Tag Archive for: LBNA

, ,

Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods

LBNA Deputation to the PHC

Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) is an initiative of City Planning to address the so-called “missing middle” in Toronto’s neighbourhoods. The main idea is to promote construction of more low to mid-rise multiplex units (e.g., triplexes), mid-rise apartment buildings, laneway suites and garden suites as ways to increase the supply of housing in the City against an overall goal of making accommodation more affordable.

Staff Report on Expanding Housing Options

On February 15, 2022, The Planning and Housing Committee (PHC) met to consider this item. The portion of the meeting dealing with EHON began with a staff report from City Planning, after which deputations from residents’ groups were heard.

YouTube player

In case playing the YouTube video above starts at the beginning of the meeting, click here to take you to the timestamp 2:27:09 to catch the Staff Report from its start.

LBNA Deputation

The LBNA made a deputation to the Planning and Housing Committee, with Chair Christine Mercado speaking on behalf of Long Branch residents. Unfortunately, because this was a virtual session, Christine was unable to share her screen to provide visual support for her deputation, though members of the PHC all had copies they could read during the deputation.

Here are the main points the LBNA wanted the PHC to consider:

Update the Report to Make Use of 2021 Census Data

The report presented by Planning Staff was based on the 2016 census, which is already 5 years old. Statistics Canada has started releasing data from the 2021 census, so it would be a shame to work from data that are not current. This is the opportunity to use the most up-to-date information.

Deploy Housing Options Where They Are Needed

Within Long Branch, we have three main zoning areas: RD/RS, for detached single-family homes, RM, for triplexes, duplexes and semi-detached homes, and RA for apartment buildings or condos. In addition, we have the site-specific area north of Lakeshore from Thirty Second to Long Branch Avenue where Minto has been building over XXXX townhouse units.

So Long Branch already has the full range of housing options Planning wants to see, all achieved within the existing Planning framework and regulations.

In the words of Christine Mercado, areas such as Long Branch “… need to be analyzed to better understand what is working and then replicate learnings in flat or no growth Neighbourhoods.”

The LBNA also has concerns about the City moving forward to dramatically intensify neighbourhoods without considering the need to grow supporting infrastructure at the same time.

For example, Long Branch residents with school-age children are probably very aware that our schools are stretched over capacity. We have no secondary school in Long Branch. Many children have to be sent to schools outside Long Branch.

LBNA Board members attended an information session from the TDSB for Wards 2 & 3 last week. The presenters shared that there is no money from the Province and no plans for new schools in Long Branch for the foreseeable future.

The City already has policies that direct intensification to “Avenues” – major streets such as Lakeshore Boulevard. Yet we are seeing only sporadic development of mid-rise apartments/condos along Lakeshore. And such mid-rise buildings need to be built with commercial space at grade to make the street more inviting to walk and shop. Several stretches of Lakeshore in Long Branch look shabby and neglected.

Better Public Consultation Process

In our discussions with residents in our community and others within Toronto, there is extremely low awareness of the magnitude of change that this Committee is considering through the EHON initiatives and in this report. The numbers outlined in the Report for Community Engagement to date are shockingly low to us in a City of 2.8 million.

The pandemic has allowed the City to conduct public hearings formerly held in-person as virtual meetings. Virtual meetings rate lower on engagement than in-person. it is easier to cut a video or audio feed to stop someone from speaking. It is easier for panel members to tune out opposing voices. They can simply suspend their video feed and disappear behind a solid coloured tile so we have no idea whether or not they’re paying attention.

It seems as though the City is rushing to implement new policies with little genuine public consultation. We have not seen truly interactive discussions with City policy-makers and influencers. They tell us what they want to do. We tell them our concerns. But there is no true communication – dialogue – to allow residents to provide meaningful input to public policy and for policy-makers to show they have listened by addressing residents’ concerns. So far, it just seems like “consultation” is actually window-dressing.

The LBNA’s deputation is embedded in the YouTube video window below.

YouTube player

In case playing the YouTube video above starts at the beginning of the meeting, click here to take you to the timestamp 2:38:29 to catch Christine’s deputation from its start.

[If you allow the YouTube video to continue playing after Christine’s deputation, you can hear what other residents’ groups had to say as well]

What do you think about this? Please let us know.

/by
,

Record 17th Victory for LBNA at TLAB

On January 19, 2022, TLAB issued a decision on the proposed severance of 65 Fortieth Street, overturning the Committee of Adjustment’s approval in 2019 and thereby refusing the severance and the associated construction ot two oversized homes. . This was the first application in Long Branch that was subject to the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines.

This represented the 17th straight victory for the LBNA in opposing severance activity in Long Branch since 2018. All the more impressive, given that the LBNA has advocated at TLAB on behalf of Long Branch residents without engaging a lawyer.

In her 19-page decision, TLAB presiding member Ms. Shaheynoor Talukder commented that the applicant’s team failed to prove that the lot frontage of the proposed dwellings will respect and reinforce the existing character of the neighbourhood.

In addition, this property has a prominent White Fir . This was measured by the Applicant’s arborist to have a trunk diameter of 47 cm, so is of a size that the City’s Tree Protection regulations indicate should be protected. Ms Talukder commented that it is visually impressive and forms part of the character of the neighbourhood. The Applicant had proposed removing this tree, but Ms. Talukder did not feel they were taking sufficient measures to attempt to preserve it, as per the environmental policies in the Official Plan.

The White Fir at 65 Fortieth Street can be enjoyed as a feature tree on the Conifer Walk this summer as part of our series of Long Branch Tree Tours.

Christine Mercado, co-chair of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association commented, saying, “This is a big win for our Neighbourhood. But it’s a joint effort. It starts with effective city policy, followed with an effective Neighbourhood Association, residents who are prepared to get actively involved and engagement with our Councillor and City Staff. The foundation this all sits on is engaged and active residents electing the right people, pushing for good policy and ensuring the City is enforcing those policies.”

/by

LBNA’s 2021 Annual General Meeting

The LBNA’s Annual General Meeting for 2021 will be a virtual event again this year and will be held on November 15, 2021 starting at 7:15 pm

Agenda

To register for the AGM, please click here.

/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
,

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