Zoning Reform Ideas

[Sauga89]

Mississauga city staff are recommending that the city relax its angular plane policy, and also reduce the amenity space requirements for apartment buildings.

Mississauga city council are set to consider the staff's report on February 23rd.

Here is a diagram from the report on the changes to the angular plane rule for apartments in urban areas.

View attachment 715216
For the amenity space requirements, staff are not recommending abolishing the requirements, but rather reducing them, to 3.0 m2 per unit. Currently, Mississauga has two classes of apartment zonings. Regular apartments have to provide an area equivalent to either 10% of the site area or 5.6 m2 per unit, depending on which is greater. Apartments in designated urban growth areas have to provide 4.5 m2 of amenity space per unit. Both classes of apartments will now have the same 3.0 m2 per dwelling requirement.

Existing apartments will be able to apply to the Committee of Adjustment if they wish to convert some of their amenity space to other uses.

Other proposed changes include reducing the minimum separation required between towers to 25 metres from 30 metres, and reducing the amount of glass required for street level commercial uses to 40% of the street frontage from 50%.

This report is intended to be the first in a series of reviews of Mississauga's planning guidelines.

This was approved by city council yesterday. You can find the presentation and debate at the 1 hour 18 minute 30 second mark of the video recording.

There is one thing I realized from watching yesterday's meeting that I should clarify. The Mississauga city centre area already has no amenity space requirements. The current 5.6 m2 or 4.5 m2 requirements, which are to be replaced by the 3.0 m2 requirement, are for areas outside the city centre. Mississauga already doesn't require amenity space in the city centre.

Also of note, in the staff presentation, they noted that one of the reasons for retaining the 3.0 m2 requirement outside the city centre is that ACORN, a housing activist group, requested it. ACORN was apparently concerned that without amenity space, tenants would not have a place to meet and organize.

In addition, Mayor Carolyn Parrish claimed the minister was pushing the city to review development charges, utility work required for development, and the city's building code. She mentioned the requirements for stairwells sizes as one thing which had come up.

 

[Sauga89]

Am I to understand that this motion essentially expires on November 13th of this year and fees are then restored?

Technically, I think the fees would not be restored fully until 6 months after November 13th, which would be May 13th, 2027. I have no special knowledge though beyond what is in the motion.

I think the existing 3-bedroom fee waiver for purpose built rentals also sunsets after November 13th. The 50% reduction in development fees passed last year, which applies to all residential developments, not just rental units, also ends on that same date.

For reference, here is the original motion passed by Mississauga city council in January 2025.

Mississauga city council, in a further motion today, extended the development charge tax breaks until Dec. 2027. Developers had apparently told multiple councillors that November 2026 was too tight of a deadline.

My read of this motion is that the fees will now not be fully restored until mid-2028. The discussion begins at the 2 hour 50 minute 43 second mark of the video recording.

 

[rdaner]

Where are we in regards to single-stair regulation reform? On anyone’s radar or status quo?

 

[Northern Light]

Where are we in regards to single-stair regulation reform? On anyone’s radar or status quo?

Going nowhere.

You can read up on things here:

Single Exit Stairs

The prescriptive requirements of the Ontario Building Code require multi-residential buildings over two storeys in height above-grade to have more than one means of exiting the building. Accordingly, an alternative solution is required to comply with the Ontario Building Code where a permit...

www.toronto.ca

Brandon Donnelly discussed this last October, and you can see the practical example of someone who tried to get approval for one.

https://brandondonnelly.com/current-status-of-single-stair-buildings-in-toronto?support=true

So again, not happening, for now, anyway.

 

[Tuscani01]

Going nowhere.

You can read up on things here:

Single Exit Stairs

The prescriptive requirements of the Ontario Building Code require multi-residential buildings over two storeys in height above-grade to have more than one means of exiting the building. Accordingly, an alternative solution is required to comply with the Ontario Building Code where a permit...

www.toronto.ca

Brandon Donnelly discussed this last October, and you can see the practical example of someone who tried to get approval for one.

https://brandondonnelly.com/current-status-of-single-stair-buildings-in-toronto?support=true

So again, not happening, for now, anyway.

I believe a permit was recently issued to a Toronto developer for single stair. I'll have to go back through X to find the post, but it was a week or so ago.

 

[HeartoftheTempest]

I believe a permit was recently issued to a Toronto developer for single stair. I'll have to go back through X to find the post, but it was a week or so ago.

157-159 Delaware Ave.

 

[txlseries4]

157-159 Delaware Ave.

For people who are interested the owner shares about the process occasionally. This post from 4 months ago is a good starting point: https://bsky.app/profile/pamelablais.bsky.social/post/3m3cqgu5cw22g

 

[Northern Light]

157-159 Delaware Ave.

Thank you.

Looked this one up.

A few notes.

1) The Building Permit Status page still shows these as under review, not issued. Though the proponent's team do state that have approval for the single-stair option.

2) I wanted to see the plans for this one. No mean feat, I can't find an application in Community Planning or in C of A......
But I am not so easily defeated.

Here's a project page from the design team:

Office Ou - Architecture, Landscape, Strategy

Office Ou - multi-family residential housing - Single stair

www.office-ou.com

From the above:

There are additional renders if you follow the link.

Site as it is now:

Comments: I'm satisfied, on balance, that the alternative safety measures here are sufficient and reasonable, and good units will be constructed.

However, I'll be interested to see how the units are priced out in the end, as when I crunch the numbers based on what I'm seeing, I don't think this housing will be more affordable than the median, and indeed, I strongly suspect that the larger units here will be as or more expensive than renting one side of the duplex would have been.

I'd be pleased enough to be proven wrong on that.

I'm actually not enthused about including an elevator here, which also drives up costs, because the suggestion that this makes non-ground units accessible when in fact any maintenance/repair/breakdowns would render the tenants de facto locked in or locked out of their space if they require the elevator.

So I'm fine w/it overall, but w/the proviso, that in the end, I'm not sure it achieves anything. Lets see.

 

[rdaner]

‘Ossington is the new Ossington!’ BlogTO

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Tuscani01]

Lots of new changes coming in regards to Official Plans, Green Standards, SPA etc:

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

• Support efforts to eliminate red tape in the homebuilding process by simplifying planning and approval tools, including through municipal official plans, Ontario’s Building Code and site plan control:
  • Municipal Official Plans, which set out long-term land-use rules to guide future community growth, have become lengthy, complicated and highly restrictive, with varying formats, rules and content. Proposed changes include establishing a standardized table of contents and limiting land use designations so they are easier to navigate.
  • Over the years the Building Code has become overly complex and duplicative, with provisions that do not reflect the reality of building in Ontario. In response to this, the government is establishing an expert third-party advisory body consisting of engineering, construction, and code specialists to undertake a section-by-section review of the Code, which sets out the minimum standards that new construction must meet.
  • Some municipalities leverage site plan control to impose costly enhanced development standards that go beyond what is required for health and safety reasons. The proposed legislation would remove municipal authority to require enhanced development standards. The government will also consult on major structural reforms to site plan control more broadly to deliver faster, more predictable approvals.

 

[rdaner]

From the above:

• Over the years the Building Code has become overly complex and duplicative, with provisions that do not reflect the reality of building in Ontario. In response to this, the government is establishing an expert third-party advisory body consisting of engineering, construction, and code specialists to undertake a section-by-section review of the Code, which sets out the minimum standards that new construction must meet.

 

[Spooderman]

Other than the obvious issue of having a single staircase, this kind of change would do wonders for Toronto. Even allowing buildings up to 4 storeys along streetcar corridors would make a huge difference for walkability, cut down on car use, and make neighbourhoods feel a lot more lively. But of course, nothing really happens even though the city keeps talking about the housing crisis.

 

[Northern Light]

Other than the obvious issue of having a single staircase, this kind of change would do wonders for Toronto. Even allowing buildings up to 4 storeys along streetcar corridors would make a huge difference for walkability, cut down on car use, and make neighbourhoods feel a lot more lively. But of course, nothing really happens even though the city keeps talking about the housing crisis.

Huh?

Toronto allows 6 storeys as of right on all streetcar corridors................that passed awhile ago now........... I don't think you should slag the City for not meeting a standard they've exceeded by 50%.

The city also allows 4s, as-of-right on residential streets.

The single stair case thing will not produce the benefit you think, I've been over this a bunch with real world evidence from cities that have allowed it showing no increase in affordability for those developments featuring this and no improvement in the overall market.

That said, the City of Toronto has already approved a single stair development. But it was approved essentially as an exception, the City is permitting these but developers have to submit proof of meeting the fire/evacuation standards in alternate ways and these are looked at case by case for now.

 

[Spooderman]

Huh?

Toronto allows 6 storeys as of right on all streetcar corridors................that passed awhile ago now........... I don't think you should slag the City for not meeting a standard they've exceeded by 50%.

The city also allows 4s, as-of-right on residential streets.

The single stair case thing will not produce the benefit you think, I've been over this a bunch with real world evidence from cities that have allowed it showing no increase in affordability for those developments featuring this and no improvement in the overall market.

That said, the City of Toronto has already approved a single stair development. But it was approved essentially as an exception, the City is permitting these but developers have to submit proof of meeting the fire/evacuation standards in alternate ways and these are looked at case by case for now.

I know Toronto permits mid-rise buildings in many areas, but that’s not the main issue. There is still a big gap between what is allowed and what actually gets built. I’m not saying that single-stair buildings will magically solve affordability, but they do remove some barriers and create more options for housing, especially on smaller lots. Cities that allow these buildings generally see more design flexibility, even if prices don’t drop right away. Currently, in Toronto, these buildings are treated as exceptions on a case-by-case basis, and that’s part of the problem. If they are not standardized and widely permitted, their overall impact on housing supply is limited. The same applies to where density is allowed. If it’s restricted to narrow areas instead of being applied more broadly, the overall effect remains quite small.

 

[Northern Light]

I know Toronto permits mid-rise buildings in many areas, but that’s not the main issue. There is still a big gap between what is allowed and what actually gets built. I’m not saying that single-stair buildings will magically solve affordability, but they do remove some barriers and create more options for housing, especially on smaller lots. Cities that allow these buildings generally see more design flexibility, even if prices don’t drop right away.

Have not ever dropped, anywhere in North America where these are permitted.

Currently, in Toronto, these buildings are treated as exceptions on a case-by-case basis, and that’s part of the problem. If they are not standardized and widely permitted, their overall impact on housing supply is limited. The same applies to where density is allowed. If it’s restricted to narrow areas instead of being applied more broadly, the overall effect remains quite small.

The height limits are as-of-right, and we are seeing lots of projects move forward, not just one or two.

They are not 'case by case'. Where we have seen issues, its because of builders seeking other variances that are typically going to the C of A and losing there. (many don't, but many do)

With great respect Toronto is among the most permissive jurisdictions going at this point.

I have great relationships w/developers who post or lurk on UT...........and have an open door if they want a policy changed.

I'm not in City Planning, but talk to planners regularly and councillors and for the most part, if anyone can make a good case, I have helped make the process easier for them.

I really don't accept that Toronto, at this point, overall, is unduly restricting on planning compared to its peers, because frankly, it isn't true.

There are always opportunities to tweak some things......Not that long ago, I helped address problems with bicycle parking standards that were unduly onerous. (to be clear, many others played equal or larger roles)

That said....zoning is not a key to affordability for reasons I've outlined.........its a much more complex issue than that. I advocate on those other issues as well.

I just object to this perpetual canard that Toronto is exceptionally restrictive or slow with approvals when it is neither, overall.

I support reducing amenity requirements, which I think will be beneficial, but only at the margins. Ultimately the mismatch between incomes and housing prices is far more of an income issue than a housing one.

Though if you wanted to sink rents and ownership prices tomorrow........ I'll give you a way to cut them 10% clear across the board. Ban short-term rentals......... No more Air BnB ......that'll do it.