December 6, 2022 Ministry of…

December 6, 2022

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
PlanningConsultation@ontario.ca

RE: ERO 019-6197 Proposed Changes to Ontario Regulation 299/19: Additional Residential Units

To Whom it may Concern,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's ERO 019-6197 Proposed Changes to Ontario Regulation 299/19: Additional Residential Units.

While I support up to three units per lot in many current residential zones "as of right" (without the requirement to submit a rezoning application), I am concerned about the following:

• Disallowing local municipalities to regulate minimum housing size, site plan management, and parking requirements beyond one space per unit at the local level.
• Exemption from construction fees, community benefits fees, and parkland restrictions.
• Strengthening the landlord-tenant law to stimulate the installation of apartments by homeowners.
• Loss of new rentals to Airbnb.

Disallowing local municipalities to regulate minimum housing size, site plan management, and parking requirements beyond one space per unit at the local level

Local control of minimum unit size may not be a concern, as the Ontario Building Code specifies minimum criteria for usable space. However, the recent two years of pandemic lockdowns, working from home, and increased mental health difficulties associated with increased isolation motivate a reconsideration and, ideally, an increase in the minimum habitable space requirements. Municipalities should be permitted to raise the minimum livable size where they see fit, pending this evaluation.

Besides reviewing the minimum criteria for usable space, planners must provide strategically located green spaces within walking distance of three-unit-per-lot neighbourhoods. Adding a green space in new proposed subdivisions is more straightforward than in established areas.

The increased intensification associated with more people living in these more minor forms of development will result in decreased personal amenity space. Green spaces and parks are well-known for their various mental and physical health benefits, which promote greater community integration and the development of children and adolescents. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the public demanded increased access to greenspaces and safe walking and cycling routes to these areas. If we allow up to 3 units per lot, we cannot skimp on the parkland, which will compensate for the lack of backyards associated with these additional units.

According to research, housing and spaces that improve people's lives, moods, and feelings are essential. In our rush to build more housing, we can't overlook liveable communities and the emotional impact of architecture and landscaping. Using a one-style-fits-all approach to offset construction costs will likely increase mental health, other health issues, and ghettoization. Do we want to exacerbate healthcare problems? Will post-pandemic architecture resemble Soviet-era and post-war brutalist London?

Tiny houses as secondary structures? This construction form can fit on larger lots while still providing seclusion. Local governments must oversee sight plans to ensure a good fit.

Exempting specific developments from site plan control is a sensitive topic, especially when a structure is demolished and rebuilt. Municipalities should be able to guarantee that a design fits within its lot area and neighbourhood without infringing on neighbouring properties. Nothing is worse than a building placed on a property that builds to the maximum permitted building envelope. Because of these exceptions, we require locally enforceable standards.

The three-units-per-lot plan doesn't address parking, especially in communities without public transportation and with bylaws regulating driveway locations, widths, and parking setbacks from sidewalks and streets. In small-bedroom communities without public transit, a two-person household has two vehicles, typically one of which is a pickup truck or SUV. Where will six vehicles park, given cars' displacement by storage in garages?

Modern streets are narrower, with many driveways and smaller lots, allowing one-sided parking. From November to March, many municipalities prohibit overnight street parking. What is the government's position on this challenge? What do you recommend for smaller communities trying to encourage three units per lot?

Municipalities may need to revise zoning bylaws to address onsite parking.

Exemption from construction fees, community benefits fees, and parkland restrictions

While I comprehend the exemption of additional units added to an existing single-family lot from development fees, community benefits fees, and parkland requirements, I dispute the exclusion of new building construction, such as triplexes, from these requirements. Renovating existing residential units to add additional units is distinct from constructing new homes.

Regardless, it is important to note that any new additional unit places increased demand on existing infrastructure. A cost is associated with maintaining that infrastructure, and “the added pressure of new residents will not be reflected in the current levels of service outlined for the asset.” Development charges would help offset this cost burden, but these charges are impossible under the current regulations.

Would it be feasible to require builders of new homes to rough in basement water lines, sewer drains, outdoor basement steps and doorways in preparation for future apartments? These rough-ins would save future renovation expenses and inspire homeowners to build additional units.

Has the provincial government considered financial incentives for homeowners to build additional rental units in their homes?

Strengthening the landlord-tenant law to stimulate the installation of apartments by homeowners

ERO 019-6197 relies on the homeowner to become a landlord. Therefore, the landlord-tenant act needs changes and better government responsiveness to support homeowner landlords. We've heard the stories of tenants from hell and the associated challenges to removing them. The more people hear horror stories and the lack of government support, the greater the unwillingness to be a landlord. Your intent to increase housing through this policy is only as strong as homeowners' willingness to take on tenants.

Loss of new rentals to Airbnb

To successfully provide more homes, ERO 019-6197 must address the threat of losing these new units to Airbnb, particularly in small tourist communities. More than 85 long-term rental units and homes in my community have been lost to Airbnb vacation rentals, fueling a long-term rental, attainable and affordable housing crisis. Because of a lack of attainable and affordable housing, local employers cannot hire or are losing employees. With its pop-up partying, noise, public disturbances, and competition for parking within an established neighbourhood, Airbnb houses can be disruptive, especially the weekly and sometimes daily occurrences. As a former Councillor, I received complaints from neighbours impacted by Airbnb houses (as opposed to an individual unit), displaced tenants and employers whose employees were displaced by Airbnb rentals replacing their long-term rentals.

Many smaller communities lack the resources and time to develop local bylaws to regulate and control Airbnb. Perhaps the province could provide customizable regulations for communities to adopt and a provincial commitment to enforcing them. It would be a shame to go to all this trouble to increase our long-term rental supply only to have it gobbled up for short-term vacation rental.

Thank you for considering my suggestions, and I respectfully request that you pause your changes to allow for more feedback and a more holistic approach to problem-solving. A comprehensive approach can significantly impact the quality of the outcome. To solve a single problem, one must consider the interconnectedness of all things. What effect will the change or improvement have on other things that interact with it?

In our haste, I am most concerned that we will overlook potentially more serious issues than those we are currently attempting to address.

Yours truly,