Toronto’s harmonized zoning bylaw draft is nearing completion and City staff is optimistic the rules will meet the approval of both Toronto council and property owners. But they may have reason to be wary; the City’s previous attempt at a harmonized bylaw was thrown out by council after property owners submitted hundreds of appeals.
The new draft, which could be passed as early as April 3, comes after more than 18 months of work and consultations with the aggrieved parties. According to acting director of zoning bylaw and environmental planning, Joe D’Abramo, this new consolidated zoning bylaw will make life easier for City staff, the public and property owners.
Toronto’s current zoning rules are a hodgepodge of 43 bylaws that date back to the City’s pre-amalgamation days. Each bylaw has its own language, definitions and rules. This lack of consistency is problematic for City staff as well as for property owners who have buildings in different areas of the city.
“The project then was to say, ‘Now that we’re one city, why not have one bylaw’?” recounts D’Abramo.
It has not been an easy exercise. Zoning rules, while not the sexiest area of municipal politics, are one of the most restrictive.
“It’s probably the most powerful piece of legislation (for municipalities) other than property tax,” says D’Abramo, who reasons that the entire premise of zoning is to take away freedoms from property owners.
Naturally, this can lead to backlash from those it affects, namely owners of large properties.
The City’s previous attempt at a consolidated bylaw was launched in 2003, under former mayor David Miller. It was passed in August 2010, and then subsequently quashed in May 2011. Councillors became worried when 694 appeals were filed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), so they opted to scrap the bylaw and start again.
Appeasing appellants
The new draft of the harmonized bylaw, first released for consideration June 2012, attempts to fix the challenged areas and appease property owners. Staff found many of the complaints fell into categories, which D’Abramo maintains have now been sufficiently addressed in the current draft.
A website the City created to explain the harmonized zoning project outlines the changes that have been made from the previous bylaw as per appellants’ requests. Some notable changes highlighted on the website are: the introduction of a transition protocol; a clearer definition of gross floor area; and removal of the paid visitor parking prohibition.
Transitions
The new draft attempts to clear up problems surrounding the transition from the old bylaws to a new zoning regime. It introduces a transition protocol and clauses that allow development applications that have been submitted and are in the ‘pipeline’ when the new bylaw is passed to be addressed under the former zoning rules.
There is also a minor variance clause, which will allow most variances under existing zoning regulations to continue once the new bylaw is passed. Site specific exceptions give permission for existing and under construction buildings to continue, while grandfathering clauses acknowledge some existing buildings are lawful although not in compliance with the new bylaw’s regulation standards.
Definition of gross floor area
Many property owners took issue with the repealed bylaw’s definition of gross floor area, which included areas of buildings that were excluded in the various existing bylaws from the era prior to amalgamation. A planning department report now states the new draft will use the same definition as the repealed draft but will allow parts of buildings to be excluded in zone-specific principal building requirements.
D’Abramo attributes the problem to almost inevitable competing preferences for one of the previous 18 different definitions, meaning 17 of those choices would have to be rejected.
Paid visitor parking prohibition
In an October 2012 letter to the chair of the planning and growth management committee, Peter Milczyn, the Greater Toronto Apartment Association (GTAA) expressed concern about the draft bylaw’s prohibition on charging fees for visitors’ parking at multi-residential rental buildings.
GTAA president, Daryl Chong, argued this would encourage some drivers to park in these spots simply to avoid parking on the street, which would also affect revenue the City derives from municipal parking lots and street meters. The letter further contends apartment owners typically charge fees for management reasons – to ensure regular turnover and discourage misuse of the parking spaces – rather than to generate revenue.
The group’s arguments appear to have won converts on the planning committee. D’Abramo reports staff has been advised to delete that condition of the draft.
Consultation efforts commended
But will these changes be enough to get all of the previous appellants on board?
Building Industry and Land Development (BILD) Toronto co-chair, Leona Savoie, was engaged in both the creation of the earlier repealed bylaw and this new draft. She reports satisfaction with the proposed revisions, which she says seem less rushed than the repealed version. She also commends City staff’s open approach and cooperation with development industry representatives, many of whom simply wanted assurances that grandfathering and transition would be approved.
“We’ve been able to digest it a little better,” she says. “We still need to go through it again with a fine-tooth comb to make sure all our major issues were addressed.”
BILD Toronto is also advising its members to go through the draft to identify potential issues relating to their own sites. Meanwhile, the City’s D’Abramo is not predicting much negative response and is optimistic any appeals that do go forward will be settled much more quickly.
“My suspicion is there will be a lot fewer appeals,” he says. “Everyone I’ve spoken to is pleased with the approach we have taken and that we have addressed their concerns.”
Of the 160 appeal representatives, 135 met with City staff from June to September 2011, to voice their concerns.
“From there, we put together a strategy for changes that we thought were necessary,” explains D’Abramo.
Participation requirements
For property managers who still disagree with areas of the draft, the window to voice their input is closing. As land use planner Uzo Rossouw explains, failing to officially define any concerns can limit options for opponents in the future. Property owners who forego participation in the bylaw process can lose their ability to appeal to the OMB once it is passed.
Rossouw, a planner with the law firm WeirFoulds LLP, which filed nearly 100 appeals to the previous bylaw on behalf of clients, advises that appellants must have a record of involvement during the planning process to proceed with an appeal. That could be in person at consultations or open house style events, or through letters through the proper channels.
As the next step is nearing the end of the process, the City hosted a statutory open house and public meeting. In both cases, the public could offer input on the draft, after which the planning and growth management committee will decide whether to send it back to staff for additional work or pass along the draft for consideration by council.
Daniel Viola is the editor of Property Management Report.
