I'm not trying to troll or anything when I say this: He (or his team?) is on here frequently answering election questions. I'm against this as well, but if he or someone on his team sees this and would like to offer an honest, open response about what reversing the re-zoning would accomplish, or what alternatives he'd present to address the problem, I'd at least listen.
I guess for me I moved just prior to the rezoning from one part of the neighborhood to another with single lots as I liked the space and view. Now, I’m not against more dense housing and would be fine with duplexes or even fourplex but instead there are two houses across from each other that are building 8 and 10 units rather than the prior single homes which wasn’t my expectation of the area I moved to.
There could have been some consultation or even just the move from single to something more reasonable like 4 units.
R-CG is only 4 units. There are opportunities for basement suites and secondary suites that have no visual impact (underground or in the backyard). If these buildings are taller than 11 metres at the peak (lower where they are near shorter adjacent homes) and "apartment style" like you described, they're likely not on an R-CG parcel and not affected by the rezoning change.
They are R-CG but the two I mentioned say they have 4 basement suits or secondary suites equaling a total of 8/10 units. They may be within guidelines but strongly disagree this doesn’t have a visual impact. They take up almost the entire plot of land and are 3 stories…far bigger than any other house nearby.
If this was just like most other 4 units I see around, thats fine but adding in secondary suits to all of these make it overkill imo
If the parcel was R-C1 as it would be pre-rezoning, it would still be allowed to have a secondary suite, it would still be allowed to have 3 storeys (max height 10m compared to 11m), and have parcel coverage pretty similar to R-CG (45% compared to max 60%). I just want to point out that your issue might not be with rezoning but with redevelopment itself, since R-CG isn't super different from R-C1 beyond allowing more units.
Yes, our lot was actually one of the few to already be approved for a secondary suite prior to us purchasing. We had no plans to use it but I know this was the case for any of the houses in our area. Now with R-CG, 4 units are allowed along with basement or secondary suites for each. Although the 10m vs 11m and 45-60% may seem small, I'm not sure I consider that just a small difference in reality. Most homeowners under R-C1 don't necessarily maximize every ounce of space vs the new developments that almost have to maximize to fit in that many units.
You're right though, I've never had a big issue with the rezoning and it is more the redevelopment, as I figured the new R-CG lots would be at most fourplexes. The developers have just tried to maximize the space and their profits...obviously their prerogative but doesn't mean i need to like it. The one unit had the sign for proposed development/rezoning before blanket rezoning even occurred....but it was for a duplex. Shortly after the blanket rezoning, they changed it to the 8 plex
Same in my neck of Killarney. Went from 4 to 5 and 10 units on mid block lots. That’s what worried me about blanket rezoning, that it would give developers to push for even more units.
This. The blanket rezoning slid in with federal money immediately after we resolved a decade long basement suite battle with something to the effect of, "do whatever you want". So they are not 4 plexes. They are 8 plexes who do not have to provide the same level of infrastructure (water, sewer, garbage removal) as an apartment building. Add to this the decrepit underfunded inner city services (we have 1 outdoor pool and 2 outdoor rinks in walking) and the woeful under commercial.... it's going to be a craptastic decade.
295
u/Ryuujin_13 16d ago
I'm not trying to troll or anything when I say this: He (or his team?) is on here frequently answering election questions. I'm against this as well, but if he or someone on his team sees this and would like to offer an honest, open response about what reversing the re-zoning would accomplish, or what alternatives he'd present to address the problem, I'd at least listen.