Tag Archive for: lot-split

,

9 Thirty Eighth – Leave to Appeal

In August 2018, I was working in my front yard when someone approached me and asked me if I was Ron Jamieson. He then served me with legal papers indicating that the owner of 9 Thirty Eighth intended to appeal the TLAB Review Decision to Divisional Court. The City of Toronto was also named as a respondent.

The lawyers acting for the owner made a number of claims against me for the manner in which I submitted my Request for Review. Not being a lawyer, I had submitted my Request in the form of a notarized letter, not the formal Affidavit used by lawyers. They claimed I had submitted my Request one day late and that I had continued to file evidence after that.

They also claimed Errors in Law on the part of the TLAB Chair, Ian Lord, in conducting his review. They claimed Mr. Lord had conducted a re-hearing of the case on his own, without inviting input from any of the parties involved.

Finding a Lawyer

At this point, I had to make a decision – to cave in and not oppose this or to continue the fight. I chose the latter, but realized I would need a trained lawyer to represent me because I was not familiar with the processes used in Divisional Court and the lawyers for the builder were arguing points of law that I was not knowledgeable enough to even remotely consider representing myself.

Finding a lawyer was not easy. The required area of expertise was municipal and administrative law, not planning or real estate law and I found the number of lawyers who practice in these areas is small. As I contacted lawyers in these fields, some indicated they had no experience at Divisional Court, so did not feel comfortable taking on my case. Others indicated they tended to represent only builders and did not want to risk alienating their client base.

I probably spoke with more than two dozen lawyers before being referred to one who agreed to meet with me for a free one-hour consultation.  He outlined the main issues and risks involved and proposed a retainer agreement. I accepted his retainer agreement.

The Appeal Process

My lawyer described the process of an Appeal to Divisional Court.  First, there would be what is called a Motion Hearing at which a judge would hear arguments from both Parties and determine if there was merit in proceeding to the next step, which would be another hearing, but before a panel of three judges, who would make the final decision. If the judge in the motion hearing did not feel there was merit in the builder’s case, that would be the end of the matter.

My lawyer then contacted the builder’s lawyer to confirm he was representing me and requested copies of their filings with Divisional Court. These were sent to him via email and hard copies via courier. I asked if I could get a copy to review and my lawyer sent me the hard copies he had received since he had electronic copies of all the files he had received by email. What I got was a 6-inch-thick stack of documents in 4 volumes.

I went through one of the volumes – the Motion Record, which is basically a compilation of all the documents submitted to TLAB by the builder’s legal team. While the Motion Record contained evidence submitted by the builder’s legal team and the City, it contained none of the evidence presented by the residents.  I don’t know if this was because none of the presentation material used by the residents was accepted as Exhibits or because I didn’t know I should have asked for them to be submitted and accepted as exhibits. In any event, the lack of hard evidence presented to the hearing by the residents could be construed as a serious oversight by not providing the Courts all of the evidence considered by Ms. Burton or the TLAB chair in making their decisions.

Going through the Motion Record, I came across a letter to the TLAB dated June 26, 2018 in which the lawyer for the builder asked for my Request for Review be denied.  However, in writing his letter to TLAB, the lawyer for the builder did not copy me or the City’s legal team.

I found this letter especially disturbing.  I was completely unaware that the builder’s lawyer had formally submitted objections to my Review Request. By failing to copy me on his letter, I was deprived of the opportunity to rebut and defend my actions.

And yet, in their Notice of Leave to Appeal, the document that outlines their statement of claim, they argued that they expected “an opportunity to provide a fulsome response” to my request. Had I received a copy of their letter, I certainly would have elaborated on my Review Request, and the City might also have wanted to submit their views had they been notified.

The Motion Hearing

In a January 31, 2019 Motion Hearing before a judge in Divisional Court at Osgoode Hall, the Judge, Justice Corbett, dismissed all but two of the builder’s claims. He felt there were arguments to be made about whether the manner in which the Review by TLAB was conducted – Procedural fairness is the legal term – and the Standard of Review Mr. Lord applied. This effectively allowed the appeal to move to the next stage, a hearing before a panel of 3 judges.

Subsequent to Justice Corbett’s decision, TLAB applied for and was granted what is called Intervenor status. Because the case centred on a decision made by the TLAB, obtaining Intervenor status allowed TLAB to present arguments at the final hearing so that they could effectively tell their side of the story.

The Appeal Hearing

The full hearing was scheduled for March 19, 2020, but postponed because of the outbreak of COVID-19. Instead, the full hearing took place via videoconference on February 28, 2022.

At this hearing, counsel for the owner reiterated what they had presented at the Motion Hearing; the validity of my Request for Review and Mr. Lord’s alleged re-hearing.

Counsel for the City presented arguments about the process Mr. Lord used to conduct his review, which was a detailed decision and analysis on his part. They also submitted that, while my Request for Review did not follow the format a lawyer would use, it met all the requirements of a Review submission and had been notarized by a lawyer.

Lawyers representing TLAB at the hearing also presented the same arguments and that Mr. Lord was following the process prescribed in TLAB’s rules to determine whether there were any irregularities in the process Ms. Burton followed. Mr. Lord had to listen to the entire recording of the hearing to determine if Ms. Burton had made any procedural errors. This was an appropriate method for a careful review of the hearing, not a re-hearing as alleged by the Builder’s lawyers.

Counsel for Mr. Jamieson defended the Review Request as following TLAB’s rules and that Mr. Jamieson duly notified all other Parties when he submitted his request.

Counsel also informed the Court that the lawyer for the builder had submitted a letter dated June 26, 2018 to the TLAB arguing against my Review Request. The lawyer’s letter was not shared with either of the other Parties – The City or me. My lawyer argued that this letter constituted a Motion and TLAB Rules required that a Party submitting a Motion must inform all other parties.

The Zoom hearing lasted a little over 4 hours.

The Decision

On April 4, 2022, the Divisional Court released a 10-page written decision, ruling that the Chair of TLAB had acted appropriately and within the authority granted to him by the City of Toronto. His Review was thorough and did not treat any of the Parties unfairly.

The Outcome

When people learned about the decision, they usually said to me, “You must be very happy about this”. However, what I actually felt was more like relief. Relief that this was over. Relief that I didn’t have to worry any more about the outcome.

Over the past 4-6 weeks, there was a flurry of activity across the street at #9. A dumpster was there and people were going in and out of the house. The lawn was mowed. (When the owner had rented out to tenants, he hadn’t bothered to provide a lawn mower and told one of the tenants to cut the lawn with a pair of scissors. I took a photo and sent that to his lawyer.) The roof on the garage was repaired.

Two weeks ago, a sign went up in the front yard, indicating the property was up for sale.

Don’t feel sorry for the builder. He’s asking $1.8M and only paid $720K for it in 2014, so he’s made a lot of money while doing nothing to add value to the property.

We’re hoping that the next owner will see that it’s going to be a lot easier to build a single house on this lot than to try to sever and build two.

/by
,

9 Thirty Eigthth – TLAB Review

On May 15, 2018, Ms. Burton issued her decision, which upheld the COA’s approval of the severances and variances for 9 Thirty Eighth Street.

Once again, I was out of the country on business, with no access to my computer or support network, when a significant decision was set forth by an adjudicating body.

When I read Ms. Burton’s decision, I felt it was unfair and unfounded.  It seemed as though she had ignored the hard numbers presented by the City’s planner and myself and relied instead on the opinion of the builder’s planner, who presented little in the way of numeric evidence. She seemingly ignored the testimony of the City’s Urban Forestry witness, who urged refusal in order to preserve the 3 mature trees at the front of the property – evidence that was unchallenged by the arborist for the builder, who failed to appear.

TLAB Request for Review Process

According Under TLAB Rules, it is possible to appeal a decision made by a TLAB member through what is called a Request for Review. However, anyone who wants to request a review must do so within 30 days of the date the decision was released. In my case, that left me less than 3 weeks to make a case for having Ms. Burton’s decision reviewed.

Review requests must be in the form of an affidavit and describe:

  • the reasons for the request;
  • the grounds for the request;
  • any new evidence supporting the request; and
  • any applicable Rules or law supporting the request.

The grounds for such a request could include one of more of the following:

  • The TLAB acted outside of its jurisdiction;
  • The TLAB member violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness;
  • The TLAB member made an error of law or fact which would likely have resulted in a different order or decision;
  • The TLAB member had been deprived of new evidence which was not available at the time of the Hearing but which would likely have resulted in a different order or decision; or
  • The TLAB member may have heard false or misleading evidence from a Person, which was only discovered after the Hearing, but which likely resulted in the order or decision which is the subject of the request for review.

Grounds for Review

My concerns about how Ms. Burton treated the planning and forestry evidence represented, to me, an error of fact, if not an error of law.  In addition, I felt deprived of the opportunity to present evidence that nearly 50% of the properties on my block were owned by builders and that the severance at #40 went unchallenged because most of the prescribed notices about the Committee of Adjustment would have gone to builders or tenants who had no interest in opposing such an application. In her decision, Ms. Burton stated, “There was no public opposition to the recent severance at no. 40 as it was not appealed. … The City did not appeal the much less desirable “soldier homes” and lot division at no. 40 across the street from the proposed. That development is now part of the street and neighbourhood fabric.”

By way of commenting on references in the decision to other severance applications in Long Branch, the OMB seemed to tell residents that precedent did not play a role in how they adjudicated subsequent applications. Yet they conveniently remind residents that these approved severances were now “part of the neighbourhood character” and therefore should be considered in evaluating future severance applications.

“Similarly, in 40 37th Street, (Oct. 24, 2017, PL 161248), with the same City witnesses, the panel found that if the application for severance were granted, the lots would be the smallest on the street (para. 32), but that these would not constitute a precedent.” [N.B. this application was approved by the OMB]

“On the issue of ‘precedent’, he [OMB member Krzeczunowicz] observed: ‘It is certainly true that severed lots can subsequently be used to justify further severances because, once divided, they become part of the neighbourhood character.’” 2425456 Ontario Inc. v Toronto (City) OMB (PL160520) heard November 14, 2016 (‘2425456’) re 30 Thirty Sixth Street.

To review exactly how the hearing was conducted, I first sought out transcripts from the hearing, but found that TLAB did not prepare transcripts. They did, however, have audio recordings, so I ordered copies of the recordings for both days of the hearing.

The audio recordings were close to being useless. I believe that, while microphones were available in the hearing room, either some were not turned on or some people were not speaking into the microphones because the audio was very faint. I was able to improve the sound quality (primarily the volume) by running the recordings through sound editing software, but not everyone would have the knowledge or expertise to do this. I also used the sound editing software to annotate specific sections in the recordings.

I had to listen to the entire two days of testimony and arguments several times to grasp the nuances of what was said and to document specific passages accurately in my Review Request.

In her rationale, Ms. Burton felt the builder’s expert planning witness was more credible than what was presented by the City’s planner and two residents – myself and David Godley, a long-time Long Branch resident and retired urban planner. She dismissed the City’s planning evidence saying that they defined the neighbourhood as a small stretch of homes along one side of Thirty Eighth Street – a pretty clear misinterpretation of what was presented to her. She also seemed to dismiss the hard numbers in the analysis presented by the residents which showed that what was proposed do not conform to the existing character of the neighbourhood.

The truth is that the City planner and the residents presented much the same data, looking not only at Thirty Eighth Street, but also a much bigger study area covering Lake Promenade to Lakeshore Boulevard and from Thirty Sixth Street to Fortieth Street – not just one side of Thirty Eighth Street.

A deeper look at the data show that narrower lots are mainly found close to Lakeshore Boulevard while lots closer to Lake Promenade, where 9 Thirty Eighth is located, tended to be primarily 50-foot lots. This was presented during the TLAB hearing, but there is no reference to this in Ms. Burton’s decision.

The following are three slides from my presentation that, I think, show a much different picture than what the builder’s planner painted.

The first slide shows that 50 feet is the prevailing frontage in the neighbourhood study area, that represented over 300 properties. The second slide shows the same pattern on Thirty Eighth Street. The third slide shows the density of the proposed new homes compared to the existing homes on Thirty Eighth Street, clearly showing what was proposed did not reflect what was already on the street and that the severance at no. 40 Thirty Eight, which the builder’s lawyer repeatedly referred to, was even further removed from the pattern for the street.

Bar chart showing the number of lots in various ranges of lot frontage
Bar chart showing distribution of lot frontages on Thirty Eighth Street

Ms. Burton also characterized this situation as being different from a similar TLAB hearing on Thirty Sixth Street (38 Thirty Sixth), where I had used the exact same data and presentation format to lead to a refusal of a proposal to sever that property.

Submitting the Request

I assembled my case and exhibits. I wrote up my case in the form of a business letter, expressing my concerns and grounds for the review. I had to take all of this to a lawyer to have it notarized for submission to TLAB. I told the lawyer I was supposed to submit my materials in the form of an affidavit and asked if my business letter format qualified as an affidavit. She replied, “It will be once I sign it.”

I then had to scan all the hard copies into PDF documents – the format TLAB requires for submission – so I could submit by email. I phoned the TLAB offices to alert them that I would be sending a Request for Review and confirmed the date I proposed for submission was acceptable. TLAB Rules say that Requests for Review must be submitted within 30 days of the date of the decision, though it was not clear when the 30 days started – the date of the decision or the day after (it was the latter).

I emailed my completed Request for Review form and affidavit to TLAB on June 15, 2018, copying the lawyers for the City and for the builder which, though not stated explicitly in TLAB’s Rule, seemed to me to be the appropriate protocol.

One problem cropped up when I made my submission. Among the evidence I was submitting were the recordings of the TLAB hearing and the video recording of the Committee of Adjustment hearing. TLAB had no standards for audio or video evidence and, in any event, the files were very large and hard to send via email. I offered to create a zip file to compress the files and send them in a single folder, but staff at TLAB did not know how to handle zip files. I also asked if I could submit the audio and video files via a shared folder so TLAB staff could download from there.

I finally managed to get the video file to TLAB but they informed me they could not upload to the case file because the case files did not support audio or video evidence.

I believe (though I could be mistaken) this was TLAB’s first Request for Review under its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Review Decision

After June 20th, I heard nothing from TLAB to verify that my Request for Review had been accepted. Then, on August 3rd, a decision came down from the Chair of TLAB, Mr. Ian Lord, overturning Ms. Burton’s decision and refusing permission to sever the property.

I felt great relief from this decision. It seemed like someone finally listened to the residents.

This, unfortunately, is not the end of the story. Tune in next week for the next instalment.

/by
,

9 Thirty Eighth – The TLAB Appeal

Because I live immediately across the street from #9 Thirty Eighth, I filed an appeal of the COA’s decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body, at the time a newly-formed tribunal to replace the Ontario Municipal Board. The City also filed an appeal of the decision. I subsequently learned that the City was appealing the COA decision because it went against the advice of City staff.

This was the first TLAB appeal for a property in Long Branch – although, as it turned out, it was not the first property in Long Branch to be heard by the TLAB. (We’ll discuss this further in a future post)

Party or Participant?

At TLAB, you have to choose to be either a Participant or a Party. Participants can present evidence, but cannot cross-examine other witnesses. Parties have the authority to call witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses called by the City and the Applicant. I chose to be a Party because, although I am not a lawyer, being a Party would give me the same status before the TLAB as a lawyer.

A Call for Accountability

To me, the Committee of Adjustment’s decision to approve 9 Thirty Eighth reflected carelessness and bias. Over the period from 2011 to 2017, (prior to the formation of the LBNA) the COA approved 67% of the severance applications they heard. More concerningly, during this same period, the OMB approved severances in 97% of the appeals they heard. And In 2015, EVERY severance application before the COA and OMB were approved.

I sent a letter to Michael Mizzi, who was, at that time, Director of Zoning and Committee of Adjustment for the City about the process for reviewing a COA decision. I was informed that I could appeal a decision by the COA to TLAB, but that members of a COA panel were immune from prosecution.

So, I sought to summon two members of the Committee of Adjustment to testify at the TLAB hearing. This was one factor in my choosing to be a Party. I wanted them to testify, under oath, about how they reached their decision, the analysis they undertook and to explain why they chose to not follow the recommendations from Planning and Urban Forestry.

However, the Chair of TLAB, Mr. Ian Lord, would not allow me to summon these witnesses. He explained that TLAB hearings were de novo, which means a fresh evaluation of the evidentiary merits of a development proposal as if we were presenting arguments for the first time. The process followed by a Committee of Adjustment was considered irrelevant: only the outcome or decision was relevant.

Prior to the hearing, the lawyer for the City invited me down to her offices at Metro Hall so we could discuss the case. We spent about an hour together. She explained that as a lawyer for the City of Toronto, she represented the interests of the City and should not be considered to represent the interests of residents. That was my role. However, she was helpful and gracious and we agreed the evidence we had strongly pointed to a different decision than what the COA made.

All Parties received TLAB’s Notice of Hearing notice on June 21, 2017, with the TLAB Appeal scheduled for October 17, 2017. However counsel for the Applicant requested an adjournment at the beginning of the hearing to allow him time to find an arborist who could provide expert testimony about the impact of the proposed development on the mature trees located on the property. Both The City’s lawyers and I felt this was a reasonable request and we agreed to an adjournment.

The TLAB Appeal Hearing

The hearing was conducted, with Ms. Gillian Burton presiding, over two days – April 16 and 17 in 2018.

On the first day of the hearing, there was an ice storm. Considering that I would have to get from Long Branch to Yonge and Eglinton, where TLAB has its offices, I decided it made sense to take the TTC rather than risk traffic tie-ups. The subway was slow and service was halted between some stations while TTC crews tried to clear the tracks and switches. I was late for the start of the hearing.

Ms. Burton seemed to have no appreciation that I was a Party and commenced the hearing in my absence. I had no way to let TLAB staff know that I expected I would be delayed because there is no cellphone service in TTC tunnels, where we sat out the delays.

When I finally did arrive, I was seated immediately by her right elbow. Somehow, Ms. Burton seemed oblivious to my presence and passed over me in allowing the lawyers to ask questions of witnesses. Ms. Burton also did not seem to acknowledge that I was a lay person nor did she try to explain to me the procedures used in a hearing and clarify what I could and could not do.

The Applicant’s Expert Planning Witness submitted testimony that was heavy on opinion and short on data to support that opinion. This contrasted with more data-driven analysis from the City’s Expert Planning Witness and from the residents, which clearly showed the proposed severance and oversized homes were inconsistent with the character of Long Branch.

TLAB’s rules on whether or not Parties can give testimony suggested that, as a Party, I could not present evidence. I had done a lot of analysis, but needed a way to be able to bring it forward, So I asked my wife to become a Participant so she could present the data. She underwent cross examination by counsel for the Applicant.

The City’s Expert Forestry Witness described the trees on the property in detail, explaining why they were of protected size and therefore needed to be preserved according to the City’s environmental policies. While the Applicant submitted an arborist report suggesting the trees were not healthy, the arborist failed to appear before the hearing to testify or allow for cross-examination of his submission.

During the hearing, counsel for the Applicant repeatedly made reference to two severances that had been granted on Thirty Eighth Street without opposition, which, in their minds, provided ample justification for their client’s proposal.

However, I knew some reasons why there had been no opposition to these severances. At the time, over 40% of the properties on Thirty Eighth Street were owned by non-residents. Some were triplexes rented out to tenants. Some were detached houses rented out to tenants. But others were homes on 50-foot lots that had been purchased by developers intent of severing. Non-resident owners and tenants have little interest in getting involved in community issues such as development. And, in the case of one of the severances, the original property had been in bad repair, was being occupied by loud, partying tenants and, in the words of one neighbour, “Anything would have been better than to continue to have to put up with that”. So they didn’t object.

My wife didn’t feel comfortable describing this when she was testifying. For starters, the neighbour’s comments above would have been inadmissible as they represented hearsay. And my wife was not in on the conversation, so she would have been testifying about something I had described as having been said by someone else.

I tried to bring this up in closing arguments, but counsel for the Applicant kept objecting on the grounds that I was presenting evidence. So I eventually just gave up.

On May 15, 2018, Ms. Burton issued her decision, which upheld the COA’s approval of the severances and variances.

Next week: The fallout from the TLAB decision.

/by
,

9 Thirty Eighth Street – A Long Journey

Over the next several weeks, we will be posting a series of articles on the changing face of development in Long Branch.

We’re starting with a story about the case of 9 Thirty Eighth Street because it shaped the way the LBNA came to oppose developers and provided multiple insights and lessons that helped us become so successful in doing so.

On April 4, 2020, The Divisional Court rendered a Decision denying the appeal of a TLAB Review Request that refused an application to sever the property at 9 Thirty Eighth Street. This closed out a lengthy battle against one developer that began on May 4, 2017.

The LBNA asked me to describe the experience because I was intimately involved in it from the outset.

The Beginnings

In 2015, a builder purchased the property at 9 Thirty Eighth, in the western part of Long Branch, from an elderly couple and, after renting out the house for a couple of years, the new owner applied to the Committee of Adjustment to sever the property and build two oversized homes. The house on the property was a one-story house built around 1931 on a 50-foot lot. In front of the house are a large, mature Ash tree and 2 similarly large Silver Maples.

Like several of my neighbours, I wrote a Letter of Objection to the Committee of Adjustment.

On May 4, 2017, the Committee of Adjustment heard the application and unanimously granted the severance and all associated variances. However, I was unable to attend the hearing because I was in Africa on business.

While severance applications were a common occurrence at the Committee of Adjustment, what distinguishes this is that the COA set aside overwhelming evidence against the proposal. City Planning felt it was inappropriate and recommended refusal.  Urban Forestry expressed concerns that the proposal would result in several mature trees being removed. Seven residents spoke out against the proposal, arguing the variances were not minor and that other severances in the neighbourhood were being used as precedents to justify further severances and thereby change the character of the neighbourhood. Over a dozen residents submitted letters of objection to the proposal, with only a single letter from a resident expressing support for the proposal. Councillor Grimes wrote a letter recommending refusal.

The written decision simply stated the proposal, in the unanimous opinion of the COA panel members, met the “4 Tests” described in The Planning Act. There was no mention of who spoke or what they said. Nor were there any details about why the panel chose to overrule the opinion of City Planning.

On my return to Toronto, wanted to see and hear exactly what was presented to the COA for this hearing. I learned that COA hearings were video recorded and that I could purchase a copy of the recording for this hearing by going down to City Hall.

The builder represented himself at the hearing and his justification was that all the variances were minor. There was no other evidence to support why his proposal should be approved. No one else spoke up in support.

But what concerned me the most was a post-hearing conference between the Panel Chair, Ted Shepherd, and two of his fellow panel members (which could only be heard on the official recording and was not meant to be heard by the public), Mr. Shepherd can be heard commenting that “There’s almost no lot-splits in that part of Long Branch [south towards Lake Promenade]” and “ When you take this neighbourhood at a more micro scale, this [their decision] was precedent-setting”

Effectively, Mr. Shepherd acknowledged there was little precedent to justify their decision.

Coming Next Tuesday

Stay Tuned! The story of 9 Thirty Eighth Street continues next Tuesday with the TLAB appeal.

/by
,

Housing Inflation by the Numbers. A Case Study.

There is a house in our neighbourhood that currently stands vacant, and it is currently for sale.

It’s a prime example of speculation in the housing market.

The house was sold in 2011 when the original owner passed away. The selling price, as we understand, was about $500,000.

The house, a 3-bedroom bungalow built around 1940, sits on a 50-foot lot and is about 1,000 sq. ft.

For the next eight years, it was rented out by the owner to a number of different tenants until it was sold in 2019.

The selling price was $1,300,000 – 2-1/2 times what it sold for in 2011.  That represents a 17.5% annual growth rate in value.

The purchaser applied to the Committee of Adjustment to sever the property and build two oversized homes. The residents objected and the Committee of Adjustment agreed with their objections, unanimously refusing the application to sever.

The owners eventually put the house back on the market for $1.8 million.

In the brief time they have held the property, they are effectively expecting a 16.6% increase in value during which time they have done nothing to add value to the property. As noted in the opening paragraph, the house currently is vacant, so it is not generating any rental income to offset its carrying costs.

In the listing, the owners suggested to potential buyers that the property had potential to be severed and rebuilt.

Let’s look at this.

Assuming the sellers gets their $1.8 million, the cost per severed lot would be $900.000. Usually, in cases of severances, the builders try to build approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of house. At a conservative estimate of $350/sq. ft. to build, the builder would be investing another $700,000 into the property, bringing the total investment to $1,600,000.

Current MLS® stats indicate an average house price of $834,497 Long Branch. This represents houses of all sizes as well as condos. It also represents sales of newly built homes as well as resales of existing dwellings. So, the price for a 3- or 4-bedroom house with 2,000 sq. ft. of space would be significantly higher. According to the MLS®, averages for 4-bedroom homes in Long Branch are about $1,600,000 which, again, represents a mix of new builds and existing homes.

If we assume the average asking price in Long Branch for a 2,000 sq. ft. home is about $1.700,000, which would net the builder only a $100,000 profit assuming everything goes as planned.

But we haven’t factored in costs such as applying to the Committee of Adjustment for the necessary variances, the commission paid to a real estate agent to sell the property, land transfer taxes or interest to carry the property while it is under development. And these probably do not represent all the costs a builder might incur. If the application has to go through TLAB because either the builder or the neighbours appeal a Committee of Adjustment decision, that can easily add another $100,000 to the cost, for hiring a lawyer, a professional planner and an arborist.

Let’s assume this property is purchased by a family who wish to have a custom home built and so they do not plan on severing the property.

Using the property value of $1.79 million and another $700,000 for construction, the owners who wish to build instead of severing would have to ask in excess of $2.5 million for their 4-bedroom, 2000 sq. ft. home, should they decide to put it on the market. That’s well above the average of $1,700,000 for a comparable property in the neighbourhood. But it’s also likely the family would live in the home for several years.

It should be noted that, between 2011 and the present, no improvements have been made to the property we described by any of the owners. So, apart from trying to sever the property, the collective owners have done nothing to add value to this property. And yet they’re expecting something in excess of a 15% return on their investment.

In the meantime, the residents on this street have a house with no neighbours to interact with, that is not being maintained and no real expectation that this will change in the near future.

And it’s not an isolated example in Long Branch. There are several properties that were granted severance approval back as far as 2015 that still have the original homes. In other words, the owners got their severance but have done nothing since.

If everyone is so concerned about housing supply, why haven’t these properties been developed?

If this isn’t speculation in one of its worst forms, it probably is close.

/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