Read on Twitter
1/ I'm a planning student and I have a planning question for Ontario, that is also a little philosophical.
An older couple comes to you, their house recently burned down, they have lived there for decades, and have community ties. They seek two variances,
An older couple comes to you, their house recently burned down, they have lived there for decades, and have community ties. They seek two variances,
2/ One is to permit them to build a four storey building with rentals in it, the zoning allows 9 metres in height. The reason for this extra storey is this will allow them to add two units (2 per floor), and pay for an elevator, to make all units Accessible.
3/ The second is lower the required parking for 12 (1.5 per unit) to 8 (1 per unit), they can have a driveway to the back and park there, but only 8 spots.
4/ The area technically permits apartment buildings, but with the three storey height limit, no one has tried, and neighbouring properties are two storeys, so four would break that roof line, and the area is all single detached units, and the demographics are older.
5/ it is questionable whether there are any dwellings in the area that are truly Accessible, and you have no idea how much of the City housing stock overall is Accessible, the answer is probably not much.
6/ Do I recommend it or not? The Ontario Human Rights Code applies to all legislation, including the Planning Act, OPs, ZBLs, and accommodation and disability are explicitly protected. This neighbourhood de facto says disabled people keep out because no housing is accessible
7/ It'd certainly violate the "neighbourhood character", but when the character is de facto discrimination against a protected class, is that worth protecting? It'd certainly nail a bunch of criteria in Planning Act S. 2. It'd promote aging in place.
8/ Is an entire extra storey really minor in nature? Does the fact the building would be much more Accessible alter the interpretation of it?
The philosophical part is this, does the Ontario Human Rights Code alter the interpretation of certain rules?
The philosophical part is this, does the Ontario Human Rights Code alter the interpretation of certain rules?
