On Friday, April 16, 2021 TLAB Member Stanley Makuch issued a decision refusing severance of 38 Thirty First Street along with the variances associated with the application.
This hearing went on over 8 full days, from its outset on April 1, 2019 to closing arguments on February 22, 2021. The neighbourhood was represented by 5 residents and 3 members of the LBNA.
In his 10-page written decision, the presiding chair of the hearing, Mr. Makuch, agreed with the evidence provided by the LBNA and nearby residents that the proposed severance did not conform to the Long Branch Neighbourhood Design Guidelines and the Official Plan. He wrote:
“The proposed dwellings on the lot frontages requested would not fit the character of the area. Indeed, rather than respecting and reinforcing the character of the are they would diminish its cottage like atmosphere and reduce its feeling of openness and harmony.”
We are convinced the strong participation by Long Branch residents in TLAB hearings is making a favourable impression upon the the TLAB members. We are making well-presented cases with hard evidence and, unlike the OMB, which seemingly discouraged resident participation, TLAB is enabling the voices of the residents be heard as they describe the impact of these kinds of developments on them.
https://lbna.ca/wp-content/uploads/38-Thirty-First-Proposal-Rendering.jpg345460Ronald Jamieson/wp-content/uploads/LBNA_Logo_2in.svgRonald Jamieson2021-04-17 15:26:062021-04-17 15:26:09Severance of 38 Thirty First Refused
My neighbour’s property was vandalized on a sunny mid-March day this year. It was bold and in broad daylight, with the rest of the street watching in disbelief.
Many months ago – the new owner of the property next door was refused permission to build an oversized house on a 50 foot lot frontage by the Committee of Adjustment (COA). The proposed house was too big for the neighbourhood, but the bigger problem was the requested new foot print would endanger 3 protected trees on neighbouring properties – two 100-year-old beautiful Silver Maples and a younger but healthy Siberian Elm. In Long Branch, these are significant trees and they were there when the property was purchased. It should have been no surprise that a smaller home to accommodate the trees would have to be built and the trees on the surrounding properties protected.
Neighbours were excited to hear that rather than appeal the decision, the owner was going to build to the bylaws. This should be a happy ending to this story.
Not so.
Then came demolition day,
March 15, 2021 – Day 1
The house was coming down without tree protection for any of the trees. What was in place was flimsy snow fence establishing the illusion of tree protection for the neighbours to see. Fortunately, we long haulers know the difference. Neighbours were all quick to call 311, and were assured that Forestry would be attending the site — within 3-7 days.
March 16, 2021 – Day 2
Demolition continued – no forestry in sight. The 311 calls continued.
March 17, 2021- Day 3
Digging begins on March 17, 2021
On the third day the digging with the backhoe started, and that is when the neighbours and the owner of the trees next door lost it. We all watched in horror as the backhoe came closer and closer to the base of his prized Silver Maple taking roots and soil with it. Emails and text messages were sent out to the surrounding neighbourhood for residents to make some noise. “Call 311, there is illegal digging in protected tree zones happening right now. Take pictures if you can see it, and email and call the Councillor too.”
3 hours later, Forestry attended. But not before a yelling match occurred on the street between neighbours and the builder. A stop work order was finally issued by the City, but the damage was done. To what extent is unknown and may not be fully evident for years.
Gaps in the Process
Through all our phone calls we discovered the City had issued a building permit but no tree injury permits were in place. As a result, no Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) had been defined to protect trees on the subject property or adjoining properties. This is the problem with as-of-right building, everything becomes much less transparent than if the builder had asked for variances. The builder is expected to apply for a tree permit, yet there is nothing in place that we are aware of compelling them to do so.
Work crews putting in Tree Protection Zone barriers on March 24, 2021 – 6 days after demolition was completed.
The responsibility shifts to the neighbours to monitor the build and call to complain. But with a 3-to-7 day City response time, no action can occur in time to prevent irreversible damage to trees that are legally protected under the City’s By-laws.
We are sharing this story with you to illustrate the general rules about building around trees and hopefully save a few trees along the way.
According to the City of Toronto Tree Protection Policy and Specifications for Construction Near Trees – most protected private trees require a MINIMUM tree protection zone of 2.4 m. But in Long Branch, some of our larger trees are required by law to have much, much more. This zone generally stays clear at all times of equipment or digging. Orange snow fence is not tree protection. The Tree Protection Policy is a pretty straightforward and is pretty clear on what needs to be in place for Tree Protection in the City of Toronto.
Every Private tree that is 30cm in diameter or more – is protected. (that is 94.25 cm circumference at chest height) regardless of species or roughly the size of a telephone pole. It is illegal to injure or remove a healthy tree of this size or larger without a permit. All City Trees are protected regardless of size.
How You Can Protect Long Branch Trees
If you see an infraction, you need to initiate a call to 311 and be VERY specific. Tell them it is an emergency. Provide the address, where the tree is, how big it is and the species if you know it. Take photos if you can. Email and call the Councillor’s office as well. I have called in these types of infractions before and the City has arrived in a little as 45 minutes, but in this case, it was three days. So be persistent. Remember, in calling it in, you are not doing anything wrong. The tree canopy belongs to all of us.
Injury or destruction of a protected tree is a Provincial offence and the City has the power to issue fines. In my honest opinion the fines are not enough. But there is also the cost of a stop work order, lost of workdays and remediation of the damage. Finally, there is also the hassle of the neighbourhood scrutiny as you are coming to your jobsite every day.
The Value of Trees
Well landscaped real estate and mature trees can increase land value from 12 to 20%. So that is why I say my neighbour’s property was vandalized this week. Not only is our Long Branch tree canopy beautiful, it is an asset that increases land value. If you calculate using the low end of value of real estate in Long Branch, one of these trees is worth $100,000 and irreplaceable in realistic terms. My neighbour is also on the hook for the emergency visit from his arborist, remediation from his side of property and potentially removal of the tree down the road if it does not survive. It is similar to someone taking a sledgehammer to your Porsche while it is parked in your driveway. After the damage is done, you still own it, it may still work but it’s not the same prized vehicle, and the long-term damage may not be known for awhile.
In closing, I am pretty proud of my neighbours, they were fearless and quick to do what they could to help. None of them are against building a new home, just respect those trees that are here while doing so. This was evident when a different builder renovated and topped up another home on the street a couple of years ago. He removed no protected trees and no objections were filed by the neighbours. The house went up with no delays and now a lovely family has moved in and made it a home.
On July 3rd., 2019, the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) released its decision on a proposed severance of 70 Thirty Sixth Street. Mr. Ted Yao, who was the presiding member for TLAB, refused the appeal in a 23-page decision order.
The owners of 70 Thirty Sixth originally applied to sever the property into two lots and build two new homes. In addition to being opposed by owners of neighbouring properties, the application was opposed by Urban Forestry and Councillor Mark Grimes. City Planning expressed concerns over the severance and variances in their July 24, 2017 Planning Report and recommended deferral. The
Committee of Adjustment refused the application on December 7, 2017.
The owners subsequently appealed the Committee of Adjustment decision and the appeal went to TLAB.
At the request of Councillor Grimes’ office, the City assigned one of their lawyers to the appeal and 8 residents
were accepted as Participants for the hearing so they could be heard.
The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) was also granted Participant status as well as the right to lead and cross-examine witnesses and make closing submissions. Behind the scenes, the LBNA supported the residents with coaching and preparation, review and filing of documents. The LBNA also liaised with City Legal to coordinate our respective cases and to avoid
unnecessary duplication.
The entire hearing required 6 days from July 26, 2018 to June 19, 2019. The number of days was a reflection of the complexity of the case and the elapsed time from start to finish was a function of having to schedule more days than originally planned and finding dates that worked for all
Parties.
In his decision, Mr. Yao stated, “the area contains a significant proportion of 50-foot lots, especially in the eastern part of Mr. Ciecura’s (the applicant’s expert planning witness) study area, for which a severance would be destabilizing to the lot fabric.” and “the proposed design is an abrupt change in character, particularly
not respecting side yards and lot size characteristics.”
Another factor was the impact of the proposal on the tree canopy in Long Branch. The application proposed removing a healthy, protected private tree and injuring/removing a healthy protected city tree.
Mr. Yao concluded, “a suitable growing environment for trees will not be enhanced, nor
will there be an increase in an existing (tree) canopy.”
This was the second refusal of a severance application on Thirty Sixth Street following a full hearing. In March 2018, the TLAB Chair, Ian Lord, issued a refusal of an application at 38 Thirty Sixth Street. In November 2018, the owners of 32 Thirty Sixth abandoned an appeal of a proposed severance. In May of this year, the Committee of Adjustment unanimously refused variances sought by the owners of 30 Thirty Sixth after their application for severance had been granted by the
OMB in 2018, but refused the variances associated with the proposed homes.
A positive side effect from the process was that the neighbours got to work together as a team towards a common purpose and this helped forge new relationships as well as reinforcing existing ones.
As Mr. Yao stated in his decision, “Strong communities are those where people want to live.”
To see the full text of Mr. Yao’s decision, click here to view and/or download a copy.
To see the status of other severance applications in Long Branch, click here to visit our page summarizing severance applications over the past 10 years.
https://lbna.ca/wp-content/uploads/70-Thirty-Sixth-Google-Streetview.png385627Ronald Jamieson/wp-content/uploads/LBNA_Logo_2in.svgRonald Jamieson2019-07-05 17:48:252020-11-02 11:44:09Severance of 70 Thirty Sixth Street Refused at TLAB
