º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍø

As TorontoÌýstruggles with an ongoing housing crisis, theÌýcityÌýhas axed a proposal for two fourplexes in Etobicoke.

“We’re stunned,” said Peter Plastina, the builder behind the project. “We’re trying to get to the affordable housing that everyone is crying for.”

It’s the most recent example of a multiplex not being allowed,Ìýhighlighting the ongoing challenge ofÌýadding density to residential neighbourhoods, despite new rulesÌýthat in theory are supposed to make just that kind of housing easier to build.

Plastina was trying to construct two three-storey fourplexes, with eight condo or rental units, on a severed lot at 1090 Kipling Ave. near Burnhamthorpe Road where there’s currently a red brick three-bedroom detached house with a garage.

The property isÌýon a wide, tree-lined streetÌýinÌýa neighbourhood of mostly single-family homes.Ìý

Each new unit would have been more than 1,000 square feet, he said. The site is close to Kipling Station and several bus stops, so parking wasn’t in the plan.

But the neighbours, in addition to objecting to the height and size of the proposal, voiced concerns about parking, and adding tenants to the street.Ìý

The proposal was rejected by the Etobicoke York Committee of Adjustment, a tribunalÌýthat makes decisions under the Planning Act, last summer. InÌýDecember, the decision was appealed to the º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøLocal Appeal Body, which elected not to overturn it last month, the final nail in the coffin for Plastina.

In spring 2023, º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøcity council voted to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and, on lots big enough for laneway and garden suites, five-plexes, across the city, including in the more spread-out suburbanÌýborough ofÌýEtobicoke.

The rules were supposed to open up the “Yellowbelt,” a wide swath of º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøreserved for mainly detached and semidetached homes, whichÌýhadÌýled to the city’sÌýuneven grown with tall towers concentrated along main streets.

The new bylaw was supposed to make it straightforward for developers like Plastina to quickly build these kinds of units, often referred to as the “missing middle” between tall condo towers and single family homes, without a lot of red tape.

Ideally, they are big enough for young families or people with pets and offered, either for sale or rent, at a price point below a traditional single family home.

But in February, a planned three-storey structure with four units near Royal York Road and Dundas Street WestÌýin EtobicokeÌýwas also rejected at the Committee of Adjustment after an outcry from neighbours.

And the developer behind two recently completedÌýenvironmentally friendly fourplexesÌýnear Gerrard Street East and Main Street bemoaned the factÌýthe city now considers two attached fourplexes an apartment building, which requires special approval to build.

SinceÌýPlastina’s project did have some variances — seven for each property — the project did have to go before the committee.

This gave the neighbours a forum to air their concerns, and they 14 letters of objectionÌýÌýThe letters mentioned the variances — objecting to the size and height of the proposal. But they also outlined concerns about renters, a possible decline in the value of their properties, and changes to the character of the neighbourhood.

Before opening it up for questions, one of the members of the committee warned the room they were not there to discuss whether fourplexes should be allowed on the street as that had already been decided by city council.

Neighbours spoke about traffic and street parking, among other issues. They said residents would drive anyway, even though public transit is within walking distance, and could block driveways. They worried about garbage pickup, and felt that the variances were not actually minor.

One pointed out that it wasn’t clear whether the units would be rentals or condos, and they would probably not be very affordable. Another insisted that while she wasÌýsympathetic to concerns about the housing crisis, there was plenty of development nearby, such as new condos at Kipling Avenue and Dundas Street West.Ìý

One resident called the proposed projectÌýa “monstrosity.”

The committee concluded that taken as a whole the variances were not minor and the project was not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood, and rejected the proposal.

A city spokesperson noted to the Star that the decision to deny the proposal was made by the Committee of Adjustment and not by staff or council.Ìý

Staff are currently studying opportunities to enable residential buildings of up to six units and four storeys citywide.

A report with recommendations on this, as well as one on how the multiplex bylaw is going, is expected at city council’s June 12Ìýmeeting, the spokesperson added.Ìý

Adam Layton, associate principalÌýwith Goldberg Group, a land use planning consultant company, who was engaged on theÌý1090 Kipling Ave. project, called the situation “tricky” as the multiplex rules are new.

“Peter had the luxury, the unfortunate luxury, of being one of the first ones to take advantage of it,” he said. “Not everyone appreciates or likes the fact that these types of dwellings are now permitted.”