After a week of debate and hearing from hundreds of speakers both for and against, Edmonton city council approved Monday a new zoning bylaw.
The bylaw, introducing the first new significant changes in decades, allows infill housing to be built on any residential lot in Edmonton, reduce the need for rezonings because the city said more zones will be permissible.
The bylaw also encourages small restaurants, coffee shops and retail stores to open next to houses in neighbourhoods.
Coun. Andrew Knack noted while the bylaw has been in the news in recent weeks, it’s been a work in progress for about a decade now as the city changes how it grows.
“We’ve said we’re no longer going to grow out as a city, we’re not going to annex any more land. So we have to grow within our boundaries.”
The bylaw also proposes that dense housing be allowed on any lot in the city, with some zones allowing infill and small apartments and others allowing highrises.
“We’ve talked about trying to build more complete communities, to give people more choice in where they’re going to live, how they’re going to move throughout the city, what they can access in their communities,” Knack added. “So for me, this is about making sure we’re putting that vision into life through this series of rules.”
Knack said change won’t happen overnight, as some communities have existed under the same zoning for more than four decades.
“This is meant to be a gradual change forward that will allow greater choice, greater freedom for people in how they want to live, where they want to live, and what their life will look like each day.”
Mayor Amarjeet Sohi said Edmonton is the fastest-growing municipality in Canada and the city needs to have a variety of housing.
He noted the city can’t afford to keep building out with more suburb neighbourhoods — providing transit, clearing roads, servicing more urban sprawl — which he said also doesn’t meet the needs of some people looking for housing who can’t afford the average $13,000 annual cost of owning a private vehicle.
“We don’t have sustainable modes of transportation in those communities, which we need to build, absolutely. But we do have existing infrastructure in existing neighbourhoods where buses run on or more frequently, you have active modes of transportation,” Sohi said.
“So we need to encourage that density in order to better utilize that.”
Livia Balone, director of the zoning bylaw initiative, said the changes will make it easier for Edmontonians and builders to get permits.
The bylaw won’t come into effect until Jan. 1, 2024, but the city said developers can begin applying now in anticipation of it.
“We will see some change our neighbourhoods. It’ll be a gradual change where we can see a mix of housing, row housing, semi-detached housing, some small apartments and we’ll also see some more mixed use where people can access, you know, the daily amenities that they need — maybe a doctor’s office or a library or a grocery store,” Balone said.
All three readings passed with no amendments on Monday, although councillors Jennifer Rice and Karen Principe opposed the bylaw.
After hearing concerns from the public last week, on Monday some city councillors proposed about two dozen subsequent motions that could see future changes to the bylaw framework.
Some of those motions included the height of infill developments next to bungalows, disincentivizing single-detached housing, protection of heritage structures, improving housing for student, use of zoning compliance officers, more regulation of supervised consumption sites and limits on supportive housing, rules for garages on the back of homes, protection of greenery, parking rules, and a review of allowing a maximum of eight units on a single lot.
“The zoning bylaw is a living document. It’s not meant to be static. We know that it’s going to evolve and change over time,” Balone said.
During last week’s public hearing, 293 speakers spoke about the new proposed zoning system: 134 in favour, 159 opposed.
Knack said to his knowledge, council has never had a public hearing that long — nor has it had such an even split of people for and against an idea.
Those for change cited affordability and feeling priced out of the market with the current housing choices. Those against expressed concerns about radical changes to their neighbourhoods.
“Neither of those perspectives are wrong, in fact, they’re both very valid,” Knack said.
“It’s a matter of, how do you try to find that right balance of respecting those that still live in the mature neighbourhoods — who have been in there for a long time — while at the same time recognizing there are many people who feel like they can’t live in every part of the city.”
Kevin Taft is with the Coalition for Better Infill and feels the bylaw doesn’t adequately address affordability or sustainability.
“Fundamentally, the bylaw is a big set of concessions to developers at the cost of neighbourhoods. We think neighbourhoods deserve more,” Taft said.
“We weren’t saying throw the bylaw out — we were saying make it better.”
“There were a whole host of proposed amendments around increased energy performance from buildings, tree protection, better heritage protection, those kinds of issue,” Taft said. “None of that seemed to hold much water with this council, because this council over and over and over defers to developers.”
On Friday, Coun. Karen Principe moved to delay the decision six months so city administration could do further public engagement and hear more on heritage preservation, energy efficiency, aging in place, separation of services such a supervised consumption sites and adequate green space for the population.
Principe said last week she wanted the ideas and concerns presented by the nearly 300 speakers to be taken into consideration. That motion to delay was defeated. On Monday, she voted against passing the bylaw but hopes some of the proposed amendments will address those concerns.
“I’m hoping that will have some positive contribution to the zoning bylaws,” Principe said.
Taft believes the city needed to go back to the drawing board for another year after last week’s public hearing but instead, will see how the amendments play out.
“Most of them look pretty minor to me. Some of them are important,” he said, noting it’s important new homes needs to be constructed with awareness for the existing buildings in the area.
“But in terms of addressing the bigger issues, I’m not convinced it’s going to be there.”
Comments