In response to the subject…

In response to the subject bulletin, please see the brief response from the Niagara Region Planning and Development Services Department to the to the Discussion Questions provided:

1. What are the biggest barriers and delays to diversifying the types of housing built in existing neighbourhoods?

• Demographic Shifts and Limited Supply

The Niagara Region is expected to accommodate a relatively significant population increase over the next 30 years. Our demographics are expected to change during this time, including increased ethnic/racial diversity, shifting family structures, fluctuations in student populations, and importantly, a population that is expected to age at a rate significantly higher than the Provincial average.

Similar to other municipalities in the “outer ring” of the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Region’s supply and demand has historically favoured single-detached housing, which means there are limited options for residents to age-in-place, find housing options suitable to their needs, or access attainable rental housing options. A rapid shift to “missing middle” housing types, including additional residential units, low and mid-rise apartment buildings, triplexes, fourplexes, and other multi-unit housing, is needed to address this housing gap within existing residential areas.
 
• Outdated Policy and NIMBY

As noted in the ERO Bulletin, most municipalities in Ontario have yet to update Official Plans and Zoning By-laws to align with Provincial policy direction. As such, many municipalities in Niagara still require variances and/or amendments to allow for “missing middle” housing forms in established residential areas.

Parking requirements can be a particular challenge in accommodating additional density in these areas. Niagara’s urban areas differ greatly in size, character, and geography. While regional investments are currently being made in Niagara’s public transit, this service is limited in low-density neighbourhoods, and the characteristics of these areas also limit walkability. It has been challenging finding a policy balance that allows for more flexibility in parking requirements, while still ensuring additional units are accommodated appropriately in a transportation system that still largely relies on the car.

Additionally, developments are often required to go through a development approvals process that is subject to public consultation. Another key challenge then, has been in managing public backlash on a range of related land use matters, including parking access, traffic impacts, and height and scale impacts. As we continue to push for change in our communities, it is anticipated that NIMBY-ism will increase in turn, meaning potential delays in the application process and appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal, which could ultimately delay construction and increase the overall costs of housing. If zoning amendments for residential development are minor and meet the intent of the upper and lower tier official plans, it would make sense to have these types of approvals delegated to staff.

• Limited Labour and Resources

The ERO Bulletin also acknowledges that skilled trade and labour shortages, supply change disruptions, and increased costs of materials has impacted the ability to construct planned or approved residential units across the Province. Based on feedback from the local development industry, this is also true for the Niagara Region.

Despite this, the number of construction starts and development applications in the Niagara Region have steadily increased over the past five years. However, municipal resources are being strained across the region to keep pace. If the Province expects municipalities to expedite Planning Act timelines, undertake significant updates to local land use policy, and ensure secondary planning is completed within key growth areas, the challenges that accompany labour shortages on the municipal and consulting end should also be addressed.

2. What further changes to the planning and development process would you suggest to make it easier to support gentle density and build missing middle housing and multigenerational housing, in Ontario?

• Guidelines for Mid-Size and Small Cities

As noted above, there is a need to update local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws to allow for a range of housing types, and to better accommodate intensification in established residential areas. Existing guidance for the incorporation of “missing middle” housing tends to be directed towards larger metropolitan areas, which are more likely to have an established transit network and oversee high-rise, high-density housing developments.

It would be helpful to have guidance specific to mid-size or smaller cities so that appropriate zoning provisions and design guidance can be implemented in line with Provincial policy direction, and designed in a manner that would permit infill housing as-of-right by: (i) removing minimum unit sizes; (ii) reducing or eliminating parking requirements; (iii) permitting additional residential units; (iv) increasing height restrictions; and (v) adjusting dwelling setbacks, dwelling depth and lot coverage.

Additionally, given that additional residential units can be particularly effective in providing gentle intensification, rental housing stock, and options for multi-generational families, the availability of standard structural drawings/plans for additional residential units could be another valuable resource for property owners looking to build.

• Financial Support

There are potential financial risks associated with the construction of housing forms that fall between the “tried and true” single-detached dwelling and high-rise condominium. For instance, the costs associated with features like underground parking, elevators, and other mechanical systems for more large-scale developments may not reap the same rewards as high-density housing forms would. Even more straightforward developments, like additional residential units, may be difficult for property owners to fund and retrofit independently.

As such, the development of “missing middle” or multi-generational housing could benefit from grants or other incentives provided by a combination of municipal, Provincial, and Federal (i.e. CMHC) funded programs, especially for additional residential units.

3. Are you aware of innovative approaches to land use planning and community building from other jurisdictions that would help increase the supply of missing middle and multigenerational housing?

• Policy Reforms

Various municipalities across the country and in the United States have implemented policy changes or reforms to accommodate “missing middle” housing type. Examples include: City of Vancouver, City of Edmonton, City of Ottawa, City of Toronto, City of Portland, Oregon, and the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

• Innovative Building Forms

Policy changes to land use provisions can help streamline the approvals and permits for “missing middle” units, but the use of alternate materials or construction practices can also help make more of these units available and economically desirable, including encapsulated mass timber construction. Examples of this can be found across the country, including the recent announcement of an affordable housing pilot project in the City of Toronto.

4. Are there any other changes that would help support opportunities for missing middle and multigenerational housing?

• No further comments.