Attention Government of…

Attention Government of Ontario;
1. Angular plane – Please keep angular planes
2. Maximum lot coverage – please do not increase maximum lot coverage
3. Floor Space Index (FSI) – please respect FSI and don’t remove some limits.
4. Minimum lot size – please take into consideration the “anomalies” in the City.
5. Building distance separation – please respect our privacy and how it impacts mental health and the ability to live together peacefully.

Currently maximum lot coverage of a building also takes into account the landscaping requirements for a garden suite. If you look at the subcategory “throughlots” that are oddly shaped lots and in some cases, already do not allow for the reasonable building of an ancillary suite, having a “blanket statement” allowing a greater lot coverage of ADU’s would decimate several of Toronto’s neighbourhoods.
When considering this amendment we ask you to pay particular attention to those streets in Toronto that face throughlots. One street has homes on the east side, that face throughlots that are approximately 32 to 38 feet deep. The as of right permissions to build ancillary dwellings on garages that have ZERO setback to the street, will create SHEER WALLS on this narrow, 15 foot wide street. Most of the streets in Toronto are 30 feet wide with the exception of this one tiny street. You cannot use “one size fits all”, which is why municipal governments have a say in what happens in their jurisdictions.

By taking away angular planes, you block sunlight, residents living on this tiny street lose all their privacy less than 20 feet from their bedroom windows. By not taking into account the historical development of a neighbourhood and preserving what makes each part of the City unique, you are creating a monster.

Using the pretense of “creating affordable housing” simply does not fly anymore given the prices of garden suite rentals AND the fact that builders and developers are swooping up properties to make a fast buck by plopping garden suites on them, so they can resell at a profit. This does not take into account what the residents in the area are left to contend with. House flipping is already occurring at a massive rate. Passing these amendments will not help in any way.

The current building distance separation has meaning for those people who live in the areas you are trying to change. Although it might seem laborious for Applicants to submit a request for variances, if you look at specifics, the variances that are not justified, need to be blocked. By creating these new rules, you take away the rights of residents to maintain a modicum of privacy, space, sunlight in an already dense City.

The City of Toronto has some guidelines around tree preservation. Currently a lot of trees are being cut down in the name of progress. Given that Toronto already has guidelines around how the urban forest is to be maintained, you cannot simply say, in one fell swoop, that you will increase the maximum lot coverage to 45%. This does not account for the impact on climate change, when creating a concrete jungle. It is well known that the average tree diameter in Toronto is 16.3 cm. Only 14% of Toronto’s trees are greater than 30.6 cm in diameter. Of the total population, 6% are City street trees, 34% are trees in City parks and natural areas and 60% grow on private property. Does the increased lot coverage account for the sudden removal of 100 year old trees?

Toronto’s Official Plan Supports the Urban Forest
Official Plan policy 3.4.1(d) identifies the need for preserving and enhancing the urban forest by:
i. providing suitable growing environments for trees,
ii. increasing tree canopy coverage and diversity, especially of long-lived native and large shade trees; and
iii. regulating the injury and destruction of trees.
Official Plan policy 3.4.1(b) also identifies the importance of protecting and restoring the health and integrity of the natural ecosystem, supporting bio-diversity in the city, and targeting ecological improvements, paying particular attention to:
i. habitat for native flora and fauna and aquatic species;
ii. water and sediment quality;
iii. landforms, ravines, watercourses, wetlands and shoreline and associated biophysical processes; and
iv. natural linkages between the natural heritage system and other green spaces.

Urbanization, even in an established major city, is continually progressing resulting in a variety of impacts on the urban forest.
Table 5 - Examples of the ways urbanization can impact canopy cover and tree health
CONCERN EFFECTS
Forest Fragmentation
1. Increased development pressure results in fragmentation of suitable available habitat for tree growth, (resulting in fewer trees planted and those planted not able to reach their maximum potential size).

Soil Quality and Volume
2. Increased density of development (resulting in less soil volume for root growth and less height/ width for crown spread).
3. Increased salt levels in soils as a result of de-icing roads with salt in winter months (causing dehydration in trees).
4. Increased soil pH as a result of lime based aggregate used for sidewalks, roads and paths.
5. Conflicts with utilities/infrastructure (resulting in less area for tree growth, poor conditions and stress for trees in close proximity).
Air Quality
6. Increased particulates and volatile organic compounds near roads and development sites.
Storm water
7. Stream channel erosion and erosion of stream valley slopes and forest soils caused by increased volume and intensity of run-off from increased urbanization.
8. Reduce the amount of surface water available for infiltration.

Why do you have scientists and other educated people writing plans about climate change and preserving tree canopies, and then on the other hand you want to pass laws that totally ignore what they are saying?

You use the advantage that the average citizen does not understand many terms used in planning circles, like FSI etc. So in the end, builders and planners are the one’s deciding how climate change will impact us all, because their decisions are primarily monetary ones, rather than taking into account the impact on our environment.

I hope someone listens to the little guy.