A Fiscally Prudent Path to True 15-Minute Neighbourhoods City-Wide

To: Ottawa Zoning Bylaw Team
From: Rob Attrell, Engaged Urbanist and Suburban Resident

I’m sending this letter via email to the zoning bylaw team.

If you have feedback on the Zoning By-law process, it’s not too late to submit it to the city at [email protected].

During a recent public consultation on zoning, I asked a question about how low-impact commercial development could be enabled in my community (and potentially in places across Orléans or the city). Staff raised a thoughtful point in response: it would feel arbitrary to proactively grant commercial zoning to any cherry-picked residential lots without owners asking for it. I agree. I’d like to address this point and discuss the most restrictive N1 and N2 zones with some specific feedback and additional context here. 

There are two things I’d like to see happen in my suburb (Convent Glen North) and across the suburbs in general:

1. Remove the arbitrarily different N1 and N2 zones and make N3 the most restrictive zoning city-wide.
2. Look into legalizing low-impact mixed-use commercial zoning across the city in all areas by baking the parameters of the -c suffix into all neighbourhood zones.

I took a look at the ‘20-year renders’ for the suburban transect, and the difference where I live (going from exclusively R1 to exclusively N1, despite being in easy walking distance to the LRT) is BLEAK. There is almost no difference in the community aside from a few duplexes and 4-5 coach houses. We’re talking about fitting maybe a few percent more residents in a given area, not the transformation we need in the city to overcome the housing crisis. The Official Plan promises 15-minute neighbourhoods, but what it offers where I live is the status quo.

I believe that the goal with zoning and with enabling more mixed-use in general should not be top-down designation lot by lot, but rather creating a clear, predictable system that gives residents and entrepreneurs the opportunity to invest in a low-impact commercial business in their own neighbourhoods, if they so choose.

The question for me isn’t “which lots should we pick?”, but rather, “can we create simple rules that allow for positive, organic change wherever property owners want it?” This proposal outlines a low-cost, high-impact policy shift that directly supports the city’s official goals for climate action, equity, and fiscal responsibility.

Ottawa stands at a critical juncture, facing intertwined challenges of housing affordability, climate action, and long-term fiscal sustainability. Our current zoning by-laws, particularly the most restrictive residential codes (such as N1 and N2), are not merely outdated; they actively prohibit the very solutions needed to address these issues. These codes enshrine a car-dependent, low-density development pattern that is financially unsustainable and socially isolating. To truly build a city of walkable, 15-minute neighbourhoods and to ensure the fiscal health of our municipality for generations to come, we must embrace a comprehensive, city-wide approach to zoning reform. This is a generational opportunity to legalize “gentle density” by default, allowing for the organic evolution of our communities.

The Vision: A 15-Minute Neighbourhood for Every Street

Ottawa’s Official Plan champions the vision of a city of walkable “15-minute neighbourhoods.” However, the current draft bylaw legally prohibits this possibility for the vast majority of suburban streets (N1-N4), who generally need to travel much further than a 15-minute walk to get to a mixed-use corridor.

In particular, my neighbourhood in Convent Glen North is a perfect candidate for a wider use of the ‘mixed-use residential’ designation, as there is effectively no mixed-use zoning within 1-2 kilometres of most houses here, and so under the current rules there is zero chance of this neighbourhood ever becoming a 15-minute neighbourhood. We also have very VERY low density despite being within a kilometre of a transit station, but that’s a separate issue. This is more than a missed opportunity for convenience and sustainability; it’s a barrier to achieving the city’s climate goals by reducing car dependency.

The notion that single-family homes are the only appropriate housing type for vast swathes of our city is a relic of a bygone era. The property tax revenue generated by these low-density developments is insufficient to cover the enormous long-term costs of the infrastructure required to service them—roads, pipes, and sewers that are now rapidly aging. By eliminating the most restrictive residential zones and establishing a more permissive baseline (such as the N3 zone) across all neighbourhoods, we can allow for the construction of duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings throughout the city. This isn’t about imposing large-scale, disruptive projects from big developers that draw the ire of local residents concerned about their view and traffic noise; it’s about empowering property owners and entrepreneurs to gradually, incrementally, and organically add diverse housing options that meet the evolving needs of our residents and contribute more effectively to our municipal tax base.

The Financial Imperative: Why This Change is Not Optional

The most compelling reason to enable more productive land use in our suburbs is simple: the current model of residential and very single-family heavy land use is not financially sustainable. I would challenge the city to look closely at the basic math about the lifecycle cost of municipal infrastructure and the tax base of residential suburbs, it just doesn’t add up.

Recent long-term infrastructure reports have shown city council that our infrastructure costs are starting to balloon quickly as the first ‘generation’ of Ottawa’s suburbs are starting to age and need replacement. My street Chablis Park has had 2 water main breaks in the last 3 weeks, and 3 total in the last 3-4 years, and the costs associated with fixing these breaks is only going to go up. Raising taxes, cutting services, or increasing density (and/or mixed use) are the only ways we can offset these growing city costs, and people REALLY don’t like when taxes are raised or services are cut at the same cost.

Since those are not viable paths, the only responsible alternative is to allow our suburbs to evolve. We must allow for land uses that generate more tax revenue per foot of pipe and pavement. This proposal is not merely about creating charming walkable streets dotted with small businesses and small apartment complexes; it is a direct and necessary response to this underlying fiscal crisis.

A Patient, Pro-Business Strategy for Resilience

Legalizing small-scale, low-impact commercial uses is the most prudent way to begin this transition. It’s a pro-small business strategy that removes red tape, allowing a local entrepreneur to launch a corner café or a professional to run a quiet practice from home. Each small addition makes a neighbourhood more complete and, critically, improves the tax-to-infrastructure ratio. These types of businesses are already legal in N5 and N6, and they should be legal in N1-4 as well.

Addressing the Predictable Concerns

A change like this naturally raises questions and concerns from residents, but they must be weighed against the unsustainable cost of the status quo.

Concern: “This will create traffic, noise, and parking chaos.”

• Solution: Strict guardrails on scale, form, and use are essential to ensure new additions are truly “low-impact.” These rules can ensure that development is compatible with its surroundings, preserving neighbourhood character while increasing its value.

Concern: “This is administratively complex.”

• Solution: A clear, “as-of-right” system, where a proposal is permitted if it meets well-defined rules, is far simpler than the current system of one-off, expensive minor variances. The clarity of a rules-based system reduces administrative burden and conflict.

Two Simple, Rules-Based Approaches

1. The Simple Enabler: Legalize by Zone

• Expand permissions for a defined set of “low-impact commercial uses” to be allowed “as-of-right” in all N1-N4 zones, like there is in N5 and N6.

2. The Nodal Approach: Legalize by Location

• Create a city-wide rule permitting these same uses on lots that meet a specific geographic criterion, such as being a corner lot and/or any lot not facing another residential lot.

This isn’t a radical idea; it’s a return to the pattern that built our most beloved and fiscally solvent neighbourhoods. It is the most responsible path forward to ensure our suburbs can become more prosperous, resilient, and financially self-sufficient communities.

Removing restrictive zoning is not solely about increasing housing supply; it’s also about fostering economically and socially resilient communities. By integrating permissions for low-impact, neighbourhood-serving commercial uses (e.g., corner stores, cafes, quiet professional practices) directly into all residential zones, we “decriminalize” the natural emergence of vibrant, mixed-use areas. This allows residents to access daily amenities without relying on a car, reducing household expenses and contributing to a more active, connected community life. This approach aligns with the principles of fiscal sustainability, as these small businesses generate more tax revenue per foot of pipe and pavement, improving the critical tax-to-infrastructure ratio. It’s a pro-small business strategy that removes unnecessary red tape, allowing local entrepreneurs to invest in their own neighbourhoods and build a more complete, self-sufficient city.