On May 2nd, Toronto and East York Community Council heard item TE32.11 – the “Changing Lanes” proposal seeking to allow laneway suites in Toronto, as-of-right.
Lanescape was thrilled with the amount of public engagement received for this meeting (as we have been over the last three years with all public events). Nearly 200 letters were written to Councillors, dozens of people attended the meeting, and 14 speakers addressed the Council.
- 189 letters submitted to council – 4 opposed, 185 others in support and/or asking for more aggressive approvals
- 14 deputations – 3 noting they supported laneway housing but asked for revisions, 11 in support and/or asking for more aggressive approvals
- Staff presentation in support of the proposal
In spite of the overwhelming support, only 4 of the 12 TEYCC councillors voted to pass the proposal. Those Councillors were Mary-Margaret McMahon (32), Ana Bailao (18), Lucy Troisi (28), and Gord Perks (14). Each of those councillors were well-informed, knowledgeable about the proposal, and made impassioned arguments to move this initiative forward.
The remaining Councillors, however, had a lot of doubts and questions. They voted to defer the decision for 1 month and requested staff for more information. Those councillors are:
- Joe Cressy (20)
- Janet Davis (31)
- Paula Fletcher (30)
- Mary Fragedakis (29)
- Mike Layton (19)
- Josh Matlow (22)
- Joe Mihevc (21)
- Kristyn Wong-Tam (27)
The questions they had, in our opinion, were already succinctly addressed by the City’s exceptional staff report. Or they were questions about different bylaws that layer over top of laneway housing but are not impacted by this policy. The motion to defer requested:
- A strengthened affordability strategy, including city incentives, to enforce affordability.
- Review and re-consider:
- Requiring the laneway setback to be entirely soft landscaping;
- Additional measures to increase soft landscaping, tree protection, and greening;
- Any requests for zoning variances must be through Zoning By-Law Amendments, not through Minor Variances applications;
- Considerations for placement of mechanical equipment,
- Consider the following in the report back to the TEYCC:
- Include the density for the laneway suite in the calculation of the main house;
- Give consideration to the new 2018 Ward and Community Council boundaries;
- All issues brought forward in communications or deputations;
- A strategy and timeline for Phase Two accessible housing for properties that do not have a laneway;
- Include the lot coverage of the laneway suite in the total lot coverage permitted on a property.
- Planning Staff report to a separate public consultation for secondary units being considered in June.
- Include consideration of the letter submitted by the ABC Residents Association and analysis of laneway suites constructed on lots with row houses.
- Report back on potential conflicts with existing Site and Area Specific Policies and/or Secondary Plans.
We believe that all of these items are valid concerns, however, each of them was already addressed in the Final Report, which the Councillors obviously had not read or understood in detail.
At the bottom of this post is our response to each point, individually.
We are genuinely disappointed by the Councillors who deferred this decision. Lanescape, Evergreen, and City Staff have repeatedly attempted to involve all of these Councillors in our work over the past year, but they have continually rejected to provide meaningful feedback, and as far as we can tell, they have ignored the iterative work we have been forwarding for their review.
If they had listened to the hundreds of constituents who wrote them letters or called their offices over the past week/month/year, or if they had been engaged in the positive evolution of housing in their wards, they would have understood that this opportunity did not need to be deferred, and that their concerns were already addressed by the tireless work of Graig Uens, George Pantazis, their team in Planning, and the myriad of City Departments involved in writing this policy.
So, the battle continues.
If there is a silver lining, it is that most of the Councillors who voted for the deferral also suggested in their final speeches that they want to see laneway housing go ahead at next month’s TEYCC meeting. They simply want to make sure they have addressed the small number of objections that came forward.
Over the next month, Lanescape will be emailing and posting how you can voice your support to these Councillors, so that they will not defer your opportunities for flexible housing again.
We will use the next month to ensure the principles of this laneway suite proposal remain in-tact, and continue to reflect the sensitivities you shared with us throughout our consultation process.
We will also use the next month to ensure the needs of those who requested MORE are listened to as well. It would not be right to address the concerns of the objectors without addressing the needs of the enthusiastic adopters – most of whom are architects, builders, and other engaged professionals with deep knowledge of Toronto’s housing needs.
The battle has just begun. Things look positive to move forward, but we cannot let uninformed or unengaged opinions sideline our housing needs.
Please stay tuned. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for our email list so that you can stay informed and continue to support this worthy cause.
LANESCAPE’S RESPONSE TO DEFERRAL MOTIONS
1. A strengthened affordability strategy, including city incentives, to enforce affordability.
Laneway suites are not a policy that is attempting to affect Toronto’s housing costs. It is an attempt to increase the options and availability of low-rise housing in our neighbourhood communities.
City Staff have already analyzed how LWSs will affect affordability, as the TEYCC already requested at last year’s meeting. Staff stated that Section 37 of the Planning Act (the mechanism used by the City of Toronto to collect fees in exchange for additional development rights to subsidize affordable housing) does not and cannot apply to owner-occupied housing. They instead suggested a pilot project to test incentivizing homeowners to rent their LWSs at-or-below market rates in conjunction with the Affordable Housing Office.
No Councillors seem to have read this in the report.
There is no question that affordability is a concern for all housing types in Toronto, but discriminating against certain types of housing (such as laneway suites) without addressing the broader concern of affordability incentives for all secondary suites and rental units will do nothing to address rental costs in Toronto. It will only penalize homeowners who want secondary units to accommodate family members or supplement their increasingly high mortgage payments.
By allowing laneway suites, the City estimates we can add 100-300 laneway suites per year. The simple laws of supply and demand suggest that increasing supply will improve ability to meet demand. Every year +17,000 people move to Toronto. That means approximately 2% of the incoming population could effectively be accommodated by laneway suites. That is not enough to “solve housing affordability”, but it is infinitely better than doing nothing.
We agree that all people should have the ability to rent in all neighbourhoods, although we believe this is a separate issue that deserves equal (if not much greater) attention, and should be inclusive of all secondary and rental typologies.
Ultimately, the LWS policy is about providing housing options for people who cannot afford to buy a house, and need rental options with proximity to parks, schools, community centres, and other neighbourhood amenities.
2.a) Review and re-consider: Requiring the laneway setback to be entirely soft landscaping.
This is not possible, unless you plan on driving your car through a mud puddle to get into your garage, or jump over that same mud puddle to get in the door.
The current proposal is better than an as-of-right garage. It is an excellent requirement and should not be changed.
Some Councillors suggested that people try to avoid complying with this requirement for houses, and we encourage they discuss enforcement with the Building Department, as that is an issue that concerns all development in our neighbourhoods, not specifically LWSs.
2.b) Review and re-consider: Additional measures to increase soft landscaping, tree protection, and greening.
With respect to soft landscaping, refer to previous note. The proposal is in keeping with current rear-yard requirements for all residential development.
Trees are universally protected by a series of By-Laws for private, public, and ravine trees. These are separate by-laws that are enforced by the department of Parks, Forestry, and Recreation: Urban Forestry.
All forms of development must submit applications to injure or remove trees, and those are only granted if the proposal makes concerted effort to protect all trees and agrees to a replanting ratio that ensures our tree population is always growing.
In addition, currently allowed as-of-right garages have a worse impact on the potential diminishment for rear yard landscaping and trees. Laneway suites are improving rear yard landscaping requirements, as homeowners are required to plant 1 new tree when a laneway suite is created, even if no existing trees are affected.
Some Councillors suggested that people try to avoid complying with tree protection requirements, and we encourage them to discuss enforcement with Urban Forestry, as that is an issue that concerns all development in our neighbourhoods, not specifically LWSs.
2.c) Review and re-consider: Any requests for zoning variances must be through Zoning By-Law Amendments, not through Minor Variances applications.
We believe this contravenes Ontario Law.
The Committee of Adjustment is in place to allow variances for unusual or unfair circumstances. It is a process that protects the rights of homeowners and their neighbours. It allows homeowners to seek alternative solutions when their properties have impediments (such as healthy trees that they want to protect by altering the shape of their buildings).
Zoning By-Law Amendments are substantially more expensive and time-consuming, and threatened to create impediments to homeowners with legitimate needs to vary from the permitted bylaws.
Certainly variances should only be granted when determined necessary and legitimate. We believe this policy draws a clear line in the sand that will allow the Committee of Adjustment, neighbours, staff, and Councillors to properly and successfully object to variances that are unnecessary or illegitimate.
Some Councillors suggested that people try to cheat the system or seek preferential approvals, and we encourage them to discuss proper enforcement of all Zoning By-Laws with the Committee of Adjustment, as this is an issue that concerns all development in our neighbourhoods, not specifically LWSs.
2.d) Review and re-consider: Considerations for placement of mechanical equipment.
We agree the allowance for mechanical equipment on the roof should be tightly controlled. It is worth noting that currently, the allowance is only for mechanical equipment, vents, and other functional necessities. Those necessities must be kept at least 1.0m away from the perimeter so they are not visible from the ground, and their aggregate area must be less than 30% of the footprint. That is a fairly tight requirement, but if Council believe it needs to be reduced further, we are open to that.
This item did not require a deferral to be properly addressed. Councillor McMahon moved a motion to address this before the by-laws are enacted, which would have saved time and significant staff expenses to resolve.
3.a) Consider the following in the report back to the TEYCC: Include the density for the laneway suite in the calculation of the main house.
The current proposal does an exceptionally good job of ensuring the built form of all laneway suites will be properly scaled, based on the availability of rear yard space and proximity to the main house.
The statistics of the laneway suite are irrelevant to those of the main home, as both buildings have very specific requirements imposed upon them that will ensure they are scaled and massed in harmony, and with respect to neighbours.
This issue stems from the fact that almost all houses in the TEYC area pre-date the zoning by-laws. Also, main house by-laws are over 30 years old, so they reflect the current needs and appropriateness of housing very poorly.
Tying the requirements of LWSs to existing structures that do not comply with the existing by-laws will have significant affects and increase the number of minor variance applications significantly. This will hurt homeowners by creating barriers to accessible and affordable as-of-right approvals.
Some Councillors suggested that this item is an attempt to force the Committee of Adjustment to properly consider density impacts on main houses when a laneway suite is already present. Rather than increase the complexity of approvals, we encourage the TEYCC to discuss proper enforcement of all Zoning By-Laws with the Committee of Adjustment, as this is an issue that concerns all development in our neighbourhoods, not specifically LWSs.
3.b) Consider the following in the report back to the TEYCC: Give consideration to the new 2018 Ward and Community Council boundaries.
The report already states that the boundary will be contained to TEYCC wards, however we agree that it is important to explicitly state how the new boundaries will affect this policy.
This item did not require a deferral to be properly addressed. Councillor McMahon moved a motion to address this before the by-laws are enacted, which would have saved time and significant staff expenses to resolve.
3.c) Consider the following in the report back to the TEYCC: All issues brought forward in communications or deputations.
We agree this item is valid, so long as the issues raised by citizens asking for larger, more lenient approvals are considered equally.
We look forward to additional restrictions being balanced by additional flexibility. This is the only way to fairly address the expressions of all citizens who took 6 hours out of their work day to attend the meeting and voice their concerns for the benefit of this policy.
3.d) Consider the following in the report back to the TEYCC: A strategy and timeline for Phase Two accessible housing for properties that do not have a laneway.
This is possibly the only item that we are pleased to see on this deferral motion. Kudos to the TEYCC for being concerned with the growth and development of all detached secondary suites in Toronto. However, proceeding with this request did not require delaying the decision.
This item did not require a deferral to be properly addressed. Councillor McMahon moved a motion to address this before the by-laws are enacted, which would have saved time and significant staff expenses to resolve.
3.e) Consider the following in the report back to the TEYCC: Include the lot coverage of the laneway suite in the total lot coverage permitted on a property.
Refer to 3.a).
4. Planning Staff report to a separate public consultation for secondary units being considered in June.
We encourage staff to collaborate. This is a good idea. However, proceeding with this request did not require delaying the decision.
This item did not require a deferral to be properly addressed. Councillor McMahon moved a motion to address this before the by-laws are enacted, which would have saved time and significant staff expenses to resolve.
5. Include consideration of the letter submitted by the ABC Residents Association and analysis of laneway suites constructed on lots with row houses.
Lanescape also submitted a letter with pointed feedback on the report. So did the Harbord Village Residents Association, Setless Architecture, Firma Architecture and other concerned groups.
We are disappointed that all voices are not being considered equally, particularly because the TEYCC chose to give special attention to one letter that was opposed, and not any of the nearly 200 letters that were supportive or asking for greater flexibility in the approvals.
6. Report back on potential conflicts with existing Site and Area Specific Policies and/or Secondary Plans.
The report already clearly addresses this, and ensures all secondary plans and policies are protected and maintained. It states:
“Where this is a conflict between this Site and Area Specific Policy 546 and either a Secondary Plan or another Site and Area Specific Policy in Chapter 7, the respective Secondary Plan or other Site and Area Specific Policy in Chapter 7 will prevail.”
This item did not require a deferral to be properly addressed. Councillor McMahon moved a motion to address this before the by-laws are enacted, which would have saved time and significant staff expenses to resolve.
Originally posted: 3rd May 2018
Edited: 5th May 2018