Provincial Planning Reforms and Their Local Impacts: A Look at East Willowdale

A New Direction for Planning in Ontario:

Across Ontario, a new wave of planning reforms is quietly taking shape, but their impacts won’t be quiet at all.

Through Bill 98 and a series of proposals posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO), the Province is looking to reshape how development happens: how fast projects move, what municipalities can control, and ultimately, how our cities grow.

These changes are still in the proposal stage, currently open for public comment, but they signal a clear direction one that prioritizes speed, consistency, and housing supply. At first glance, this might sound like a technical adjustment to planning processes. But in reality, these are structural changes that could redefine the relationship between provincial policy, municipal control, and the everyday experience of neighbourhoods.

While the full scope of these reforms is broad, this post focuses on three key areas that are likely to have tangible impacts at the neighbourhood scale: the standardization of planning frameworks, proposed changes to site plan control, and the introduction of minimum residential lot sizes..

1. Toward a More Standardized System

One part of the proposal that feels relatively straightforward is the push toward standardization across Ontario’s planning system.

Right now, something as basic as land use designation—how we categorize land as residential, commercial, mixed-use, and so on, can vary quite a bit from one municipality to another. That means the same type of development might be interpreted differently depending on where it’s proposed. For anyone working across multiple cities, or even trying to understand planning documents as a resident, this lack of consistency can be frustrating. What the Province is proposing is essentially a more unified language for land use and development.

In theory, this makes sense. A clearer, more standardized system could reduce confusion, improve transparency, and make the planning process easier to navigate. That said, getting there won’t be simple. Municipalities would need to update their official plans and zoning by-laws, which takes time, resources, and coordination. There’s also the short-term reality that during this transition, things may actually become more confusing before they become clearer. Still, in the long run, this is one of the more defensible directions in the proposed reforms. If done carefully, it has the potential to create a more legible and efficient planning system across the province.

2. Rethinking Site Plan Control

Site plan control has traditionally been one of the key tools municipalities use to shape the quality of development. While zoning sets the rules for what can be built, site plan control focuses on how those developments actually come together on the ground, how buildings meet the street, how public space is designed, and how a project integrates with its surroundings.

What concerns me about the proposed changes is that they effectively shift site plan control from a design quality tool to a technical approval checklist. Instead of being a flexible mechanism that municipalities can use to refine and improve development outcomes, it becomes a more limited, standardized process focused primarily on functional requirements like health and safety.

This shift may improve efficiency, but it also reduces the ability of municipalities to respond to context to shape projects in a way that reflects local conditions and priorities.

If we bring this down to a neighbourhood scale, the implications become clearer.

Take East Willowdale as an example. Important corridors like Yonge Street and the Doris Avenue with close proximity to the neighborhood border designated for high-rise residential development. They are large-scale developments that actively reshape the built environment, the streetscape, and the public realm. In this context, site plan control plays a critical role. It is one of the few stages where municipalities can influence the quality of these developments beyond basic zoning permissions. It helps ensure that growth is not just happening, but happening in a way that contributes positively to the neighbourhood.

Reducing site plan control to a more rigid, checklist-based process risks losing that layer of oversight. Over time, the result may not be a single dramatic change, but rather a gradual decline in the overall quality of the built environment something that becomes especially noticeable in areas already experiencing rapid intensification.

3. Smaller Lots, Bigger Questions

Another key component of the proposed reforms is the introduction of a new minimum lot size across urban areas.

The intention behind this policy is relatively clear. By allowing smaller lots, the Province aims to increase the number of developable parcels, encourage intensification, and ultimately support housing supply. In theory, smaller lots can accommodate more units, which aligns with broader efforts to address the housing shortage.

From a physical standpoint, this could lead to noticeable changes in neighbourhoods. Existing lots that were previously too small to be redeveloped may become eligible for severance, leading to an increase in lot splitting and incremental intensification. Over time, this could reshape the grain of residential areas, introducing narrower lots, higher densities, and more compact built forms.

If managed carefully, this type of change can be part of a broader strategy to diversify housing options. However, without adequate planning and infrastructure support, it can also create pressure on existing systems ranging from servicing capacity and transportation to public realm quality and overall livability.

Where this proposal becomes more problematic is in how it is framed in relation to affordability.

The Province states that these changes are intended to support “for increased housing supply and affordability in urban areas by helping facilitate the creation of smaller lots over time. This could lead to increased opportunities for home ownership in urban areas as smaller lots are generally more affordable.” While this may hold some truth in terms of supply, it presents an incomplete picture of how housing affordability actually works.

Reducing lot size does not directly translate into affordable housing. At best, it changes one component of the development equation but many of the most significant cost drivers remain unchanged. Construction costs, labour, materials, financing conditions, and market demand all play a major role in determining final housing prices.

In many cases, smaller lots simply result in smaller units with a higher price per square foot, rather than meaningfully lower overall costs. Without mechanisms to address these broader economic factors, the relationship between lot size and affordability becomes weak at best.

A useful way to think about this is to compare it to addressing rising food costs by reducing portion sizes. While the quantity changes, the underlying affordability issue remains unresolved. The problem is not just how much is being consumed, but how much it costs to produce and access it in the first place.

Similarly, focusing primarily on lot size risks oversimplifying a much more complex issue. Increasing supply is important, but supply alone especially when driven by market conditions—does not guarantee affordability outcomes.

This does not mean the policy has no value. Smaller lot sizes can support intensification and create opportunities for incremental development. But positioning this approach as a solution to affordability risks overstating its impact and overlooking the broader structural factors that shape housing markets.

Final thought 

The proposed reforms reflect a clear priority: accelerating development to address housing supply challenges. In many ways, this direction is understandable and in some cases, necessary. However, as these changes move from policy to implementation, their impacts will not be evenly distributed. At the neighbourhood level, decisions about design, density, and infrastructure begin to shape everyday experiences in tangible ways.

The challenge, then, is not simply to build more, but to build in a way that maintains quality, supports livability, and reflects local context. Without that balance, the risk is not just faster development, but weaker outcomes over time.

References

Government of Ontario. (2026). Proposed Planning Act and related legislative changes (ERO 026-0300). Proposed Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, Building Code Act, 1992 and Municipal Act, 2001 Changes (Schedules 1, 2 and 7 of Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026) | Environmental Registry of Ontario

Government of Ontario. (2026). Draft Projection Methodology Guideline (ERO 026-0304). Draft Projection Methodology Guideline (PMG) to support the implementation of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS, 2024) | Environmental Registry of Ontario

Government of Ontario. (2026). Site plan control reform proposal (ERO 026-0310). Proposal to reform site plan control under the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 | Environmental Registry of Ontario

Government of Ontario. (2026). Minimum residential lot size proposal (ERO 026-0311). Proposed Regulatory Approach to Establish a Minimum Residential Lot Size in Urban Areas | Environmental Registry of Ontario