More Neighbours Toronto

@moreneighboursto.bsky.social

4982 Followers 324 Following

Toronto's pro-housing movement. More Neighbours in more neighbourhoods, with access to more jobs, more infrastructure, and more culture than ever before.

“That building cost us $9 million more than it would have originally, because it took so long to get a development permit,” says Greenwood-Lee. “What that meant was we had less deeply affordable units.”
Planning staff said they held over 27 consultation meetings on their updates to the Avenues Policy. Still, the general vibe in the room from councillors is that there wasn't enough consultation
Map of Toronto with existing and new Avenues areas highlighted in brown and magenta, respectively.
Motions Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor James Pasternak (Carried) That North York Community Council: 1. City Council request the Canada Lands Company to continue to work collaboratively with the Toronto Community Benefits Network, the Community Development Unit of the Social Development, Finance and Administration Division, City Planning staff, and other appropriate stakeholders to develop and implement a comprehensive Community Benefits Plan for the Downsview West District that maximizes local employment, training, mentorship, procurement, and community-building opportunities throughout the development process and direct Director, Community Planning, North York District the that any updates on this plan be included in a supplementary report at the City Council meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 2026. 2. City Council request the Canada Lands Company to continue to work with City Planning, the Housing Secretariat, and other appropriate City divisions to develop an affordable housing implementation strategy that advances the objective of achieving up to 20 percent affordable housing for an extended period beyond 25 years across the Downsview redevelopment, subject to funding availability, partnership opportunities, and future approvals and direct the Director, Community Planning, North York District to include updates in a supplementary report to the City Council Meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 2026. 3. City Council direct the General Manager Transportation Services, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director City Planning and the Canada Lands Company, to review the proposed road configuration adjacent to the Downsview Depot and explore opportunities, where feasible, to preserve the Depot as a single, unified property while maintaining the overall transportation objectives of the Downsview West District Secondary Plan. continued at: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2026.NY34.9
3D model for 191 College proposal
3D model of 1280 College
3D Model of 14 Grange
3D Model of 240 McCaul proposal, looking Southeast
Event graphic for More Neighbours Toronto speaker series, Vol. 7, titled "Making Room: How to save a corner store? A neighbourhood retail story." The graphic features a black-and-white photo of speaker Dan Seljak, a smiling man with glasses and a beard, on the right. His name is written in white text inside a vibrant red and yellow starburst sticker. Event details listed on the left: - Date & Time: July 22 • 7pm - Location: Society Clubhouse, 967 College St The background is a light mint green with the More Neighbours Toronto logo at the top center.
Screen short of part of an item from Etobicoke York Community Council: EY32.23 - Review of Parking and Transit Related Requests for Etobicoke York District Consideration Type: ACTION Ward: 2 - Etobicoke Centre Origin (May 26, 2026) Letter from Councillor Stephen Holyday Recommendations Councillor Stephen Holyday recommends that the Etobicoke York Community Council: 1. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to review the removal of minimum parking requirements as it applies to Etobicoke York District and to report back on the feasibility of pausing the elimination of minimum parking requirements for new developments in Etobicoke York District until enhanced and reliable transit infrastructure is in place.
Poster for Making Room: Songs and Stories of Hope, Vol. 6 — a musical performance by More Neighbours Toronto featuring Mitchell Cohen, CEO of The Daniels Corporation. June 23rd at 7:00 pm, The Citadel: Ross Centre for Dance, 304 Parliament Street.
Event poster on a muted teal background. Headline reads "Making Room: Family-Friendly Multi-Unit Housing — A Path Forward," labeled "A Speaker Series, Vol. 5." Four black-and-white speaker headshots are arranged as polaroids with colored tape: Ossie Airewele (Senior Associate, BDP Quadrangle), Jenny McMinn (Partner, Communications & Impact, Windmill Development Group), Andrew Pariser (Vice-President, RESCON), and Gregg Lintern (Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto). Event details: May 19th at 5:00 pm, BDP Quadrangle, 8 Spadina Ave. Suite 2100. Hosted by More Neighbours Toronto and BDP Quadrangle (Built Original).
Illustrative graphic of Permitted maximum building heights for Single Stair Egress (2024). Some example heights for different jurisdictions: 1 storey - Uganda 2 storeys - Canada 3 storeys - Ireland, South Africa 6 storeys - proposed (now implemented) for BC, Seattle, NY, Iran, HK, Scotland, Mexico City 8 storeys - Belgium, Poland, Norway, Australia, NZ
Screenshot of an excerpt from the Mid-Rise Housing Implementation Initiative - Proposals Report: Process for Single Exit Alternative Solutions Toronto Building is working, in consultation with Toronto Fire Services, to streamline and accelerate business processes to support applicants proposing alternative solutions for the use of single egress (single stair) in buildings up to six storeys which demonstrate compliance with the Ontario Building Code. This work is running parallel to the national and provincial code development process and builds on the existing Ontario Building Code Feasibility Study completed in 2024. This work will be led by Toronto Building.
The above development application is in a very stable neighbourhood bounded by Don Mills Road/the Don River along the west, the DVP on the east, York Millson the north and Lawrence Avenue East on the south. It consists of original single storey bungalows,with renovations and numbertwo to twoand half storey new rebuilds. New developments have respectfully preserved the general character of the neighbourhood, withthe front yard setbacks and mature tree canopy. It followed the original idea of Don MillsGarden City planning with lotsof crescents, dead end, windingstreets,and lot of green space. Consequently, there are many streets which do not have sidewalks and, therefore,during winter monthsare struggling with tertiary priority for street snow clearing. The access to public transport is limited (an infrequent schedule), aJK-Grade 5 public school is 10minutes fromthis location (much longer from other locations), and there are no accessibleamenities (corner store, café, services) within 15minutes walking distance but ample access to parks and green spaces.
If secondary plans and SASPs are to remain as standalone parts of Official Plans, a new framework should focus on mitigating the issues we identified above. Two changes would address most of the problems we identified: A requirement that secondary plans and SASPs be reviewed and updated at regular frequencies, or failing that, that they expire after a set length of time. This would prevent the issues related to outdated plans, the obstruction of general updates to Official Plan policies, and the ratchet effect of removing land subject to general Official Plan policies. It would also provide an incentive to City staff to limit the production and complexity of secondary plans and SASPs, as any new plan would need future staff effort to be revised. A mechanism to limit the geographic overlap of secondary plans and SASPs. This would limit the complexity and conflict of multiple layers of policies for the same piece of land. It would also act as another limit on the creation of too many plans. This mechanism could take the form of, for example, one secondary plan per City ward, or one per type of Growth Area.
Implementing secondary plans and SASPs directly into the Official Plan land use designation maps and zoning by-law makes for a more coherent land use planning process. If a planning study finds that mixed buildings up to 7 storeys and 4 FSI are compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses, then it makes sense to allow buildings of that type to be built as-of-right. This makes more sense than determining that the land use would be compatible and then waiting for a rezoning application so that staff can determine its compatibility a second time. Each plot of land would have a single source of information for land use designations and zoning. This would remove complexity for City planning staff, developers, and the public seeking to understand what is and isn’t allowed. Policies related to public realm improvements, Site Plan Control, community benefits, or infrastructure could be retained in a document separate from the Official Plan, which is more consistent with the purpose and structure of an Official Plan as envisioned in Bill 98.
From Policy 895 of https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/9023-CityPlanning-Official-Plan-Chapter-7-SASP-800s.pdf: Despite Policy 4.1.5, multiplexes are permitted in Neighbourhoods, subject to the following policies: a) For the purposes of this Site and Area Specific Policy, a “multiplex” refers to a duplex, triplex, fourplex, fiveplex, or sixplex. b) Development of multiplexes: i) will maintain the low-rise built form of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular: A) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks and public building sites; B) prevailing size and configuration of lots; C) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets; D) maximizing contiguous soft landscaping within front and rear yard setbacks that is supportive of maintaining and expanding the urban tree canopy; E) conserving heritage properties and heritage conservation districts; and F) special landscape or built-form features of the geographic neighbourhood.
A map of site and area specific policies for part of downtown Toronto. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/932e-CityPlanning-Map-29-SASP-scaled.png
Since secondary plans supersede general Official Plan policies, they have become obstacles to attempts to update the general Official Plan policies to respond to the housing shortage. For example, in January 2025, Toronto City Council approved a significant revision to the Avenues Policies to encourage more growth in those areas. However those revised policies will not be implemented into the zoning by-law for sections of Avenues which have an existing secondary plan or SASP, since those policies prevail. In addition, the number and complexity of the secondary plans and SASPs have significantly increased the effort required to implement the revised Avenues Policies. It will now be a multi-phase process requiring 3-5 years and several thousand hours of staff effort.
The number of secondary plans has become impractically large. There are no principles which limit the number of active secondary plans. As such, the number of secondary plans only ever increases, and the amount of residential land subject to the general policies of the Official Plan only ever decreases over time. Even if there were an existing process to regularly update the secondary plans, the staff effort required would significantly exceed the capacity of Toronto’s Planning Department. The combination of the issues above leads to a ratcheting effect. The number of secondary plans increases, which makes reviewing them all regularly more difficult, which makes them more likely to become out of step with the Official Plan and become an impediment to growth. The area subject to secondary plans only ever increases, which makes general policy updates less and less effective over time.
Secondary plans in Toronto are largely written to provide additional policies that will be considered during a redevelopment application. For example, the Etobicoke Centre Secondary Plan notes that development along main streets in the Islington Village area will consist of buildings up to 5 storeys. This does not mean that a height limit of 5 storeys has been applied in the zoning by-law. It means that development applications for buildings up to 5 storeys may be permitted. Policy 5 of Section 5.2.1 of the Official Plan states that there should be an implementing zoning by-law for new secondary plans. However, most secondary plans predate this policy. Existing secondary plans without implementing zoning by-laws should have those developed as “expeditiously as possible”. In practice this is not treated as a priority.
The deferral of the North York at the Centre Directions report from the December meeting of the Planning and Housing Committee (https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2025.PH26.6) to Feb 2026 (and the subsequent March City Council meeting). https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2026.PH28.6
The key feature of secondary plans in Toronto is that they supersede general Official Plan policies. As noted in policy 6 of Section 5.6: “The policies of this Plan apply to the areas subject to Secondary Plans contained in Chapter Six, except in the case of a conflict, the Secondary Plan policy will prevail.”
A map of the areas covered by Secondary Plans in Toronto's Official Plan
Official Plan Land Use Designations map from City of Toronto as of June 2020.
The proposal fails to respect and reinforce the prevailing lotting pattern, built form, and spatial character of the surrounding area, which is defined by detached dwellings on wide lots with consistent setbacks and landscaped front yards. The introduction of multiple townhouse units on one parcel together with multiple curb cuts and reduced landscaped open space disrupt the established streetscape and existing landscape character, resulting in a form and intensity that is not compatible with the existing context. The proposal does not represent good planning and is not in the public interest. Staff recommend that Council refuse the application.
Servicing Engineering Review staff have advised that additional technical information is required in order to complete a full assessment of the servicing capacity for the proposed development. In particular, a sanitary servicing analysis has not yet been submitted by the applicant. This analysis is required to determine whether sufficient downstream sanitary sewer capacity exists to accommodate the proposed development. In addition, staff require the results of a hydrant flow test to demonstrate that adequate water pressure is available within the existing watermain to properly service the development and meet applicable fire protection requirements.
Community Consultation On April 1, 2026, a community consultation meeting took place. The meeting was attended by the Ward Councillor, the Applicant, CommunityPlanning staff and approximately 120 members of the public. Following presentations by City staff and the Applicant the following concerns and comments were raised by residents: • Residents indicated that the proposal represents a significant departure from the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, which is predominantly lowdensity, single-detached dwellings on wide lots. Concerns were raised that the proposed built form, massing, and lot configuration are incompatible and do not respect or reinforce the established streetscape. • The proposal constitutes over-intensification on a single lot and does not represent “gentle density.” Residents expressed that approval may set a precedent for similar applications, potentially resulting in broader changes to the neighbourhood character over time. • Increased vehicular traffic on a low-volume residential street; insufficient on-site parking, with spillover onto the street; driveway design and multiple curb cuts, raising safety concerns; absence of sidewalks, contributing to pedestrian safety risks. • Questions were raised regarding the capacity of existing infrastructure, including local schools (already at or near capacity), municipal services • Residents raised concerns regarding loss of privacy, including overlooking from upper-storey windows and balconies, and reduced separation between properties and impacts on backyard amenity areas. • The proposed height and massing were identified as concerns. • Residents emphasized the importance of the existing mature tree canopy and landscaped character. Concerns included: potential loss or damage to trees, increased hardscaping (driveways and paved areas), and impacts on the overall green character of the street.
My record on neighbourhoods is consistent; I voted against multi-plexes and ensured that 6-plexes would not be permitted in Ward 16. Unfortunately, due to new provincial regulations, the applicant can appeal directly to the Ontario Land Tribunal because City Council will not have had the opportunity to make a decision within the 90-day timeframe.
Cover of the book "One Two Three... Infinity" by George Gamow.
From: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2026.NY32.6 This Report recommends that City Council classify the lands at 3140, 3150 and 3170 Dufferin Street and 60 and 68 Apex Road as a Class 4 Area under relevant provincial noise guidelines administered by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to implement an approved mixed use development comprised of two buildings with four residential towers and non-residential space at-grade. A Class 4 Area classification allows for higher daytime and nighttime sound level limits than would otherwise be permitted in relation to a noise sensitive land use such as residential dwellings and associated outdoor living areas. The impact of such higher levels is mitigated by specified noise control measures.
A City of Toronto presentation slide with the Project Overview and a rendering of the proposed townhomes. * 3 storeys (11.5 metres) * 4 residential units - ownership townhouses (1018.32 square metres total) * 4 vehicle parking spaces total (1 space inside the garage of each townhouse) * 0 bike parking spaces - (not required in a residential zone if not an apartment building) * 0 square metres of indoor amenity space (not required in a residential zone if not an apartment building) * 0 square metres of outdoor amenity space (not required in a residential zone if not an apartment building)
Table showing that the existing building is 1 freehold units and the proposed building was 4 freehold units. All four units were planned to be 3+ bedroom.
The surrounding neighbourhood is primarily composed of single detached dwellings on relatively wide lots having a frontage requirement of a minimum of 21 metres and a minimum lot area of 975 square metres. These large lots allow for dwellings with consistent front yard setbacks of approximately 9 metres, landscaped front yards, and a low-density building massing and scale. This established pattern creates a cohesive streetscape characterized by uniform spacing, generous landscaping, and a consistent rhythm along Parmbelle Crescent.
Screenshot of a slide comparing the massing of the proposed 4 townhouses and an as-of-right fourplex on the same lot. Front yard setback: 9 metres for fourplex vs 9 m for townhouses Side yard setback: both 1.8 m Rear yard setback: 8.61 m for fourplex vs 9.11 m for townhouses Lot coverage: 45% for fourplex vs 35% for townhouses Building length: 17 m for fourplex vs 14.5 m for townhouses Building depth: 19 m for fourplex vs 14.5 m for townhouses Building height: 11.5 m for fourplex vs 11.5 m for townhouses Driveway curb cuts: 2 for fourplex vs 2 for townhouses
An image of the proposed building with three vertical dashed line indicating the division of units within the building.
From: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2026.NY32.2 8 Parmbelle Crescent - Zoning Amendment Application – Final Report - Refusal Date: April 13, 2026 To: North York Community Council From: Director, Community Planning, North York District Ward: 16 - Don Valley East Planning Application Number: 25 211052 NNY 16 OZ SUMMARY This Report recommends refusal of the application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit four three-storey (11.5 metres) townhouse dwelling units with one parking space within an integral garage for each unit at 8 Parmbelle Crescent. The proposal does not conform with the Toronto Official Plan (2024), as it fails to respect and reinforce the existing character of the Neighbourhoods designation.
Zoning The subject site is zoned RD (f21.0; a975; (x70)) - Residential Detached Zone under Zoning By-law 569-2013. The Residential Detached zoning category permits Dwelling Unit, Municipal Shelter and Park are permitted and a Dwelling Unit is permitted in the form of a Detached House, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex. See Attachment 4 of this Report for the existing Zoning By-law Map. The following are the development standards under RD zone and exception 70: • Minimum Lot Frontage: 21.0 m • Minimum Lot Area: 975 m2 • Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 7.5 m • Maximum Building Height: 11.5 m • Exception 70 establishes a minimum front yard setback of 9.0 m and a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 m for a one-storey building, with an additional 0.6 m required for each additional storey. For a detached dwelling with a flat roof, the maximum permitted building height is 9.5 metres when three storeys are allowed.
In my view, the Refusal Planning Report from City staff is crucial. Without their professional support, our position would be much more difficult to maintain. With this Refusal Report, we have achieved a significant first step in our efforts regarding this development. However, many obstacles remain. The North York Community Council Agenda is publicly available, and the Staff Report recommends Refusal. Both the applicant and community members can provide deputations, either online or in person, to voice their opinions. This is an important step, but we have a long battle ahead. While it is important that the six North York Community Councillors, including myself, reject the application, that matter will proceed to City Council regardless of the outcome. City Council will be more difficult as the prevailing mood is for as much density as possible, regardless of the consequences.
Screenshot of a segment from today's CMHC press release: "Markham, ON: Markham signed its HAF agreement with the federal government in January 2024. As part of the annual review of its Housing Action Plan, Markam has been found to be non-compliant with its HAF commitments resulting in a reduction of 50% ($7.36 million) to its third HAF installment. The federal government expects Markham to propose actions they will take to meet their commitments."
Line graph of non-rental residential development charges (DC's) for Toronto from 2009-2026. single family homes & semi-detached start at $12.3k in 2009 to a peak of $143.4k in 2025. Dashed line indicates it would drop to $68.9k with the 50% cut. apartments (condos) with 2+ bedrooms start at $8.0k in 2009 to a peak of $83.9k in 2025. Dashed line indicates it would drop to $40.3k with the 50% cut. bachelor and 1 bedroom apartments (condos) start at $4.9k in 2009 to a peak of $54.8k in 2025. Dashed line indicates it would drop to $26.3k with the 50% cut.
A graph of Ontario housing targets and projections by year from different documents. The provincial housing target started at 110,000 homes in 2023 and was meant to rise and plateau at 175,000 homes in 2026. However, the 2024 fall economic statement revised these numbers because actual housing starts were 83,000 in 2023 and the revised 2025 projection was 86,000. In the 2026 budget, the actual starts in 2025 were 65,400 and the revised projection in 2028 is 76,800, far below the original 2029 target of 175,000.
Port Lands Planning Initiatives Final Report In December 2017, City Council adopted the report "Port Lands Initiatives - Final Report: which adopted the Port Lands Planning Framework, Villiers Island Precinct Plan and Port Lands OPM and provided direction to City staff to undertake further projects to implement these plans and policies. The Council-adopted Port Lands Planning Framework provides direction for Waterfront Toronto to "investigate opportunities to achieve additional affordable housing in Villiers Island, over and above the minimum requirements in this Framework, potentially in the form of co-operative housing, rentgeared-to-income housing and mid-range rental housing, addressing the financial resources required and potential sources of financial support." For more information, see the Council consideration and Report for Action at: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2017.PG24.6