Cedar Hill Land Use and Social Environment StudyAn Interim Control Land Use Planning Study Prepared for the City of Kitchener by T. Brock Stanley Ph.D, MCIP, RPP Pierre Filion Ph.D, MCIP, RPP Nick Neeley BA Hons.

February, 2005

Cedar Hill Land Use and Social Environment Study Table of Contents Preface 1. Recommendations 2. Introduction 3. Background 4. Study Purpose, Scope, Area, and Research Questions 4.1 Purpose 4.2 Scope 4.3 Area 4.4 Research Questions 5. Background Documents and Review of Some Current Studies 6. Historical Review Land Use Planning and Development Since 1960 7. Legislative, Policy and Zoning Context: Limitations and Constraints 7.1 Provincial Planning Act 7.2 Provincial Policy Statement 7.3 Regional Plan and Growth Management Strategy 8. Current Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, Zoning, and Land Use 8.1 Cedar Hill Secondary Plan 8.2 Zoning 8.3 Land Use 9. Comparative Analysis Census Data Inner City and City Wide 9.1 Population and Household Trends 9.2 Age Groups 9.3 Presence of Immigrants 9.4 Income 9.5 Household Mobility 9.6 Comparison Cedar Hill and Civic Centre Communities 9.7 High Density Dissemination Areas 9.8 Observations Emerging from the Analysis 10. Comparative Analysis Housing Mix, Density, Tenure and Zoning 10.1 Dwelling Type 10.2 Density 10.3 Tenure 10.4 Housing Mix Social/Assisted Housing 10.5 Zoning 10.6 Observations Emerging from the Analysis1

11. Comparative Analysis Property Values and Rental Rates 11.1 Market Value Assessment 11.2 Property Values 11.3 Rental Rates 11.4 Observations Emerging from the Analysis 12. Comparative Analysis By-Law Violations and Police Calls for Service 12.1 By-Law Violations 12.2 Police Calls for Service and Property Crime 12.3 Observations Emerging from the Analysis 13. Community Survey 14. Conclusions and Exploration Toward Corrective Action 14.1 Conclusions 14.2 Exploration Toward Corrective Action Bibliography Appendix A Documents 1. 2. 3. 4. Cedar Hill Interim Control By-Laws 2003-89 and 2004-85 Cedar Hill Study Steering Committee Members Cedar Hill Study Steering Committee Minutes Community Survey Questionnaire

Appendix B Maps 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Primary and Secondary Study Areas Cedar Hill Secondary Plan Cedar Hill Zoning By-Law 85-1 Cedar Hill Dwelling Types Kitchener Downtown Planning Communities Kitchener Census Dissemination Area Map Waterloo Regional Police Service Sector Maps

Appendix C Tables 4. Cedar Hill Land Use Study Comparative Property Value Study 11. Cedar Hill Community Survey 12. Community Survey Rating of Resident Responses 13. Community Survey Resident Response Differences 14. Community Survey Residents Views North and South2

List of Figures 1. Population: Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, Cedar Hill, 1991-2001 2. Population of Downtown Planning Communities and Cedar Hill, 1991-2001 Population of Cedar Hill, 1991-2001 Households: Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, Cedar Hill, 1996-2001 Households: Cedar Hill, 1996-2001 Household Size: Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, Cedar Hill, 1996-2001 Non-family Households as a Percent of All Households, Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, Cedar Hill, 19962001 Percent Age Groups Distribution, Cedar Hill, 2001 Percent Age Groups Distribution, Cedar Hill, 1991

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

10. Percent Distribution of Age Groups, Kitchener, Downtown Neighbourhoods, Cedar Hill, 2001 11. Percent of Distribution of Age Groups, Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, Cedar Hill, 1991 12. Non-Canadian Citizens as a Percent of all Residents: Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, Cedar Hill, 1991-2001 13. Average Household Income, Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, Cedar Hill, 1991-2001

3

14. Household Average Income, Downtown Planning Communities and Cedar Hill, as a Ratio of Kitchener-wide Values, 1991-2001 15. Percent Movers (5 Year Period), Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, Cedar Hill, 1996-2001 16. Population Change, Civic Centre and Cedar Hill, 1991-2001 17. Household Number Change, Civic Centre and Cedar Hill, 19962001 18. Age Group Distribution, Civic Centre and Cedar Hill, 2001 19. Highest Education Level, Civic Centre and Cedar Hill, 2001 20. Average Income, Civic Centre and Cedar Hill, 2001 21. Household Size, Civic Centre and Cedar Hill, 2001 22. Non-Family Households, Civic Centre and Cedar Hill, 2001 23. Non-Canadian Citizens, Civic Centre, Cedar Hill, 2001 24. Movers (5 years), Civic Centre and Cedar Hill, 2001 25. Dissemination Areas: Percent Representation of Different Socioeconomic Categories 26. Average Household Income, 2001 27. Dissemination Areas: Age Group Distribution 28. Percentiles Relative to 56 DAs with 75%+ Dwellings in Apartment Buildings 29. Percentiles Relative to 56 DAs with 75%+ Dwellings in Apartment Buildings 30. Percentiles Relative to 56 DAAs with 75% Dwellings in Apartment Buildings4

31. Percentage Multiple Dwellings (3 units +) By Community 2003 32. Percent Dwelling Type Civic Centre 33. Percent Dwelling Type King East 34. Percent Dwelling Type Cedar Hill 35. Percent Dwelling Type Mill Courtland 36. Percent Dwelling Type Victoria Park 37. Percent Dwelling Type Mount Hope 38. Percent Dwelling Type Central Frederick 39. Medium to High Rise Zoning Residential Density Factors By Community 2003 40. Residential Density Factors All Zones By Community 2003 41. Multiple Residential Density Factors Three Units And Above By Community 2003 42. Multiple Unit Residential Persons Per Unit By Community 43. Percent Absentee Landowners Single Detached to Four Plex by Community 2003 44. Percent Absentee Landowner Duplex Dwellings By Community 2003 45. Percentage Distribution of Zoned Area - Cedar Hill 2003 46. Percentage Distribution of Zoned Area - Civic Centre 2003 47. Percentage Distribution of Zoned Area - King East 2003

5

48. Single Detached Dwellings Assessed Market Value Comparison By Community 2003 49. Single Detached Dwellings Assessed Market Value Comparison By Community 2003 50. Single Detached Community 2003 Dwelling Parcel Size Comparison By

51. Comparative Single Detached Property Sales Values by Community 1999-2003 52. Comparative Single Detached Property Values by Community 53. Comparison Between 2003 Assessed Value per Property and Average 2003 Sales Value for Single Detached Dwellings by Community 54. Comparative Duplex Dwelling Property Value 55. Rental Rate Comparison (Number of Bedrooms) Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, 2004 56. Rental Rate Comparison (Unit Type) Kitchener, Downtown Planning Communities, 2004 57. By-Law Violations Per 100 Parcels 1999 By Community 58. By-Law Violations Per 100 Parcels 2001 By Community 59. By-Law Violations Per 100 Parcels 2003 By Community 60. Property Standards Violations Per 100 Parcels 1999 By Community 61. Property Standards Violations Per 100 Parcels 2001 By Community 62. Property Standards Violations Per 100 Parcels 2003 By Community6

63. Property Maintenance Violations Per 100 Parcels 1999 By Community 64. Property Maintenance Violations Per 100 Parcels 2001 By Community 65. Property Maintenance Violations Per 100 Parcels 2003 By Community 66. Total Waterloo Regional Police Calls Representative Community Sectors 2003 for Service by

67. Selected Waterloo Regional Police Calls for Service By Representative Community Sectors 2003 68. Seven Selected Waterloo Regional Police Calls for Service by Community 2003 69. Selected Property Crimes Per 100 Parcels By Community 2003

7

Preface: This study involved the participation and cooperation of a host of individuals each contributing to different but key components. I would like to thank each of them and to acknowledge their role in the study. Pierre Filion was responsible for Section 9 of the study undertaking the comparative analysis of census data of the downtown neighbourhoods. In addition, Pierre assisted in the Community Survey and provided valuable critique on the study. Nick Neeley, Research Assistant, carried out the Community Survey and summarized it into tables. Julie Dean, Safe City Coordinator, provided valuable comments and undertook the review of current studies. Cory Bluhm, Planner, prepared the Dwelling Types map of Cedar Hill. Christine Kompter, Administrative Assistant, arranged all of the meetings, distributed the agendas and minutes for the Steering Committee and copied the final report. Barb Fairbairn, Records Analyst; Lyn McNulty, Records Clerk; Sheryl Rice, Zoning Officer; and Lisa Thompson, Zoning Officer, provided historical zoning and official plan information, and group home and lodging house data. Mark Young and Chantelle Dixon both Student Planners undertook the rental rate survey and analysis. Nancy Steinfield, Mapping Technologist, and Erin Douglas, Information Technologist, from Mapping Services assisted in providing the data and prepared the maps for the study. Mike Hausser, Manager Database Administration and GIS, and Dianne Adams, Supervisor, GIS, provided the census data by community; as well as the property code and zoning data sets also by community. This is the first study to make use of these key data sets. Without their work in developing the GIS system over the last few years this study would not have been possible. In addition, development of the zoning data was made possible by the work of Janice Given, then Manager of Strategic Operations, together with Mapping Services. Hans Gross, Director of Project Administration and Economic Investment, and Robert Morgan, Economic Development Officer,8

together with Coldwell Banker Peter Benninger Realty undertook the Comparative Property Value Study. Margaret Gloade, Research Analyst/Planner, Research and Planning Branch, Waterloo Regional Police Service, and her staff provided the calls for service and property crime data including sector and community maps. In addition, Margaret was very helpful in providing an understanding of this data and commenting on the use of it in the study. Any conclusions drawn with respect to this data are mine alone. Rob Horne, Director of Housing for the Region, provided data on Waterloo Region Housing. Finally, I would like to thank the Steering Committee Members listed in Appendix A. They provided a critical and valuable sounding board for the study.

9

1.

Recommendations: (1) That, while not applicable within the time frame related to the expiry of the Interim Control By-law, the City of Kitchener monitor changes and progress related to Provincial implementation of Section 70.2 of the Planning Act, Development Permit System, and associated Ontario Regulations. (2) That consideration be given by City Council to amend Zoning ByLaw 85-1 to add a Special Use Provision to prohibit any new duplex or multiple dwellings, in all zones within the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, with the exception of those in the Mixed Use Corridor and on the Arrow Lofts property; as well as within those zones in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Secondary Plan that are covered by the Interim Control By-Law. (3) That consideration be given by City Council, in conjunction with Recommendation 2 above, to add a Special Policy to the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, with the exception of the Mixed Use Corridor and the Arrow Lofts property, and those portions of the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Secondary Plan that are covered by the Interim Control By-Law; stating that new duplex or multiple dwellings may be permitted subject to criteria as set out in the Plan. (4) That all uses defined under Section 4.2.198 of Zoning By-Law 851 as a Residential Care Facility, with the exception of nursing home, be subject to a minimum distance separation. (5) That the Major Institutional designation in Section 13.3.3.9 of the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan covering Cameron Heights Collegiate be amended so as to: (a) not permit a social service establishment (b) not permit a large residential care facility. The designation would continue to permit a small residential care facility in keeping with the Secondary Plan Special Policy 13.3.4.5. (6) That Zoning By-law 85-1 be amended to add Special Use Provisions and Special Regulation 136R to implement Recommendations 5(a) and 5(b) above. (7) That the Community Institutional designation in Section 13.3.3.8 of the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan and its application to 136 and 138 Madison Avenue South be replaced with the designation of10

Low Density Commercial Residential as is the case for the Waterloo Regional Roman Catholic Separate School Board and St. Josephs Church lands in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Secondary Plan. (8) That the Holding Provisions in Section 13.3.3.8 of the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan also be amended to reflect the designation of Low Density Commercial Residential so as to delete reference to, a social service establishment, and Secondary Plan Special Policy 13.3.4.5. so as to delete a large residential care facility. The designation would continue to permit a small residential care facility in keeping with the Secondary Plan Special Policy 13.3.4.5. (9) That Zoning By-law 85-1 be amended to rezone the properties at 136 and 138 Madison Avenue South to either CommercialResidential CR-1 or Neighbourhood Institutional I-1, together with Special Regulation 136R and any required rewording of Holding Provisions 3 and 5. (10) That the Community Institutional I-2 zoning on the Waterloo Regional Roman Catholic Separate School Board and St. Josephs Church lands be rezoned to either Commercial-Residential CR-1 or Neighbourhood Institutional I-1, together with Special Regulation 136R and any required rewording of Holding Provision 3. (11) That the Medium Density Commercial Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Commercial Residential and Low Density Conservation designations in the Mill Courtland Secondary Plan be amended on those properties fronting onto the north side of Courtland Avenue between Benton Street and Stirling Avenue to incorporate a Special Policy to prohibit new large residential care facilities and that zoning By-law 85-1 be amended to incorporate Special Regulation 136R to implement the Special Policy. (12) That zoning By-law 85-1 be amended to incorporate minimum distance separation provisions for lodging houses into the R-9 Residential and CR-2 and CR-3 Commercial-Residential Zones. (13) That the City of Kitchener review whether it is necessary to incorporate minimum distance separation provisions for lodging houses having 9 or more residents in the R-7, R-8, and R-9 Residential Zones and in the CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 CommercialResidential Zones.

11

(14) That, as part of the implementation of the Regional Growth Management Strategy, the City of Kitchener and the Cedar Hill Community work closely with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in the preparation of the new Regional Official Policies Plan and the Regional Human Resources Strategic Plan to ensure that the future delivery of social services will reflect a close alignment between physical planning decisions and with those in other programming and planning areas, particularly human services; and be integrated with community development, increased quality of life elements, access to social programs, equality of services, and generators of community identity for the region and for each community. (15) That the City of Kitchener, together with the Region of Waterloo and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, explore the development of a Home Ownership Assistance Program designed to assist in the purchase of existing small rental duplex, triplex, fourplex and fiveplex properties in Cedar Hill on the condition that they will become owner-occupied rental properties and thereby reduce the percentage of absentee landownership of such properties in the community. This should include a program designed to educate and assist small owner-occupied rental property owners in best practice property management and rental entrepreneur skills. (16) That the City of Kitchener continue to place a high priority on Property Standards and By-law Enforcement within the Cedar Hill Community and that the Director of Enforcement continue to participate and be active in Community based Landlord, Property Maintenance and By-law Enforcement groups. (17) That the City of Kitchener increase its financial assistance for home improvement in the Cedar Hill Community by providing additional funding for that communitys Faade Improvement Loan Program together with increased marketing of the program in the Community; as well as marketing of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP). (18) That the City of Kitchener continue to provide financial assistance and at an increased level to the Cedar Hill Community for the support of Community Development programs and projects.

12

(19) That the City of Kitchener explore the development of Community Economic Development programs within the Cedar Hill Community. (20) That the City of Kitchener develop and introduce regulations dealing with front and back yard parking. (21) That the City of Kitchener implement the new standard for street lighting for Residential Streets and Laneways based on pedestrian scale and metal halide lighting as part of any new street related public works projects undertaken within Cedar Hill. (22) That the City of Kitchener proceed with the second phase of the Cedar Hill Study: Phase II Multifaceted Social Impact Analysis. 2. Introduction

This is a land use planning policy study, pursuant to Section 38 of The Planning Act, and is directed toward a study of the current social and physical environment of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood and a review of the past and present land use planning policies and practices that have shaped and impacted that neighbourhood over the last number of decades to culminate in the current situation. This situation has manifested itself in a social environment that is felt by many to be detrimental to the community well being of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood. This study recognizes, at the outset, that land use planning policies as they are to be found in and established through the Official Plan and Cedar Hill Secondary Plan and as implemented through zoning and property standards bylaws, are there primarily to manage and direct physical change and the effects on the social environment of the municipality or part of it (Sec. 16 of The Planning Act ). Accordingly, this study will have its initial focus on those land use planning policies and bylaws, including their enforcement, that are identified as having effects on the social environment. While formulation of corrective action, as noted above, will focus on those land use planning policies and bylaws, including their enforcement, that are within Kitcheners mandate this will not preclude consideration of other actions and recommendations arising from the study provided these are supported by the data and conclusions of the study. This is not the first time that the City of Kitchener has undertaken a review of land use planning policies in a neighbourhood followed by a corrective change in zoning designed to address the communitys social issues and13

deteriorating social environment. In July, 1977 in response to neighbourhood concerns regarding the deteriorating social environment in the Centreville neighbourhood, the City initiated a detailed analysis of the neighbourhood in comparison to other neighbourhoods with respect to density, housing mix, tenure, mobility, income, families receiving social assistance and adequacy of services. At the OMB hearing in May, 1979 the social problems in the area were linked to police calls for service data and the need for better property standards enforcement. In approving the change in zoning, the Board praised the City for stressing the relationship of people planning with land use planning. It is also recognized that some of the issues related to the social environment experienced by the Cedar Hill neighbourhood, are issues also shared and experienced to a greater or lesser extent by other downtown neighbourhoods. While that may be the case, what this study will seek to test is whether, in comparison to other Kitchener downtown neighbourhoods, Cedar Hill has a disproportionate share of factors giving rise to these issues and has reached and/or exceeded its capacity/threshold to absorb further impacts while continuing to maintain an acceptable quality of life and community wellbeing. 3. Background

On May 12, 2003 Kitchener City Council based on the recommendations of DTS Report 03-077 passed a resolution directing that a review or study be undertaken in respect of land use planning policies relating to social issues affecting the Cedar Hill area. This was followed by passage of Interim Control Bylaw 2003-89 under Section 38(1) of The Planning Act which basically prohibited the use of land, buildings or structures for a residential care facility, a lodging house, a multiple dwelling, or a social service establishment within the area generally bounded by Charles Street, Madison Avenue, Courtland Avenue and Benton Street. The initial Interim Control Bylaw expired on May 12, 2004. In anticipation of this, the Interim Control Bylaw was amended under Section 38(2) of The Planning Act on May 3, 2004 by By-law 2004-085 to extend the period of time the bylaw will be in effect for one more year to May 11, 2005. This provided sufficient time to undertake and complete this study.

14

4.

Study Purpose, Scope, Area and Research Questions

4.1 Study Purpose The study purpose is to undertake a comprehensive review of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood in respect of: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) land use planning policies pursuant to Section 38 of The Planning Act, housing mix, tenure, residential care facilities and supportive and/or assisted housing within the neighbourhood, social service agency distribution, location and client placement practice within the neighbourhood, police calls for service and by-law violations, the state of the social environment, implications and/or impacts on the Cedar Hill neighbourhood arising from 1, 2, 3, and 4 above on community well being and the state of the social environment, formulation of corrective action to mitigate such impacts.

(7)

4.2 Study Scope The scope of the study will encompass a review and analysis of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood in comparison to other Kitchener downtown neighbourhoods including Victoria Park, Mount Hope Huron Park, Civic Centre, Central Frederick, King East and Mill Courtland Woodside Park. The study will not undertake an analysis of Cedar Hill in relation to neighbourhoods in other municipalities.

4.3 Study Area The study area will comprise a primary area and a secondary area (see Map 1, Appendix B). The primary study area will include that portion of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood covered by Interim Control Bylaw 2003-89 and as such is the area bounded by Charles Street East to the north, Madison Avenue South to the east including all of the properties fronting onto the east side of Madison Avenue South between Courtland Avenue East and Charles Street East, Courtland Avenue East to the south and Benton Street to the15

west. Accordingly, the primary area also includes those properties fronting onto the north side of Courtland Avenue between Benton and Stirling that are within the Mill-Courtland Woodside Park Neighbourhood. The secondary area will comprise the Cedar Hill Planning Community as defined by the City of Kitchener (see Maps 1 and 5, Appendix B). This area is also consistent with the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood boundary. As such, it extends beyond the primary area boundaries in two locations. On the east, it extends the boundary to Stirling Avenue and on the west to Queen Street South between St. George Street and the rear of the properties fronting onto Courtland Avenue. Moreover, those properties fronting onto Courtland Avenue East between Stirling Avenue and Benton Street are excluded; as are a few properties fronting onto Stirling Avenue just north of Courtland Avenue East. These excluded properties fall into the Mill-Courtland Woodside Park Neighbourhood. Any comparison of Cedar Hill with other Kitchener downtown neighbourhoods will be on the basis of this secondary area. A further study area within Cedar Hill will be considered, that being the higher density area generally bounded by Benton Street, Charles Street, Cedar Street, and the rear of the properties fronting onto the south side of Church Street ( Generally the limits of Settlement Policy Area B as shown on the Secondary Plan dated Oct. 2000). This area will be discussed from time to time in the study and will be referred to as Northwest Cedar Hill. Where possible and meaningful, comparisons between Cedar Hill and the other identified downtown neighbourhoods will also be made on the basis of similar higher density areas in these other neighbourhoods. It is recognized that such comparisons may not always be possible due to data limitations. 4.4 Research Questions (1) Compared to other Kitchener downtown neighbourhoods, does Cedar Hill have a disproportionately greater share of multiple dwellings, community/non-profit housing, co-op housing, lodging houses, social service agency operated housing, assisted housing, residential care facilities, tenant occupied absentee owner housing, social service establishments, or zoned properties permitting such uses? Compared to other Kitchener downtown neighbourhoods, does Cedar Hill have a disproportionately greater number of police16

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

calls for service and property standards and zoning violations? Compared to other Kitchener downtown neighbourhoods, does Cedar Hill have lower property values for comparable properties? Compared to other Kitchener downtown neighbourhoods, does Cedar Hill have a lesser degree of community well being as measured by selected census data and a community survey of selective community indicators looking at community well being, satisfaction, quality of life, social relationships, and the state of the social environment? Can community well being and the state of the social environment be linked to the results from research questions 1 to 4 above?

5.

Background Documents and Review of Some Current Studies

The literature covering various aspects of this study is extensive. Time and study monetary resources make it impossible to review all of the material that one might consider to be relevant. A review of the literature clearly shows that social environment and quality of life issues in Cedar Hill related to uses in the Interim Control By-law, particularly residential care facilities and supportive housing, are by no means unique but are experienced by communities across Canada and the United States. In 2002, the City of Kitchener prepared the Cedar Hill Action Plan Social Issues report that identified concerns of the Cedar Hill Community and suggested corrective courses of action. Relevant concerns identified included: Eliminate or reduce criminal activity in neighbourhood, Loitering, undesirable behaviour, Fear of expansion and proliferation of social agencies and housing, Too many absentee landlords, Too many lodging houses in neighbourhood, Lodging house licensing not strict enough, Property standards takes too long, ineffective, and Paving of front lawns for parking.

17

This study represents the initial work to identify social issues in Cedar Hill and to suggest corrective action. In terms of this Interim Control Study, the most relevant of these courses of action focused on: Explore implication of 400 metre separation for lodging houses; Create a no zone (area wide prohibition) where there would be no lodging houses, on group homes, no residential care; Review land use categories/districts to discourage speculation, transitional uses, and absentee landlords; Protect existing housing stock until neighbourhood develops as planned by proactive enforcement or other actions; Promote land uses offering long term stability rehabilitation of existing housing stock; and Prohibition of paving of front lawns. In Rebuilding a neighbourhood: Housing and comprehensive community development (Deane, 2004) provides an assessment of Winnipegs North End Housing Project (NEHP) programs which targeted three of the lowest income neighbourhoods of the city. The NEHP focused on the neighbourhood housing market as the critical determinant of the socioeconomic makeup of the neighbourhood. The article provides a descriptive model of the link between housing market and the community socioeconomic makeup: Low income communities may become caught in a self-reinforcing cycle of physical and structural decline. As property values fall, property owners face a decision about whether to invest their scarce resources in needed maintenance. If one or two properties begin to show symptoms of neglect, it sends a signal to the local housing market that the entire neighbourhood may be beginning to decline. Such market signals may cause property values to fall further, and in turn diminish incentives to carry out needed maintenance. The cycle Thus becomes compounding and self-reinforcing. As properties age and wear out their values decline. As property values fall, they discourage maintenance. The resulting neglect further depresses property values and the cycle reinforces itself. As neighbourhoods gain a reputation for social stress and human problems, and as the community has difficulty in addressing collective needs, its social profile has an impact on property values. Thus,18

physical symptoms of decline impact the social fabric of the community, and social character of the nieghbourhood spurs further physical decline. To arrest this process of decline, the NEHP employed three integrated approaches. First, the NEHP renovated a critical mass (73) of housing in clusters in an effort to arrest declining housing prices within the neighbourhood. An empirical study of multiple listing prices showed that price increases rose much greater in the renovation areas compared to surrounding neighbourhoohs, and the city as a whole. Homeowners in the community have begun to renovate their properties in the belief that rising housing values will repay their investments. Second, NEHP placed an emphasis on Community Development designed to build important social networks to assist the community in becoming selfreliant. Third, within the context of Community Economic Development NEPH implemented a rent-to-own long term home ownership model designed to increase the local circulation of income by closing income leakages, i.e., by capturing rent that normally would have leaked out of the community to absentee landlords. The home ownership approach allowed residents to capture some $379,000 annually in rental charges. Also very relevant to the issue of community economic development and the reduction of absentee ownership in small rental properties is the (Chantel and Wexler, 2004) paper on Homeownership strategies: An integral part of neighbourhood revitalization. This paper reviews the Montreal Domi-cible program initiated in 2001 to assist modest income buyers to purchase small rental properties. The link between improved street lighting and crime prevention was looked at by (Painter and Farrington, 1999). Their study demonstrated that improved street lighting was followed by significant decreases in the prevalence and incidence of crime; as well as in improved perceptions of the neighbourhood. Moreover, cost-benefit analysis showed that the tangible savings from crimes prevented more than paid off the full capital costs of the improved lighting within one year.

19

Three papers, (McKenzie, 2004), (Walker and Seasons, 2002), and (Rog and Holupka, 1998), assess supportive housing in Canada and the United States. They discus the concept and role of supportive housing and stress the rising importance of this approach as the preferred and increasingly used housing strategy for the homeless, special needs groups, and the mentally ill. Walker and Seasons, 2002 touch on the issue of concentration in the inner city and community opposition. While acknowledging that concentration in the inner city does occur they fail to address the impacts of this concentration.

Galster, George C. The Impacts of Supportive Housing on Neighborhoods and Neighbors: Final Report. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2000 and Galster, G. et.al. The Impact of Supportive Housing On Neighborhood Crime Rates, Journal of Urban Affairs, 2002 provide the most conclusive insight with respect to the impact of supportive housing, including residential care facilities, on neighbourhoods in relation to the size and over concentration of such facilities. These studies a lengthy and complex, accordingly, only the direct relevant findings a outlined in this review. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development study looked at the impact of supportive housing on neighbourhood property values and crime rates. Supportive housing in this study included small group homes, larger institutions and apartment-based living. Key relevant finding of the study included the following:

If neighbors perceived that an area was already saturated with supportive and/or subsidized housing, their opposition to further increments of such would be intensified. Some developers with whom we spoke explicitly sought to avoid areas with concentrations of extant supportive facilities for precisely this reason.

The head of a group operating several large-scale shelters and transitional facilities recognized the neighborhood disruptions caused by behavioral problems of some of their residents in the past, and learned to better screen and strengthen their case management efforts as a result. Overall, the study found that the set of eleven supportive housing facilities analyzed for the price impact analysis was20

associated with a positive impact on house prices in the surrounding neighborhood. In general, the area within 1,001 to 2,000 feet of any supportive housing analysis site experienced both an increase in general level of prices and upward trend in house prices relative to the prices of similar homes not near such facilities. This reversed a relative decline in house prices (compared to elsewhere in the census tract) that existed in these areas prior to the presence of the supportive housing site. These results were produced by a set of small-scale, special care facilities, with no large sites, correctional facilities, or homeless shelters included. (More methodologically sophisticated statistical studies showed that supportive housing for the chronically mentally ill can create harmful effects on proximate property values. (Galster, G., et.al. 2002 p. 292.)

Regarding crime impacts during the 1990-1997 period for the set of 15 facilities analyzed, there were no differences in the rates of any type of reported offenses between areas where supportive housing was developed and in other, control areas in Denver. Moreover, we found no statistically significant differences in the rates of reported violent, property, criminal mischief, and total crimes before and after a supportive facility opened, at any distance. The study did, however, identify a strong direct relationship between the rate of disorderly conduct reports and 500 foot proximity to a supportive site. The increase in the rate of such reports was greater the larger the number of supportive beds in the vicinity. Unlike the aforementioned price impacts, these crime impacts were statistically significant and of comparable magnitude in most strata analyzed. There was a pattern that suggested, however, that supportive housings effect on increasing disorderly conduct reports was greater in the lower-valued neighborhoods.

Galster, G. et.al. The Impact of Supportive Housing On Neighborhood Crime Rates, 2002, found the following key findings using a statistically complex econometric model to study the impact of supportive housing in Denver:

Larger facilities ( those having 53 residents or more) evidenced statistically significant increases in total and violent crime reports

21

within 500 feet and criminal mischief within 501 to 1,000 feet after opening.

The weight of the statistical and focus group evidence suggests that it was not the residents of these large facilities who were perpetrators of crime. Rather, the evidence suggests that large facilities attract more crime because they provide a mass of prospective victims and/or eroded the collective efficacy of the neighborhood. (Collective efficacy at the neighborhood level refers to the social cohesion present among neighbors and their capacity to enforce norms of civil, lawful behavior through informal social controls).

With respect to implication the study concludes: Although we can, therefore, make no claims about the consequences of a denser spatial clustering of facilities, a scattered-site supportive housing strategy involving small-scale facilities seems unlikely to produce any statistical impact on crime nor for that matter, ant negative reactions from nearby homeowners. It thus behooves developers of supportive housing to identify contexts in which supportive housing facilities are likely to yield these neutral impacts for their environs, instead of behaving purely opportunistically and acquiring properties that might serendipitously present themselves on the market, regardless of scale or concentration effects (Galster G. et. al., 2002 p. 312) 6. Historical Review Land Use Planning and Development Since 1960

The purpose of this section is to undertake an historical review of past land use planning policies and practices that have shaped and impacted the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood since the early 1960s. By undertaking such a review it is hoped that some light will be shed on how such policies and practices have contributed to the current situation. Restricted Area By-law 4830 was put in place some forty years ago in October 1962. This zoning by-law and its amendments, particularly the addition and imposition of Section 19B Density Control (DC Zoning), basically set the zoning and land use pattern for the neighbourhood for the next 30 years. The majority of the neighbourhood was zoned R2 Semi22

Restricted Residential permitting single family dwellings, lodging houses, and multiple dwellings except semi-detached, duplex and row dwellings. Multiple dwellings could develop to a density of approximately 40 units per acre provided the required lot size was assembled (5,000 sq. ft. for the first dwelling unit plus 1,000 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit in the same building). Examples of apartments built in Cedar Hill under this zoning include: 111 Madison Ave. South, built in 1962 14 units 119 Madison Ave. South, built in 1963 40 units 119 Cedar Street South, built in 1991/92 14 units It is important to note that such apartments under the R2 zone could have been built anywhere in Cedar Hill provided the developer consolidated sufficient parcels to meet the required site area and frontage. In addition, lands fronting onto Charles Street (then Alma Street) near Benton were zoned C5 Commercial Manufacturing. This zone permitted offices, apartments, institutional uses, and an extensive list of quasi commercial light industrial manufacturing uses. Subsequently, R3 General Residential Zoning was applied to the area along Charles Street between Cedar Street and Cameron Heights and extending down Madison past St. George Street on the east side. This zone permitted residential and lodging houses plus a wide variety of institutional uses including a: church, convent, monastery, college, university, art gallery, auditorium, library, museum, community centre, stadium, club, YM/WCA, health clinic, hospital, orphanage, private tennis or lawn bowling, funeral home, day care, or similar uses. In 1967, Section 19B Density Control (DC Zoning) for Multiple Residential Units was added to By-law 4830. DC zoning could be applied to any zone permitting multiple dwellings including R2, C3, and C5 Zones. While the regulations for DC zoning are complex it basically permitted high rise high density apartment development at 100 units plus per acre with no height restrictions. In Cedar Hill, DC zoning was applied to the C5 Zoning along Charles Street (then Alma Street) and to the large R2 zoned area extending from Charles Street southward to the rear property line of those properties fronting onto the north side of St. George Street and extending generally eastward to Cedar Street. This zoning permitted the development of high rise high density apartment buildings in Cedar Hill including:23

221 Queen Street South, built in 1968 158 units 86 Cedar Street South, built in 1972 75 units (now 77 units) 74 Church Street, built in 1974 60 unit seniors apartment 81 Church Street, built in 1975 145 units DC (Density Control) zoning was progressively removed from its application to the downtown neighbourhoods in concert with the completion of the individual neighbourhood Secondary Plans, first in Civic Centre in 1984 and then in Victoria Park and Cedar Hill in August, 1987. The Downtown Urban Renewal Scheme Concept Plan of 1967 designated the area bounded generally by St. George, Benton, and Charles, to a depth of at least five properties; as well, as the frontage along Queen Street between Joseph and Courtland for High Density Residential at 150 persons per acre. The remainder of Cedar Hill was designated for Medium Density at greater than R2 Semi-Restricted Zoning densities (100+ persons per acre). When one compares both the Urban Renewal Concept Plan and the zoning of By-law 4830, including DC Density Control, as they were applied to all or portions of the what we now call Civic Centre, Central Frederick, Victoria Park, and Cedar Hill neighbourhoods, it is clear that both urban renewal planning and zoning as far back as the 1960s, i.e., forty years ago, saw Cedar Hill as an area of high density and as the downtown neighbourhood having the greatest area extent of such high density designation and zoning. Planning in the 1960s set the basic land use and density pattern for Cedar Hill for 30 years until full implementation of the Secondary Plan in 1994. While this historical review begins in the 1960s it is important to appreciate that the House of Friendship has been a part of the Cedar Hill Community since 1949 at 23 Alma Street, now Charles Street. In July, 1963 the House of Friendship purchased 19 Alma Street to provide staff housing, office and food storage space. By 1968, the need for an expanded hostel saw the House of Friendship purchase 27 Charles Street and apply for a zone change to permit the new facility at that location. This served the needs of the House of Friendship for the next decade. The planning of the sixties was to a large extent carried through and cemented into the draft City Official Plan prepared in the early 1970s and initially adopted by Council in 1972. After further public input this plan was24

adopted by By-law in June, 1974. Formation of Regional government in 1973 saw the introduction of a two-tiered system of planning between the local and Regional level. Kitcheners new official plan had to be put on hold pending preparation and Provincial approval of the Regional Official Policies Plan which occurred in December, 1976. The new two-tiered planning system would require that before Kitcheners new Official Plan could be approved by the Province it would have to be brought into conformity with the Regional Plan to meet the requirements of the Region of Waterloo Act. This was completed in 1977, with the City Plan being approved by the Province in 1979. With the exception of the Civic Centre Secondary Plan, this created a five year delay in the commencement of secondary planning for the Citys downtown neighbourhoods. Moreover, with the exception of the required changes to meet the test of conformity to the Regional Plan no other changes to the 1974 Plan were made. This requirement of conformity meant that a number of key policies in the Regional Plan which would have significant long term implications for, and impact on, the secondary planning of downtown neighbourhoods were required to be incorporated into the City Official Plan. The most significant of these were Regional Settlement Policy Areas B and C. Policy Area C defined the downtown, while Policy Area B defined a corridor extending through the centre of the three cities where concentrations of higher density residential and higher intensity commercial, industrial, office, institutional and public uses may be located, and where a public transit system may be provided by the Region. The Regional Plan required that these Policy Areas had to be defined more precisely in the local Official Plans. The essential implication of these policies for Kitcheners Official Plan was that the Downtown designation of City Commercial Core had to be identified as falling within Policy Area C, and areas within the abutting neighbourhoods falling within Policy Area B had to be designated in the City Official Plan as Restricted Commercial Residential. Moreover, each secondary plan, including Cedar Hill, was required, with some restricted latitude for interpretation, to delineate the limits of Regional Settlement Policy Area B in the secondary plan and to provide for higher density residential and higher intensity commercial uses within these defined limits. In Cedar Hill, the limit of Policy Area B is shown in the Secondary Plan on Map 2, Appendix B. It generally follows the initial area zoned for DC

25

Density Control in By-Law 4830 and designated City Commercial Core and Restricted Commercial Residential in the City Official Plan. In conclusion, the planning decisions of the 60s and early 70s were essentially fixed in place by the Regional Plan and the initial 1974 Kitchener Official Plan. The general pattern of land use and density for those lands in Cedar Hill, within Settlement Policy Area B as defined in the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, was therefore determined 40 years ago and, for the most part, with the exception of some changes made in 1994, has remained unchanged since that time. The Civic Centre Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, in 1983, was the first Board Hearing to deal with the relationships between the Regional Official Policies Plan, the City Official Plan, and the Citys first Secondary Plan. Basically, the decision of the Board at that time, upholding the imposition of Settlement Policy Area B by the Regional Plan removed any possibility for changes to higher density residential or higher intensity commercial designated areas or reductions in density or intensity within these areas that might have come forward in the secondary plan process as was originally intended in the 1974 City Official Plan. As noted above, Kitchener, with the exception of Civic Centre, started the Secondary Planning Process in 1979 and at that time also defined, with the assistance of neighbourhood residents, the boundaries of each of the downtown neighbourhoods which were endorsed by Council and became the formal community planning boundaries. For Cedar Hill, these initial boundaries, as they do today, extended out to Charles Street. It is important, however, to appreciate that the 1974 and the approved 1979 Kitchener Official Plan designated that portion of Cedar Hill between Benton and Cedar and between Charles and the rear of the properties fronting onto to the north side of St. George Street, i.e. the area referred to as Northwest Cedar Hill, as being within the Downtown designation of City Commercial Core. As a result, even though Northwest Cedar Hill has always been seen by the residents and the City as part of the Cedar Hill neighbourhood, the secondary planning process for Cedar Hill and planning for the Downtown carried on largely independent of one another. This anomaly or disconnect between these two areas, reinforced by the issue of Policy Area B, plagued integrated planning in Cedar Hill until the situation was rectified in 1992 and more fully two years later.26

The 1979 City Official Plan designated the area east of Cedar Street to Cameron Heights Collegiate and south to St George; as well as the frontage along Benton and Queen Streets, as Restricted Commercial Residential. The remainder of Cedar Hill was designated Low Density Residential. The Restricted Commercial Residential designation permitted office, commercial, and high density residential either separately or in combination. The Restricted Commercial Residential designation contained a policy stating that the specific location of uses and the relationship of uses within a Restricted Commercial Residential area will be determined in the Secondary Plan. In November, 1979 the House of Friendship purchased three properties in a row on Charles Street with the objective to build a new 7,000 square foot hostel. Application was made in February,1980 to rezone the properties at 57, 59-63 Charles Street. In April, 1980 Zoning By-law 80-112 was passed to rezone the consolidated lands at 63 Charles Street East to permit the House of Friendship Mens Hostel. Building commenced in the summer of 1981 and the new facility opened on February 27, 1982. Planning principles supporting this by-law were strongly influenced by the location of the property within the City Commercial Core Official Plan designation. As part of this development 67 Charles Street was also purchased in October, 1981 to provide parking and traffic flow for the new hostel via a U shaped driveway. In addition, it operated as a halfway house for federal parolees between 1982 and 1988. In 1982, Cedar Hill together with Mill Courtland, became eligible for the Ontario Neighbourhood Improvement Program (ONIP). This program provided 50% Provincial funding for a variety of municipal projects provided the City contributed their 50% and, together with the neighbourhood residents, prepared and adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the neighbourhood. The ONIP eligibility area was restricted to stable low density residential areas only and could not include areas subject to high density apartment redevelopment. Accordingly, that portion of the Redevelopment Plan covering Cedar Hill excluded the Northwest Cedar Hill lands. All together the ONIP program provided funding amounting to $1,600,000 for a variety of municipal projects including: side walk repairs, water main27

and road reconstruction on St. George and Cedar, street tree planting, and for the purchase of a 2.4 acre park (Sand Hills Park). While immensely beneficial to Cedar Hill, particularly in regard to the very constructive and extensive resident participation and the provision of Sand Hills Park, the ONIP program nevertheless again reinforced the view that planning for the area north of Church Street was somehow separate from the rest of the neighbourhood to the south. In November, 1983 City Council approved Official Plan Amendment 19 which was approved by Regional Council two years later in Sept, 1985. This amendment added Group Homes city wide to the Residential Section of the City Official Plan. In January, 1984 the Region approved Official Plan Amendment 22 amending the Restricted Commercial Residential designation to permit institutional uses. This amendment, while somewhat housekeeping in nature, was deemed necessary to remove any doubt regarding conformity to the Official Plan in terms of whether institutional uses were permitted in that designation. The amendment ensured conformity between the zoning of Bylaw 4830 and the City Official Plan for the area on both sides of Madison north of Church which was already zoned R3 General Residential ensuring that the large residential care facility at 37-47 Madison Avenue South also conformed to the Official Plan. In 1983, House of Friendship purchased 51 and 55 Charles Street to provide for a new facility to relieve overflow conditions at the hostel. On May 28, 1984, Zoning By-law 84-82 was approved rezoning the lands at 51, and 55 to 67 Charles Street to C3 Commercial Residential to permit the House of Friendship dormitory building, Cramer House, which was completed and occupied in March/April, 1985. The house at 51 Charles Street was used for office functions. This zone change also allowed the House of Friendship to consolidate their operation at 55 to 67 Charles Street from 19 and 23 Charles Street by deleting and transferring the institutional uses on those properties (19 and 23 Charles) and adding them to the consolidated location. At the time of this zone change considerable discussion took place with respect to the impact that the additional facility, in conjunction the existing operation of the House of Friendship, would have on the neighbourhood. Questions raised and addressed by the House of Friendship related to appearance, the reduction of property values, ghettoization of the block, and28

concerns about whether the facility would endanger the neighbourhood. Planning decisions supporting this by-law were strongly influenced by its conformity to the City Commercial Core Official Plan designation and by the brief submitted to the City by the House of Friendship. Ray of Hope occupied 37-47 Madison Avenue South in 1987 providing for 8 double units with 2 additional beds being added in 1992 for a total of 18 beds. In 1989, Eby Village, providing 56 - 64 units, was built at 50 Eby Street South as part of the House of Friendship. In 1986/87, the City created a separate planning team made up of various City staff from across departments to prepare a Downtown Revitalization Plan. The Plan was focused on the downtown boundaries as defined by the City Commercial Core designation in the Kitchener Official Plan. While some downtown boundary adjustments were made as part of the Plan, the area referred to previously, i.e., Northwest Cedar Hill, continued to be seen and planned for as an integral part of the Downtown Revitalization Plan in isolation from Cedar Hill even through the neighbourhood Secondary Plan, which commenced in 1986, was being prepared at the same time. For the first time, the 1987 Downtown Revitalization Plan broke the overall City Commercial Core Official Plan designation up into land use districts. In so doing, the Plan designated the lands fronting onto Charles Street between Benton and Cedar Streets and on Benton Street between Charles and the rear property line between St. George and Church for Residential Office and the rest of the area for Exclusive High Density Residential. The Cedar Hill Secondary Plan was completed and adopted by Council on January 9, 1989. It was modified by Council on November 27, 1989 and received Regional Council approval on January 11, 1990. As discussed above, this Plan as initially approved, did not cover those lands designated City Commercial Core and so again excluded Northwest Cedar Hill. While the Secondary Plan was approved in early 1990 the Cedar Hill neighbourhood, together with the other downtown neighbourhoods except Civic Centre, continued to be zoned under By-law 4830 leaving the door open for the possibility that a use permitted by the zoning but not by the secondary plan could result. It was intended that this issue of conformity would be addressed for all downtown neighbourhoods comprehensively at

29

the same time as the City proceeded with implementation of its new Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 85-1. However, in response to an apartment development approved on Cedar Street (119 Cedar St. S.) in 1991 which was in compliance with the existing R2 zoning but not with the Low Density Conservation designation of the new Secondary Plan, residents from a number of downtown neighbourhoods approached Council through the Downtown Action Committee with a written submission to request that new zoning be implemented immediately. As a result, in March, 1992 ahead of the Comprehensive By-law, a zone change was brought forward to implement the Low Density Conservation designation in the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan using appropriate zones from By-law 4830. Essentially the long standing R2 Semi-Restricted Residential was replaced with R2B Semi-Restricted Residential eliminating multiple dwellings other than triplexes as a permitted use. Kitchener Housing Inc. developed two projects in the neighbourhood between 1991 and 1992. Cedar Hill Court at 64 St. George Street for 33 units and The Charles at 355 Charles Street East for 23 units. The Cedar Hill Secondary Plan was again amended in 1992 as part of Stage 5 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Downtown. Through this amendment, together with amendments to the Downtown Official Plan designation, the Northwest Cedar Hill area was taken out of the Downtown designation and incorporated into the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan. This brought the boundaries of the Secondary Plan into consistency with the recognized Cedar Hill neighbourhood boundaries. In March, 1993 143 Madison Avenue South was occupied by Family and Childrens Services as a 10 resident group home. A further amendment was made to the Secondary Plan in 1994 as part of Stage 6 of the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law. This amendment, Official Plan Amendment No. 157, was adopted by Kitchener Council on January 24, 1994 and received Regional approval on June 13, 1994. The amendment dealt with implementing new zoning for residential and mixed commercial residential uses to replace the old zoning of By- law 4830. At the same time amendments were made to five other secondary plans to ensure consistency between secondary plans so that all zoning categories would apply uniformly.30

Official Plan Amendment 157 also made some key changes to the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan. At the request of the Neighbourhood Association lands bounded by Charles Street, Cedar Street, St George Street, Peter Street, and Eby Street were reviewed. As noted in both the staff report and the amendment the request was made on the basis that the current land use designation of High Density Residential did not permit the lower density forms of housing such as single, semi-detached, and duplex dwellings. And that this gave rise to the inability to convert the existing housing stock to lower density residential uses until such time as redevelopment on a grander scale was undertaken. This request in fact led to a review of all lands designated for High Density Residential and was undertaken with a resident committee from the neighbourhood. The review was initiated on the basis that once the area from Charles to Church was taken out of the Downtown designation and incorporated into the Cedar Hill neighbourhood it was apparent that Cedar Hill had the widest application of the high density residential land use designation of all of the secondary plans. The block bounded by Eby, Charles, Cedar, and Church Streets; as well as other lands along both sides of Church Street between Peter and Eby Streets were redesignated to Medium Density Residential. This change allowed for both existing single detached and conversion of these dwellings to duplexes or triplexes while still allowing for future redevelopment to multiple residential uses. In addition, the two blocks of land located at the southeast and southwest corners of Church Street and Peter Street were redesignated to Low Density Multiple Residential to provide for a better land use transition between the lower densities on Peter and St. George Streets and the higher densities on Church Street. All of the above amendments to the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan were consolidated and incorporated into the new City Municipal Plan adopted by Council in May, 1994 and approved by the Region in May, 1995 (see Map 1). In September, 2001, Amendment No. 36 to the Municipal Plan introduced a new commercial policy structure to the City. This amendment received Regional approval in February, 2002 and became effective on March 5, 2002. As part of that new commercial policy structure the designation of Mixed Use Corridors was introduced along specific corridors in the inner city. One of those corridors was Queen Street. Accordingly the31

amendment redesignated the area bounded by Queen Street South, St. George Street, Clemens Lane and the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan boundary from High Density Commercial Residential to Mixed Use Corridor (See Map 2, Appendix B). The Mixed Use Corridor designation provides for a broad range of commercial uses including free standing office and small retail. While not included within the area covered by the Interim Control Bylaw it is noted that the designation also permits the full range of institutional uses as well as multiple residential uses. Recent developments in 2003 include the Kitchener Housing Inc. Cedar View development at 35 Cedar Street South for 42 household units and the House of Friendship Charles Village development at 75 Charles Street East for 22 single units. In late 2004 the Ontario Municipal Board approved applications for official plan amendment, zone change and site plan for the proposed Arrow Lofts development on the west side of Benton Street south of St. George Street. The site was redesignated and rezoned from General Industrial to High Density Commercial Residential . The proposed development will allow for the conversion of the existing four storey, industrial building to residential loft apartments with a four storey addition above for new loft apartments, for a yield of 134 apartment units. A new18 storey,184 unit, apartment tower is also proposed. 7. Legislative, Policy and Zoning Context: Limitations and Constraints

7.1 Provincial Planning Act 7.1.1 Section 16 Land Use Planning Policies and the Social Environment In regard to the question of land use planning dealing with social issues, Section 16 of The Planning Act, in outlining the contents of an official plan, recognizes that land use planning policies as they are found in and established through the Official Plan and as implemented through zoning are there primarily to manage and direct physical change and the effects on the social environment of the municipality or part of it. Accordingly, the review of land use planning policy pursuant to Section 38 of The Planning Act should focus on those land use planning policies and bylaws that are identified as having effects on the social environment.

32

7.1.2 Section 34 Zoning Options/Limitations In terms of zoning, the ability to deal with land use planning policy effects on the social environment is clearly limited by the provisions of Section 34 of The Planning Act, the Courts and decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board. A municipality can not use zoning to restrict or limit the use of land on the basis of: (1) management, operation, hours of operation, security, (2) morality or loss of community character, (3) people planning, i.e., sex, age, culture, or ethnic origin (although some cases before the Board have tried to do so relying on the Charter of Rights). It has been suggested that use of minimum distance separation or other planning tools designed to deal with the issue of undue concentration of certain land uses, such as group homes, are not in keeping with either the Ontario Human Rights Code nor the Charter. In Ontario, this opinion has yet to be tested by the courts. Under Section 34 of The Planning Act, the use of land can be restricted or regulated on the basis of location, size, floor area, and spacing. Accordingly, the options for regulating uses such as lodging houses, residential care facilities, group homes, social agencies, etc. would include: (1) the prohibition or outright banning of the use in all zoning districts in a defined area such as a the downtown neighbourhood but not throughout the entire city, (2) limiting the location of the use by zoning district or the proximity of the use to another use or zone, e.g., to a residential zone, (3) limiting the use by regulating the size by floor area and limiting only one such use per lot, (4) limiting the concentration of the use by regulating their spacing within each zoning district by a distance separation, (5) limiting the use by both size and concentration, i.e. by size and spacing or distance separation, (6) limiting the use by size and location, e.g., limit the size of the use within a specified distance of a residential zone.

33

In Kitchener, lodging houses and group homes are regulated by both size and concentration or distance separation. 7.1.3 Section 70.2 and Ontario Reg. 246/01 Development Permit System Most are familiar with the traditional zoning bylaw approach used in Ontario, where there is typically only one list of as-of-right uses in each zone. If a proposed development matches a use in the list and meets the regulations and provisions of the zoning, it is permitted outright. If the use is not found in the list, a zone change is required in conformity with the official plan. In contrast, under what is called a Development Permit System or in some jurisdictions Discretionary Zoning there is a list of permitted or asof-right uses and one or more lists of discretionary uses. Discretionary uses, unlike a use found in the as-of-right list, may be approved, approved with conditions or refused. All discretionary uses require a development permit issued by the approval authority. Ontario does not as yet enjoy, for the majority of its municipalities, such zoning powers. Discretionary zoning, while used in Britain, the Maritimes, and Western Canada for decades and by many cities in the United States was only provided for in The Ontario Planning Act, after years of debate, in 1995 by Bill 163. Even then, the provisions of Section 70.2, Development Permit System, required the adoption of enabling regulations. Such regulations (Regulation 246/01 Amended to O.Reg. 78/04) were approved in June 2001 and November 2004 respectively and for five pilot project communities in Ontario: Toronto, Lake of Bays, Oakville, Hamilton and parts of Waterloo Region in relation to implementation of the Regional ground water protection strategy. Development Permit Systems in Canadian municipalities, outside of Ontario, that regulate lodging houses, group homes, and other residential care facilities contain provisions that control the location, distribution, and size of such facilities. This is done by treating them as discretionary uses and applying criteria related to size, distance separation, number within a given area or district, location i.e. restricted to collector streets, or complete prohibition. They really do not go beyond what we are able to achieve by standard zoning here in Ontario appreciating that some have suggested the employment of distance separation under Section 34 of Ontarios Planning Act is questionable, although no definitive decision has been made on this matter by the OMB or the Courts.34

Moreover, employment of a Development Permit System will not enable the City to impose operational or management criteria. Discussions with the Province in regard to imposing Best Management Practices have made it very clear that this can not be done under the present Planning Act provisions (Section 70.2), associated Regulation 246/01 Amended by O.Reg. 78/04 and as determined by the Courts and decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board. Such practices must be structural and can not rely on management practice or management plans. The advantage of using the Development Permit process to address this issue in Cedar Hill comes down to the ability to treat the neighbourhood as a distinct and separate entity from the rest of the City. In Ontario, the adoption of the necessary Official Plan Amendment and follow up Development Permit By-law and its application to the neighbourhood would repeal existing Section 34 Zoning and Section 41 Site Plan provisions enabling the new Development Permit By-law to impose residential care definitions, regulations, and criteria unique to that neighbourhood. This could go so far as to have a complete prohibition of such facilities. In summary, as noted above, while the planning powers provided by Section 70.2 of The Planning Act could assist Kitchener in dealing with such problematic uses such as lodging houses and residential care facilities this is not an option at this point in time. Provincial time lines related to the pilot projects and their evaluation suggest that discretionary zoning for the rest of Ontarios cities is a few years in the future. New Provincial initiatives, issued as part of the Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools Consultation Discussion Paper # 1 June 2004, suggest that the Development Permit System Regulations maybe further amended to allow additional subject matters and municipalities beyond the above noted five pilot project areas to develop and use Development Permit System bylaws. The criteria for meeting this new initiative is specifically directed toward their use in the achievement of Provincial Smart Growth objectives. (For a full review and analysis of the application Development Permit Systems see the study prepared for the City of Kitchener, Ontarios Development Permit System A Study of its Application to and Opportunities for Kitcheners Downtown. August, 2003 by T. Brock Stanley).

35

7.2 Provincial Policy Statement On November 30, 2004 Bill 26, The Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004 received Royal Assent. Bill 26, changes the implementation standard so that decisions and advice affecting planning matters must be consistent with Provincial Policy Statements issued under The Planning Act. This is a stronger, mandatory and demanding test than the previous have regard to requirements. A new Provincial Policy Statement, presently in draft form, is anticipated to take effect in early 2005. Under Policy 1.3 of this new Policy Statement dealing with Coordination Within and Between Municipalities, Policy 1.3.1 a) states: A coordinated, integrated and comprehensive approach should be achieved when dealing with land use planning matters which cross municipal boundaries including: a) Managing and/or promoting growth and development;

Policy 1.3.3 b) and c) state: Where planning is conducted by the upper-tier level, upper tier governments in consultation with lower-tier governments, will: (b) identify targets for intensification and redevelopment within all or any of the lower-tier municipalities, including minimum targets that should be met before alteration to the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.1.4; identify minimum densities for transit corridors, and other significant corridors and areas, including minimum densities that should be met before alteration to the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.1.4.

(c)

Intensification: means the development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists through: a) redevelopment, including the reuse of brownfield sites;

36

b) the development of vacant and/or underutilized lots within previously developed areas; c) infill development; and d) the expansion or conversion of existing buildings. With respect to special needs housing, Policy 1.4 Housing, Policy 1.4.4 b) states: All planning authorities will provide for a full range of housing types and densities to meet projected demographic, market and special needs requirements, including dedicated facilities, of current and future residents of the regional market area by: (b) permitting and facilitating: i) all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements, including special needs, of current and future residents:

Dedicated facilities: mean those facilities whose attributes, including built form, location and affordability, are suited to the accommodation needs of people with special needs. 7.3 Regional Plan and Growth Management Strategy Regional Council at its meeting of June 25, 2003, approved Report P-03055, Planning Our Future Regional Growth Management Strategy, as amended. The approved Regional Growth Management Strategy included approval of Attachment # 1 Map and Attachment # 2 Immediate Actions. The Regional Growth Management Strategy Map conceptually identifies Primary Re-urbanization Areas including the Central Transit Corridor and calls for more intensification of the Central Transit Corridor together with implementation of higher order transit. Cedar Hill falls within this identified Primary Re-urbanization area and the Central Transit Corridor. While this may be the case, a mix of Low Rise Conservation; Low, Medium, and High Density Multiple; and mixed commercial residential designations would be permitted.

37

Immediate Actions of the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) associated with the above call for the following: Develop urban design guidelines to assist in the implementation of RGMS priorities, such as the Central Transit Corridor and the countryside line, and revise the ROPP and development approval conditions accordingly. Link RGMS with complementary human service planning initiatives. Prepare a Human Services Strategic Plan Prepare a new ROPP (Regional Official Policies Plan) based on the RGMS. The last review of the ROPP was undertaken in the early 1990s, with a new ROPP being approved by the Province in December, 1995. Any new ROPP will need to be consistent with the new Provincial Policy Statements (June, 2004 draft) 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.3, and 1.4.4 noted above. Any formulation of new or revised land use policy or by-law arising from the Cedar Hill Study will come under the provisions of the new amendments to The Planning Act; as well as having to be consistent with the new Provincial Policy Statement (June, 2004 draft) and by extension the Regional Growth Management Strategy with its implications for intensification within the Central Transit Corridor. This clearly has intensification and density implications for Cedar Hill. At the very minimum, consideration of density reductions at this time would be inconsistent with both the new Provincial Policy Statement and the Regional Growth Management Strategy. Moreover, the direction of the new Provincial Policy Statement places an additional weight on ensuring that the requirements of special needs housing are met by the municipality. Having said this, however, it is important to appreciate that the RGMS also calls for closely aligned physical planning decisions with those in other programming and planning areas, particularly human services. Under the RGMS and based on it, the Region is to prepare a Human Resources Strategic Plan and a new ROPP and to link the RGMS with complementary human service planning initiatives. Physical planning related to reurbanization incentives and infill development must be integrated with38

community development and increased quality of life elements; with node and corridor development, supporting re-urbanization, and use of transportation nodes to encourage redevelopment to be integrated with access to social programs, equality of services, and generators of community identity. Perhaps, more importantly, from the perspective of the Cedar Hill Study it could be argued that the RGMS imposes an obligation on those planning human and social services to ensure their integration with physical planning objectives is undertaken in such a way so as to achieve overall community well being and increased quality of life both for the region and for each community. 8. Current Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, Zoning, and Land Use

8.1 Cedar Hill Secondary Plan The Cedar Hill Secondary Plan which forms part of Kitcheners Municipal Plan and therefore constitutes the Official Plan under Section 16 of the Planning Act for that part of the City of Kitchener is shown on Map 1. The Secondary Plan will be reviewed with respect to those policies that specifically apply to the uses prohibited by the Interim Control By-law, i.e., lodging house, residential care facility, group home, multiple dwelling, or social service establishment. The Low Rise Conservation designation only permits small lodging houses; while the remainder of the residential and mixed commercial residential permit both small and large lodging houses. Only small residential care facilities are permitted in the Low Rise Conservation designation and all other residential and mixed commercial residential designations. The Community and Major Institutional designations both permit a small and large residential care facility and a social service establishment. Major Institutional also permits a lodging house. The Major Institutional designation covering Cameron Heights Collegiate is not within the lands covered by the Interim Control By-law.

39

Development of a new large residential care facility in any of the land use designations within the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, with the exception provided by Special Policy 13.3.4.2, is prohibited by Special Policy 13.3.4.5 of the Secondary Plan which states that: Notwithstanding the provisions of any of the land use designations within this Plan, new large residential care facilities shall not be permitted. Special Policy 13.3.4.2 provides for the existing large residential care facility within the Low Density Multiple Residential designation on the lands at 47 Madison Avenue South. In an apparent inconsistency with Special Policy 13.3.4.5, the Community and Major Institutional designations permit large residential care facilities. The same would be the case for the Mixed Use Corridor designation fronting Queen Street between St. George Street and the Secondary Plan boundary. This designation permits the full range of institutional uses. While not specifically spelled out in the Secondary Plan, Part 2 and Policy 3.3 in Part 3 of the Municipal Plan Lodging Houses and Residential Care, establish the appropriateness of a minimum distance separation for lodging houses and a minimum separation of 400 metres for group homes. Policy 3.2.1 of the Plan also states that the City shall promote the decentralization of institutional facilities and shall permit them in appropriate locations near residential neighbourhoods. Multiple dwellings are permitted in all residential and mixed commercial designations within the Secondary Plan; as well as in Community and Major Institutional. In the case of the Low Rise Conservation designation only multiple dwellings to a maximum of three units are permitted. The Community Institutional designation is applied together with a Holding Provision to two properties located at 136 and 138 Madison Avenue South. This designation was applied so that the two properties could, in the future, be redeveloped in conjunction with the school/church lands create a large institutional block having frontage along Courtland Avenue. The Holding Provisions only permits redevelopment of these two properties for Community Institutional uses provided they are consolidated so as to share frontage onto Courtland Avenue and the City Clerk is in receipt of40

conformation that the school has been officially closed and that a site plan has been approved by City Council. It is significant to note that while the Interim Control By-law covers properties fronting onto the north side of Courtland Avenue, these properties are not within the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan and are therefore not subject to the provisions of Special Policy 13.3.4.5. Moreover, unlike the residential and mixed commercial residential designations in the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, which specifically permit only small residential care facilities, those within the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Plan, including the designations fronting onto Courtland Avenue, permit both small and large residential care facilities. The most significant of these properties within the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Secondary Plan is the St. Joseph School site at 160 Courtland Avenue East. While designated Low Density Commercial Residential in the Secondary Plan, which permits multiple residential, lodging houses, small and large residential care facilities; the lands are also covered by Special Policy 13.4.4.8 of the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Secondary Plan which imposes a Holding Provision. Such Holding Provision relates to receipt of conformation that the school has been officially closed and that a site plan has been approved by City Council. In summary, the St. Joseph Separate School site is covered by the Interim Control By-Law. In the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan there would appear to be an inconsistency between the permitted large residential care facility in the Holding Provision versus Special Policy 13.3.4.5. Of greater significance, is the fact that the school site in its present entirety at 160 Courtland Avenue East is covered by a designation in the Mill Courtland Secondary Plan, Low Density Commercial Residential which permits a large residential care facility. It is also clear from the Holding Provisions, as written in the Secondary Plan, that once such provisions are lifted a social service establishment could develop on the consolidated portions of 136 138 Madison Avenue South. So on the consolidated sites 136 138 Madison Avenue South and 160 Courtland Avenue East the Secondary Plan would permit a large multiple dwelling apartment/assisted housing project to developed together with a large residential care facility and a social service establishment as noted above. While it could be argued that residential care facilities are restricted41

by distance separation and therefore we need not concern ourselves with the lands fronting Courtland, such distance separation only applies to group homes and not all residential care facilities are group homes, e.g., a crisis care facility. 8.2 Zoning Current zoning for the Cedar Hill neighbourhood is shown on Map 2. As this zoning implements the policies of the Secondary Plan and can be reviewed in By-law 85-1 a detailed discussion will not be provided here. There are, however, some observations to be made concerning the specific uses listed in the Interim Control By-law. With respect to lodging houses, the R-5 zone restricts a lodging house to a maximum of 8 residents with a minimum distance separation of 400 metres. The R-6 zone while also restricting the size to 8 residents has no minimum distance separation. It is, however, noted that the application of the R-6 zone within Cedar Hill is very limited. Lodging houses of less than 9 residents within the R-7, CR-1, and CR-2 zones are subject to the same requirements as the R-5 zone, i.e., a minimum distance separation of 400 metres. However, lodging houses of more than 9 residents in these zones (R-7, CR1, and CR-2) are not subject to any minimum distance separation. The R-8 zone permits lodging houses of less than 9 residents only within a building existing on the date that the R-8 zone was applied in accordance with the same requirements as the R-5 zone, i.e., minimum distance separation of 400 metres. Lodging houses of more than 9 residents are not subject to a minimum distance separation. In a similar way, lodging houses having less than 9 residents in the CR-3 zone are only permitted within a building existing on the date that the CR-3 zone was applied to the land but with no minimum distance separation requirements. Lodging houses of more than 9 residents are not regulated as to location in the CR-3 zone. The R-9 zone has a minimum size of lodging house set at 9 residents with no minimum distance separation. As noted in the Secondary Plan discussion, a residential care facility that does not fall under the definition of a group home is not subject to distance42

separation requirements. Such a facility, for example, Ray of Hope at 47 Madison Ave., could include a crisis care facility, a residence for socially disadvantage persons, or a nursing home. In the CR-3 zone a residential care facility of less than 9 residents is permitted only within a multiple dwelling. The provisions of Special Policy 13.3.4.5 prohibiting new large residential care facilities is implemented in zoning by Regulation 136R for lands zoned R-7, R-8, R-9, CR-2, and CR- 3. The exception to this being the R-7 lands at 47 Madison Avenue South. It is also not applied to the Community Institutional I-2 zone covering 136 138 Madison Avenue South. In fact, Holding Provisions 3 and 5 specifically provide for a residential care facility of more than 8 residents. Nor is Regulation 136R applied to the Major Institutional I-3 zone covering Cameron Heights Collegiate. It is also important to note that the entire site at 160 Courtland Avenue East comprising the St. Joseph School site; as well as the church site are zoned Community Institutional I-2 regardless of the designation of Low Density Commercial Residential in the Mill Courtland Woodside Park Secondary Plan. Subject to the Holding Provisions this would permit a large residential care facility and a social service establishment. 8.3 Land Use/ Dwelling Type Distribution To assist in a more complete understanding of Cedar Hill a land use survey was undertaken of the neighbourhood in July August, 2004 specifically directed toward mapping the distribution of dwelling types, including lodging houses, assisted housing, and residential care facilities. This survey covers the primary study area and thus includes those properties fronting onto the north side of Courtland Avenue which are within the MillCourtland Woodside Park Neighbourhood. The results of this survey are shown on Map 4 Cedar Hill Dwelling Types in Appendix B. The purpose of the survey was three fold. First, to assist in confirmation of the accuracy and validity of dwelling type, lodging house, assisted housing and residential care facility tabular Census and Municipal GIS/ MPAC property data. Second, to provide a record of the land use and dwelling type distribution at that point in time. And third, to provide a visual understanding and appreciation of the geographic distribution of dwelling types in the neighbourhood to assist in the analysis and comparison with other data and information such as that based on Census Dissemination Areas.43

In respect to the third purpose, it is significant to note that, for the most part, those uses of concern in the Interim Control By-law are concentrated north of St. George Street and west of Hebel Place which generally matches the Cedar Hill north/south split documented in the Community Survey. It is also constructive to draw a comparison between this mapped distribution and the findings of the analysis for Census Dissemination Areas 367, 369, and 397 (See Map 6, Appendix B). 9. Comparative Analysis Census Data Downtown Neighbourhoods and City Wide

This section consists of a comparison of Cedar Hill socioeconomic statistics relative to those of all Downtown Kitchener Planning Communities and of the City of Kitchener as a whole. (The Downtown Planning Communities include: Civic Centre, King East, Cedar Hill, Mill Courtland Woodside Park, Victoria Park, Mount Hope Huron Park, and Central Frederick. See Map 5 Appendix B). The purpose of this exercise is to measure the degree to which different socioeconomic categories are concentrated in Cedar Hill. It is important to keep in mind the statistical limitations of such an analysis. Because we rely in this section on census material, the social categories which are most unlikely to answer the census form are under-represented in this analysis. This is the case of certain populations, such as the short-term residents of social agencies, which are disproportionately present in Cedar Hill relative to other Kitchener neighbourhoods. Moreover, the aggregation of data at the scale of dissemination areas and planning communities raises statistical validity issues. In the case of data related to certain questions found exclusively on the long census form, which is distributed to 20% of the population, results were too erratic to be included in this section. This was notably the case of questions breaking down respondents into several categories, such as those concerning dwelling type and conditions. 9.1 Population and Household Trends Figure 1 indicates that over the 1991-2001 period, by comparison to the City of Kitchener, which has experienced demographic growth, the population of downtown planning communities and Cedar Hill has remained stable. The demographic stability of downtown planning communities and Cedar Hill is confirmed by Figure 2, which indicates a great deal of similarity between44

these two levels of observation. However, Figure 3, which focuses exclusively on Cedar Hill, reveals substantial population variation over the 1991-2001 period. The population of Cedar Hill decreases by 16.7% between 1991 and 1996, and then increases rapidly over the next five years to reach by 2001 a level that is 9.2% higher than that of 1991. The evolution in the number of households echoes population trends. Note, however, that available data only allows us to observe changes in the number of household over five years (1996-2001). Figure 4 shows that relative to the City of Kitchener, which experiences an increase over this period, household numbers in both downtown planning communities and Cedar Hill appear to be stab