Olde Berlin Town Rezoned

A review by Hal Jaeger

At long last, the process to re-zone Olde Berlin Town (and the downtown and other surrounding neighbourhoods) came to an end in the early hours of Tuesday, March 19, 2024. 

If you, dear neighbour, are looking for a quick summary, you may appreciate the following statement shared by the City:

Kitchener takes bold action on housing with Growing Together plan and inclusionary zoning bylaw
Kitchener Council has adopted two major tools to address the housing crisis. The first is the Growing Together plan, a policy framework that builds on Kitchener’s role as a national leader in addressing the housing crisis. The second is inclusionary zoning, which allows cities to require private developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units within new, multi-unit housing developments. Growing Together enables more than 100,000 new homes in all shapes and sizes. This includes as many as 4,500 affordable units secured through inclusionary zoning, and at least 20,000 new homes in “missing middle” forms. Read the full release here.

If you seek more details and an explanation of the late-stage turns and conclusion, my account follows.

My role in this matter began when Kitchener initiated the Neighbourhood Planning (Secondary Plan) Review in December 2018.  (A Secondary Plan permits more detailed planning in a specific area, to address local matters while remaining consistent with the Official Plan.)  As a member of the Olde Berlin Town Neighbourhood Association Development Committee, I accepted the file of interfacing with the review process.

In 2019, we alerted the neighbourhood and held eight drop-in sessions to discuss the proposed changes.  We then submitted a 16-page response to the City’s first draft, and a 36-page response to the City’s second draft.  When the Staff Report proposal was considered at the December 2019 Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting, the turnout overflowed Council chambers, and there were too many delegations to be heard.  The Staff Report was deferred for further refinement.  Then, there was a pause on the process, compounded by the onset of Covid, as the Region of Waterloo defined the boundaries of the Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs, the lands within 500-800 metres of ION stops).  (During this pause, my role expanded beyond the neighbourhood Development Committee to address an Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment at 22 Weber St W.   The application addressed many of the core matters in the Secondary Plan review.)

In October 2021, in response to the Staff Update on the Neighbourhood Planning Review, we submitted a 6-page response.  With so few issues outstanding, I thought the project was nearing its end. 

The Growing Together Project

Then, in March 2023, in response to the Province’s Bill 23, the City announced the ‘Growing Together’ project to re-zone the lands within 7 of 10 of Kitchener’s MTSAs ION stops by April 2024 to include 18,000 new residential units by 2031. This much larger, much more complex project subsumed the Neighbourhood Planning Review.  Like most everyone, I supported the goal of properly accommodating all of Kitchener’s residents, and I saw plenty of surface parking lots, ‘underdeveloped’ lots, and other opportunities to accommodate a growing population.

In its well-publicized eponymous opening exercise, Growing Together invited participants to place model buildings on a map in pursuit of 18,000 new residential units in the 7 MTSAs.

Following consultations throughout the summer, the November 3, 2023, ‘Final Draft’ proposed to eliminate

• minimum parking requirements,
• Floor Space Ratio (a building’s floor space relative to land area) maximums,  and
• height restrictions on Strategic Growth Area 4 (SGA-4) zones,

and instantiate built-form regulations and transition provisions.  It introduced substantial upzoning and a wholly new planning structure to Kitchener – one which I may still not fully comprehend.

I remained supportive of the goal, and, as is often my concern, was keen to see it instantiated fairly.  In this vein, I saw access to daylight as a challenge for some Olde Berlin Town residents in low-rise housing near SGA-3 and -4 zones.  The heritage buildings in Olde Berlin Town are largely confined to the existing built form and roof lines.  How would we fairly transition to the lands to the south – those lands lying between the heritage builds and the sun — slated for so much more height?  How would the transition permit the heritage resources to remain viable?

Again, the built form regulations were held up as the solution.  I was told that 1) the progression of zones (from SGA-1 to SGA-2 to SGA-3 to and SGA-4) and the successive stepbacks as buildings rose higher would permit light to permeate and 2) shadow impacts are only one of many considerations in increasing housing supply and addressing climate change.  To better understand the proposal, I asked for a shadow study based on maximum building envelopes.  Unfortunately, this request was denied as not viable, perhaps for lack of time.  I hope the shadowing is less impactful than some of our worst fears. 

A late-stage challenge emerged in the form of commercial uses.  The Olde Berlin Town neighbourhood already allowed for commercial uses along Victoria, Weber, Water, and Queen (until Ellen) and a range of home-based occupations in the residential zones.  The Final Draft of Growing Together proposed to expand the range of commercial uses in the residential zones dramatically and to permit the businesses to be operated by persons living off-site.  We were faced with the prospect of banks, restaurants and brewpubs with patios, pawnshops, and payday loan establishments and more being permitted in residential areas that were slated to remain low-rise zones.  Ultimately, staff heard our appeals and retracted their proposal to insert banks, pawn shops, and payday loan establishments into the SGA-1 zones.

A Shift in My Thinking

My orientation took a major shift in January 2024.  First, during a frank conversation with a planner outside of the Growing Together team, I heard that the regulations in much of our 2019 zoning were “artificially low”, that they were intended as an opening negotiation with developers from whom the City wished to exact affordable housing and other community benefits in return for ‘bonused’ height and floorspace.  (This strategy collapsed when the Province removed the City’s capacity for bonusing in 2019, leading to many confusing planning outcomes in the last few years.)

Second, at the ‘first reading’ of Growing Together at the January 29^th, 2024 Planning and Strategic Initiative Committee (PSIC) meeting, I learned that the Growing Together project was intertwined with Inclusionary Zoning (IZ), the only policy framework that allows municipalities to require a degree of affordable housing within new private developments.  I had, of course, reviewed and commented on the IZ draft documents, but had not previously understood it to be a companion piece to Growing Together.

Yes, the proposed IZ program was meager by comparison with best practices elsewhere, but I believed it necessary to start with what could be obtained under our current Council and Province.  Insofar as it would put a 2-bedroom apartment within the budget of two people with incomes equivalent to full-time minimum wage, I saw it as a meaningful contribution.  My hope was that, once all parties witnessed the program’s success, the percentage of IZ units, the duration that the units could be required to stay affordable, and the locations in which the IZ program would apply could be expanded.  I also hoped that we could keep more people from falling out of housing and that vulnerable people moving on from Supportive and Community Housing would be able to find an affordable home.  I hoped we could implement IZ and then focus on other critically-needed measures to address our affordable housing crisis.

Until the January PSIC meeting, I had naively assumed the Growing Together and IZ proposals would sail through Council.  Growing Together was very generous to speculators and the development industry and provided for so much housing and growth.  The IZ program proposed to protect developers from potential losses and introduce IZ requirements so gradually that many affordable housing advocates (myself included) were pained by the number of potential IZ units sacrificed along the way.

The January 29^th meeting was a shocking wake-up call for me.

Developers argued that the proposed IZ policy was unfair, unaffordable, and being implemented too quickly. They warned that, if Council implemented IZ, their pro forma business plans would no longer satisfy lenders and investors. They called for Council to amend the Growing Together and IZ proposals so as to not impede needed housing.

Council appeared swayed.  They seemed to reject the research and guidance of the Staff Report.  The same old arguments brought forth in opposition to IZ programs for over 50 years seemed to have secured traction despite the research concluding that IZ programs have had very little or no impact on either production or price of housing (ultimately, the costs are passed back to the owners of land).  When Council deliberated, members questions and comments included:

• Won’t this limit growth?
• Can developers produce smaller units (300 SF)?
• Are our “lofty ideals” under Growing Together coming at the expense of roofs over heads?
• “This [policy direction] is just giving me a little cause for pause.”
• “My fear is that every storey that we don’t add near the downtown, will go into suburbia, in terms of infill, or even worse, outside the countryside line.”
• “We need to be really, really careful that we’re not going to reduce the number of homes that get built as a result of this [policy direction], and that we don’t increase the market rates of homes.”
• “From what I’ve heard from the development community, I wouldn’t be comfortable passing this [IZ policy].”

I believed our Growing Together and IZ programs to be at great risk.  I no longer felt as able to pursue small improvements to the Growing Together proposal, when the over-arching premise was being so questioned.  I would have felt it a terrible injustice to so upzone our city without making space for those ‘too wealthy’ to qualify for government support and ‘too poor’ to afford market rate rentals.  I felt compelled to shift my focus to ensuring that the programs would be implemented.

March 18^th, 2024 Council Meeting

It was in this spirit that I declared at the March 18, 2024 Council meeting that:
“I see much to appreciate in the Growing Together proposal.  I accept Project Manager Adam Clark’s statement that, ‘Through Growing Together, very significant capacity for growth is allowed.  To help mitigate the impacts of that very significant height and density, we are proposing built-form regulations.’
I see the proposed regulations on built-form as an honest attempt at fulfilling Provincial requirements to re-zone the MTSAs and accommodate additional residential units … I still feel the proposed upzoning in our city’s core imposes on the public realm and surrounding low-rise neighbours. But its pairing with Inclusionary Zoning makes the sacrifices much more palatable.”

I made my case for Inclusionary Zoning later that afternoon, alongside many others.  I am deeply grateful to all 530 signatories to the petition, the brilliant and courageous delegates who gave so much of their time to learn about a complicated policy and deliver their plea before Council, and the team that supported this effort.  Thank you.  You can watch the meeting and all the delegations here. 

The balance of the journey rested with Council.

Council did adopt Growing Together, albeit with several last-minute amendments against Staff’s advice, without the benefit of Staff’s analysis on matters that went beyond the public consultations.  One of the amendments may result in further loss of public realm and shadowing on Olde Berlin Town heritage resources and homes.

Council also, to my great surprise, voted unanimously in favour of the IZ program, despite members of Council’s continued assertions that the research on Inclusionary Zoning was inconclusive and anecdotal.  Thank you, Council.

Going forward, I plead to Council to not take decisions on matters that extend beyond the initial proposal without first re-setting the consultation process.  Council can always pass a resolution that calls for further investigation of any matter.  I also hope we can find a way to feel and express sympathy for all those displaced by growth and to make people whole after we break their eggs to make our omelet.

In conclusion, I am encouraged by

• the buildable floor space that permits housing of all our residents;
• the small but necessary step that Inclusionary Zoning contributes toward making housing more affordable;
• the better alignment of our Zoning Bylaw with Provincial directives, the Regional Official Plan and our City’s Official Plan;
• the improved transparency of our zoning;
• the incorporation of the Tall Building Guidelines into zoning;
• the substantial, gentle and human-scaled density achieved in the SGA-1 zone;
• the transition in built-form achieved from SGA-1 to SGA-2;
• the new criteria to be assessed in the consideration of a Minor Variance, Zoning Bylaw or Official Plan Amendment application (under Official Plan Section 15.D.2.5);

and other measures that I hope enable more predictable development. 

I extend many thanks to our Planning Staff.  Staff delivered a very substantial, complex program under unacceptably tight timelines.  They shared multiple drafts along the way.  They gave very generously of their time at multiple forums.  They reconsidered the extent of commercial uses to be introduced into SGA-1 zones.  And they withstood tremendous pressure from speculators, developers, Council, and perhaps from residents, too, holding to what they believed was fair and necessary. 

And many thanks also to you, dear neighbour, for following these difficult matters and weighing in along the way.  I appreciate your partnership in maintaining an active democracy via civic engagement.