John Dance
It’s now law in Ontario: community associations and most other third parties can no longer appeal municipal zoning changes. And Bill 185’s retroactive application means that more than $10,000 that the three local community associations spent on appealing the Lansdowne 2.0 rezoning decision has been totally wasted as are the countless hours volunteers spent on preparing the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).
Bill 185, The Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, has eliminated a longstanding check on municipal and private developer plans to build whatever they want. Although it was often difficult and costly, community associations and other third parties previously had the option to challenge municipal zoning and official plan decisions by appealing to the OLT, formerly known as the Ontario Municipal Board.
The previous Liberal government strengthened third parties’ ability to appeal decisions but this has all been thrown out the window by the Ford government in the rush to expedite developers’ planning approvals and get houses built.
In the case of the Lansdowne rezoning, the Glebe Community Association (GCA), with the support of the community associations in Old Ottawa East and Old Ottawa South, appealed the City’s Lansdowne 2.0 decision last December. The OLT accepted the appeal (the tribunal could have deemed it frivolous) and scheduled a hearing date in October. But, this June, with the passage of Bill 185, the OLT cancelled the appeal.
Capital Ward Councillor Shawn Menard has asked City staff if GCA would be reimbursed for incurred expenses and staff responded that their opinion was there would not be any likelihood of the province reimbursing any person whose appeal has been ended by Bill 185.
Ottawa Centre MPP Joel Harden and Menard are jointly seeking redress from Ontario’s Housing Minister Paul Calandra but, at this writing, there has been no response from the Minister.
“Minister, some might claim the GCA’s decision to appeal the Lansdowne 2.0 development confirms why third-party OLT appeals are a problem,” Harden and Menard wrote to Calandra. “Such advocates may, mistakenly, suggest that OLT appeals of this nature thwart the expansion of homes in a housing crisis. However, the GCA has supported the suspension of third party appeals to the OLT over affordable housing projects. Their concern with Lansdowne 2.0 (which has zero affordable housing units) was the loss of city-owned urban greenspace in a high-density residential area.”
The Ford Government’s retroactive cancellation of Glebe Community Association’s appeal of Lansdowne Park rezoning means the loss of much of the park’s greenspace and the waste of the funding and volunteer effort that local communities expended in preparing the appeal. Photo by John Dance
Harden and Menard go on to say that the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes in the next 10 years is “a worthy and important goal [but] that cannot come at the expense of democratic planning at a local level. As we ramp up efforts to create affordable and accessible homes, we must ensure residents are included in the design of our communities. Their voices matter.”
“At a minimum, we would ask your government to compensate community groups for their costs with OLT appeals that had been incurred while following due process, yet now have been retroactively denied in the weeks after Bill 185 came into force,” they conclude.
To the Government of Ontario, the $10,000 that GCA incurred may be a pittance but the reality is that this amount is approximately the total expenditure of the community association in an average year. Similarly, the $500 contribution of the Old Ottawa East Community Association (OOECA) is about a quarter of the funds raised annually through the membership campaign so that the cancelled appeal constitutes a real financial blow.
The GCA followed due process in good faith,” says Alexandra Gruca-Macaulay, chair of OOECA’s Lansdowne committee. “It is not simply a matter of ‘community voices’ not being heard, but that appeals functioned as a check and balance on possible corrupt practices.”
