[T-Bor]

Can someone help clarify some of these zoning reform changes from yesterday? Here's my understanding:

-Within 200m of most subway stations, developers can now buy single-family homes and, as long as other requirements are met (set-backs, etc), they can turn it into a 6 storey apartment. This is true even on side streets
-Across the city, 4-storey buildings are now permitted. I'm assuming this will be most common in the yellowbelt, where developers could likely buy two SFHs with larger lots, then turn it into a 4 storey apartment

Is this accurate, or am I missing something? If so, this seems to be a way larger reform than permitting sixplexes across the entire city would have been

 

[christiesplits]

Can someone help clarify some of these zoning reform changes from yesterday? Here's my understanding:

-Within 200m of most subway stations, developers can now buy single-family homes and, as long as other requirements are met (set-backs, etc), they can turn it into a 6 storey apartment. This is true even on side streets
-Across the city, 4-storey buildings are now permitted. I'm assuming this will be most common in the yellowbelt, where developers could likely buy two SFHs with larger lots, then turn it into a 4 storey apartment

Is this accurate, or am I missing something? If so, this seems to be a way larger reform than permitting sixplexes across the entire city would have been

Agreed. I would like an executive style summary of the changes. If only there was a bright, directionally inclined UT user who could put this all in layman's terms.

 

[T-Bor]

And if said bright, directionally inclined UT user does appear, I'd also ask the following:

-Yesterday's announcement highlighted that 6-storey buildings that front onto major streets within 500m of a transit station will be permitted. But wasn't this already expected to be permitted through the EHON reforms? I.e. 6-storey buildings permitted on ALL major streets?

 

[Undead]

^ genuinely do not understand what this means? Prices work to make supply equal demand. One is not really a problem per se - just a driver of change to get to equilibrium. Is the view that increasing population was the problem - or specifically demand for housing being driven by an investor segment which resulted in too much housing unsuited to what may be needed in terms of housing?

Prices have exploded since the 2000s and Toronto has had a boat load of supply come online in the last 15 years. However, none of this moderated demand because the Bank of Canada, and federal and provincial governments created too much demand through low interest rates and excessive immigration.

 

[Tuscani01]

Agreed. I would like an executive style summary of the changes. If only there was a bright, directionally inclined UT user who could put this all in layman's terms.

Here's a good summary:

Ontario Approves Majority of Toronto’s Major Transit Station Areas and Protected Major Transit Station Areas With Amendments

This article reviews Ontario’s approval of most Toronto MTSAs and PMTSAs with amendments on density, heights, multiplexes, special policy areas and inclusionary zoning.

www.airdberlis.com

 

[rdaner]

Will comment later.

Multiplexes were supposed to boost housing in Toronto’s suburban neighbourhoods. The Star’s interactive map reveals they’re clustered in these areas instead

Opposition to multiplexes has been fierce in the city’s outer wards, but that’s not the only reason for slow uptake.

www.thestar.com

 

[Northern Light]

Will comment later.

Multiplexes were supposed to boost housing in Toronto’s suburban neighbourhoods. The Star’s interactive map reveals they’re clustered in these areas instead

Opposition to multiplexes has been fierce in the city’s outer wards, but that’s not the only reason for slow uptake.

www.thestar.com

I will bring forward some data from this piece:

First observation, the vast majority of applications are being approved. The worst wards for refusals/abandonment appear to be in the 20-25% range, but the majority are much lower.

Willowdale gets mention in the article, 19/36 approved, but 14 still in process, for 33, meaning only 3/36 were refused/abandoned.

So the issue here is clearly at the pre-application stage.

The only issue of substance raised around differences is what is allowed in terms of lot coverage. The old City and the former York generally permit 100% lot coverage, while most of the other former cities/boroughs have limits to varying degrees.

I frankly don't buy that as a critical issue across most areas, because typical suburban lots are much larger, and 50% coverage likely gives you more space to work with than most old City lots at 100%.

It may be an issue at the margins. I'd like to hear from some of the builders here. The suggestion from Councillor Myers is that there are fewer applications because people are less used to density.

He doesn't make clear by that if he means developers aren't using to thinking about this type of development in former yellowbelt territory, or whether they are thinking of it, but scared off by potential opposition.

 

[cateran]

EHON has released draft legislation that they plan to present to the present to the Planning and Housing Committee on October 30th, 2025 for expanding retail in neighbourhoods

Neighbourhood Retail & Services

A staff report with recommendations on Phase Three of the Study will be considered at the October 30 Planning and Housing Committee. The Draft Zoning by-law Amendments are now available: Major Streets, Interiors, Home Occupation. Our team is working on providing a fully accessible Home...

www.toronto.ca

Learn what’s proposed to support building connected, vibrant communities.

• Major Streets: On major streets, the proposed changes would allow a wide range of options, including small stores, cafes, medical offices, after-school programs, cleaners, barbers and professional offices.
• Neighbourhood Interior: In the interior of neighbourhoods, off the major streets, permissions would be limited to a small retail store with the option for a cafe within the store. These would be permitted on corner lots on certain streets or next to schools, parks or commercial sites.
• Home-Based Businesses: Updated permissions would allow home-based businesses (called “home occupations” in the Zoning By-law) to hire up to two employees, operate from detached garages or laneway buildings and, depending on the business, to see clients on-site. This would help more residents start or grow a business from home.
• Minimizing Adverse Impacts: The zoning updates are designed to minimize impacts on neighbours by setting clear size limits, requiring garbage to be stored indoors and limiting most businesses to the ground floor.
• Other By-Laws: Impact on neighbours is also controlled through various existing city by-laws dealing with things like noise, waste, property standards and patios.
• Growing Demand: These changes respond to growing demand for nearby shops and services – particularly as more people work from home and new housing is added to low-rise areas through the City’s housing initiatives.
• Monitoring: The City will monitor how these changes are used over the next two years and report back with any recommended refinements to support implementation.  Multiple divisions will coordinate on this.

From a cursory glance this would be a big improvement and would allow for a significant amount of mixed use development across the city. The most freedom is given to apartments buildings with >100 units, and buildings on major streets. For neighbourhood interior it is restricted to convenience stores and the "cafe" can't cook any food so it can only serve pre-packaged food and drinks. I think that is to address the """concerns"""" that were levied at the previous version of this By-Law about allowing restaurants and thus bars in the more suburban areas

Also wanted to note that the major streets encompasses most of the main streets and transit corridors of the city. It's good to see these corridors being put to use

 

[txlseries4]

This doesn't seem good amid a housing crisis. There's something really poetically nimby about it being where Jane Jacobs lived (69 Albany), all homes at most a 10 minute walk from a subway entrance.

West Annex Phase II Heritage Conservation District Study

On Tuesday October 21, Heritage Planning is hosting a Community Consultation Open House for the West Annex Phase II HCD Study at the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto, 16 Spadina Rd., from 4:30 to 7 p.m. Join us to ask questions of the project team and share your feedback. This is a family...

www.toronto.ca

"On Tuesday October 21, Heritage Planning is hosting a Community Consultation Open House for the West Annex Phase II HCD Study at the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto, 16 Spadina Rd., from 4:30 to 7 p.m. Join us to ask questions of the project team and share your feedback. This is a family friendly, drop-in event."

 

[Northern Light]

This doesn't seem good amid a housing crisis. There's something really poetically nimby about it being where Jane Jacobs lived (69 Albany), all homes at most a 10 minute walk from a subway entrance.

West Annex Phase II Heritage Conservation District Study

On Tuesday October 21, Heritage Planning is hosting a Community Consultation Open House for the West Annex Phase II HCD Study at the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto, 16 Spadina Rd., from 4:30 to 7 p.m. Join us to ask questions of the project team and share your feedback. This is a family...

www.toronto.ca

"On Tuesday October 21, Heritage Planning is hosting a Community Consultation Open House for the West Annex Phase II HCD Study at the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto, 16 Spadina Rd., from 4:30 to 7 p.m. Join us to ask questions of the project team and share your feedback. This is a family friendly, drop-in event."

I wouldn't worry about it too much at this stage.

The ARA are a feisty lot and they pushed the Councillor hard to get this.

But a study does not equal implementation of an HCD across the entire area, nor does the modern HCD preclude redevelopment though it certainly makes some less viable by imposing conditions.

@AlexBozikovic will doubtless have thoughts.

 

[Northern Light]

To follow up on the above.

I've made some inquiries.

The feeling is that this will not impair intensification on the abutting major streets, and will allow for some gentle intensification of the interior streets.

So it indeed should be fine; that said, it bears keeping any eye on; so by all means, for those interested, attend the meeting, and report back.

Also consider offering support for appropriate intensification in an email/comment as opportunity permits. It certainly won't hurt.

There are good people at the City keeping a close watch on this internally and I don't think UT will have to raise a stink here, but good to make sure nothing goes sideways because of the ARA.

 

[christiesplits]

To follow up on the above.

I've made some inquiries.

The feeling is that this will not impair intensification on the abutting major streets, and will allow for some gentle intensification of the interior streets.

So it indeed should be fine; that said, it bears keeping any eye on; so by all means, for those interested, attend the meeting, and report back.

Also consider offering support for appropriate intensification in an email/comment as opportunity permits. It certainly won't hurt.

There are good people at the City keeping a close watch on this internally and I don't think UT will have to raise a stink here, but good to make sure nothing goes sideways because of the ARA.

I'm in a tough spot, because I both adore the architecture of The Annex's stately homes, while also recognize the need to intensify so close to downtown. I imagine some UTers in the same position.

 

[evandyk]

The funny thing is that the Annex already has a bunch of apartment buildings even in the small quiet streets, and they only make the neighbourhood better. The ARA just doesn't think there should be any more of them. The number there right now is perfect, no more, no less!

 

[DSCToronto]

I posted this in the affordable housing thread yesterday (no responses) but it may be more appropriate here?

Now that Inclusionary Zoning is in effect, how does it affect new condominium buildings?

1. Will each IZ Unit be a separate Unit available for sale - but at a lower price to qualified buyers - or will they be owned by the developer or another body and be 'permanently' rented out?

2. How will monthly maintenance fee (or Special Assessment) increases be dealt with? In condos the monthly fees are generally quite significant and, after a few years, can see large annual increases - certainly larger than the normally allowed increases in rents. Will there be a mechanism to freeze (or restrain) increases to maintenance fees of the IZ Units?

3. If a condo building has 5% IZ units, and if IZ Units are 'protected' from large increases in condo fees, the other 95% of the Unit owners will need to pay more. How will this work? (I think it could not work under the Condo Act as it is now written.)

 

[AlexBozikovic]

The feeling is that this will not impair intensification on the abutting major streets, and will allow for some gentle intensification of the interior streets.

So it indeed should be fine;

That’s not “fine.” It amounts to obstructing future rezonings - otherwise inevitable - with an obstacle that is effectively impossible to remove.

It will be an anti-development policy change far more powerful and enduring than any of the pro-development stuff the city is now doing.