by Lilith Finkler1

Psychiatric survivors rarely consider land use law a crucial concern. Zoning restrictions, however, such as minimum separation distance requirements, have a disproportionately negative impact on psychiatric survivor tenants. Group homes often provide housing to psychiatric survivors. Minimum separation distance requirements stipulate that group homes must be a specified minimum distance apart. If group homes are deemed too close, the second proposed home may not be established at the desired location. Zoning bylaws, therefore, can limit psychiatric survivor housing.

In the 1960s, when group homes were first established, Ontario municipalities required site-specific zoning bylaw amendments2. Organizations that established group homes applied for amendments on a case-by-case basis. Public meetings, required under the Planning Act, offered opportunities for prospective neighbours to oppose housing developments. By 1986, Toronto bylaws permitted group homes “as of right” in residential areas, subject to separation distances3. Group homes were then routinely permitted; a zoning bylaw amendment was no longer required. This change eliminated the statutory requirement for public meetings. Minimum separation distances were seen as a “balance”, a preventive measure to permit group homes and ensure no one neighbourhood was inundated with social services or their recipients.

An examination of Ontario city bylaws revealed that, as of April 2007, 42 of 45 (93%) Ontario cities enacted group home bylaws. 35 of 42 (83%) cities also enacted separation distance requirements. Table #1 lists cities and bylaws. Inconsistencies exist in the application of minimum separation distance requirements. For example, Mississauga (population 700,300) and Quinte West (population 41,000) both have separation distances of 800 metres. This inconsistency illustrates the arbitrariness of separation distances. Larger cities, one imagines, would enact greater distance requirements as group homes could be spread over a wider area. Smaller cities with compact central business districts would need shorter distance requirements to ensure proximity to local amenities. However, as the chart below illustrates, such logic has not guided application of separation distance guidelines.

Table #1 Current Minimum Separation Distance Bylaws in Ontario

Sometimes, bylaws stipulate varying separation distances for different types of group homes. For example, in Vaughan, “Group Home Type 1” which houses psychiatric survivors is subject to 300 metre separation distances. “Group Home Type 2” provides housing within a corrections context and is subject to 1000 metre separation distances.4 Clearly, Vaughan uses separation distance requirements to regulate particular types of people by limiting types of housing. Vaughan bylaws do not mention structural differences between housing types. It is inhabitants and regulatory regimes under which group homes are administered that differentiate them.

Some cities measure distances from property line to property line; others measure them from structure to structure. Measuring property line to property line increases required distance between homes, exacerbating difficulties in locating suitable sites for housing. Some cities employ radial separation distances rather than rectangular ones, as is the case in Ottawa5. This difference in measurement form may comply with local topography. However, its use also highlights methods by which municipalities may increase distance between group home locations. Finally, group homes may be subject to different separation distances in a municipality’s downtown than when located in outskirts of the same city.6

Bylaws of only three cities - Elliot Lake, Orillia and Pickering - remain silent on group homes and, consequently, require site-specific amendments. Orillia’s silence is particularly disconcerting. Orillia is the closest city to Huronia Regional Centre, an institution for persons with developmental disabilities scheduled to close by 20097. Despite the government’s intention to relocate disabled inhabitants to group homes, Orillia has not enacted group home bylaws. This municipal policy forces housing developers to initiate site-specific applications, slowing down deinstitutionalization.

Typically, municipalities insist that separation distance requirements disperse group homes and, therefore, benefit both psychiatric survivors and their neighbours. First, separation distances encourage community integration8. Second, they decentralise and enforce equitable distribution of social services. Similarly, planners depict minimum separation distances as preventing an over concentration of group homes9. The term “over concentration” describes a high density of social services in particular vicinities. Minimum separation distances are, therefore, a response to perceived clustering.10

Studies that investigated psychiatric survivors living in community residences, however, have concluded that physical integration has not guaranteed social integration. Being in space does not mean being considered “in place”11. This conclusion challenges the idea that implementation of separation distance requirements facilitates community integration. Dispersing group homes physically does not result in dispersing tenants socially.

Dispersing group homes may exacerbate social isolation and limit tenants’ ability to access resources. Organizations in smaller communities may have difficulty locating their premises close to local amenities12. Planners initially recommended implementation of separation distances in an urban context. Application of separation distances to small town and rural locations is inherently problematic. In addition, separation distances may allow privileged homeowners to avoid contact with psychiatric survivor neighbours13. Spatial deconcentration may assist planners to ignore systemic discrimination. 14

Minimum separation distance bylaws maintain segregation by reinforcing opponents’ power to determine where psychiatric survivors live. If housing providers wish to build in an area and another residence exists within the separation distance, providers must apply for a minor variance to a municipal Committee of Adjustment. If the application is denied, developers can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), an administrative tribunal rendering land use decisions.