Coach house residences are illegal in Toronto (transportation, houses, major)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is interesting because it is really a matter of zoning. The coach house may be detached but still considered as part of the single family property and therefore would violate zoning for single families. I suppose there can be a genuine concern for the City in that allowance of such a residence threatens to increase or even double the number of occupants in a block. And no this issue is not endemic to Toronto, I'm sure many other major cities throughout North America also have such restrictions. Still, I don't find a change to such a code that egregious. What do others think?
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,260,275 times
Reputation: 57826
Here they are not only allowed, but encouraged. They are know as an "accessory dwelling."
In one case near us, a brand new one was built in front of the house. Lots here are mostly 12,000 sf, some 10,000 but all have plenty of room for a small separate building. There are some requirements, such as that the owner must live in the main house.
This is interesting because it is really a matter of zoning. The coach house may be detached but still considered as part of the single family property and therefore would violate zoning for single families. I suppose there can be a genuine concern for the City in that allowance of such a residence threatens to increase or even double the number of occupants in a block. And no this issue is not endemic to Toronto, I'm sure many other major cities throughout North America also have such restrictions. Still, I don't find a change to such a code that egregious. What do others think?
That can't be the reason, since as the article states, laneway housing is legal, and if the coach house was backed on a public laneway there would be no problem.
Some zoning tweaks will probably be forthcoming. Usually secondary housing on a single lot either has to have a public roadway, or laneway access, or a lot big enough to allow for easy access.
Here they are not only allowed, but encouraged. They are know as an "accessory dwelling."
In one case near us, a brand new one was built in front of the house. Lots here are mostly 12,000 sf, some 10,000 but all have plenty of room for a small separate building. There are some requirements, such as that the owner must live in the main house.
That is the term I am more familiar with. I knew I heard that term somewhere but now I recall I did study about them back in planning school and yes a coach house or carriage house is an example of an off-street accessory dwelling unit or ADU. I also remember they are a subject of controversy in some but not all communities. It has been close to a decade since I left planning school and I haven't touched land use much since then (I primarily focused on transportation planning) but I believe a point of contention for ADUs was the fear of overcrowding a community with excess occupants. Different communities likely have different reasons to oppose them and that opposition is reflected in the zoning but then there are many good reasons to allow for such ADUs.
That can't be the reason, since as the article states, laneway housing is legal, and if the coach house was backed on a public laneway there would be no problem.
Some zoning tweaks will probably be forthcoming. Usually secondary housing on a single lot either has to have a public roadway, or laneway access, or a lot big enough to allow for easy access.
In that case, maybe it's not simply gross occupancy of a property that is the concern but perhaps access to the coach house. I would not be surprised if at one time emergency personnel feared they would have a harder time getting to a separate unit tucked away in the rear of the property though modern technology probably has solved that. Laneway houses are easier to access because of the lane. Then again you pointed out a flaw in Toronto's zoning code that even those homeowners in the article were surprised about. How come one type of ADU is allowed but not another? I agree there probably will be changes to zoning forthcoming.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,260,275 times
Reputation: 57826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Peasant
That is the term I am more familiar with. I knew I heard that term somewhere but now I recall I did study about them back in planning school and yes a coach house or carriage house is an example of an off-street accessory dwelling unit or ADU. I also remember they are a subject of controversy in some but not all communities. It has been close to a decade since I left planning school and I haven't touched land use much since then (I primarily focused on transportation planning) but I believe a point of contention for ADUs was the fear of overcrowding a community with excess occupants. Different communities likely have different reasons to oppose them and that opposition is reflected in the zoning but then there are many good reasons to allow for such ADUs.
Our city code requires that the total occupants in the main house and accessory be not more than six unrelated persons.
Probably in a high value neighborhood so they don't want the coach house to become a rental, you know and bring in the riff raff. They jurisdiction just figured out a way to restrict with out actually saying why. Also, it would be a non conforming separate home with out the set backs etc set for the other homes in the area.
This is interesting because it is really a matter of zoning. The coach house may be detached but still considered as part of the single family property and therefore would violate zoning for single families. I suppose there can be a genuine concern for the City in that allowance of such a residence threatens to increase or even double the number of occupants in a block. And no this issue is not endemic to Toronto, I'm sure many other major cities throughout North America also have such restrictions. Still, I don't find a change to such a code that egregious. What do others think?
That's a shame. Density and varied housing types with a variety of people adds to the vibrancy of an area. Zoning laws should not only allow such development but stipulate it as a matter of fact.
Probably in a high value neighborhood so they don't want the coach house to become a rental, you know and bring in the riff raff. They jurisdiction just figured out a way to restrict with out actually saying why. Also, it would be a non conforming separate home with out the set backs etc set for the other homes in the area.
It's in the article.
""The city said, 'You can't have a separate living space on your property unless it's … backing onto a public laneway," said Rod Wilson."
That's a shame. Density and varied housing types with a variety of people adds to the vibrancy of an area. Zoning laws should not only allow such development but stipulate it as a matter of fact.
The OP's title of the thread is misleading. Coach houses and laneway houses are legal in Toronto, it's just that this one doesn't have access to a public laneway. Most likely required for emergency services etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
