[homeles_ot-l] Article - New rules for re-zoned developments

[Linda O'Neil]

FYI
[PicExportError]       15 Feb 2012  Copyright Ottawa Citizen  NECO COCKBURN
New rules for re-zoned developments
Planning committee approves staff proposals so city can recover portion of increased land value
Reservations remain about the city's plan to take back some of the increased land value from major rezonings, a proposal its top planning manager calls a "culture change."
At a meeting of council's planning committee on Tuesday, community representatives called for changes to the plan for "Section 37 guidelines" that allow the city to recover a portion of the increased land value from a re-zoning in the form of community benefits.
A developer, meanwhile, described the proposal as the city "having your cake and eating it too."
In the end, the committee approved the guidelines as presented by staff. For Councillor Peter Hume, the committee's chair, the opposing views heard from both sides show the city walked the middle line.
"I think that we've struck the right balance with the policy, and you know what? We'll spend this year figuring out if we got it right, and if we didn't get it right, people will be back to planning committee in a year's time," Hume said, referring to a review that is to be conducted during the first year of the policy.
The city would expect in most cases to recover 15 to 30 per cent of the increased land value from a re-zoning, a staff report says.
The money would be taken for "community benefits" - either in cash or in the form of an amenity such as space for a new day-care centre or some other neighbourhood facility.
The committee voted down proposals put forward on behalf of Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes, who wanted to pin down when the benefits would have to be paid and to have Section 37 provisions kick in on smaller developments than staff proposed.
Holmes' ward includes Centretown and it regularly sees several projects that involve increased height and density, she said, and there's a great need for the community to receive benefits.
"We have the least amount of green space in the city, there's now very dense communities being created with very little in the way of social benefits, whether it's health centres, or day cares or community centres, for example," Holmes said. See page 26<javascript:void(0)>

Printed and distributed by NewpaperDirect | www.newspaperdirect.com, US/Can: 1.877.980.4040, Intern: 800.6364.6364 | Copyright and protected by applicable law.

'We think it's time to get on with the implementation and start collecting some benefits for the communities which are experiencing the joys and sorrows of intensification.'
LINDA HOAD
Hintonburg Community Association
>From page C1<javascript:void(0)> The guidelines are allowed under Section 37 of Ontario's Planning Act, and Toronto has used them for years. Under this "made in Ottawa" approach, the guidelines would apply to projects of more than 7,000 square metres (about the size of a nine-storey building) where the city is approving a re-zoning that would increase the height or density allowed on a site by 25 per cent or more.
If the requested re-zoning involves only a redistribution of the density that's allowed on site (towers instead of short, squat buildings) and is considered to be an improved design, the guidelines would not apply.
Until now, agreements for community benefits have been obtained through more informal negotiations. The guidelines are meant to provide more certainty for the community, councillors and developers, staff said.
The process would still involve negotiations, said John Moser, the city's general manager of planning and growth management.
"Section 37 does not mean an automatic giveaway of height or density to the developer, nor is it intended to be a large money-maker or punitive to the applicant," Moser said. He called the plan a "culture change and a new way of doing business for significant buildings."
Community groups cited problems around issues such as the thresholds for when the benefits should apply - wanting them to be lower - and ways that the amount of benefits that the city recovers from a developer might be reduced.
"Overall, we support Section 37 benefits in Ottawa, but we don't believe that the current proposal is precisely the way to do it, and we're hoping that more transparency and more clarity in the actual guidelines will be provided rather than having so much of this have to be negotiated behind closed doors and during rezonings," said Jay Baltz, of the Federation of Citizens' Associations of Ottawa-Carleton.
Linda Hoad, with the Hintonburg Community Association, said it also supports the implementation of the guidelines with some reservations.
"In spite of those reservations, we think it's time to get on with the implementation and start collecting some benefits for the communities which are experiencing the joys and sorrows of intensification," Hoad said.
Perhaps the strongest objection came from a developer. Michael Casey, from Arnon Corporation, said there are increased costs to builders. "You want to share in uplift that you're creating. From all I've heard, you also want to do that in a fashion that I would best describe as having your cake and eating it, too," Casey told the committee.
His comments sparked a brief debate with Hume, who argued that developers get more money from higher units. "Yes, you have increased costs, but you should be getting increased revenues," Hume said.
Doug Casey of Charlesfort Developments was less confrontational, saying that overall the idea of Section 37 benefits to the community is good, but he wanted some clarifications from the committee.
The committee voted down amendments proposed by Holmes, who said she was concerned that the expected 15 to 30 per cent recovery amount set out in the staff report will become a "carved-in-stone amount" that makes it difficult to get more in particular cases, and called for the range to be 15 to 50 per cent of the increased land value.
Staff said the amounts in the report were meant to provide a general idea of what would be expected, and that more could be taken back, depending on the circumstances.
Holmes also said developers should have to provide the benefit payment when a building permit is issued, in order to be consistent and provide clarity for the community and developer.
Finally, Holmes proposed that the Section 37 guidelines kick in for developments of more than 5,000 square metres, rather than the recommended 7,000 square metres.
"Because this is our first go at it, we are choosing a threshold like many other municipalities have chosen, that allows us to get at community benefits that are substantive enough and that go with substantial projects," said Alain Miguelez, the city's program manager for the development review process in urban areas.
The proposed guidelines are to go to council on March 28, and, if approved, the city expects to implement them on April 1.

Linda O'Neil
Public Education Consultant
Canadian Mental Health Association, Ottawa Branch
301-1355 Bank St., Ottawa ON, K1H 8K7
loneil at cmhaottawa.ca<mailto:loneil at cmhaottawa.ca>
Tel: (613) 37-7791 Ext 135

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/homeles_ot-l/attachments/20120215/825e89be/attachment.htm>