Form-Based Residential Zoning

[bravado]

It looks like one of the conditions of Cambridge taking the federal money for housing was to simplify existing residential zoning. Based on the EngageWR posting, the city has 16 (!!!) different residential zones and is proposing to go to 4 (see below).

EngageWR Post

PDF Presentation

The City's current Zoning By-law came into effect in 1987 and is very restrictive and a barrier to housing. The current By-law places properties into discrete zones based on dwelling type and density. Currently, there are 16 unique residential zones, each with individual standards such as permitted dwelling type, maximum density, frontage, lot area, and setbacks.

City staff are working towards completing a new comprehensive Zoning By-law that will reflect current planning practices and community standards.

Part of this new approach is supporting what is referred to as "missing middle housing".

Form based zoning is intended to be incorporated into the new comprehensive zoning by-law in residential areas. Staff are considering the following 4 new zones which would apply City-wide:

RR - Detached, private services
R1 - Detached, attached and multiple (3 storey maximum)
R2 - Detached, attached and multiple (4 storey maximum)
R3 - Attached and multiples (5-15 storey maximum, subject to tall building standards)

I
I'm definitely planning on going to the public meeting about this, but as always with local government in Ontario, I am desperately looking for the catch. Cambridge did not implement the fourplex bylaws that other cities did and yet it looks like this is basically it in some ways. 

Do the engineering and urban planning experts have any thoughts? Sometimes this stuff thoroughly goes over my head.

[ZEBuilder]

Built form restrictions tend to make things simpler but at the same time it can also make things more difficult. Some properties can be awfully tedious to work with even with form restrictions because of things such as site topography, servicing or even soil conditions.

Growing Together is entirely built form restrictions yet we're still seeing ZBA/OPAs so it doesn't necessarily make things easier, for example the 169 Victoria St project needed changes to restrictions just to make something functional because of how shallow the lots are.

There are obvious benefits, 16 residential zones is insanity but even Kitchener still has 7 residential zones in the 2019-051 bylaw which has 5 low rise residential zones (3 detached/semi, 2 townhome) 1 mid rise and 1 high rise, so even if Cambridge went to 8 zones it would be better.

The restrictions that Cambridge is suggesting aren't all that different from Kitcheners current 2019-051 bylaw with respect to setbacks and lot widths, it really just eliminates FSR rules (Kitchener has been very willing to bend that rule however). It's certainly the right direction for Cambridge to go but the R3 zone is likely to result in similar ZBA/OPAs since the max height is still going to be an issue just with how it's written. It can change between actual bylaw passing and now but I doubt it would, if anything it brings it on par with KW with respect to residential zones.

If Cambridge really wants to be bold (they won't) it would be nice to see a Growing Together type of project combined with overall simplification like this project. Keep in mind Growing Together has won multiple awards both in Ontario, Canada and internationally so something like that would be nice to see from Cambridge.