The Future of Zoning Bylaws

It’s no secret I’ve been out knocking on a lot of doors. Every time I get a call asking about my campaign, or I go to an event, it’s the first thing people congratulate me about. Although I am proud to have knocked on as many doors as I have, the effort is not about me. It’s about the residents and their perspectives. 

With nearly every door that opens, one concern I’m hearing about is the Zoning Bylaw. Council made a mistake with the specifics of the lowest zone, Residential Small. In this zone, a developer can buy a property and put up to 8 units on a single lot. If the property in question is a corner lot, they might be able to go higher. 

Greenview is a perfect example. In this community, there is a lot being developed for 10 units of stacked row housing. The developer is under no obligation to provide any parking but is providing five garage parking stalls and two stalls of accessible parking. With an average of roughly one and a half vehicles per household, it’s reasonable to expect eight vehicles will be left without parking spaces. This means more cars causing congestion along curbsides. Not many people think about this, but too many vehicles on the streets are actually a safety hazard. It obstructs vision for pedestrians, which effectively makes the neighbourhood less-walkable. As you can see by the image below, this area of the community is presently very walkable. I’ve been through here in the summer and it’s a beautiful place to walk, especially along the golf course. In fact, the walkability is one of the reasons people choose to build a life here. 

Map of Granlea Neighbourhood - Including 180 Granlea Crescent

It’s not just the parking concerns that make this development questionable. It’s also the fact there was no public hearing process before the project started and there is no appeal process for residents now. The people who have invested in this community have no say in how the community is being changed. They have been in contact with their City Councillor, and multiple representatives from the City. The response has been minimal and the message; 

it’s allowed, therefore the City is not willing to do anything to address residents' concerns. As long as the developers adhere to the regulations the project will continue to move forward. While I understand this is a fair mindset for the City bureaucrats, it’s unacceptable for a City Councillor to imply that their hands are tied, especially when that Councillor is the one who tied them. At the very least, the appropriate way to handle the concern is to direct one of the office staff to investigate. That’s how we handled things when I was in that office. My former title of “Research Assistant” was not simply a decorative title. It was part of my job duties to investigate resident’s concerns and then bring my findings to the Councillor, to help determine the next steps. 

For example, I was part of the team who solved the infamous “Kiniski Korner”. This intersection was a very dangerous roadway and vehicles were constantly crashing into the nearby fences. There were at least two other Councillor Offices that had the file before us, including current Mayor Sohi when he was a Councillor. When we received the file, our office suggested guard rails be implemented to stop the vehicles. The Administration responded that guard rails are intended to be hit at a roughly parallel angle, thus creating a risk that vehicles will hit it straight on causing a liability for the City. So I asked them, “What’s our liability if there are kids playing in their backyard and a car crashes through the fence and it comes to light that we knew about the issue and did nothing?” They responded that they didn’t know, so I asked them to check with Legal and get back to me. About a week later, the department got back to me and informed me that Legal stated we have to take action. Over the next few months, the City worked with our office to select the best solutions at our disposal. Curb extensions and bollards were implemented. I still believed that guard rails were the best solution but, I remember driving by there in the winter after the safety measures were installed, and seeing tire tracks in the snow leading up to the fence. The fence was still intact. This suggests I was able to prevent at least one vehicle from crashing into that fence. More importantly, this was an improvement to the lives of the residents that we didn’t have to go through Council to make. There was no motion, no budget profile. We just knew how to ask the questions to encourage action.

When a Greenlea resident first brought the Greenview Development issue to my attention in late 2024, I took a look at the matter and determined within an hour that this development was inappropriate. First, Greenview is already 33% high-density housing. By comparison, the City-wide average is about 40%, which is largely inflated by areas like Downtown which are 80% high-density. Greenview also already meets the City’s long-term goals of 16% affordable housing. Adding 10 units of market housing shifts that down to 15%. This would create a false perception that there is a need to build an additional 1% of affordable housing in the community. The percentage was higher than 16%, but the addition of the First Place housing units on 38 Ave shifted the percentage down. While the residents are compassionate for those in need of housing solutions and happy to welcome more people to their community, there are limitations on the amount of density the infrastructure can handle. As we densify, there is a greater demand for utilities such as power, water, and drainage. When the drainage in Mill Woods was upgraded as a result of the 2012 flood, Greenview was not included in the upgrades. When the LRT was built, it created a greater demand for electricity, but I was unable to determine whether or not the electrical capacity was increased enough to offset even just the LRT’s requirements. There are only 3 collector roads leading into this section of the community, and two of them still have insufficient traffic control measures for current traffic volumes, never mind any traffic volume increases. 

Knowing the above information, it becomes clear that this development is inappropriate for Greenview, at least until some of these concerns are addressed. Some items, such as traffic control upgrades, can be done by simply sending an email to the Office of Traffic Safety and requesting they look at the traffic volumes at the intersections in question. I know this can work because I’ve done it before. The answer isn’t always yes, but sometimes it is. After that, I would contact EPCOR to get details about the utility capacity. If upgrades are needed, one can work with EPCOR to address that. A motion through Council, Utility Committee, or an EPCOR Shareholders meeting may be needed to make this happen. It really depends on the specifics of EPCOR’s response to the initial conversation. Those are the simple solutions that only take about two hours of office staff time, spread out over approximately two to three weeks. It only takes about five minutes of the Councillor’s time to provide that direction to their staff. 

For some of the other solutions, a Councillor would have to put a motion before Council. It might pass, it might not, but it is reasonable to expect some degree of effort from the Councillor. I would also think that someone who campaigned on being a collaborator would be able to work with their colleagues on Council to protect the interests of constituents. It’s not just Greenview experiencing these issues. There was a news article recently that other communities are going through similar issues. Generally speaking, the City justifies the zoning changes as being able to increase the housing supply. So after a year with the new changes, why haven’t we seen the housing supply improve? I would argue that it’s actually getting worse and we can see that as rent increases due to the basic premise of supply and demand. When looking further into the issues, we can see that the development in Greenview applied for their permit on September 17, 2024. As of January 15, 2025, the status is still under review. I’ve heard that it will still be another few months for the developer to get their permits, but I am unable to confirm this. Just based on the information I can confirm, the application is still being reviewed after four months.  It’s almost as if perhaps permit wait times were a problem, just as the developers and the business community tried to tell Council repeatedly over the past several years. Unfortunately, this Council, like previous Councils, refused to listen and instead opted to change the zoning regulations. The actions Council took were like a homeowner seeing that their refrigerator is broken but deciding they need to fix their stove. 

What are our Solutions?

If elected, I would work with my Council colleagues to propose amendments to the Zoning Bylaw. While I am open to hearing feedback, the following proposals would be my starting position:

• Create a new Residential Basic Zone

• Automatic Corrective Zoning

• Restore minimum on-site parking requirements

• Address Permit Times

Residential Basic Zone (RB): The idea here is to create a new low-density default. This would only allow for Single-Detached Housing and Semi-Detached Housing, with reasonable height limits. RB will also allow for one secondary suite automatically. That secondary suite can be in the form of a garden suite, garage suite, or basement suite. We would also allow limited home-based businesses. I’m thinking primarily of online businesses, day homes, or other businesses that make sense in the suburbs. No more mechanic shops lining the streets, or their yards, with cars that need repairs. 

Corrective Zoning: Everything that was automatically zoned to RS, would be automatically zoned back to RB, except in cases where a public hearing has taken place. Any properties that have been developed since January 1, 2024, that meet the standards of RS, but not RB, and did not have a public hearing to approve the current development, will have to go through the public hearing process. The idea here is to assess the developments that have happened since the Zoning Bylaw Renewal to determine which developments are reasonable and which developments are invasive. If there’s a situation where the development is determined to be invasive it will be up to the developer to bring it into compliance and potentially compensate residents who purchased the finished product.

Minimum On-Site Parking: While I understand the reasons for removing minimum parking requirements, I feel that some developments have abused the change. As such, I would propose an amendment to mandate a minimum of 1 on-site parking stall per unit for anything zoned RB or RS. During the application process, applicants will be able to apply for a variance to waive the parking requirements, subject to approval in a public hearing. 

Permit Wait Times: Honestly, I do not know why permit times are taking so long, and as a result, I do not know what the fix is. What I do know is that a motion needs to be made for the Administration office to bring a report to Council listing all the permit applications from the last calendar year, how long they took, and why they took that long. The motion would also include direction for the Administration to outline the permitting process, allow Council to make adjustments based on which bottlenecks are deemed reasonable and which are not, and then report metrics on how many permits are being issued on time. 

Some people I’ve talked to want the whole zoning bylaw redone. From my perspective, it will be a lot easier to pass a 20-page amendment than a 1,000-page rewrite of the entire bylaw. These proposed changes are simply a compromise between the current and previous iterations of the zoning bylaw. I understand the desire for density, but I also understand the desire to maintain certain aspects of the community. The most important aspect of these changes is the opportunity for residents to voice their concerns or support, and accountability for the decisions made by Council members. 

What do YOU think? Are these solutions a step in the right direction? I’d like to hear your thoughts about the future Edmonton you would like to see.