News   May 30, 2024
 376     0 
News   May 30, 2024
 1K     2 
News   May 30, 2024
 545     0 

Zoning Reform Ideas

Would love to see the government implement some sort of tax on housing purchases that are refunded/waived if the buyer (source of the purchase funds) pays income taxes in Ontario.
 
Lots of people actually object to those; however, they are often permitted anyway.

They can sometimes be built as-of-right, so there is no opportunity to object; other times developers compensate immediate neighbours and/or buy out those properties.

This is a very important point. It is a myth that local residents "look the other way'" for monster home proposals in their neighborhood, only to be perturbed by missing middle or mid-rise proposals. If you go to the Development proposal map on the city's website, you'll see plenty of letters from neighbours complaining about single family dwelling proposals. It's particularly funny reading letters from residents in areas like Willowdale where it's likely that the complainant is the owner of a monster home themselves. 😆
 
Some good renderings to demonstrate just how ridiculous Toronto zoning is:


It doesn't look crowded at all, other than in a few city blocks. Most of it has almost no one living there!
 
Some good renderings to demonstrate just how ridiculous Toronto zoning is:


It doesn't look crowded at all, other than in a few city blocks. Most of it has almost no one living there!
You don't have to go to BlogTO to learn about this model. Unless I am incorrect, it is by outstanding longtime UT member @steveve
 
I don't think we have a dedicated thread for MTSAs writ large, so I'll plunk this here.

A report is heading to next week's Planning and Housing Ctte which has draft MTSA regulations for the areas around Line 2 (Bloor-Danforth) stations. This is not the final report, which should be in the next couple of months; but it should closely resemble what we will see.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-174826.pdf

A few items from said report:

1641393751690.png


I'm not going to post the maps for each MTSA as that would require 3 posts, but I thought I'd put an example up:

1641393887244.png

1641393953978.png


All the MTSA Maps can be found here:

 
Those population+employment minimums for Line 2 are ridiculously low.

I see TO Planning still hasn’t changed that huh.

As minimums, not maximums, I'm not necessarily phased by that.

I do not have the time at the moment to go over each map, I'm sure I would find a few places where Planning and I would not agree!

****

What I do find unfortunate is that the report maps don't show before/after, so you have to look that up yourself!

They also don't show how close the areas are to meeting or exceeding the targets. Is there any point in the exercise if, for argument's sake
you impose a 200 resident + job density and you're already at 300 within the map area?

I suspect some streets may be lined with heritage homes and big trees and any bump in minimum density is likely only to encourage/permit multiplexing within said buildings.

That's something I'd probably be fine with in many cases, but again, I (you/everyone) would need to look street by street to see what has or has not been upzoned and what reasoning Planning provides for same.

****

In the end, I find the reports to be insufficiently informative to easily evaluate the proposed changes, and I object to that being added to my work program! LOL
 
As minimums, not maximums, I'm not necessarily phased by that.

I do not have the time at the moment to go over each map, I'm sure I would find a few places where Planning and I would not agree!

****

What I do find unfortunate is that the report maps don't show before/after, so you have to look that up yourself!

They also don't show how close the areas are to meeting or exceeding the targets. Is there any point in the exercise if, for argument's sake
you impose a 200 resident + job density and you're already at 300 within the map area?

I suspect some streets may be lined with heritage homes and big trees and any bump in minimum density is likely only to encourage/permit multiplexing within said buildings.

That's something I'd probably be fine with in many cases, but again, I (you/everyone) would need to look street by street to see what has or has not been upzoned and what reasoning Planning provides for same.

****

In the end, I find the reports to be insufficiently informative to easily evaluate the proposed changes, and I object to that being added to my work program! LOL

What I do not understand, not being an expert in land use planning, is how the minimums would be enforced. Do they only come into play when a site plan application is submitted for a new development at a site, or are they enforceable whenever there is an application for a building permit (including for interior renovations of existing structures), or is there some plan/method to enforce it on property owners who do not make any application to make any changes to their properties?
 
What I do not understand, not being an expert in land use planning, is how the minimums would be enforced. Do they only come into play when a site plan application is submitted for a new development at a site, or are they enforceable whenever there is an application for a building permit (including for interior renovations of existing structures), or is there some plan/method to enforce it on property owners who do not make any application to make any changes to their properties?

Others are better suited to answer this; but my take is that they would be in play on any Planning or Zoning amendment, for sure; and probably a Site Plan Amendment as well.

Building permits cover far too wide a range of maintenance projects to be a vehicle for compliance.
 
Others are better suited to answer this; but my take is that they would be in play on any Planning or Zoning amendment, for sure; and probably a Site Plan Amendment as well.

Building permits cover far too wide a range of maintenance projects to be a vehicle for compliance.
Someone asked this question at the 5th Jan community consultation meeting, and was told that an addition to their SFH would not trigger a requirement for a density increase. Presumably, an amendment as Northern Light suggests, would do so.

The planners were also asked about the how they came by the suggested density minimums. Paraphrasing, the response was that they came up with guidelines (to ensure consistency) while in the process of informally consulting with others, but when asked to make the guidelines they used available for transparency purposes, then there were no actual guidelines.

AmJ
 
informally consulting with others
I’m gonna interpret this as “talking to residents associations and Councillors along Line 2” - none of whom are interested in any sort of density increase at all. The province should just throw this out the window, unilaterally double density minimums along the line and specify dates at which they’ll be met.

Yes - I’m not in a particularly giving mood.
 
I’m increasingly in favor of removing all planning and zoning control from Toronto City Council (and other city councils, but happy to start with Toronto).
 

Back
Top