Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

100472

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This is a fantastic idea. Angular planes, in particular, make construction very complicated. All these measures would save new ARUs from months of regulatory red tape by removing the need for minor variances and rezoning Strongly in favour

Comment ID

100477

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Building up/vertical building saves lands, as well as reusing spaces like garages as homes. It is especially good for people with disabilities. It gives independence while staying close to family. Please promote the protection of nature when building homes.

Comment ID

100482

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I am not sure, if this proposal has taken in consideration that an existing single family dwelling having two additional suites within the main building will change the occupancy from a single family dwelling or house to a apartment building as Ontario Building Code (OBC) underlines through differen Read more

Comment ID

100487

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
As a homeowner, I am writing in support of the proposed changes to the performance standards governing ARUs. Existing zoning bylaws can be overly restrictive, adding unnecessary cost, and yielding highly inefficient floorplans. Read more

Comment ID

100488

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This is a terrible idea. Eliminating the angular plane restriction and the minimum separation means that a neighbor could build a large laneway suite that looks directly into the yard and house of their neighbour. Read more

Comment ID

100493

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
A maximum separation of distance of 4 metres between a primary residence and an ARU in a detached structure seems small. Our municipality's zoning by-law allows for up to 30 metre separation and we've had variance applications to increase that.

Comment ID

100498

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I support the removal of the angular plane requirements for ADU buildings. I have been struggling to make a second story work for my garden suite in my back yard as we are trying to maintain a garage for parking my car which is an EV and requires a charger. Read more

Comment ID

100504

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I support the regulations to make it easier to add ARU's in urban areas. I am an architect who has done laneway suites and basement suites in Toronto. I have a couple of concerns about the changes: Read more

Comment ID

100508

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Building a secondary dwelling on an already built place is a great idea for accessibility. A person can live more independently but still get access to support. But there should still be protections for trees and wetlands.

Comment ID

100513

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The Province should review and consider similar changes to the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP). Currently the NEP does NOT permit ARU's in detached buildings, only within primary dwellings in specific land use designations. Read more