Tag Archive for: FSI

,

Numbers Count: The Power of Data

One of the things we learned from all the COA and TLAB hearings we’ve been involved in is how to counter the arguments the builders’ planners use to suggest their clients’ proposals “fit” with neighbourhood character.

Our first exposure was one planner who regularly trotted out large colour-coded maps of the neighbourhood. The colours on his maps represented lot frontages and sometimes density (or FSI).

The idea is that if what the planner’s client is proposing is similar to a colour coded category that seems prominent, then it is a fit.

Colour coded map created by a professional planner, depicting lot frontages for a section of Long Branch.

While we would have liked to replicate this kind of presentation, we didn’t know how to get the data that allowed these maps to be created.

Where to Find the Data

I asked the Secretary-Treasurer of the COA how I could go about obtaining property data and she referred me to someone in Planning who managed the data. The person I dealt with was very helpful, asking what kind of data I wanted and for which streets in the neighbourhood. She quoted me a price for the data I specified and I had an Excel spreadsheet in a couple of days.

The spreadsheet I received was a single file with the data sorted by street address, and it had not only frontage, but also lot depth, lot area, tax roll number and more.

Once data is in Excel, it can be sorted in many ways – by street, by lot frontage, FSI and combinations thereof.

Numbers vs. “Impression”

The first practical application of data analysis was in the case of 38 Thirty Sixth Street, the first Long Branch case to be heard by the TLAB.

In this hearing, the parties were the City and the Builder, who wanted to sever the property and build two oversized homes. The builder was appealing a decision by the COA to refuse his application and had retained a high-priced lawyer to represent him.

On the first day of the hearing, the builder’s lawyer took up most of the day with her expert planning witness, who brought up and read page after page of policies and regulations. I don’t recall seeing much data. After being cross-examined by the City, it was approaching 3:00 when the Chair announced there would be another day of hearings and sought agreement on the dates from the lawyers. When they decided upon a date, I raised my hand and indicated that I would be out of the country on business on the chosen date and asked if I could present before the hearing was adjourned for the day.

The Chair asked if I could present my evidence in a half-hour and I said I could.

I was sworn in and presented a series of PowerPoint slides that illustrated the analysis I had performed on the neighbourhood. Here’s an example of one of the slides.

Chart showing distribution of densities of homes (FSI) on a street in Long Branch

The slides I presented completely undermined the case the builder’s planner had presented. She only asked me two questions in her cross-examination of me. “You’re not a professional planner, are you?” To which I replied, “No. I’m a professional engineer and an expert in analyzing data”.

The data analysis was cited as a factor in the TLAB decision refusing the application.

I don’t know what exactly transpired on the second day of that hearing, but the City would have presented their case and their planning witness, and I know several neighbours spoke on behalf of the residents.

Since then, we have used the same approach to analyzing property data in every TLAB case in which the LBNA was involved. When I have been a Participant, I’ve presented similar charts. Christine Mercado, our Chair, has presented graphics similar to what the builder’s planning witnesses have prepared. Here’s an example:

Colour coded map of a section of Long Branch illustrating property frontages.

Amalgamation of Data

When we started out, we had to purchase property data piecemeal from the City, and we frequently saw overlaps where we had clusters of severance applications in certain pockets of Long Branch.

We felt it would be helpful to organize all the data we’d purchased into a single database and we set this up in a cloud-based database app called AirTable, so that we could share the data with others. We now have over 1800 properties in our database, covering most of Long Branch.

Are the Data Out of Date?

Something the builders’ Planners sought to do to discredit our data was to claim that the City’s property data are out of date. They claimed they had better quality data that they manually updated through building permits and minor variance applications.

The truth is, the Planners all had to start out by buying data from somewhere – namely the City. The City’s property data comes from MPAC, the provincial body that maintains records on property valuations that municipalities use as the basis for assessment for property taxes. It is highly unlikely the City would want to allow that data to become out of date because it would impact tax revenue.

In addition, the public can access applications for minor variances and the resulting decisions from what is called the Application Information Centre in the City’s website. So we were able to update our AirTable entries as such decisions were made. Similarly, building permit applications are also publicly accessible through the City’s website and, more importantly, we have residents on the ground who are aware of construction activity such as renovations and additions to help us keep our data as current as the Planners’.

Conclusion

Data are facts. Hard evidence. They are more than opinions or “overall impressions” And they allow ordinary residents to present compelling evidence that effectively counters the opinion evidence that professional planners are allowed to present.

They help level the playing field.

Admittedly, analyzing data can be tedious. But, if you are comfortable with Excel and PowerPoint, you can create some compelling charts that can effectively challenge what builders’ planners can present.

And the LBNA is here to help with advice.

/by

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
,

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
,

Severance of 38 Thirty First Refused

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.

/by