News   Nov 04, 2024
News Roundup for November 4, 2024
 54     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
Brick Works Brilliance
 351     0 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 2.3K     15 

Zoning Reform Ideas

Undead said:
"The province will amend the Building Code to allow two- and three-unit homes in existing houses provided the same square footage is retained — so no extensions or additional floors without municipal permission."

Yet no one has a problem with the idiotic monster homes going up all over the place. Rubbish.
Click to expand...
Of course, the idiotic monster homes are their homes.
 
Undead said:
Yet no one has a problem with the idiotic monster homes going up all over the place. Rubbish.
Click to expand...
My understanding is - anecdotally - that people do care, but they appear to be way more upset about multiplexes and renters. It’s frustrating, because McMansions are an eyesore and I think they’re a net negative for the city.
 
I can see a scenario where some would-be monster home builders build a three-plex instead and pack each one with 5-6 student renters. In this case, I'm sympathetic to neighbors' concerns because such rental ghettos are bad for both tenants and current residents. Just look at the YorkU Village.

It's also the case that the type of renter makes a difference. Having young professional couples and families as next door renter neighbors is much more palatable than young singles, especially students.

However, more rental units, including bedrooms within existing units, are desperately needed, given that a third of homeless shelter occupants are now students.

Gentle density plexes are also desirable as relatively affordable market ownership units.

Ideally, we would have a moderate infusion of both net new renters and owners in densified yellowbelt lots.
 
Undead said:
I can see a scenario where some would-be monster home builders build a three-plex instead and pack each one with 5-6 student renters. In this case, I'm sympathetic to neighbors' concerns because such rental ghettos are bad for both tenants and current residents. Just look at the YorkU Village.

It's also the case that the type of renter makes a difference. Having young professional couples and families as next door renter neighbors is much more palatable than young singles, especially students.

However, more rental units, including bedrooms within existing units, are desperately needed, given that a third of homeless shelter occupants are now students.
Click to expand...
I can understand where the concerns about the "right type" of renter is coming from, but at the end of the day, these kind of overpacked rooming houses exist because we're so short on housing. The housing crisis affects everyone and disallowing certain people is the wrong way to go about things (the Toronto approach - a band-aid on a band-aid).
Undead said:
Gentle density plexes are also desirable as relatively affordable market ownership units.

Ideally, we would have a moderate infusion of both net new renters and owners in densified yellowbelt lots.
Click to expand...
I agree - we need gentle density. But we need that everywhere for it to make the dent in the market that we want.

Totally unrelated, but I see people argue for renting and against ownership. This doesn't help - people need to live somewhere, and renting doesn't increase housing supply.
 
Whoa, completely insane idea buried in this package:

1666725096107.png


From: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-...t-allow-three-units-on-one-property-1.6123676

Absurd, completely unwieldy.
 
Ontario is taking action to ensure that complete, sustainable communities are built near and centred around our historic investments in provincewide transit expansion. Proposed changes to the Planning Act would help move towards “as-of-right” zoning to meet planned minimum density targets near major transit stations, reducing approval timelines and getting shovels in the ground faster. Once the key development policies for major transit stations are approved, municipalities would be required to update their zoning by-laws within one year to meet minimum density targets.
Click to expand...
Seems the province is moving density targets to a requirement at MTSA's. Wonder if this will involve any changes to the SPA process in this areas.
 
There's some really important stuff in the Provincial bill-to-be that could be very helpful in getting more housing built faster. Among those:

- Doing away with third party appeals at the OLT. This is a massive arrow in the quiver in the fight against NIMBYism, and I really hope the Province doesn't backtrack between now and Royal Assent in the spring
- No DCs, CBCs, or park levies on affordable housing, incl in IZ zones (and the 5% and 25-yr term cap on IZ AH is big too)
- DC reductions for purpose-built market rentals (25% on 3B, 20% on 2B, 15% on 1B) is a smart way to incent the creation of more family-sized units
- No site plan control for buildings with fewer than 10 units is big for enabling smaller scale development
- As with much of this stuff, the devil will be in the details, but the prospect of the OLT prioritizing cases that “create the most housing” is encouraging.
 
Many announcements of consultations / future announcements in there lol.

Consulting with municipalities to reduce property taxes on affordable housing / multi-family buildings in general, consulting with developers about land speculation, consultation on expanding vacant homes tax to more municipalities etc etc
 
Ontario is proposing changes to the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act and the Conservation Authorities Act to freeze, reduce, and exempt fees to spur the supply of new home construction and help address Ontario’s housing supply crisis. This includes ensuring affordable, and inclusionary zoning units, select attainable housing units, as well as non-profit housing developments, are exempt from municipal development charges, parkland dedication levies, and community benefits charges.
Click to expand...
Sounds like only the IZ units (not the whole development) are exempt from the above charges, so I guess limiting the affordable units to 5%/25 years is "fair". The city can always negotiate for more affordable units in any given development in a settlement, and such units being charge exempt will encourage developers to negotiate.
 
ADRM said:
There's some really important stuff in the Provincial bill-to-be that could be very helpful in getting more housing built faster. Among those:

- Doing away with third party appeals at the OLT. This is a massive arrow in the quiver in the fight against NIMBYism, and I really hope the Province doesn't backtrack between now and Royal Assent in the spring
Click to expand...

I can't support wholesale removal of the right of affected persons (by way of shadow, by way of overlook, by way of traffic etc.) from being able to go through the legally offered disputed settlement mechanism if they believe the City/proponent is doing them wrong.

I do favour limitations on this; that you can't file an appeal because its Tuesday; you have to show a sound reason under policy why an appeal should be considered. I'm completely fine w/the OLT dispensing with complaints, which on first read would never stand up at a hearing.

I'm also fine with more clearly scoping grounds for appeal, for instance, removing height or density on their own as grounds for appeal; you need to show the adverse impact, on you/your property, not just engage in expensive yelling at clouds.

ADRM said:
- No DCs, CBCs, or park levies on affordable housing, incl in IZ zones (and the 5% and 25-yr term cap on IZ AH is big too)
Click to expand...

We need clarification on this. If it costs cities too much money, they may move to repeal inclusionary zoning. We need a clear strategy for funding cities, not merely one of knocking down their revenues.

ADRM said:
- DC reductions for purpose-built market rentals (25% on 3B, 20% on 2B, 15% on 1B) is a smart way to incent the creation of more family-sized units
Click to expand...

The problem here, again, is that the City might choose to make this up by simply raising DCs on everything by a large enough number to offset their revenue loss; in which case the 25% reduction may bring the DCs down to what they already are now.

I'm not opposed to looking at this type of measure; I happen to think Cities are overly-reliant on DCs; but again, that revenue-loss must be offset; and needs to be factored in to this.

ADRM said:
- No site plan control for buildings with fewer than 10 units is big for enabling smaller scale development
Click to expand...

I agree with this; with the possible exception of Heritage Designated Buildings or immediately abutting properties where some of the details in site plans do matter.

ADRM said:
- As with much of this stuff, the devil will be in the details, but the prospect of the OLT prioritizing cases that “create the most housing” is encouraging.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not sure here..........if there are no new resources at the OLT, moving one party ahead in the line invariably means making another wait even longer.

If larger proposals mean longer hearings, it may be that more than one smaller proposal is delayed by advancing the larger one; a net gain here is not a given.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top