The following are comments…

The following are comments on 2 of the 5 discussion questions included in the posting.

1. What are your thoughts on the benefits and/or risks associated with reducing or removing minimum lot size requirements in low-density urban residential areas to encourage gentle density, increase housing supply, broaden housing options and encourage home ownership?

Benefits include those stated in the question. Risks could include impacts to stormwater management – although permitted lot coverage (at least 45%) is a function of land area, smaller individual lots may result in more driveways and other impervious surfaces.
Minimum lot sizes can offer some efficiencies, in terms of limited expectations for a proponent to demonstrate the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

2. Are there any circumstances where having established minimum lot sizes in municipal zoning by-laws for low-density urban residential parcels are absolutely necessary with respect to the provision of transportation, infrastructure, or upholding public health and safety?

In areas without transit, consideration for on- and off-street parking is important to consider; reduced frontages with driveways can limit on-street parking opportunities, and increased driveways can reduce opportunities for snow storage within the right-of-way.