Comment
Jurisdictional overreach
At a governance level, this provision amounts to jurisdictional overreach of the Province into the municipal land use planning sphere. While the Province sets the land use planning framework through the Planning Act, regulations and policy statements (PPS), municipalities have been responsible for developing and implementing the municipal Official Plan and zoning bylaws, relying on community input. As such we oppose the proposed measure in principle as taking away the ability of the municipality to plan for local land use and housing needs within a provincial framework.
Proposed Amendments to this Regulation
1. Floor Space Index (FSI) Proposal will override all FSI requirements in zoning bylaws that apply to parcels with ARUs FSI measures density and needs to be maintained in all building types. There is no rational argument for an increase in the case of a basement apartment We are Opposed to this amendment
2. Building Distance separation Proposal will restrict building distance separation requirements associated with any building containing ARUs to a maximum of 4 metres Stating a maximum distance reflects a unnecessary level of micro-management.
If someone wants to convert their detached garage to a ADU this prevents them from doing that if it is more than 4 m away from their main house. We are Opposed to this amendment
3. Angular plane Proposal will override all angular plane requirements in zoning bylaws for buildings with ARUs The intent of angular plane is to reduce the shadowing impacts of a building and is appropriately applied to buildings regardless of whether they have ARUs We are Opposed to this amendment
4. Maximum lot coverage Allow at least 45% lot coverage for all buildings and structures on parcels with ARUs There is no rational argument for an increased lot coverage in the case of a basement apartment. In fact it can be argued the opposite is the case – more open space is required where there are ARUs.
“At least” is indefinite confusing and inappropriate language We are Opposed to this amendment
5. Minimum Lot Size. Proposal will override all minimum lot size/area requirements that are specific to parcels with ARUs No rationale argument to make an exception for ARUs We are Opposed to this amendment
These proposed amendments do not take into account requirements for soft landscaping and trees - let alone existing mature trees. These amendments show no understanding whatsoever about the need to prepare urban centres for climate change; build climate resiliency; mitigate air pollution; mitigate heat islands and create healthy urban environments.
We oppose the proposed regulation as being jurisdictional overreach by the province and without a rational argument.
Submitted October 23, 2024 12:29 PM
Comment on
Proposed amendment to Ontario Regulation 299/19 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS, made under the Planning Act
ERO number
019-9210
Comment ID
102869
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status