I have a neighbour on my street who, it seems, has something sitting on his front doorstep every day. Sometimes the stuff is gone the next day. Sometimes it stays there for several days. I see cases of bottled water and packages from Amazon among other things.
Doorbell Camera Image of Porch Pirate
If ever there was a way to signal to someone there’s no one home, this is how to do it. I’m not certain how many times his house has been broken into, but I do know it was broken into once in broad daylight on a weekend afternoon.
But that’s not the only risk of having stuff delivered and left at your front door. Your stuff can also be stolen by a “Porch Pirate”.
According to finder.com, 1 in 4 Canadians had had a parcel stolen from their home after it had been delivered by an online merchant. For 1 in 10 cases, the loss was over $250.
Want to avoid being a victim? Here’s what you can do.
Basic Procedures
Require a signature for deliveries so packages are not left sitting outside where they’re visible. It may require you to re-schedule a delivery or to go to a pickup location, but that beats having your stuff stolen.
Arrange for online purchases to be picked up – either at a bricks-and-mortar store or a courier depot.
Ask couriers to deliver to a neighbour’s home. Be sure to let your neighbour know so they’ll be there and ready for the delivery.
You can buy secure drop boxes for your front porch that can be accessed only by combination lock. You can direct couriers to place deliveries in the drop box and provide them the instructions on where it is and how to access it. Make certain the box is secured to the house in some way; otherwise, the thieves will just steal the box and all its content.
It’s also possible to buy a porch pirate bag – a reinforced nylon bag that is secured to your front door or gate. These are good for documents and small packages.
Here’s a photo of the original Porch Pirate security bag.
High-Tech
Place motion sensor lights about your entrance. They act as a deterrent – especially for thefts after dark. Most thieves shy away from the spotlight.
Set up security cameras around the exterior of your home. Wireless versions are best, because determined thieves will simply cut any cable from cameras that are wired in. Be sure they cover the front entrance and will capture the face of a person approaching it. Be sure they can capture images in low light, as in at dusk or after dark.
Install a doorbell camera at your front entrance. These usually are very good for picking up images of faces of persons approaching the front of your house and have a wide field of view to be able to capture people approaching from different angles. You’d be surprised at how many porch pirates have been caught by doorbell cameras – even ones installed on nearby properties.
Security measures aren’t perfect. They’re not guaranteed to catch a porch pirate in the act. But having them in place can serve as a deterrent. And isn’t that all you really want?
Over the past month, a partner I work with and one of my nieces had pipes freeze and burst. The partner is based in Atlanta. My niece is in Raleigh, NC. Hardly areas where you’d expect super cold weather.
Here in Canada, frozen pipes are more common than we think and our cold winters are ideal conditions to trigger a frozen pipe. When water freezes, it expands, and this will stress the copper tubing in our plumbing to the point that it will rupture.
Frozen pipes are more than just a nuisance. They can damage possessions and furniture (usually) in your basement. Most homeowner insurance policies will cover at least a portion of the damage but, still, filing a claim just adds to the hassle.
Check out these suggestions:
Locate your main water shut-off valve inside your home and add a tag or label to it, so it is easy to locate and turn off quickly if pipes burst in your home.
Seal air leaks in your home and garage to stop cold air from getting in. Check around windows and doors, electrical wiring, dryer vents and pipes.
Insulate pipes in your home most prone to freezing including near outside walls, in the basement, or in a garage with an outside water supply. Use foam pipe covers available from building supply or home improvement stores.
Keep the house warm even if you’re away to prevent indoor plumbing from freezing, especially in the area near the water meter.
When temperatures are below -15C for a few days, you can choose to keep the water moving in your pipes by running a pencil-thin stream of cold water from a tap in the lowest point of the house e.g. a sink or tub in the basement. Ensure the drain is kept clear of debris to prevent overflowing or flooding. However, if you choose to take this step, you will be charged for the water you use.
One thing we tend to overlook is outside faucets. If the outside faucet is closed, and the water supply valve on the inside is also closed, sub-zero temperatures can cause the water in between the two valves to freeze and expand, which causes the pipe to burst. Best way to prevent this is to close the water supply valve inside and then open the outside faucet to allow any water to drain out, then keep the outside faucet open through the winter.
The City of Toronto has more suggestions on how to prevent pipes from freezing. Just visit toronto.ca/frozenpipes, where you’ll find all the details, plus a video to guide you through some of them.
In our last post, we described how one of the provisions in Ontario Bill 23 would deny residents the right to appeal municipal decisions. The government seems to feel residents’ appeals cause unnecessary delays in getting development proposals approved.
If you would like to read the full text of the Bill, click here.
In this post, we’d like to examine some of the potential sources of the delays in that approval process and some ideas on how the approval process can be shortened.
Large Variances
Consider this, we regularly see developers who ask for variances that are so large they go so far beyond what normal people would consider reasonable. And, in the past, we were seeing the Committee of Adjustment approving many of these. In fact, in 2016, the Etobicoke/York COA panel approved EVERY application to sever a property in Long Branch. Some of these were appealed to the OMB by residents. EVERY OMB decision that year was in favour of the severance.
Given this history, it shouldn’t be hard to see why Long Branch residents are so cynical about our Committee of Adjustment.
The City of Toronto approved changes to its Official Plan in 2018 to clarify policies on how development proposals should fit with neighbourhood character. That year, we also saw approval of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines, which provided clarity on the character elements in Long Branch.
However, while these regulatory changes made standards clearer, they did not stop some developers from making unrealistic demands in their applications.
So, part of the blame for the number of appeals has to be placed on developers – at least those who ask for huge variances. More reasonable variance requests would incite less opposition and likely result in fewer appeals.
When is a Minor Variance No Longer Minor?
Probably the term that generates the most debate in development applications and – especially appeals – is the term “minor variance”. The way The Planning Act defines it, ALL variances are minor by definition, regardless of their magnitude. However, The Planning Act also permits municipalities to provide clearer definitions on when a minor variance becomes too large to be considered minor. To date, no municipality in Ontario has adopted clear guidelines on minor variances.
One of the reasons “minor variance” is so contentious is that lawyers argue about the impact of a variance on neighbouring properties or a neighbourhood. Impact is subjective and therefore subject to interpretation and debate. A numeric standard for minor vs. major would be considerably less subject to interpretation because it is objective.
Developers point to restrictive bylaws as a major regulatory hurdle they face. And there is a degree of truth in that in some areas. But the bylaws are created by legislators, not residents. Only legislators have the power to change bylaws.
So, our legislators have contributed to the volume of appeals by allowing vague standards to be used in evaluating development proposals.
The Hearing Process
A typical COA hearing for an application takes about a half hour. The Applicant, or his/her representative has 5 minutes to outline the merits of the proposal. If anyone objects, they are given 5 minutes each to describe their concerns. Similarly, anyone supporting the proposal has 5 minutes to explain why. The hearing wraps up with the Applicant addressing any resident concerns and re-capping the merits of the proposal.
When we look below at the time involved in an appeal, perhaps the Committee of Adjustment is not the process best suited to adjudicating more complex planning applications. Perhaps we need some other form of primary adjudication that allows more time to examine applications in greater detail.
The Appeal Process
Short of a judicial review, the only recourse for participants in the COA process is to appeal to TLAB – the Toronto Local Appeal Body.
By comparison, when a COA decision is appealed to TLAB, there is no typical timeframe. We have seen hearings go as little as two days up to 14 days. So, why are these hearings so long?
The Applicant is first to present their case. Usually the first witness is an Expert Planning Witness who describes how the proposal meets the requirements of the Official Plan and/or the Bylaws, and how the proposal conforms to Provincial policies. It is not uncommon to see a Planning witness require a full day to present his/her testimony. After the Planner has testified, he or she is then cross-examined by the Residents (or representative) and by the City’s Legal Staff, when the City decides to be a Party to the hearing. The Applicant’s lawyer then is allowed to re-direct – to rebut some of the issues that might have come up during cross-examination. Cross-examination and re-direct can easily represent another full day.
The process is similar if an arborist is involved, though usually this will require a day to complete testimony, cross-examination and re-direct.
Depending on whether the City has taken on Party status, the above process repeats with Residents – and the City – presenting their cases. The biggest difference between the City’s case presentation and the Residents’ is that the Residents are not very likely to have an expert witness and more likely to have several neighbours who wish to have their concerns heard.
The longest TLAB case we participated in was 14 days and, in that case, the Applicant introduced a revised plan in mid-hearing, so the whole case was effectively heard twice.
When a case reaches TLAB, it becomes very high stakes because appealing a TLAB decision may require going to the courts. So there is a tendency to pull out all the stops on evidence to ensure all possible arguments are incorporated into the case. If the Applicant introduces 10 points about why their proposal should be allowed, then there are 10 points to probe on cross-examination.
So how can appeals be made shorter?
Some TLAB adjudicators tend to be more interested in allowing all Parties to present all their arguments than in limiting debate so they can conduct a hearing which all Parties would consider fair and impartial. Some of the arguments are complex (e.g., what is a minor variance), making it a challenge to limit debate.
One factor in the protracted length of TLAB hearings is that TLAB usually one schedules two or three days for hearings at the outset. By the time the adjudicator realizes this is insufficient, the adjudicator has to scramble to schedule additional hearing days so that he or she can find dates when all the Parties can be in the same room at the same time. This can add weeks, if not months to the hearing process. It’s frustrating for everyone involved: lawyers, TLAB staff, residents, and planners – not to mention the Applicants trying to get their proposal approved.
It might be better if TLAB scheduled 5 hearing days, for example, to book availability for all the lawyers and witnesses. If the hearing can be wrapped up in less than 5 days, it’s more likely everyone will see some of their time freed up and therefore a bonus. (Usually the lawyers don’t have any trouble filling their calendars).
TLAB adjudicators have the power to limit the time available for arguments. This is something judges in the court system also do. In the court system, a judge will ask each party how much time they think they need to present their cases and then negotiate a timeframe that allows for the hearing to be conducted expeditiously. A lawyer might be warned, during the presentation of their case, that they are approaching the agreed-upon time limit.
However, we have seen some lawyers who, despite a TLAB panel member suggesting a time limit, have exceeded their allotted time and then argued for the rest of the of the hearing to be expedited on behalf of their clients.
Perhaps a fixed fee for legal representation should be imposed by TLAB, as opposed to the customary hourly billing system most lawyers use. It could be amazing how much faster cases get presented when there is a cap on how much the lawyers can charge their clients. And a cap on legal fees would result in more predictability on the financial outcome for developers.
Parties to Appeals
Bill 23 appears to be aimed at reducing the number of Parties to appeals at TLAB/LPAT, on the assumption that, with fewer parties involved, appeal hearings will be shorter.
While there is truth in this, it means that not all stakeholders in a development proposal are represented at an appeal. When the City is involved in an appeal as a Party, the City’s legal staff represent the interests of the City – not the residents. We have, in the past, seen cases where the City has cut a deal with a developer that the residents have not agreed with. And the reason for that is that, when residents do not have Party status, they are excluded from any negotiations that might avoid the need for a formal appeal.
In our experience, we estimate the cost of a TLAB appeal for a developer can approach $100,000 in legal fees and expert witness fees. Homeowners are at a disadvantage on two counts: 1.) this is beyond the means of most homeowners in the City and 2.) legal fees are not tax-deductible for residents, as they are for developers (as a cost of doing business). So the net effect is to discourage opposition by imposing high costs on participation.
We would like to see the government allow residents to enjoy the same tax deductibility for legal fees that developers now enjoy. It would at least represent equal treatment for residents and developers.
The LBNA has been able to successfully advocate for Long Branch residents at TLAB without having to resort to hiring lawyers. It has been a team of dedicated volunteers with no formal legal training. For residents, this is a valuable service that a resident’s association can provide its members who lack the knowledge or training to work through the bureaucracy and procedures involved. Residents should not have further barriers to appeal by denying them – or resident’s association advocates – the right to be able to appeal.
And the LBNA’s track record on appeals should stand out as a signal that other things in the development approval process are broken. Without our success, these would not be known.
NIMBYism
We should not overlook NIMBYism. There definitely are people out there for whom any kind of development is bad. However, we believe they are a small minority, and extreme NIMBYism is as bad as aggressive overdevelopment.
The majority of residents are prepared to accept changes in their neighbourhoods. But they want to be treated fairly by the process. They want to have a voice in what is done. And the majority accept that some compromises need to be made to bring improvements to their neighbourhoods.
So perhaps what is needed is, when a COA decision is appealed, the first step should be some form of arbitration or negotiation between ALL parties – not just the Applicant, the Municipality and “specified persons”. Negotiation by litigation is neither simple, effective nor efficient. We think most reputable lawyers would tell you the same thing.
At the end of the day, one of the reasons residents protest development so arduously is that they are not consulted to be able to have input on something that will impact them. We’ve heard some developers say, “It’s my property. I can do what I want with it.” That is an attitude that invites conflict, and it makes the assumption that residents have nothing to offer in the way of opinions or flexibility without giving the courtesy of asking for their input. We’ve heard many instances in which the first time a resident hears about a development on their street is when they receive the COA Notice of Hearing.
Negotiation requires ALL parties to show flexibility. It will not meet what either party wants at the outset, but it ends up with something all parties can at least live with.
“A Government for the People”
In his Speech from the Throne on July 12, 2018, our current Premier described “A Government for the People”, stating, “… that every seat in this chamber ultimately belongs to the Ontarians who sent you here. The privilege of democracy is to temporarily occupy these seats on the people’s behalf. And in so doing, to always be mindful that the power exercised here must always be — and only be — exercised with the people’s best interest in mind.“
What You Can Do
Taking away a resident’s right to appeal a decision is not a fair way to treat taxpayers and arguably demonstrates that elements of this legislation have been hastily put together without thinking through to what the true systemic issues are in getting more homes built faster.
If you share these concerns about Bill 23, please let our MPP, Christine Hogarth, know not only how you feel, but how strongly you feel about it. The LBNA is circulating a template for a letter to Christine Hogarth, but you are also welcome to put your feelings into your own word.
Bill 23 has gone through 2nd reading within two weeks and went for public deputations November 16 and 17th. If you don’t speak up, the Bill will be in place before the end of the year and retroactive to October 2
On October 25, 2022,the government of Ontario introduced Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 which proposes sweeping changes to the land use approvals system in the province.
We understand the need to create more housing to accommodate population growth in Ontario, but there are some proposed amendments in Bill 23 that are cause for concern.
You have seen in this blog that the LBNA has managed to win a significant number of TLAB appeals of COA decisions on behalf of Long Branch residents. Well, provisions in Bill 23 would strip away the right to appeal COA decisions.
Currently, Section 44, subsection 12 of The Planning Act governs the appeal process, and it states:
“(12) The applicant, the Minister or any other person or public body who has an interest in the matter may within 20 days of the making of the decision appeal to the Municipal Board against the decision of the committee by filing with the secretary-treasurer of the committee a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the decision and the reasons in support of the objection…”
Previously, the “any other person” meant anyone who had submitted oral and/or written objections to a development proposal to the COA.
Bill 23 proposes to change this clause to “a specified person”, in place of “any other person”.
A casual reader of the proposed Bill 23 might not see the magnitude of what is being proposed here. The government still seems to be allowing persons to be able to appeal.
But take a look at how Bill 23 defines “specified person”
This looks more like organizations, not people.
We understand the need to add to Ontario’s housing stock to accommodate population growth,. And the provincial government argues that Bill 23 removes obstacles to fast-paced construction of new homes, including the approval process for developments.
We agree that eliminating unnecessary red tape is a good way to expedite construction of development projects. But we do NOT agree that taking away residents’ rights to appeal COA decisions is an appropriate way to cut red tape.
If you talk to most residents in Long Branch, you’ll find we’re in favour of seeing improvements to the neighbourhood’s housing stock – some of which dates back to the 1920s to 1940s, when the neighbourhood was more like a cottage community.
I think we all would agree that one of the signs of a fair process is the ability to debate the decision and to appeal it if we disagree.
But the proposed amendments in Bill 23 seem to suggest that the appeal process is the problem. We disagree with this.
What You Can Do
Taking away a resident’s right to appeal a decision is not a fair way to treat taxpayers and arguably demonstrates that elements of this legislation have been hastily put together without thinking through to what the true systemic issues are in getting more homes built faster.
If you share these concerns about Bill 12, please let our MPP, Christine Hogarth, know not only how you feel, but how strongly you feel about it. The LBNA is circulating a template for a letter to Christine Hogarth, but you are also welcome to put your feelings into your own word.
Bill 23 went through 2nd reading within two weeks and went for public deputations November 16 and 17th, The Ministry also took written comments up to Nov 17th. If you don’t speak up, the Bill will be in place before the end of the year and retroactive to October 25th, 2022.
Hear where each candidate stands on your key issues!
Toronto’s Municipal Elections will be held October 24th, and there are 6 candidates running for City Councillor in Ward 3. Make informed voting decisions by hearing where each candidate stands on the key issues that are important to you.
We recently completed our annual survey of members and thank everyone who took the time to respond.
The top 5 issues in order of priority were
1. Tree canopy loss and climate change 2. Neighbourhood Development 3. Neighbourhood Crime and Safety 4. Affordable Housing 5. Public Transit
The LBNA, along with several partner South Etobicoke resident associations, has developed questions for the leading candidates to answer these and other key election topics during the upcoming Virtual All Candidates Debate on Wednesday, October 19th from 7 – 8:30pm prior to the October 24th, 2022 Municipal Election.
The agenda for the meeting will be as follows:
– Short opening remarks from each of the candidates – Candidates will be asked a series of pre-set questions on the top issues identified through our survey and those of the other Neighbourhood Associations of their members. Each candidate will be given the opportunity to respond. – Rapid fire questions for all candidates to respond to from the audience – Short 1 minute closing comments from each candidate.
If you would like to know more about the candidates, you can find more on the event page.
Register now to reserve your virtual seat. (Once you register you will be sent the Zoom link)
The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) is excited to announce the fourth annual Long Branch TreeFest. This free, annual event at the beautiful Marie Curtis Park brings together the community, in a fun celebration of nature and trees. Enjoy live music by local artists. Sign up for eye-opening nature and history walks. With fun activities and over 40 exhibitors and vendors, there is lots to do for the entire family.
Get warmed up for some great tree walks, back by popular demand. Take off on guided Tree Identification Walks by the super knowledgeable Sylvia Jorge, a Masters in Forest Conservation graduate from the University of Toronto. Set out with CCFEW Brian Bailey on his guided Nature Walks and gain from his valuable insights and experience. Is history your passion? Join Ken O’Brien on his amazing Guided Hurricane Walks.
There will be entertainment for both young and old and our vendors tend to specialize in crafts.
