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.