A few weeks ago, Equitable Bank launched a new construction financing product for laneway homes and garden suites in Canada. Here is the announcement. This is generally good news. When we completed Mackay Laneway House back in 2021, the banks hadn't yet gotten their head around this housing type. I remember RBC getting tripped up on the fact that there were two detached dwellings on the same residential lot.
That said, there are some important conditions around this new mortgage product:
"The Laneway House Mortgage is offered on properties that are free and clear, or in combination with new or existing mortgages where Equitable Bank holds, or will hold, the first position."
In other words, they want no debt on the property or they want sufficient equity in the property -- but Equitable Bank needs to hold the mortgage. I suspect that most of the people who have built laneway and garden suites have done so by leveraging the equity in their main house; so I'm not sure how "innovative" this product will end being in practice. You'll also need to switch to Equitable Bank if you have your mortgage with another lender.
Still, if you're looking to build one of these homes -- and I continue to believe that they make a ton of sense both financially and from a city-building standpoint -- it wouldn't hurt to see what Equitable Bank can offer.
This week, I received a notice in the mail that a neighbor to Mackay Laneway House is seeking variances for their own laneway house. I immediately thought to myself, "oh, the hypocrisy." Here is a neighbor that vehemently opposed my Committee of Adjustment application back in 2017 and now wants to do something similar.
It's also not like you need minor variances in order to build a laneway house today. They are, as many of you know, permitted as-of-right. That's how MLH was ultimately built. We went straight to building permit. But in this case, the request is for 7 variances to the current by-law. The build aspires to go above and beyond.
As I'm sure you can imagine, there's part of me that wants to be a real asshole here. But of course, that would run counter to many of the objectives that we regularly cover on this blog: more housing, revitalized laneways, and so on. So I can't do that. It's directionally the right city building move, and they have my full support.
Last week, Sierra Communities (developer) and my friend Gabriel Fain (architect of Mackay Laneway House fame) submitted the above development proposal for 2760 Dundas Street West in the Junction. It is a beautiful proposal. So not surprisingly, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Here are the first batch of comments from Urban Toronto:
It also happens to be one block west of our Junction House project, so I definitely would have been annoyed if somebody proposed something ugly here. I am 99.9% biased, but I think the Junction has some of the best new mid-rise buildings in the city. Presumably, this is what "Mrgeosim" was getting at with their comment about "the number of good proposals for this neighbourhood."
But here's the thing. This is a relatively small proposal. It's a 6-storey mid-rise building with 28 new homes on top of a tiny 482 square meter site (16m frontage). This makes it a challenging new development to execute on. So the fact that this is required to go through the typical rezoning and site plan processes is, in my opinion, a painful problem.
We should be doing everything we can to encourage these kinds of new housing developments all across the city. And that necessarily means removing as many barriers as possible. A pair of development applications and a few community meetings may seem benign, but they're not. They add time and real costs that then need to be passed onto future residents.
There is also a very valid question around what kind of development charges (or impact fees) we should be levying on projects of this scale. If you want to build a laneway suite in the City of Toronto, you can have the development charges deferred and eventually forgiven. Why? Because we want more rental housing and we have arguably recognized that it's important for project feasibility.
Should the same apply if you're building 2 new homes, or perhaps 28 new homes? At what point should the "impacts" kick in and the fees be levied? And might there be an argument that adding many new homes on top of small 482 square meter parcels is actually an incredibly efficient way of using existing public infrastructure? I think so.
Congratulations to the team on a beautiful proposal! I'm looking forward to this being our neighbor.
Image: Gabriel Fain Architects