From the Twitter feed of
@HousingNowTO a segment of a discussion led by Brad Bradford in which MZOs are discussed.
The position taken (by Housing Now) will surprise no one.
I'm of mixed feelings on this; as I strongly support this housing program; and agree that the typical planning process for such developments is arduous.
On the other hand; I feel as though MZOs are problematic, not only for the situations in which they are overtly being used to circumvent good planning (development of wetlands, unserviced farmland or heritage sites); but also
for their general use to end-run any public opinion or consultation.
I have no time whatever for the 'but think of the children' set; but I do worry that in running over public opposition, repeatedly, what may be achieved is the defeat of progressive councillors and the squashing of the program all together.
It strikes me that what this ought to trigger is a wholesale re-think of the Planning process itself, which has become almost legendary for its cumbersomeness in general; and in particular, the harmful effects that has on the development
of supportive, affordable and purpose-built rental housing in general.
For instance, how about, as apart from the important issue of addressing adequate height/density permissions; we simply allow multi-residential housing and supportive housing, as-of-right, everywhere in the City that isn't in the floodplain or in a heavy-industry area.
How about we get on with fixing the general height permissions, particularly on main streets, even modestly, by lifting everything to 5 storeys or what is now, the higher of the two?
Further, let's ditch parking minimums.
If we can ditch the OPA (Official Plan Amendement) associated with projects like this entirely; minimize the liklihood of requiring ZBA (Zoning by-Law Amendment); so that proposals were only subject to an SPA (Site Plan Approval); we could expedite a lot of worthwhile projects without the MZO.
*****
One other note...........It's M ZED Os..........none of this yankee Zee business!