2016) via PayPal. Funds held by PayPal 3,716.39 3,716.39

025) Donations received post-2016 AGM (Oct. 18, 2016 to Aug. 31, 2017) via PayPal. Funds held by PayPal 0.00 0.00

Outstanding Expenses/Disbursements:

026) PayPal Transaction Fees incurred in prior fiscal year (Sept., 2015 to Aug., 2016) 112.70 112.70

027) PayPal Transaction Fees incurred post-2016 AGM (Oct. 18, 2016 to Aug. 31, 2017) 0.00 0.00

028) Buzz Ad for Oct. 18, 2016's AGM notice (Centretown Buzz, Chq No. 000051, Dec. 13, 2016) 150.00 150.00

029) Web hosting fee with Ethical Web Services Inc. for its Bronze Hosting Acct (centretowncitizens.ca) from July 24, 2016 to Jan. 23, 2017 (Ethical Web Services Inc.), i.e., 6 months (A. Nakanishi., Chq No. 000052, Dec. 13, 2016) 45.09 45.09

030) Single Use Public Exhibition License Fee for "Growing Cities" film shown on April 23, 2015. (T. Whillans, Chq No. 000053, Dec. 13, 2016) 225.00 225.00

031) Web hosting fee with Ethical Web Services Inc. for its Bronze Hosting Acct (centretowncitizens.ca) from Jan. 24, 2017 to July 23, 2017, i.e., 6 months (Ethical Web Services Inc., Chq No. 000054, Jan. 9, 2017) 44.83 44.83

Upcoming Income/Refunds:

032)

Upcoming Expenses:

033) Web Domain Name Renewal Fee for centretowncitizens.ca, Feb. 12, 2017 to Feb. 11, 2018 (Ethical Web Services Inc.) 30.00 30.00

034) Costs incurred from Oct. 18, 2016's AGM 150.00 150.00

035) Costs incurred Movie night held at Dundonald Park, Aug. 5, 2016 50.00 50.00

036) Costs incurred to plant two trees in honour of Diane Holmes 1,000.00 1,000.00

037) Federation of Citizens' Associations Members Annual Fee For 2017 30.00 30.00

038) Volunteer Canada Directors & Officers Liability Insurance, Apr. 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 700.00 700.00

039) Costs incurred from new CCCA website development (M. Kutney) 200.00 200.00

Last Updated: January 12, 2017

3

Attachment II – Planning Committee FCA DRAFT LETTER

9 January 2017 Tim J. Moerman Ottawa City Hall 110 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1

Re: Residential Fourth Density (R4) Zoning Review Dear Mr. Moerman, The Federation of Citizens’ Associations (FCA), an incorporated non-profit corporation under Ontario law, is the forum for citizens’ associations and similar non-profit volunteer groups in Ottawa. Our roughly 50 member associations share information about issues facing their communities and, when appropriate, take joint action. The FCA membership includes associations from the city center, the inner suburbs, the suburban communities outside the Greenbelt and rural Ottawa. The FCA has formed a focus group of member associations implicated in the R4 Review to evaluate the City’s discussion paper and develop this FCA position on it. The FCA takes positions on issues when there is significant agreement among member associations and when we can express strong principles shared by our member associations. There are several key principles that the FCA believes all planning and zoning decisions should support, these include:

Preservation of individual community character;

Conservation of our built and natural heritage;

Environmental sustainability; and,

Respect for public input and engagement. Just as we espouse certain principles herein, we believe that any changes made to the zoning bylaw must be accompanied by a set of guiding principles. Such principles aid in the future interpretation and understanding of the bylaw. Following are the common concerns shared by the members of our focus group, an assessment of whether your discussion paper addresses these concerns, and our comments on anything additional required. 1. Community character / compatibility / heritage preservation

The discussion paper talks about community character and compatibility, but doesn’t address the important issue of heritage preservation. Lack of compatibility of new development is one of the biggest concerns of our member associations. Despite Official Plan language encouraging compatible design, respect for community character, and heritage preservation, most of the development we are seeing in areas zoned R4 throughout the City do not meet these objectives.

4

The Residential Infill studies, parts 1 and 2, were both intended to address compatibility and community character, but so far seem to have had little impact on development. Part of the problem being that not all types of development in R4 zones are subject to the requirements of these by-laws, in particular the streetscape character analysis. We recommend therefore that the streetscape character analysis be applied to all forms of residential development in the R1 through R4 zones. Staff were to monitor the implementation of Infill 1 and 2, and to report back to Council. We have yet to see any such reporting, has this been done? If yes, when will the results be shared with the public. Finally, another issue affecting community character is the loss of mature trees. Much more must be done to preserve our urban tree canopy. One of the objectives of setbacks should be to ensure that there is room for mature trees. Generally speaking setback requirements as they currently are do not support the maintenance of mature trees nor the expansion of the urban tree canopy.

2. Diversity & versatility The most significant concern we have besides protecting community character is the loss of diversity in our neighbourhoods. Healthy communities need a diverse mix of people, including families, seniors, youth, etc. However, due to the proliferation of one type of dwelling, varying by neighbourhood, our communities are becoming denser but less diverse. In some neighbourhoods the problem is that virtually all new builds consist of only micro-units, while in other neighbourhoods the issue is the opposite, that virtually all new development consists solely of oversized dwelling units. The outcome though is the same, that neighbourhoods are slowly but surely losing diversity and versatility. There is nothing surprising about this, the economics of development make it very difficult to maintain diversity in our neighbourhoods unless the City adopts diversity supportive planning policies. Therefore, more must be done to encourage a mix of unit sizes, as this offers opportunities for more diverse demographics. It’s also worth noting that studio, one-bedroom apartments, and units with four or more bedrooms, are very limited in terms of their demographic market, while two and three-bedroom apartments offer much more versatility. So, some way to ensure a mix of units, particularly more two or three-bedroom units, is needed. We have two other suggestions for how to preserve diversity. 1) The City must adopt a policy of not supporting minor variances to lot frontage or lot area requirements. 2) The City should work with communities to identify the major and minor streets in each neighbourhood and assign where apartments (and small mixed use buildings) may go, and by extension where they are prohibited. Inclusionary zoning is also critical to ensuring diversity. Our communities need to offer housing for people of various socio-economic means. We would like to see a requirement that all new developments over a certain number of units provide a percentage of those units for affordable housing.

3. Scale & permitted uses The discussion paper identifies some of the issues around scale, but the associated recommendations don’t seem to help to protect community character in any way. The issue being that most new development in the R4 zones is out of scale with neighbouring properties. In some cases the issue is height, while in others it is the construction of new buildings or additions that reach much more deeply into rear yards. Therefore, we ask that more consideration be given to reducing out of scale height limits and increasing rear yard setback requirements. The Official Plan already says the right things about scale, in that it calls for new development to be compatible with existing development. Scale in terms of height and setbacks is one of the most critical ways to ensure compatibility. However, the zoning bylaw does not reflect this requirement and the discussion paper doesn’t seem to make any recommendations in this regard.

5

The discussion paper proposes decreasing minimum lot sizes for apartment buildings. We have concerns about permitting apartment buildings on undersized lots and feel that this would need to be modeled before such a change was made. We are open to reviewing the subzones, as the maximum and minimum lot sizes don’t always make sense, but this would require much more time and community engagement. We support restricting dwelling units to a maximum of 4 bedrooms. We believe oversized dwelling units should not be permitted. We remain concerned about affordability of housing for families in urban areas, and don’t feel that any of the recommendations in the discussion paper would do anything to encourage construction of new housing geared to families or to affordable housing. We would also add that just as we have minimum density targets, we should identify maximum desired densities by zoning type in order to help ensure dense but livable neighbourhoods. Committee of adjustment applications are frequently used to achieve a virtual rezoning of a property. This issue must also be addressed.

4. Site servicing

The discussion paper addresses some issues related to site servicing, like garbage and air conditioning units, but fails to address others, including noise and light pollution, and on site water management. We would encourage you to review these issues as they can have significant impact on quality of life. We would also stress that consideration must be given to the link between the lack of urban tree cover and the need for air conditioning. If we can rebuild our tree canopy this could help to naturally cool areas thereby decreasing the need for air conditioning. We concur that site plan control should apply to more forms of development and that issues of the overall square footage and the number of bedrooms should be taken into account, not just the number of units. We suggest that any development with 4 or more units, or with 10 or more bedrooms in total, or exceeding 3,500 ft2, should be subject to site plan control. We would also encourage you to examine the possibility of requiring a minimum amount of common space (living room, kitchen, bathrooms, etc.) based on the number of bedrooms. Such a formula could help to ensure more versatile and livable units. We support the move to require indoor garbage storage. We ask that this be reviewed in conjunction with responsible staff at the City to see if something can also be done to ensure that oversized dwelling units have to pay more for garbage pick-up since they naturally produce more garbage. Finally we want to ensure that the outcome of this review will not reduce any currently applicable amenity space requirements.

5. Lot consolidation This issue is raised in the discussion paper, but no real solution is offered. This is an important issue with potentially huge impact and we hope to see it studied and thoughtfully addressed. Ultimately, we would like to see some measures related to lot consolidations that consider the impact and ensure the new lot fabric would still be consistent with the existing lot fabric.

6

6. Rooming houses “Defacto” rooming houses have become prevalent in many parts of the City, including in areas that are not zoned R4. We agree that the definitions and rules regarding rooming houses need to be cleaned-up and clarified. Ultimately though, we feel that any changes brought in relation to rooming houses will not prevent those operating “defacto” rooming houses from continuing to do so. As such, rental property licensing must be introduced in Ottawa and must include a requirement for an annual inspection of all rental properties.

Finally, we note the interconnectivity and interdependence of many of these recommendations. For example, removing the limit on the permissible number of units in junior R4 subzones would not be beneficial unless limits on oversized dwelling units, and on the permissible number of bedrooms on a lot were also adopted. Given the ease with which the number of bedrooms could be misrepresented, licensing of all rental properties is also necessary to permit inspection and enforcement of this limitation. As such, it is critical that all recommendations be adopted together. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. We look forward to collaborating further. Sincerely,