Lawyer slams ‘bigotry’ of opponents of new Larga Baffin home
Ottawa neighbourhood association’s appeal of Larga Baffin proposal being argued before Ontario Land Tribunal
A lawyer representing Larga Baffin in a hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal on Tuesday called out the “bigotry” of Ottawa residents who object to the Nunavummiut care facility building a larger centre in the city’s Upper Hunt Club neighbourhood. Pictured here is an architectural drawing showing the proposed six-storey, 220-room design of a new Larga Baffin facility. (Image courtesy of DTAH Architects)
A lawyer representing Larga Baffin at an Ontario Land Tribunal hearing blasted the “bigotry” of some Ottawa residents who object to a new building for the care facility that city council approved to go up in their neighbourhood.
The Upper Hunt Club Community Association is appealing city council’s approval of Larga Baffin’s application to build a larger facility in the neighbourhood near the airport. Larga Baffin is a temporary boarding facility that serves Nunavummiut while they are receiving advanced medical care in Ottawa.
Last July, Ottawa city council approved Larga Baffin’s application to build a new centre, which would have space for 350 beds in 220 rooms and be closer to the Ottawa International Airport than its current 195-bed building on Richmond Road.
The community association is objecting to that approval on the grounds that the size and location of the centre at the intersection of Hunt Club Road and Sieveright Avenue will cause increased traffic in the area, among other concerns.
The neighbourhood association counts a membership of 91 households, according to the group’s lawyer Joshua Moon.
A virtual hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal began Tuesday.
In his opening statements, Larga Baffin lawyer Michael Polowin said the proposal to build a larger facility has been subjected to discrimination by local residents.
“In practising law now for 38 years, I have never seen such bigotry from a community,” he said.
A virtual public meeting organized last year by then-city councillor Diane Deans became heated at times when some residents shared their objections to the proposed build.
Back then, many residents shared concerns about traffic and the impact of the height of the building on surrounding properties, but drew criticism from others who said those concerns simply amounted to a not-in-my-backyard attitude.
“This proposal … simply allows a use which is more compatible with the existing neighborhood, and moves a line on a map with respect to the height only just a very few metres,” Polowin said.
The proposed height of the six-storey building would be 22 metres high.
Polowin said the appellant’s argument that the building will cause increased traffic disruptions is unfounded.
“It is at the end an appeal which was conceived in disreputable objectives and has been born into an attempt to stop or slow down a perfectly reasonable use of the lands,” he said.
The City of Ottawa said that the appeal should be dismissed.
“[The opponents] are contesting transportation concerns in this matter, but it’s not this facility that creates those transportation concerns,” said lawyer Tim Marc, representing the City of Ottawa.
“The city council has outlined a willingness to look at the Bank and Sieveright intersection in the future when the development charges bylaw is revised in 2024, but it is not this facility that is creating the transportation impacts and as such the city respectfully submits that such is not an appropriate concern,” he said.
Witness testimony was slow to start Tuesday, as lawyers for Larga Baffin Ltd. said the background of a transportation planner the community association wanted to call as a witness did not qualify him to speak to land-use issues.
The virtual hearing continues Wednesday and is expected to last for five days, concluding April 19. The Ontario Land Tribunal will issue a written decision following the hearing.
a Nimby in Canada can destroy any project they don’t like without any valid reasons by simply applying the processes that are in place. it drags out projects to the point where they die. Canada needs ANTI-NIMBY legislation to ensure valuable projects like this actually go ahead. This is happening here in Nunavut as well, just look around!
Please provide an example of Nunavuts NIMBY attitude, that you claim.
A few years ago, in Iqaluit, when the GN was seeking planning permission for the new women’s shelter there was a campaign by some of the residents in the affected neighbourhood. It appeared to me to be primarily NIMBY based.
Example: Mary River.
Ask anyone around Richmond road what they think of living near baffin Larga. I’m sure they all have great things to say. Lotta drunks and fighting and cops showing up all day all night ?
You’re exaggerating. I’ve stayed at Larga and while there are occasional drunks, it’s not as bad as you make it sound. The traffic and squealing tires are more annoying.
Ottawa residents are so fickle, they care more about the height of their grass than their fellow humans.
Hey Mit, now you are talking about inner city housing projects. This building is health related structure. Not a slum area in many of the Canadian cities as we know them….and beside, most of the employees would ne locals, your people in Ottawa. Gainfully employed rather than pushing illicit whatever.
I’ve followed this story for long enough to know that reducing the issue to an outburst of bigotry has a lot more to do with getting eyes on the page than it does with providing good information.
Identify and follow the incentives!
Once upon a time I would have accepted the “racism” narrative without a second thought but after years of hearing stories of serious mismanagement at Larga, constant drinking and drugs resulting in harassment of other patients including elders, cops being called at all hours and worse, I’m no longer as willing to be so unsympathetic and disbelieving of the concerned residents.
Maybe the residents know all about the mismanagement at Larga’s current location and have some legitimate fears for their neighbourhood.
Nunasi Corporation is in charge of Larga, along with other boarding homes in Manitoba, Edmonton etc. They need to manage the person who they hire to manage these facilities better!!
The 300 room bldg seems rather big. The health dept need to relook at how the escort system works. That is the main reason why there has been an increase in numbers of beds over the years. A better system of getting interpreters for one thing at Larga and the hospitals is one. Second is to hire staff to assist those who need assistance; broken legs, arms, post-surgery, (establish rooms for them that have bathrooms with special sinks, doors that exist today, etc.) Third, assess the system for number of escorts; for children and babies, pregnant woman and baby birth, medivacs, terminal patients, etc. Social issues that arise due to alcohol abuse and the drama; how do you deal with that before it happens, after it happens. Another major issue is with patients who are away for months and longer who are homesick, depressed, emotional and then those learn of terminal illnesses. There is so much anguish. How much emotional support and counselling is available that would alleviate situations and not increase unhappy conditions and behaviours. The social issues that were created by federal day schools, residential schools, relocation and abuse of families follow those who enter those doors. Hiring specific type of staff; training, development, and providing services would surely help. Why does GN only try to mitigate bad news stories which burns a hole in their pockets. Whenever a system is set up, there will always be someone to take advantage of it. There are individuals who follow their relatives or friends who sometimes don’t really need escorts just to go shopping and go on a little holiday. We see them. Some manipulate Larga staff by blaming the patients who get threatened by guards.
It’s not 300 rooms, it can accommodate 300 people. It’s 220 rooms.
if the white people don’t like it they can move lmfao. Support inuit <3
+ they should get off of indigenous land anyways.
You’ve had 500 years to get them off, what have you been waiting for?
But why should they, they were here first?
The resistance to this has nothing to do with the title of the article. Any residential area would reject such a monstrosity in their neighborhood. The way Inuit behave when they go south (with exception of a very few) is solid ground for concern. The building size and the company it holds would be best in an industrial park. I would be most concerned for the safety of my kids and property when escorts, and patients, go off the hinge.
…..
And I don’t say this blindly. I have been intermingled with Nunavutmuit for over three decades. On the land, sober, they have skill and talent that out-match no other. In a city with free run alcohol there is no ‘one with dinner’ or ‘pass out’ stage, its just blind-black-out running. Sucks to say, but Im not lying.
LOL you prove the title of the article with your statement – “The way Inuit behave when they go south (with exception of a very few) is solid ground for concern.”. Way to paint a entire race with one brush, with the exception of a very special few. I feel pity for the people you have intermingled with over the last three decades. A industrial park for a residence that houses people who are seeking medical attention is a terrible idea, an out of sight out of mind mindset is the definition of NIMBYism.
Do better.
what is this repeat about using the same brush. Want to make another color? Then be the sober , unadulterous one in the group that takes proper care of their kids and themselves. Show your culture through example. People are only seeing one color, and just because there is a little bit of a different color on your paint brush, it still gets muddled into the same alcohol abusing grey because there are too many of them. You do better, and if you do, then help someone by being a sober escort.
It is not bigoted to state the obvious. Inuit need to take responsibility for their own actions. Its like saying some african counties are corrupt. Is that bigoted also? I doubt it.
Art Thompson said:
“Inuit need to take responsibility for their own actions.”
There’s your bigoted statement right there as it is painting all Inuit with the same brush.
If you had said
“Any Larga guests who have problems with alcohol should take responsibility for their own actions.”
that is a bit better, but it is still assuming that a significant number of Larga guests have alcohol problems, otherwise why would you even bother saying it.
As for your comment:
“Some African countries are corrupt”
Yes, that is bigoted as you are implying that the entire country is built on a foundation of corruption.
If you were to say:
“The Minister of Technology for Zimbabwe is corrupt”
and have the evidence to back it up, then that is a completely fair statement.
Anytime you assign a characteristic or behaviour to a large group of people (in your examples Inuit and Africans) it is indeed a bigoted statement.
The UN and several other agencies using various criteria rank countries by levels of corruption. Africa countries lead the way. That is not bigoted but rather factual. Inuit taking more responsibility for their personal activites that seem to apparently drive some of this concern is again not bigoted but rather a level playing field in all human endeavour.
Comparing a country to a race of people is a bad faith argument. Saying a entire race of people need to take responsibility for their own actions is bigoted.
Do better.
It’s not really bad faith, unless it is intentionally deceptive. It is fallacious and ignorant though.
So why paint a picture of some bad apples? Every race has their own and not one is alike.. You cannot judge a book by its cover and I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if I judge you by looking at you only?
The comments about the location being inappropriate seem to imply that this is being plunked down in the middle of a neighbourhood. This is completely untrue.
Go and look at the satellite view on Google Maps, 1470 Hunt Club Road. From that address west, it is commercial and light industrial for about a kilometer until it meets the Airport Parkway.
There are already several businesses, including car dealerships, that use the “residential” Sieveright Avenue to access their premises.
Residents of the area bought their properties knowing full well they were adjacent to a significant commercial and light inudstrial zone.
Stop the misinformation.
“ Residents of the area bought their properties knowing full well they were adjacent to a significant commercial and light inudstrial zone.”
False. The Largo transient housing development can’t be built as-of right and requires numerous exceptions to the existing zoning (including a hilarious determination by woke city officials that this is a medical facility and not transient housing — despite there being no medical aspect to any of this). Why don’t we discuss why this development has had ZERO engagement with the community?
>despite there being no medical aspect to any of this
Except the part where the only people who stay there are patients from Nunavut who require long-term medical treatment like chemotherapy or needing monitoring for high-risk pregnancies. It’s defined as a residential care facility.
>Why don’t we discuss why this development has had ZERO engagement with the community?
If by ‘no engagement’ you mean: ‘The Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications have followed the public notice, as per our internal policies and the Province’s Planning Act requirements – this includes on-site signs*; a 120m radius mail out; posting of information on the City website (www.ottawa.ca/devapps); circulation of materials to the local Ward Councillor, and circulation to registered Community Associations. Staff notified all residents who commented on these applications with a copy of the report, date of the City’s Planning Committee and how to register to speak at the Planning Committee.’, then sure, there was no engagement.
The Planning Committee report can be found here: https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=75453
“It’s defined as a residential care facility.”
Again with the misinformation. Have you ever been to Largo in Westboro? It’s a hotel. There are no nurses.
“Engagement with the community”
LOL. The initial application for the site was pulled because the for-profit developer (Largo) failed to comply with the disclosure requirements – including not even posting any signage! The developer subsequently ignored ALL attempts at communication with the affected community.
Largo is making clear it will be a bad neighbour – we are equally making clear how opposed we are and will continue to be.
The nature of the development is not misinformation, it’s a fact. From the city’s report:
“…Section 54 states that a residential care facility “may also provide on-going medical or nursing care or counselling and social support services” and that these services “may include services such as medical, counselling, and personal services”. This permissive phrasing indicates that the provision of such services is optional but are not required for an operation to be considered a “residential care facility” use.
Therefore, the proposed Larga Baffin facility is considered a “residential care facility” within the meaning of the Zoning By-law.”
That’s an absurd argument. By that logic, one could build a Holiday Inn on the site and refer to itself as a residential care facility -since there is no obligation to actually do anything, everything is permissive, etc. Let’s call a spade a spade – this was only permitted to indulge the current flavour of the moment.
“ Residents of the area bought their properties knowing full well they were adjacent to a significant commercial and light industrial zone.”
This is not misinformation, it is a fact. The car lots, light manufacturing facilities and retail facilities are there now. How can you deny that?
The fact that the current zoning does not allow for a building like the Larga is true. But no one can possible believe that all future use of the existing land was going to be residential.
I wonder if the building in questions was a six-story office building (which could have been proposed even though not within the existing zinging) would have received similar backlash? Even though an office building would bring far more traffic the neighbourhood than the Largo ever will.
If you want to argue facts, then argue facts. But don’t make up “alternative facts” to convince yourself you are making an objective argument.
You seem to enjoy a tenuous relationship with the truth. The existing developments are all one story. The proposed development is 5-6 stories and includes a future condo/semi-detached component. An office building simply cannot be built there under current zoning, so your last argument makes no sense.
This whole development relies on a determination that a transient hotel is somehow a medical facility, when it is simply a hotel. The use of a hotel by a class of persons doesn’t change the nature of the hotel.
I watched the transformation of Vancouver’s light industrial / retail lands (some of which were adjacent to single-family home zoned areas) for more than two decades. The initial wave was re-purposing of existing facilities. The second wave was the introduction of low-density multi-story office buildings. The third wave was high-density multi-story residential buildings which typically included office space and retail uses.
My point is that a great deal of the opposition to the Larga I’ve read about is based on the assumption that the zoning will remain static going forward. Having seen Vancouver already go through all of these debates, I can guarantee that the zoning will not remain static, Larga or not. So, if the opponents to the Larga are primarily concerned about density, this will be a never-ending fight. Re-zoning of growing cities / metropolitan areas only goes in one direction, and that is increased density.
So, assuming that increased density on these lands is inevitable (which I understand you dispute), the primary question is how do you want that density to develop? That was the point of my example of a multi-story office building.
Thank you for your constructive response.
The Vancouver example is a good one. As I’m sure you’ll agree, the transformation of those lands necessitated substantial zoning revisions. Substantial zoning changes implicate substantial engagement with the neighbouring community, detailed and extensive analysis, etc.
None of that was done here – instead, a for-profit developer, largely relying on current public sympathy for a class of persons, was able to take an absurd position that its development proposal was a “minor” zoning variation and so short-circuited the lengthy approval process typically associated with a development of this nature. Zero proactive engagement, rampant misinformation and tarring all any and all critics as bigots.
As a community, we are resigned to this monstrous development proceeding – we are simply individuals and don’t have the resources of a big developer (one that has engaged major local builders in this development, tied up all the major lawyers, etc.) . We are vocalizing our concerns in the perhaps-naive hope that it may prevent something like this from happening to you and your neighbours as well …
So anyone who objects to this monstrosity is a bigot, regardless of the reasons?
I object to a for-profit business building a transient housing development wildly inconsistent with its neighbours, with respect to which it has held absolutely zero consultations with the neighbouring community, disregarded any and all suggestions from the neighbouring community after it was forced to hold a hearing, and then snuck in and received rezoning that would permit it to build semi-detached housing on a portion of the lands.
It’s being built where it makes the most sense, in relation proximity to the airport being number 1. The area is full of hotels and strip malls. You’re not building it in the middle of the suburbs. Give the people a place to stay that’s not over crowded for once. Have a friggen heart
I have a heart. I also would have thought people would follow the zoning rules, and not dole out exceptions to whomever is the flavour of the moment. Building a 6 storey hotel and then condos/semi-detached in a small, quiet neighbourhood that does not have the infrastructure to deal with any of this seems like a good idea?
a) it isn’t a hotel. It’s a place where people from Nunavut stay when they need medical care that isn’t available here.
b) the ‘small quiet neighbourhood’ is adjacent to a mixed use industrial area including six car dealerships, a window/door manufacturer, a cabinetry business, a swimming pool business, some park land and green space, and Bank Street.
c) none of the studies done by the city (https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=75453) suggest that infrastructure or water/sewer/etc services to the surrounding areas will be negatively impacted by Larga’s construction and operation.
A hotel for certain people is still a hotel! There are no nurses. Second, why has the for-profit developer proposed semi-detached housing on the back half of the lot? Why did the developer refuse the community request to have a covenant running with the land that the buildings could only be used for the current “medical” purpose.
When all is said and done, this is just another soulless for-profit development (hiding under the protection of a certain class) that is utterly inconsistent with, and will adversely affect the special nature of, the neighbourhood.
Zoning variances are granted every day in cities across Canada. Don’t pretend that they never happen.
The “minor” zoning variance here relies on a determination that this is a medical facility…..which it isn’t. It’s a hotel, but kudos to the developer for putting enough of a sheen on this to convince city staff.
Anyone sensible recognizes that there is no distinction between this proposal and any of the other airport hotels, though.
European Canadians acting inappropriately, bigotry! This can’t be right? The most civilized people that only bring the best around the world who never did anything wrong! ?
But seriously I am not surprised.
Not only are you not surprised, you are not even that interesting, and certainly not informative.
Nothing is ever good enough for you lot.
Larga Baffin has pursued litigation and social media campaigns and has politicized this issue to death, and now their lawyer is preaching that the community is bigoted, but this is not a binary “want the facility” or “don’t want the facility” argument. This is about proper process, this is about engaging with the community on a Future Land Use Study, as outlined in the City of Ottawa Official Plans. This is about doing proper analysis!
Why doesn’t Larga Baffin work with City of Ottawa to find a suitable location? Example: The **Ottawa International Airport Community Improvement Plan** was a good avenue for a facility like this one. There is so much natural environment around YOW, close to the new light rail system, close to the airport. Larga Baffin could have gotten some significant tax breaks in the process. Instead, they’re putting this facility on Hunt Club Road, one of the busiest arterial roads in the city! Will this be good for Larga Baffin’s residents?
Classic woke nonsense – everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a bigot. Why stop with a rooming house for transients? Why not also propose a bar and strip club on the site, on the basis that the bylaws technically read as permissive, so they would also fit under the auspices of a “minor” variance?