← All updates

Response from Councillor Leiper's Office: Key Clarifications

March 2, 2026

After reviewing the application documents and receiving clarification from Councillor Leiper’s office, here is an updated understanding of how the 340 Parkdale proposal fits within the City’s planning framework. This summary focuses on facts and policy context.

This is an update to my earlier letter of February 28.


1. Height: What Actually Governs This Site?

One important clarification: the site is governed primarily by the Wellington West Secondary Plan, not the Scott Street CDP.

The Secondary Plan:

The proposed 38-storey building exceeds that limit, which is why the applicant is seeking an Official Plan Amendment (OPA).

However:

Additionally:

What this means: The proposed height is not “as-of-right.” It exceeds both the Secondary Plan (8 storeys) and current zoning (18 storeys), requiring formal amendments.


2. Transit & Parking

A Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) has been submitted and is available through the City’s DevApps system.

The proposal includes:

The Official Plan (Section 4.1.4) emphasizes shifting toward sustainable transportation modes, particularly in transit-supportive areas like this one. Given the site’s proximity to Tunney’s Pasture LRT station, questions about parking levels and alignment with transit-oriented development policy are reasonable.

The applicant has indicated that deep excavation for site remediation influences the parking approach.

What this means: A TIA exists, but the policy question remains whether the proposed parking supply aligns with the City’s modal shift objectives.


3. Unit Mix & “Large Household Dwellings”

The Official Plan defines “large-household dwellings” as:

In Hubs and PMTSAs, the Official Plan sets:

According to the applicant’s Planning Rationale:

If those unit sizes are confirmed, the proposal would exceed the Official Plan’s 10% target.

What this means: While the building includes only five three-bedroom units, it may technically exceed the City’s policy requirement for large-household dwellings under the Official Plan definition.


4. Public Realm & Plaza

The proposal includes a privately owned public space (POP) — an internal courtyard/plaza and breezeway.

According to the Planning Rationale:

However:

What this means: The plaza would remain privately owned but publicly accessible. It is not replacing required parkland dedication.


5. What Remains Open for Discussion

Based on the updated information, key policy questions include:


Final Note

The proposal is complex and sits within overlapping policy layers:


Documents to Review

This is my working list of what I believe needs to be cited for a complete, authoritative picture of the policy framework. I’ll add links as I confirm them.

Planning Framework

Zoning

Application Materials

Housing Data

Growth Financing