Zoning Reform Ideas

[Northern Light]

EHON - Major Streets, as-of-right Zoning reform report to the next meeting of Planning and Housing.

The report recommends six-storeys, as-of-right, with developments up to 30 units.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-245289.pdf

***

I'm sure we'll delve into the details in the days ahead.........but for now, I will stick to two comments.

1) 30 units is arbitrarily low and makes no sense to me.

2) Did someone count heads on the six-storeys? I have no objection, but I wonder about the vote at Council.

 

[Northern Light]

Also coming to the next meeting of Planning and Housing is another EHON report; this one on further expanding permissions for retail in neighbourhoods/house-forms.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-245316.pdf

My comment: This is really good; its more flexible than I was expecting.

****

***

 

[smably]

I wonder how they define "adjacent" for sites near schools and parks. Some parks have no directly abutting properties (I'm thinking of Dovercourt Park or Carlton Park where there are streets on every side). I wonder whether a property across the street from a park is considered to be "adjacent" to it. I guess we'll know in Q4 2024.

 

[Towered]

Also coming to the next meeting of Planning and Housing is another EHON report; this one on further expanding permissions for retail in neighbourhoods/house-forms.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-245316.pdf

My comment: This is really good; its more flexible than I was expecting.

****
View attachment 560658
View attachment 560659

View attachment 560660
***

View attachment 560663

So they've decided that permitting retail in residential areas is actually a good idea...as if that wasn't standard a hundred years ago *SLOW CLAP*. Congrats City Hall for this truly innovative initiative!

 

[Towered]

Also, is there a map defining the Major Streets? I didn't see one skimming the report.

 

[Northern Light]

So they've decided that permitting retail in residential areas is actually a good idea...

Proposed to decide; Final Report - Q4 this year.

as if that wasn't standard a hundred years ago *SLOW CLAP*. Congrats City Hall for this truly innovative initiative!

In fairness, most cities in North America, and many around the world similarly separated uses when zoning was first introduced.

Remember, at one point it was anything goes and someone could set up a aluminum smelter next to you. (the resulting emissions were not good for your health and smelled less appealing that rotting eggs).

Its entirely true that zoning regulations went overboard. But one has to remember there were good reasons to impose some restrictions, they just swung the pendulum too far.

This was planning orthodoxy for 4 generations.

So I would give current staff real applause for saying that change is necessary and embracing it.

 

[chrisw]

Also, is there a map defining the Major Streets? I didn't see one skimming the report.

 

[allengeorge]

The report recommends six-storeys, as-of-right, with developments up to 30 units.

I’m very disappointed with both these numbers. First, I would have liked to see more ambition - so a push for 8. As for unit count: surely there are other rules that limit the number of units? If so - why include a cap here?

 

[Northern Light]

I’m very disappointed with both these numbers. First, I would have liked to see more ambition - so a push for 8.

You're not the only person to say that; I'll say the same to you as them.

No chance of that passing at Council.

I'm still suspicious on whether six will get through.

But we'll see.

Maybe if the Mayor tries to whip the vote.

I favour six, as-of-right, in much of the old City, and in MTSAs but trying to push that on to a bungalow-lined suburban collector roads.......? Remember, as you noted with cycling, don't let your perfect be the enemy of the good. You have to get it passed.

As for unit count: surely there are other rules that limit the number of units? If so - why include a cap here?

I agree on this point. I think the cap is arbitrary and conflicts with other City-building goals.

 

[allengeorge]

You're not the only person to say that; I'll say the same to you as them.

No chance of that passing at Council.

I'm still suspicious on whether six will get through.

But we'll see.

Maybe if the Mayor tries to whip the vote.

I favour six, as-of-right, in much of the old City, and in MTSAs but trying to push that on to a bungalow-lined suburban collector road.......? Remember, as you noted with cycling, don't let your perfect the enemy of the good. You have to get it passed.

Allowing 4 stories on major streets as well as MTSAs as of right seems kinda weak when we consider that 3 stories as of right are allowed across the city. As much as I'd love 8, if the Mayor can get 6 through - assuming the opposition you're intimating - I'll take the win and fight another day.

I am curious if 8 as of right will make more housing, and if so - how many units?

 

[Northern Light]

Allowing 4 stories on major streets as well as MTSAs as of right seems kinda weak

To be clear, I suggested 6s, as-of-right, in the Old City of Toronto and in MTSAs and 4s on other Major Streets outside of MTSAs.

I am curious if 8 as of right will make more housing, and if so - how many units?

I think the cap on unit numbers is the more problematic obstacle, it really messes with pro-formas.

If you by code must have 1 elevator, but really should have 2 in any building over 3s in height, spreading that cost over 30 units vs 60 or 90 is a big issue.

The same is true if you need a large (Type G) Loading space.

Not to mention, that more height requires more structural support, which eats into leasable/salable ft2 and adds cost..

And assorted other fixed costs that go with building. 30 units on a six-storey, if we have grade-level retail is a whopping 6 units per floor. That's not more than 3 typical house lots, and in some parts of the city, only 2.

So what this does is all but preclude an assembly of a whopping 4 bungalows.

The unit cap should ideally go entirely, but at the very least needs to double to 60 units.

 

[Northern Light]

Committee day for the latest EHON.

I will link to some of the comments I found interesting and hightlight/discuss some:

Up first is Sean Galbraith who I like quite a bit. I agree w/the bulk of his take which is supportive with caveats.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/comm/communicationfile-179490.pdf

From the above:

Sean and I in complete agreement here:

He also has a good point #1 in which he notes that somehow the rules have ended up that a single townhome could be 13M tall on a major street, but a multiplex could only be 10M tall. That's weird and makes no sense.

****

Now I want to bring forward a couple of points where Sean and I differ a bit:

I agree w/Sean that the way they've written this and w/o explicit mention of purpose is a bit problematic. But I'm going to assume staff wanted this in order to guarantee permeability (as opposed to hard surfaces) and sufficient soil volumes for trees.

The thing is, IF that's the purpose, it should say that, so that a planner could have discretion to vary for a development that meets the intention but not the letter of the rule. There will also be developments where this doesn't make sense.... we'll come back to that.

***

I know what staff is trying to achieve here, and I submitted comments on this as well during the process. The problem here, to me is the uniformity. If most homes on suburban arterials are set back ~6M from the sidewalk, the desire of staff is that the new building should fit in, and not stand out like a sore thumb. And, if there is room for a row of trees in front of said houses, to maintain that. Got it.

I think this makes some sense in a mid-block area that no one thinks will support up to the sidewalk retail and buildings higher than 4s. There is logic environmentally and aesthetically to that choice.

But there are also lots of areas in the City that don't have a 6M setback right now. and/or are close to a major intersection and make sense to convert to a different style of development. The problem here is trying to actually make the as-of-right, uniform over too many different types of lots and too many different types of areas. I think it would have served staff to bite off smaller chunks here or take a bit longer to figure out the wording.

Of course, a developer will still be able to apply for ZBA or for Minor Variance to get around these rules where they are uniformly dumb.

 

[Northern Light]

More Neighbours Toronto also with comments of interest.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/comm/communicationfile-179349.pdf

From the above:

I see we're all aligned on this one...... good, maybe we'll get it changed.

On the 50% lot coverage, you see thoughtful comments discussing 'purpose' though I disagree w/their remedy:

So, I'm not stuck on the 50%, I've already said that, and equally noted that on some sites it would be entirely inappropriate.

I like that they mention what is necessary for storm water management/drainage, they're on point. The miss, for me, is the 30% suggestion where this simply substitutes one blanket rule for another.

I think we need to consider how many trees do we want to require on a lot and what soil area and volume do they require. (this will vary by lot size) The City generally requires 30M3 per tree, in soil volume, I would prefer 40M3. You don't generally see an area requirement, but trees can't get enough water and nutrients without a certain amount of open space around them, for softscaped trees I would like to see 25M2 per tree as a given.

We do have to consider the adverse impacts and costs of collapsing the amount of permeable, open soils across the City. Its not the one-off that's the concern, its what happens when you impose or relax a rule affect tens of thousands of properties.
A wholesale shift from 50% permeable to 30% on 10,000 lots is a decrease of ~100 hectares or 250 acres of exposed soil. That's a lot. If someone proposed taking down a 250 acre forest in Toronto, most people, including most UT'ers would flip, the idea that its ok if you take it down 1 tree a time doesn't work for me.

But I agree that the 50% solution across the board is clumsy.

 

[allengeorge]

Is it too late to submit comments?

Sorry - life got in the way

PS: Thank you for the summary. Will be watching the outcome of this closely

 

[Northern Light]

Is it too late to submit comments?

Not sure, you can try.

Meeting hasn't started yet, starts at 9:30am.

Sorry - life got in the way

You needn't apologize to anyone, you're better at participating in the process than most!

PS: Thank you for the summary. Will be watching the outcome of this closely

You're welcome.

If I'm not in midst of something important at the time, I will report on the results of the voting when the time comes. That probably won't for a bit, we'll have to see the speakers list.