City-Driven Intensification

City Planning has proposed increasing the density in the area around Long Branch Station from a maximum density of 0.35 FSI in Long Branch to a minimum density of 0.6 FSI.

What is behind this proposed intensification and what are its ramifications for us as residents?

Affordable Housing

Excerpt from City Planning document proposing intensification targets., This excerpt is for Long Branch.

The idea behind Planning’s proposal is that it would encourage construction of more affordable housing in Long Branch and Alderwood. They’re not necessarily proposing a high rise jungle like in Mimico: they’re thinking more like basement apartments, triplexes, garden suites and so on.

Current Zoning Permissions

The portion of Long Branch that would be affected by this re-zoning is currently zoned RM. That means you already are allowed to build multi-family housing such as semi-detached homes, duplexes, triplexes, and walk-up apartments. If you want to build a triplex, you can build up to 0.6 FSI already. Same for a semi.

So, this area is already zoned with intensification in mind.

But is this really going to be the result of this proposed change in density? And is there a need for such a change?

What Is Happening

Even with these permissions, developers haven’t been building duplexes or triplexes for decades. No semi-detached homes have been built in this area in the past 15 years. Nor have any triplexes or duplexes. They have, on the other hand, been very active in trying to sever properties to build homes that go on the market for between $1.3 and $1.6 million – hardly what you could call affordable. These homes are built for single-family occupancy, with no provision for having a separate entrance for a secondary suite.

We aren’t opposed to more affordable housing. We just don’t see how the proposed policies will generate more affordable housing for people who need it.

One thing that is NOT happening on this issue – whether here or in the neighbourhoods around other major transit stations where intensification is proposed – is public consultation. We know the developers have been actively and aggressively lobbying for less restriction on density. It’s only fair that the public be given an equal opportunity before this official plan amendment gets passed by Council.

How You Might Be Affected

Two oversized homes. The result of lot severing.

Should the proposed changes in density be approved as part of this official plan amendment, you could anticipate more applications to sever properties in the area shown on the map above. Instead of builders being limited to a ceiling of 0.3 FSI, it appears the City would be giving them carte blanche to build as large as they please and, with the new regulations favouring intensification, it will be very hard for residents to mount opposition.

In step with an increase in severance applications, we anticipate there will be further erosion of the tree canopy in Long Branch. In 2009, the tree canopy in Long Branch was measured at 26.5% coverage. By 2018, this had been slashed to 15.0% – the biggest decline in all of Toronto. The City has a goal of reaching 40% tree canopy coverage by 2028 – just 7 years from now – and it appears Long Branch will fall well short of this.

Just about every development application for a new build going before the Committee of Adjustment has removal or damaging of a tree as part of the application. Uncontrolled development could cause the tree canopy in Long Branch to go even lower.

The Process

This will be discussed at the October 28th meeting, which starts at 9:30 am, after which it will go to City Council for approval in November.

What You Can Do

Because Planning is regulated and administered by the City of Toronto, we suggest you make your views known to our representative, Councillor Mark Grimes. You can reach him at his office at (416) 397-9273 or by email at councillor_grimes@toronto.ca. Be sure to ask about how much Planning has obtained input from residents.

You can watch the meeting of the Planning and Housing Committee on October 28th by clicking on the following link: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=21291

Even better, by writing to the Clerk of the Planning and Housing Committee, at phc@toronto.ca you can actually speak at the meeting to ensure your views are heard. Two Long Branch residents spoke at the last meeting of the Planning and Housing Committee. Why not you?

/by

How “Major” IS Long Branch Station?

The City of Toronto’s Planning and Housing Committee is bringing forward a proposal that would see density in the area surrounding Long Branch Station increase from a maximum of 0.35 to a minimum of 0.60. This would impact residents in the southwest part of Alderwood as well as those in western Long Branch.

This was discussed at a meeting of the Planning and Housing Committee on October 18th. Members of the committee heard presentations from the LBNA and one Long Branch resident in opposition to this proposal, which is just one part of a proposal covering 11 transit stations across the City.

The density increase is being driven by the Province and its Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which is a policy document that places requirements on municipalities to plan where and how they intend to achieve the Province’s growth targets. AMong other things, the Growth Plan suggests increasing density in the area around “major transit stations” and that the municipalities need to identify which transit stations are major.

So, the question we have is whether Long Branch truly qualifies as a major transit station?

GO Station Usage

Chart showing morning ridership at select stations on the Lakeshore West and Milton lines that travel through Etobicoke.

The truth is that the ridership at Long Branch GO station is the third-lowest in the entire GO network. According to Metrolinx, the organization that operates GO Transit, 1,000 people board GO trains at Long Branch each morning while 200 get off to connect elsewhere. Compare this with Clarkson Station, where 5,150 people board the train each morning. or compare with Kipling Subway Station, where 20,000 people board in the morning while 30,000 get off.

Transit Usage Vs. GO Network

Chart showing which mode of transit passengers use at select stations in Etobicoke

Kipling is definitely looks like a major hub but Long Branch, by comparison, does not look anywhere near major in scale.

A chart showing travel time from Long Branch Loop to Toronto City Hall

People in City Planning have painted a picture of the 501 Streetcar line as a major route connecting Long Branch with Downtown. They even proposed last year to upgrade the streetcar to an LRT connecting to the new Park Lawn GO Station.

We don’t see much merit in this proposal. Going to City Hall from Long Branch Loop via the 501 takes 91 minutes, compared with 35 minutes by GO train and walking from Union Station. This doesn’t make TTC look like “The Better Way”.

In addition, the roadway through much of New Toronto and Mimico is too narrow to allow for two dedicated LRT rights of way plus one lane for cars in either direction without expropriating land on one side of Lakeshore Boulevard or the other. This would leave no room for on-street parking, on which businesses along Lakeshore rely and expropriate would eliminate the land and buildings on which at least half of those businesses are located. Either way, a Lakeshore LRT would decimate small business in South Etobicoke.

What Can You Do?

Since this is being driven by the Province of Ontario, we suggest you express any concerns you may have about this to our MPP, Christine Hogarth, at her office at (416) 259-2249 or by email to christine.hogarth@pc.ola.org

As a courtesy, I you email Ms. Hogarth, we suggest you copy Councillor Mark Grimes at councillor_grimes@toronto.ca so that he is aware you have contacted her.

/1 Comment/by

Severance of 90 Ash Cres. Refused at TLAB

An application to sever 90 Ash Crescent into two 25-foot lots, which had been approved by the Committee of Adjustment on May 9, 2019, was appealed and refused at the Toronto Local Appeal Body, TLAB.

In a 24-page decision dated August 12, 2021, the presiding member, Mr. Ted Yao, refused the severance application.

The hearing began on October 2, 2019; with a hiatus in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, altogether, required 10 days of hearings.

This was a highly contentious dispute.

In his presentation to the Committee of Adjustment, the Planner representing the Applicant described the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association as NIMBY and described his clients’ actions as an ordeal requiring “A Herculean effort” to scale back their original proposal to one that City Planning and the Committee of Adjustment could consider approving.

For the residents of Ash Crescent, this application represented a tipping point. The City’s Official Plan requires that applications must be consistent with prevailing patterns of lot frontage, lot area, and density among other factors. At the time of this application, the number of 50-foot lots on Ash Crescent was roughly equal to the number of 25-foot lots. Approval of this application would mean that 25-foot frontages would become the prevailing frontage, which could lead to accelerated approvals of other lot severances on the street.

The Applicant called two witnesses – their Planner and an Arborist. The City, who changed their position mid-hearing from “Object” to “No Objections”, called only an Arborist. The residents’ team was led by the LBNA and involved 7 residents who testified. In addition, the LBNA summoned the City Planner who wrote the final report submitted to the Committee of Adjustment.

Prior to the Committee of Adjustment hearing, the Applicant revised their proposed FSI 3 times: from 1.04 to 0.92, to 0.67 and finally to 0.61. The bylaw standard for density in Long Branch is 0.35 FSI, so the applicant basically revised their density from 3 times the bylaw standard to 2 times the bylaw standard.

The Applicant pointed to a number of approved severances on Ash Crescent as part of the justification for their proposal for 90 Ash. However, 2 of these severances – at 56 and 58 Ash – have had no building activity since they were granted approval by the OMB in 2016. Both properties are owned by a Brampton-based developer who owns other properties in Long Branch.

Mr. Yao undertook some significant and detailed analysis of the data presented by both Applicant and Appellant and concluded that the proposed lot widths and FSIs did NOT reflect the character of the neighbourhood. The TLAB considers both the immediate context (the block or section of the street) and the broader context (a wider area around the subject property.)

We believe the active involvement of 7 residents contributed much to the outcome. And, once again, the LBNA was able to prevail against professional lawyers despite having no formally-trained legal person on the team.

To read the full text of the decision, please click here.

/by
, , ,

Black Barn Maple on CBC News

CBC News ran a story on June 2nd about the initiative to try to save the “Black Barn Maple” in western Long Branch.

The Backstory

Phot of Black Barn Maple at rear of 95 James Street
Courtesy Robert Krbavac, CBC

The tree is located to the rear of the house at 95 James Street and is a Silver Maple reputedly 130 to 150 years old. The site where it is located is close to where the Eastwood family, who were instrumental in developing Long Branch as a village, had a black barn on their estate, hence its name.

The owner of the property originally applied to City Planning in May of 2018 to add a second story to the existing house and build a newer, larger home. At the time of application, the owners indicated the property was not subject to the Private Tree Bylaw, which protects trees 30 cm and greater in diameter.

The application was approved on September 20, 2019 by the Committee of Adjustment despite a August 21, 2018 memo from Urban Forestry advising there were two healthy mature trees on the property and recommending refusal of the application.

The Fallout

The approval was subsequently appealed by neighbours to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB).

The CBC News story examines the controversy about residents’ efforts to try to retain the Silver Maple.

The LBNA sought to have the Black Barn Maple, given its age, Heritage Tree status that would ensure it could not be cut down. However, this would require the consent of the property owner, who of course refused. A letter from one of the applicant’s lawyers disputed the age and historic significance of the tree.

Counsel representing the applicant at TLAB argued that the tree was located in an area in which the owner had a right to be able to cut down the tree. Their argument was based on a concept that is not defined in pertinent legislation such as The Planning Act, The Official Plan or the Bylaws.

An ad hoc group of Long Branch residents banded together to try to raise awareness about the tree and the issues surrounding its proposed removal. They have created a website, lawn signs and letter-writing campaigns.

To see the story in the CBC’s website, click here.

/by
, ,

Severance of 80 Thirty Ninth Refused at TLAB

Over the course of a 12-day hearing, the TLAB heard evidence from the Applicant, the City and Long Branch residents about a proposal to sever 80 Thirty Ninth Street into two 7.62 meter (25-foot) lots and to construct two oversized homes.

The hearing was chaired by TLAB member Stanley Makuch and was conducted through a mix of in-person and virtual sessions, the latter being required due to COVID-19 measures.

Mr. Makuch’s 10-page decision to refuse the application to sever the property at 80 Thirty Ninth was based on the scale of the homes relative to the proposed lot sizes and preservation of trees that exist on the property and along the property line on the south side of the property.

He states the ”… frontages do not maintain the intent of policy 4.5.1 of the Official Plan” and, combined with the scale of the proposed homes, ”… will give the appearance of an overdevelopment of the lots.”

He further states that it was ”… clear that no attempt was made to design the development in a manner to preserve and enhance the urban forest in a neighbourhood where the forest and canopy are part of its character.”

He had high praise for all parties involved in the hearing, including the LBNA, who formally represented the residents during the hearing.

To read the full text of the decision, click here.

/by
,

Severance of 27 Thirty Ninth Street Refused at TLAB

The proposed severance of 27 Thirty Ninth Street was refused in a May 5, 2021 decision issued by the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB)

The proposal sought to sever a 15.24 meter (50-foot) lot into two undersized lots. The homes the Applicant sought to build were large in scale, coming in at a Floor Space Index of 0.62 versus a bylaw standard of 0.35 for the Neighbourhood of Long Branch. FSI is a term used to define the density of a home on its lot, and is the ratio of the gross floor area to the area of the lot.

The decision was rendered by former Chair of TLAB Ian Lord in a very thorough and meticulously detailed 101-page written decision.

The hearing, which took 6 days to complete, started on January 8, 2020 but did not conclude until March 12, 2021 due to a lengthy adjournment due to COVID-19 restrictions. The first 3 days were conducted in person while the final 3 days were virtual.

Since the City officially adopted Official Plan Amendment 320 and City Council unanimously passed the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines, the TLAB has refused 10 severance applications with the LBNA officially participating on behalf of the Neighbourhood in all but one. Another 3 are currently still being reviewed at TLAB.

In the case of 27 Thirty Ninth, six neighbours participated in giving evidence at the hearing. They were praised by Mr. Lord for providing hard fact-based evidence in the absence of a professional planner who could provide expert opinion evidence.

“On these Applications, neighbourhood concern is evident not only in the witnesses and their evidence and presentation efforts, but also in the history of their engagement at the COA and in fulfilling the somewhat onerous Rules of the TLAB that require early and definitive disclosure, in writing, of positions.”

Key Success Factors

The successful outcomes on all of these TLAB appeals would not have been possible without the following:

  • Active Resident Involvement. In this case, one family elected to get involved as what is termed a Party to the appeal. Doing so gave them the right to call witnesses and to be included in all discussions regarding the application.
  • Active Resident Participation. As noted above, 6 neighbours provided testimony at the hearing for 27 Thirty Ninth. We have seen more than that and somewhat fewer than that at other hearings, but what is common is that multiple residents chose to have a say and were granted that opportunity by TLAB.
  • Factual Evidence. Residents amassed the type of data professional planners use to analyze and justify their clients’ development proposals. They studied other decisions from the OMB and TLAB to learn why previous applications had been approved or refused. They dove into the Official Plan, the Bylaws and Provincial policies to see just how well the applicants’ proposals did or did not conform to regulations.

To read the full text of the decision, click here.

/by