Lot splitting

The COA Process Needs Fixing

With the passage of Bill 23 in December, 2022, Ontario residents no longer have the right to appeal a Committee of Adjustment (COA) decision.

This presupposes that the COAs deliver well-thought-out decisions based on evidence and application of existing regulations.

Applications that go before the COA generally fall into one of two broad categories. Minor variance applications typically are for new housing or renovations to an existing home. These are by far the majority. The other category is Consent applications – severances of a property into 2 or more parcels of land for some form of new construction.

The COA Process

When a minor variance application is to go before the COA, formal notices are sent out to neighbouring properties within a 60 meter radius. Residents are allowed to voice opposition by writing letters of objection or speaking before the COA panel during the formal hearing on an application. Often, residents’ concerns are about shadowing of their properties, lack of privacy and the style and/or scale of the proposed structure. Sometimes, there is only one minor variance being requested, but we have seen examples with as many as 8 minor variances.

The COA allows 5 minutes to each resident to express their opinions and concerns. The applicant likewise has 5 minutes to present his/her case, but also have the right to 5 minutes to offer a rebuttal to residents’ concerns before the committee renders its decision.

It may sound unfair to limit each resident to 5 minutes of speaking, but the COA has a huge volume of applications to process. In 2017, for example, the COA closed out 4,344 applications across the City – a little over 17 applications per working day. In 2017, COA panels across Toronto approved 3,398 of those applications – approximately 78%.

A Consent application usually ends up being at least 3 applications: one to sever the property and the other applications would centre around minor variances on the construction on the resulting parcels of land. At the COA, all of the sub-applications for a Consent application are heard together as one.

As with a minor variance application, residents are notified, they have the right to submit their concerns in writing and/or orally before the COA. Each resident is still only allowed to speak for 5 minutes, and the applicant has 5 minutes to present and another 5 minutes to rebut.

Obviously, Consent applications are more complex than straight minor variance applications. Applicants must show that the severance fits within the character of the neighbourhood and they also have to present their case for why the structures on the resulting parcels of land require minor variances.

We feel the way the COA currently handles Consent applications does a disservice to Toronto residents by inhibiting their ability to present evidence in opposition to the application.

The LBNA has been involved in over 20 appeals at TLAB – the majority of them consent applications. Unlike the 15 to 30 minutes the COA typically allows for hearing a consent application, some of the appeals have taken several days.

In introducing Bill 23, the Ford government sought to remove some of the roadblocks to construction of new homes. It appears they considered that one of those roadblocks was appeals by residents of COA decisions. They could argue that some of the appeals go on for days or months and seemingly point the finger at the residents as the root cause of lengthy appeals.

But let’s take a closer look at the length of these appeals.

The TLAB Process

At TLAB, the Applicant presents their case first, and the first witness is almost always a professional land use planner – an expert witness. In virtually every case we have participated in, the Expert Planner’s testimony takes up a full working day. They present their analysis of the neighbourhood and arguments about why their client’s proposal fits with The Planning Act, The Official Plan and the Bylaws. It can take up to a full day to cross-examine the evidence presented by these Planners, who often rely on their professional status and experience to present opnions about a proposal that are given weight by an adjudicator. Some of these Planners perform analyses that can only be described as superficial, and it takes time to show the holes in their arguments.

It’s not the residents that determine the content or duration of the presentation of evidence on behalf of an Applicant. It’s the lawyer representing the Applicant.

Sometimes, it feels like the applicants’ lawyers try to intimidate residents with the amount of material they present. The document filings and procedures can also be so intimidating, residents seem driven to find a lawyer to represent them. But not many residents can afford the cost of legal counsel, which can amount to between $20 and $50K depending on how long the hearing runs.

Deputation to the Planning and Housing Committee

In 2019, the LBNA presented some proposed amendments to the COA Process to make it more user-friendly. We saw the process as convenient for COA staff and panel members but onerous for residents. Here are some of the recommendations.

Separate Sessions

COA hearings typically are/were held between 10 am and 4 pm. While the COA posts an agenda noting the applications to be heard and the order in which they will be heard, residents have to commit to setting aside at least a 2-hour window. Because hearings on individual applications vary tremendously in duration, it is next to impossible to guarantee exactly at what time any application will be heard. On top of this, residents have to take time off work to attend COA hearings and this may also add commute times from their place of work. For residents who are hourly paid, attendance at a COA hearing could also mean sacrificing income.

The LBNA suggested holding applications for minor variance hearings during normal business hours, since these usually are the most straightforward cases, and represent the bulk of the COA hearings anyway.

Separate Streams

We also proposed severance applications be handled through a separate stream and process vs. minor vairance applications.

We suggested holding severance hearings during the evening to make it easier for residents to fully participate and express their concerns and also because, in any given month, the number of severance applications usually is relatively small compared to minor variance applications.

Perhaps the City should simply allow severance applications to bypass COA and go straight to TLAB. It’s obvious, by the time they take to argue, that severance applications are far more complex than minor vairance applications. And TLAB takes a more thorough, evidence-based approach to adjudication compared to the COA. Plus, in their written decisions, TLAB hearing chairs explain the reasoning behind their decisions, which the COA does not do, so there is more transparency than with the COA.

Perceived Bias

As noted above, the high approval rate for severance applications in Long Branch between 2014 and 2018 gave residents the impression the COA panel held bias in favour of developers. Here are some of the factors that we feel helped form this impression.

The COA panel during this time period seemed to consist of the same members time after time. While a normal COA panel consists of 5 members, often there were only 3, which Planning deems a quorum.

Frequently, during hearings, we would see the COA panel members huddle to confer. While this may be entirely innocent, it gives the impression of collusion.

The COA decisions are written with what is called “boilerplate” text outlining the reasons – that is, the SAME reasons appear on hundreds of decisions. Not only does this lack transparency, but it also is not in keeping with the spirit, let alone the intent of Section 45.8.1 of The Planning Act, which requires COA to not only describe the reasoning behind the decision, but also to describe the impact of oral and written submissions.

There is a legal principle known as “reasonable apprehension of bias”.

In the Canadian judicial system, a judge must not only be unbiased but also appear unbiased.

It is difficult to prove an adjudicator appears to hold a bias, let alone actually have one. The legal test involves proving that “a reasonable and informed person, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would conclude that the judge’s conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias”. And the burden of proof would fall on the shoulders of the residents.

Note that, in the context of Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, the wording focuses on judges and does not appear to apply to other adjudicatory bodies such as the COA. Perhaps it should. And perhaps panel members should be required to formally swear an oath that they will be impartial in their duties.

Training

While the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines were formally introduced in January, 2018, we did not have the impression the COA panel members actually understood how they were to be used. They seemed to accept the applicants’ representations that their proposals conformed with the guidelines in the face of more fact-based analysis by residents.

We also had the impression the COA panel members did not understand there are environmental chapters in the Official Plan – notably about protection of the urban forest – that need to be given weight.

Therefore, we proposed the COA panel members be given more thorough training on the Character Guidelines as well as on the environmental policies in the Official Plan.

Action by Planning

As far as we can tell, City Planning might be giving the COA panel members more training as we recommended, though the curriculum is not shared with us.

However, on issues like reasons for decisions, separation of applications into two streams (Minor Variance and Consent), Planning has done nothing.

What You Can Do

If you think the above arguments make sense, then please consider contacting our City Councillor, Amber Morley to let her know you’d like to see changes in the Planning process with respect to the COA.

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.

EHON Multiplex Comments from LBNA

Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) is a City-wide program to increase the number of housing units available in hopes of curbing rapid escalation in prices for homes and for rents in rental units. The program aims to create more low-rise dwelling units including duplexes, triplexes and garden/laneway suites.

Among the recommended revisions:

Inclusion of provisions in Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan to help ensure new multiplex units fit with neighbourhood character
stronger protections for existing trees when new multiplex units are built.
a reminder that Long Branch already has zoning that permits multiplex and semi-detached home construction, but only single detached homes are being built by developers.

The point is to ensure new multiplex units are designed to fit in with neighbourhood character and that Long Branch has a mix of low-rise housing types that show that multi-family dwellings can exist in harmony with detached single-family homes. As well, the City should be taking steps to ensure that environmental policies in the City’s Official Plan regarding protection of mature trees, which are frequently taken down to make way for new house construction, are better enforced.

The full text of our letter to EHON Toronto appears below

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.

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.

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?