iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Conservative MP and Housing Critic @scottaitchison.bsky.social has consistently been a thoughtful voice and leader on housing and greater density in Canadian cities. It is to our benefit when there are pro-housing voices in all parties and we would like to thank Scott for his public service.

Text of Letter of Resignation of Canadian MP Scott Aitchison:

September 30, 2026
Dear residents of Parry Sound—Muskoka,

I have made the difficult decision to resign my seat following the conclusion of the fall parliamentary session. After 30 years of public life, it is time for a new chapter where I will explore new opportunities.

From being elected to Huntsville Town Council and Muskoka District Council at the age of 21, to serving as Mayor of Huntsville and, for the past seven years, as your Member of Parliament, it has been the honour of my lifetime to serve you and represent our community.

Whether it was in the council chambers, or the halls of Ottawa, I worked to build consensus, cut through the bureaucracy, and make life better for the people who placed their trust in me. I carried myself with the same values of the town that raised me: respect, decency, and looking out for your neighbour.

My time as Shadow Housing Minister has allowed me to contribute to a fundamental shift in the national debate on housing. All levels of government have recognized the burden over regulation and excessive taxes and fees place on housing affordability. Our Conservative team can be proud of the work we have done on this file and I know the team will continue this work after my departure.

To the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka who placed their trust in me, and those who I disagreed with but promised passionate representation to, I hope I have made you proud.

I want to thank my incredible staff who have served me and the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka with distinction. None of this would have been possible without you.

To my caucus colleagues and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, it has been a privilege to serve alongside you. I have been fortunate to meet Canadians from coast-to-coast who are counting on us to champion efforts to make life more affordable for all Canadians. I know you will continue this mission.

Sincerely,
Scott Aitchison
MP Parry Sound—Muskoka

0230

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 04/08/2026

"Housing delayed is housing denied" isn't just a saying. There are carrying costs associated with delays. Non-profits don't have a lot of room in their budgets. So affordable units get reduced. If we're asking for more consultation, let's tell the public the price tag. In this case, $9 million.

“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.”

1235

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 04/08/2026

We didn't have time to post all of the letters for the chaotic final Council meeting but this was one of the buildings that we wrote in support of. www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis...

040

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 04/08/2026

Some councillors, including the now-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, decided to panic about false information instead of explaining the possibility of a combination daycare/retail/temple/apartment mid-rise to their residents.

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

120

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 04/08/2026

This building was made possible by the Avenues Policy that Toronto passed in Feb 2025. Although this section of King was technically still low-rise Neighbourhood because of delays in policy implementation, it was identified as a new Avenue for mid-rise development.

Map of Toronto with existing and new Avenues areas highlighted in brown and magenta, respectively.

Land Use
The proposed development is located along King Street West which is identified in the
Official Plan as an Avenue, where growth and intensification should be directed. The
proposed development also introduces at grade retail to activate the ground floor and facilitate sustainable and complete communities through streetscape improvements and
a private open space that will be publicly accessible to the public.
The proposal supports a balance of diverse residential, commercial and institutional
uses consistent with the Mixed Use Areas designation. The temple replaces the existing
temple that is currently on site, which is strongly supported by the Tibetan community.
The application further proposes a new private daycare, which meets an identified need
in the community. The proposed units, including the rental replacement units, support a
range and mix of housing that is consistent with the Official Plan and the Growing Up
Guidelines. The proposed land use is appropriate.

1266

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 31/07/2026

Here in Toronto, one of our North York area Councillors decries all the major sports teams being located downtown. This Councillor is famously not a fan of residential density in his ward and constantly worries that we're building Hong Kong on Yonge St.

010

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 30/07/2026

Usually there's more distance between the past and future when we say this idiom.

0101

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 30/07/2026

Can building homes cut emissions? Making Room Vol. 8 features environmental scientist Scott Baker, presenting data on how housing density shapes transportation emissions.

121

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 08/07/2026

Thanks everyone. Downsview West is through Committee with a few amendments and on to Council. Many other items with many potential homes were sent "without recommendations" (not a great sign). Two deferrals. Hopefully we see more courage from Toronto and East York today/tomorrow.

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

0101

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 06/07/2026

But what if you want your housing to be over 9000 and can't wait until Wednesday? On Tuesday, North York CC will vote on zoning for Downsview West. A community proposal including 3 childcare centres, parks & affordable housing with the feds (Canada Lands Co.) secure.toronto.ca/council/agen...

Residential Component
The submitted district plan proposes a total of 845,000 square metres of gross floor
area. Of this 845,000 square metres of GFA, 756,000 square metres is proposed to be
residential gross floor area totaling approximately 9,250 dwelling units. Forty percent of
these units are proposed to be 2 and 3-bedroom residential units and a minimum of
10% of the residential GFA will be secured as affordable rental housing for a minimum
period of 25 years as a social housing program under section 453.1 of the City of
Toronto Act, 2006.
Non-Residential Component
The proposal includes retaining 64,000 square metres of existing (Depot building) gross
floor area and 25,000 square metres of new non-residential gross floor area in the
Mixed-Use Areas totaling 89,000 square metres of non-residential GFA.
Community Services and Facilities
The Downsview Secondary Plan and the Community Development Plan both identify a
need for accessible, affordable community space to support a growing and diverse
population, with a particular focus on Indigenous and Black communities, as well as
other equity-deserving groups.
Both community space and childcare space is identified and further elaborated on in the
report.

1100

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 06/07/2026

Not enough affordable housing? At 191 College, demolition started for a 31-storey proposal but, with new land, incentives and 45 storeys, the developer thinks they can add 137 affordable 2-beds. Six proposed parking spaces is freaking out some locals. secure.toronto.ca/council/agen...

Unit Mix
The applicant proposes to retain the 408 studio units in the 2024 approval as affordable
rental housing secured through the Open Door Affordable Housing Program and to add
137 additional affordable two-bedroom units secured through the Rental Housing
Supply Program (RHSP) Affordable Rental and Rent-Controlled Housing Incentives
(ARRCHI) stream, both secured for a 40-year period.
While, the Downtown Plan requires a minimum of 15% two-bedroom and 10% threebedroom units and an additional 15% of the total number of units to be a combination of 2- bedroom and 3-bedroom units or units that can be converted to 2- and 3-bedroom
units through the use of accessible or adaptable design measures, the policy provides
an exemption for proposals that include new social housing or other public funded
housing.

160

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 06/07/2026

Now, you might be thinking, could those buildings house a future Sneaky Dee's or its customer base? Wrong vibe. We need something on the site of a former car wash. How about a 9-storey apartment at 1280 College? secure.toronto.ca/council/agen...

Land use map of 1280 College showing that most of the land is Mixed Use but a small portion is Neighbourhoods and needs to be changed for the proposal

Description
The site is located at the northwest corner of College Street and Landsdowne Avenue.
The site is rectangular, with a lot area of approximately 1,055 square metres, and
frontage of 39.0 metres along College Street and 27.4 metres along Lansdowne
Avenue. The site is currently occupied by a vehicle washing establishment. See
Attachment 2 for the Location Map.
Surrounding Uses
North: Low rise residential uses.
East: Low rise residential and commercial uses.
South: Low rise residential and commercial uses fronting onto College Street.
West: Low rise residential and commercial uses fronting Lansdowne Avenue. To the
southwest at the south-west corner of Lansdowne Avenue and Dundas Street West is a
large format grocer and vehicle fuel station. To the northwest, fronting on Lansdowne
Avenue is the a secondary school dually operated by the Conseil scolaire catholique
MonAvenir (French Catholic school board) as École secondaire catholique Saint-FrèreAndré and Conseil scolaire Viamonde (French public-secular school board) as École
secondaire Toronto Ouest.

170

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 06/07/2026

Grange CA also objects to a 5-storey proposal at 14 Grange, even though they "acknowledge the need for new housing" and an earlier proposal was reduced (which appears to have remove the affordable housing). Still, there are 6 four-beds on the line. secure.toronto.ca/council/agen...

Land Use map of 14 Grange showing that it is yellow Neighbourhood and borders red Mixed Use.

Description
Two residential buildings are proposed with a central courtyard between them. The front
building ("Building 1") is 5 storeys not including the partially raised basement (16.24
metres in height, or 19.31 metres with stairwell projection) and the rear building
("Building 2") is 4.5 storeys in height, not including basement (17.3 metres).
Density
The gross floor area (GFA) proposed for the site is 2,007 square metres: Building 1
GFA of 1056 square metres; Building 2 GFA of 951 square metres. The proposal has a
density of 4.15 times the area of the lot.
Residential Component
The proposal includes 22 rental dwelling units, including 8 one-bedroom (36%), 8 threebedroom (36%), and 6 four-bedroom units (27%).

Please be advised that the Grange Community Association does not support this application
in its current form.
We acknowledge that changes were made to reduce the original application.
We also acknowledge the need for housing.
We can support two buildings.
Note that the Planning Report describes the site as follows:
“Surrounding Uses:
North: There is a public lane to the north of the property. North of the lane are several
low-rise commercial buildings fronting onto Dundas Street.
South: The south side of Grange Avenue contains low rise residential dwellings.
East: Immediately east is a public lane, then low-rise residential buildings along Grange
Avenue to Beverley Street.
Across the lane, a 4-storey, 12-unit laneway building was recently approved at 100
Beverley Street, behind the existing 3-storey, 9-unit building on site (see 23 112047 STE
10 OZ).
West: Low-rise residential dwellings.”
Given its location within a low density residential area and its relationship to structures that are
predominantly 3 storeys, we cannot support this application.
A height of 4 storeys is more appropriate.

1110

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 06/07/2026

First, let's convert some low rise Neighbourhood to Mixed Use. At 240 McCaul, Ronald McDonald House Charities are looking to build 19 storeys of short-term suites for families receiving treatment at nearby hospitals. Grange Community Association opposes. secure.toronto.ca/council/agen...

3D Model of 240 McCaul proposal, looking Southeast

Land Use Map of the area around 240 McCaul, showing that it is currently yellow low-rise Neighbourhoods but borders red Mixed Use area on one side and is across from blue Institutional Area.

Description
A development consisting of a 19-storey (61.2-metres tall, excluding mechanical
penthouse) component fronting on McCaul Street, a 4-storey component fronting Henry
Street, and a 2-storey linking component in the centre of the lot.
Density
The proposal has a density of 4.8 times the area of the lot.
Non-Residential Component
The proposal includes a maximum of 21,000 square metres of non-residential uses
comprised of 200 hotel suites that provide short-term accommodation for families
receiving treatment at nearby hospitals.

From the Grange Community Association:
To: Toronto and East York Community Council
Re: TE 34.22 240 McCaul Street - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
Please be advised that the Grange Community Association (GCA) does not support this
application in its current form. The proposed height for McCaul Street is excessive.
We acknowledge the need for this type of medical support assistance, however it cannot be done at
the cost of destabalising neighbourhoods.
In addition this excessive proposal introduces a form of “institutional” issues that is not compatible
with neighbourhoods. Institutions were expected to be located east of McCaul Street.

1210

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 29/06/2026

On July 22nd, @anotherglassbox.bsky.social tells the story of a beloved corner store, ordered to take down its espresso machine, kicking off a fight that reshaped neighbourhood retail in Toronto. Fast forward to today and neighbourhood retail is now largely legal. RSVP below👇

1215

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/05/2026

After the request to pause parking requirement minimums in Scarborough passed at last week's City Council meeting, it was only a matter of time before other Community Councils got in on the action. <Looks at calendar> The matter of time was 6 days. secure.toronto.ca/council/agen...

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.

4114

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 18/05/2026

We're excited for the next Making Room event. In 1973, Mitchell Cohen led tenant marches in Montreal. Since then, he's built nearly 40,000 homes across the GTA and led Regent Park's revitalization. On June 23rd, he tells the story himself in stories and song, with a full band.

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.

140

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 11/05/2026

How do you build more family-friendly multi-unit housing in Toronto when the condo market is in a rough patch and near-term supply pressures keep mounting? MAKING ROOM Vol. 5: Family-Friendly Multi-Unit Housing, A Path Forward May 19th @ 5:00pm Hosted with BDP Quadrangle RSVP below

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).

161

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 08/05/2026

Great to be participating as a host organization for @civicaction.bsky.social's Youth CivicCorps program! Looking forward to our team working on MNTO's Single Stair campaign and our monthly speaker series!

030

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 05/05/2026

Now, this would be by no means the milestone that allowing Single Stair Egress in the Ontario Building Code would. But, it's reflective of the growing number of jurisdictions in North America that are seriously considering changes to allow them in some fashion (including Vancouver just last Dec.)

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

0141

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 05/05/2026

An intriguing little tidbit from the "Mid-Rise Housing Implementation Initiative - Proposals Report" coming before Toronto's Planning & Housing Committee as item PH30.8 this Thursday. www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis...

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.

1172

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 03/05/2026

The walk finished off with a nice mix of laneway structures on Croft St. Thanks to everyone leading walks this weekend and showing off Toronto.

040

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 03/05/2026

The former family home of the Westons, converted to multi-family homes, as evidenced by the many gas meters.

130

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 03/05/2026

A low-rise apartment from 1911, built just under the wire, before Toronto banned apartments in 1912.

251

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 03/05/2026

A low-rise apartment + garden suite proposal was opposed by the neighbours and continues to sit vacant, likely awaiting some sort of progress on the Major Transit Station Area implementation.

220

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 03/05/2026

Checking in on the progress at Mirvish Village, for a contrast. The street just re-opened to pedestrians. Imminent: the new Badiali's location.

120

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 03/05/2026

Who has been out Jane's walking? At the (not-so) missing middle near Mirvish Village, we saw laneway suites, apartments and 'plexes, new and old. Did you know, if every residential block in Toronto had two more multiplex + garden suites like this, we could house another half a million people?

1110

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

If there are so many challenges to living in a neighbourhood - no sidewalks, poor snow clearing, no amenities within walking distance - perhaps it's worth having a discussion about whether the character should be "very stable"??? www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis...

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.

071

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

Also on the agenda, a 7-storey midrise at 179 Finch Ave E in a Neighbourhoods area that is now also a Major Street (and, technically, an Avenue). www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis...

130

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

It's North York Community Council day. We've written in on the townhomes we discussed here. So have Don Mills Residents Inc., who describe the area as a "very stable neighbourhood." It's the extra adverbs that really solidify the exclusion. www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis...

181

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

Failing that, it would be good to add a requirement for more regular updates and to limit the geographic overlap of the plan areas. These changes would make land use planning easier to understand for everyone.

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.

000

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

So, what to do about all this? The obvious solution - but a bit undertaking - would be to incorporate Secondary Plan changes directly into the main land use designation map and zoning by-laws.

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.

100

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

But some cover a lot! In the Neighbourhoods section of the OP, you won't see the multiplex policies that we worked to pass in 2023. This is because these are contained in an SASP that outlines the multiplex permissions that apply "despite" the normal Neighbourhoods policies of 4.1.5.

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.

110

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

There are similar issues with Site and Area Specific Policies (SASPs) but these are more numerous, although many are often smaller changes and cover smaller areas. SASPs number in the hundreds.

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

100

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

This makes the OP hard for the average person to understand. The Jan 2025 Avenues Policy update was already confusing when the implementing zoning was split into stages. More confusing was that areas on the Avenues map would need entirely separate OP updates because they're in Secondary Plan areas.

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.

100

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

Because the Secondary Plan policies don't get incorporated into the main part of the Official Plan and because they supersede it, the number of Secondary Plans only ever increases and the amount of land where the "main" Official Plan policies apply only ever decreases.

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.

110

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

So plans in many intended Growth Areas are out-of-date. In addition, many secondary plans do not have implementing zoning by-laws despite an intention to create them "expeditiously." Buildings that fit these Secondary Plans still have to apply for a zoning by-law amendment.

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.

100

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

This would be fine if Secondary Plans were regularly updated but there's no requirement for this. Recently, the North York Secondary Plan started its first update since 1997. A review was approved in Jan 2021 and just getting a directions report to start the main consultations took until March 2026.

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

120

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

And Secondary Plan policies supersede the general Official Plan policies. This means that work that we do to update the general policies in low-rise Neighbourhoods or along Avenues doesn't actually apply to this fairly large section of Toronto.

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.”

100

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

After these general descriptions, in Chapter 6 of the Official Plan, are 51 Secondary Plans with additional policies for specific areas. Many are in growth areas like downtown, but some are in low-rise areas like Port Union Village and Swansea and seem designed to prevent change.

A map of the areas covered by Secondary Plans in Toronto's Official Plan

100

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

You may have heard us talk about Neighbourhoods, Avenues and Mixed Use Areas. These are all areas outlined in Toronto's Official Plan, with policies about how they can (or can't) grow and change. We've been working to update some of these policies, but there's a problem.

Official Plan Land Use Designations map from City of Toronto as of June 2020.

100

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

We've submitted suggestions to the province regarding changes to secondary plans and site and area-specific policies. What are these and why do they matter? 🧵 ero.ontario.ca/notice/026-0...

191

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 18/04/2026

You can find the refusal report here, along with a link to submit comments to the April 29th meeting of North York Community Council if you want to weigh in on whether a refusal would be "good planning" or in the public interest. More Neighbours will be writing. secure.toronto.ca/council/agen...

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.

160

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 18/04/2026

But it's tough to put all of the blame on the neighbours when apparently staff need the applicant to submit a report to tell them whether 3 net new units will overwhelm downstream sanitary sewer capacity. Seems like a real planning failure if Neighbourhoods are that close to collapse!

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.

2110

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 18/04/2026

Bonus game: spot the More Neighbours comment. Thanks to our many dedicated volunteers. And a reminder that asking the people struggling to get by in this city to show up and beg for housing any time a few units are proposed isn't a sensible approach for a city claiming to be serious about housing.

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.

• Residents noted existing drainage challenges in the area and raised concerns that
the proposal may: increase surface runoff, contribute to flooding or basement
water issues, and place additional pressure on existing stormwater systems.
• Residents questioned how the site would accommodate snow storage and
removal, and garbage and recycling collection, given limited frontage and
driveway configuration.
• Several residents expressed the view that the proposal does not address “missing
middle” housing, noting that the units are anticipated to be high-end and not
affordable, and therefore may not meet broader housing needs.
• One participant expressed support for the proposal, noting that the neighbourhood
currently lacks attainable housing options for new families. It was suggested that
developments of this type could provide more affordable alternatives to large
single-detached dwellings.

150

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 18/04/2026

Meanwhile, Councillor Burnside finishes his email by highlighting his record of blocking homes in Neighbourhoods and promising to keep doing his utmost to oppose the gentlest of density.

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.

240

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 18/04/2026

This is the secret to "winning" Guess That Density in Toronto. If the site is near a highway or noise, guess high. If the site is in an established Neighbourhood, guess low. Throw any mid-range guess away. That's Planning!

Cover of the book "One Two Three... Infinity" by George Gamow.

171

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 18/04/2026

At the same North York Community Council meeting where staff recommend rejecting these 4 units on a site that permits 4 units, they are looking at ways to mitigate noise so that they can put four mixed use towers near sensitive employment areas.

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.

121

More Neighbours Toronto @moreneighboursto.bsky.social · 18/04/2026

The bigger question is why two buildings that are so similar from the outside and have the same impact on the community in terms of number of residents are treated so differently by our planning process: one allowed as-of-right, one recommended for refusal 403 days after a pre-application meeting.

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)

240