***CONWAY FUNG HOMES...Keller Williams Ottawa Realty...see BLOG ARCHIVES***
Proposed New Infill Rules for Stable Neighborhoods in the City of Ottawa
Previous Commentaries in the Series on Real Estate Pricing
· Historical Average Size of Homes – 9 September 2011
· Technological Intensity of Homes – 12 September 2011
· Property Sizes in the Urban Setting –26 September 2011
· Transportation Infrastructure and Property Values –3 October 2011
· Light Rail Transit and Property Values – 16 October 2011
· Urban Zoning, Politics and Property Values – 14 November 2011
· Zoning Variances, the Committee of Adjustment and Neighborhood Participation – 16 March 2012
· Urban Intensification and Neighborhood Concerns – 25 March 2012
· The Role of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Decisions – 4 April 2012
In the commentary on Urban Intensification and Neighborhood Concerns, 25 March 2012, Conway Fung Homes talked about the apparent declining importance of zoning by-laws in urban planning and in Committee of Adjustment decisions. Sub-section 45(l) of the Provincial Planning Act sets out four Statutory Tests which must be considered by the Committee of Adjustment and satisfied by the applicant, before an application for zoning variance can succeed:
1. Is the variance minor?
2. Would the granting of the variance result in a development that would be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the applicants land or building?
3. Does the variance request maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law?
4. Does the variance requested maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?
None of these statutory requirements constitutes precise criteria that the public can easily understand. For instance, a development is deemed not minor when: 1) it is too large or 2) it is too important to be considered minor. This is hardly the basis for predictable, rule-based decision-making. It is prone to considerable interpretation and stakeholder influence.....READ MORE