News   Jun 24, 2024
 280     0 
News   Jun 24, 2024
 363     0 
News   Jun 24, 2024
 656     0 

Zoning Reform Ideas

Listening in the background to the meeting when I can...........

Bradford is clearly in favour of raising/eliminating the 30 unit limit.

Myers is concerned about not enough parking and circular driveways; the former because he's concerned that transit sucks in Scarborough, the latter because Wheel Trans can't stop on busy streets.
 
Bradford challenging staff on the 30 unit requirement, staff reply.

- Yes, solid waste management has been routinely agreeing to waive Type G loading spaces on buildings up to 60 units since last year, however, they can't actually grant that directly, that decision must be approved by
either Council or Committee of Adjustment (in other words, its there, but its not as-of-right.)

- They concede that was the basis of the 30 unit number chosen originally.

- They also argue w/o much detail that they had other reasons for wanting a unit cap of some kind, but yes, 30 was derived from Type G requirement.
 
Last edited:
Councillor Kandavel questioning staff, arguing that this goes too far, because it doesn't have nuance to address areas w/lower provisions of transit, amenities and retail.
 
Councillor Myers in asking about the Wheel Trans access.

The staff response was problematic, it was they did not specifically consult the Accessibility Community or Wheel Trans.

****

He (Myers) also does like Huntingwood {(the street) in being part of this plan.

****

On the 30 unit issue; staff say the economic analysis they had done that 30 units is viable for condo-type structures, but they concede is more problematic for rental/affordable.

Asked if their economics consultant studied different caps to ascertain their impact, the answer was essentially 'no'.
 
I’m increasingly disliking Parthi…

So far, Cllrs Myers, and Mantis both seem keen to excluding Huntingwood. (the neighbourhood association for that street has been lobbying).

Holyday lacks enthusiasm for this idea entirely, he keeps harping on why are are major streets different from neighbourhood interiors.

While that's just silly, of course, and about what we'd all expect from him, I do have to say, staff replies have not been particularly great. That is to say, when asked to define what makes major streets appropriate for development, staff clearly know why, but the answer/case is not well articulated.
 
So far, Cllrs Myers, and Mantis both seem keen to excluding Huntingwood. (the neighbourhood association for that street has been lobbying).

Holyday lacks enthusiasm for this idea entirely, he keeps harping on why are are major streets different from neighbourhood interiors.

While that's just silly, of course, and about what we'd all expect from him, I do have to say, staff replies have not been particularly great. That is to say, when asked to define what makes major streets appropriate for development, staff clearly know why, but the answer/case is not well articulated.
Ugh.

None of this bodes well.
 
Cllr Kandavel, wants to know if staff are ok w/doing this only for streets w/higher-order transit for now and staggering the rest over subsequent years.

He's really concerned about the parking issue.

He then suggested this might allow 8 or 10s buildings, Staff did correct that.

Finally he asked if they could take this to the community councils instead.
 
Cllr Kandavel, wants to know if staff are ok w/doing this only for streets w/higher-order transit for now and staggering the rest over subsequent years.

I feel like that completely misses the point of this entire exercise…

Finally he asked if they could take this to the community councils instead.

And, this seems like it’s just killing this entire idea without just coming out and doing it.
 
Holyday wants committee to refer this back to staff.

Councillor Ainslie speaking would like to remove three streets from this proposal.

Guildwood Parkway, Morningside from the railway corridor south, and Scarborough Golf Club Road.

Councillor Matlow - broadly supportive, but recognizes that some streets should not be included, doesn't mention any streets in his ward.

Councillor Myers - Motion to ask TTC about impact of removing circular driveways on Wheel Trans, otherwise broadly supportive. Has an issue w/not enough community consultation in languages other than English. Says he in favour of of intensification, but easier to sell that to residents w/the other languages, and with some ability to tweak to meeting community needs.

Councillor Bradford - Motion to have staff update the report by the time the report gets to Council in two weeks. He wants to look at going to 60 units instead of 30 units.

He's doing a good job of articulating why 30 units will not work.

There was some other stuff in the motion but I couldn't read it all just yet.
 
Councillor Perks will support Councillor Bradford's motion and Councillor Myers motion.

Will not support Councillor Kandavel's motions, doesn't want to remove any streets from the plan.

But also takes time to say what I've been saying that restrictive zoning is not the barrier to affordable housing, that more than 40% of approved units are not under construction.

He's undecided on the 30 unit cap, and will wait for supplementary report.

He specifically cites Jameson Avenue as not having proper storage for garbage which worries him.

Bradford's motion passes

Myers motion passes

Kandaval's motions both fail. (one was the Ainslie request)

Item as amended passes.
 
The full text of Bradford's motion:

1715289279968.png


****

I've already offered my thoughts on the substance here, the question is now one of head-count.

I think this may get a rough ride at Council as-is. Its a tough read, as to outcome.
 
Isn’t today the day the latest EHON recommendations go to Council?

Yes. (Major Streets)

I’m expecting a rough ride and a nail-biter :(

Its the Mayor's second key item.

Unless it ends up deferred, I expect (hope) someone has done the headcount to see that it gets through in some form.

I expect you'll see a motion to go to a 60 unit limit; and some move to make other barriers go away.

The question is what, if anything is offered up to opponents.

The options:

- Exclude certain streets
- Reduce the as-of-right height
- Phase-in implementation

All come w/trade offs.

This, I expect, is the rare case of Bradford and Perks lining up together; (right and left of council); but I think opponents may similarly eschew typical ideological lines.

* Of note, there are supplementary Planning reports due as a result of Ctte, and they have not yet been posted.
 

Back
Top