Retour aux projets de loi

Housing Agreement Changed to Match Approved Plan

Titre complet:
250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West - Authority to Amend Section 37 Agreement to Reflect the Minor Variance Decision of the Committee of Adjustment

Summary#

This item lets the City change a legal agreement on a planned housing project at 250 Wincott Drive and 4620 Eglinton Avenue West. The change is needed to match a minor variance approved by the Committee of Adjustment. The broad goal is to keep the project’s legal conditions consistent with what was approved for the building plans.

  • Authorizes City officials to amend and register an update to the existing Section 37 Agreement (a legal deal on the property that secures conditions and community benefits).
  • Updates the agreement to reflect the Committee of Adjustment’s decision on unit mix and minimum unit sizes in “Building C.”
  • For Building C: at least 28% of units must be two‑bedroom with a minimum size of 60 m² (about 646 sq ft) and an average size of 65 m² (about 700 sq ft).
  • For Building C: at least 14% of units must be three‑bedroom (or more) with a minimum size of 84 m² (about 904 sq ft) and an average size of 89 m² (about 958 sq ft).
  • Caps Building C at no more than 370 residential units.
  • The Committee of Adjustment materials state the total number of units across the site remains 587.
  • The report also says the amendment implements revised timing for related municipal infrastructure work.

What it means for you#

  • Developers/Owner

    • Must sign and register an amended Section 37 Agreement so the unit mix, minimum sizes, and any related timing match the approved minor variance.
    • Must keep Building C to a maximum of 370 units and meet the updated two- and three-bedroom requirements in that building.

  • Future tenants

    • There will be more flexibility in the size of two- and three-bedroom apartments in Building C. Minimum sizes are lower than before.
    • The share of larger (two- and three-bedroom) units required in Building C is smaller than earlier site-wide rules, but averages and minimums still apply.
    • Staff indicated this could still result in a similar number of larger units overall, even though the share and minimum size are lower. The bill does not clearly quantify this.

  • Nearby residents

    • This is mainly an administrative step to align legal documents with an approved variance. It does not change building heights or the total site unit cap stated in the Committee’s decision.
    • A separate zoning amendment to increase heights and densities on the site is under review; this council item does not decide that.

  • General public

    • No change is identified to the previously noted 54 purpose-built affordable rental units. The available material does not say these are affected.

Expenses#

The City states there is no financial impact beyond what is already approved in the current year’s budget.

  • Administrative work to prepare and register the amended agreement will be handled within existing resources.
  • No new fees, fines, or funding changes are identified in the provided material.

Proponents' View#

  • The amendment appears intended to keep the legal agreement consistent with the Committee of Adjustment’s approved design details, avoiding conflicts and delays.
  • The Committee of Adjustment found the variance maintains the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is minor and desirable for the site.
  • Allowing smaller minimum sizes for two- and three-bedroom units in Building C could make it easier to deliver a mix of unit types while keeping some family-sized options.
  • The report says it also implements revised timing for municipal infrastructure tied to the project, which could help coordinate construction.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that lowering the required share and minimum size of two- and three-bedroom units in Building C could mean fewer or smaller family-sized homes.
  • Smaller minimum sizes may raise livability questions for larger households.
  • It is unclear from the provided materials whether any affordable housing commitments are affected; no change is specified.
  • The report mentions revised timing for municipal infrastructure, but details are limited. This may raise questions about when local improvements will occur.
  • More units concentrated in Building C (up to 370) could prompt concerns about traffic, parking, or services, but no assessment is included in the supplied documents.