Preserved Stories Blog


Conserving Long Branch – February 2018 update from David Godley

Display at Small Arms Building, January 2018. Jaan Pill photo

Display at Small Arms Building, January 2018. Jaan Pill photo

Display at Small Arms Building, January 2018. Jaan Pill photo

Display at Small Arms Building, January 2018. Jaan Pill photo

Among many other achievements, Jim Tovey was (in 2009) named Mississauga Citizen of the Year. The photo is outside the City of Mississauga Council Chambers.

Among many other achievements, Jim Tovey was (in 2009) named Mississauga Citizen of the Year. The photo is outside the City of Mississauga Council Chambers.

Detail from photo display outside Mississauga Council Chambers

Detail from photo display outside Mississauga Council Chambers

View of photo display outside Mississauga Council Chambers

View of photo display outside Mississauga Council Chambers

Attached files from David Godley:

2233rdmyths

coa2018

jimtovey

lbcgcouncil

Please note: I will no longer be uploading David’s updates, once I have moved from Long Branch, which will be later in the current year. (I will, however, be working on books and videos related to my family’s years in Long Branch.)

If you wish to be on David’s email list, please contact him at:

mhairig@pathcom.com

David has shared the following text. I have not formatted it, as I have cut back on my volunteer work. As well, click here for previous posts about Jim Tovey >

Update from David Godley

Happy February

1) Long Branch Urban Design Guidelines Approved Unanimously by Council 31 January 2018
Motions (City Council)1 – Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor Mark Grimes (Carried)
“That City Council request that the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines adopted by Council be used by home builders, the community, City staff, committees and appeal bodies to provide direction in their decision making as they develop plans, review applications for redevelopment and/or enhance the public realm in the Long Branch Neighbourhood.”

The full motion can be viewed at the following link: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2018.CC36.15

(Toronto Local Appeal Board, TLAB has authorised their eligibility as non legal evidence at hearings, Dec 12 hearing on 38 36th Street.)
TLAB Will hear deputations on how to improve the appeal system on a date yet to be selected in April or May.

Enormous thanks to the Councillor, Planning Dept and innumerable citizens for creating these over the last two years or so.
They provide clarification on the intent of policies in the Official Plan which Long Branch has been trying to implement most often with little success.
They also provide clarity for anyone wishing to develop in the Neighbourhood. With urban design input it would have been so easy to modify nearly all applications to make them fit better into the neighbourhood.
We need to work closely with the group opposing. I suggest a meeting! 56 31st is the perfect candidate around an actual proposal. See below.

See article about group opposing Guidelines to be published in next week’s Guardian.
https://www.insidetoronto.com/community-story/8100768-battle-over-long-branch-lot-severances-divides-south-etobicoke-community/
2) New Applications
36 Ash, Soldier Houses. (definition 3 storey, about double density on narrow lot) 0.35 to 0.71 density. April 12 COA
75 27th Large Deck
3 26th No details available
23 36th No details available

The Mediation Pilot Project nas now finished. Private consultants were brought in to assist with settling issues at the Committee of Adjustment meetings prior to hearing. Generally severances are really hard to reach consensus on whereas there is more scope for variances.

3) January 11 COA Decisions
90 Ash, Soldier houses 0.35 to 1.04. Deferred
58 Laburnham Soldier houses 0.35 to 0.65. 1pm Approved
93 Lake Promenade. Monster House, 0.35 to 1.54. 3pm Deferred
27 39th Soldier houses 0.35 to 0.98. 3pm Deferred, Mediation meeting held January 25 2018 without resolution. Community Meeting Long Branch Library 7pm Feb 21st
89 27th Monster house 0.35 to 0.78. Community working with the owner to reduce density and impact. Approved
17 Evergreen, 2 (2)storey houses 0.35 to 0.58. Jan 11 COA. Approved

4) February 8 COA Agenda
72 Arcadian, Soldier Houses. 0.35 to 1.06 and 1.01. To be withdrawn. No notices circulated. Application for return of fees.
10 Lake Promenade, Soldier houses 0.35 to 0.59
76 29th 0.35 to 1.01 Soldier House
80 23rd Severance previously approved by OMB but not density. Soldier Houses. 0.35 to 0.60

5) March 8 COA Agenda
15 Elton, 2 storey modern 0.35 to 0.51. Major tree issues
21 Phlox, 2 storey 0.35 to 0.40
10 31st, 2.5 storey at front, 3 storey at rear. 0.35 to 0.49 Well designed with verandah and good roof lines
83 26th 2 storey 0.35 to 0.68 2 storey, no integral garage, parking on driveway
79 Laburnham, Severance and variance for soldier semis in detached house zone. Building Dept comments that semis are excluded therefore there are no zoning controls if approved.
(Other than 79, this is an interesting group of variances, none of which are soldiers. Parking at the rear or in the driveway allows better designs and reduces mass by eliminating the garage and creates more basement space which usually is not provided under the garage.)

6) April 12 COA Agenda
93 Lake Promenade, 3 storey house 0.35 to 1.54
80 39th Soldier houses 0.35 to 0.62
74 38th Soldier houses 0.35 to 0.63
46 Park Blvd. No details
32 36th Soldier Houses 0.35 to 0.56 and 0.63. Community Planning recommend refusal.
56 31st Soldier house 0.35 to 0.50. This is a perfect opportunity to use the Guidelines. The appearance of a 2 storey house can easily be achieved.

7) Outstanding Applications
69 Marina, Soldier houses – No details
11 Garden Place Soldier Houses 0.35 to 0.71.
11 Shamrock, Soldier Houses 0.35 to 0.68

If you wish to look at all the material online go to “City of Toronto” “Development Applications” “Committee of Adjustment” “Ward 6” “Search” and follow the cues
However the number of applications in Ward 6 has outstripped the capacity of the Applications Information Website and you cannot view the whole list of applications together.

8) Toronto Local Appeal Board

9 38th Street. A revised application from February 2016. 2 storey modern and ultra modern on 25 feet frontage lots from 0.35 to 0.56 density in an area of wide lots. Approved by COA and appealed by the City to TLAB.

This is Long Branch ‘s first appeal to TLAB. Hearing postponed from October 13 to November 13 2017. Last minute revised proposal and adjournment to April 16-17 Venue TLAB Offices 40 Orchard View Blvd Suite 211 (Eglinton and Yonge) 9am

38 36th Street. 3 storey soldier houses 0.35 density to 0.70. Refused by COA and appealed by applicant. Hearing 12 December 2017 deferred to 7 March 2018 for 1 more day. Additional material can be submited up to 30 days prior to hearing Venue, York Civic Offices, 2700 Eglinton West, 9am

9) OMB Hearings

30 38th Street, 27 June 2017 Awaiting Decision

68 Daisy Avenue, Zoning for 73 4 storey townhouse units, February 24 2017. Pre-hearing Conference for 1 day held. Hearing held 10 October 2017. Awaiting Decision

82 Twenty Seventh Street, March 21 2017 continued August 21 2017 PL161006 Refused

5 Ramsgate, 16 May 2017 PL161257 Awaiting Decision

24 33rd, 1/2 May 2017 No planner on board Approved PL161073 Review request submitted to OMB by Lakeshore Planning Council Corporation. Request Refused.

22 33rd, Severance and Variances for semi soldier houses 0.35/0.60 to 0.70 to density PL170413, 18 January 2018. Awaiting Decision. (Evidence submitted attached)

34 27th Street, An appeal was dismissed but a Review Request was made by Legal. Awaiting decision. Review request does not stop a building permit being issued which it has.

10 Minor Variance, Definition The new City Solicitor Wendy Walberg (wendy.walberg@toronto.ca) has asked Legal staff to consult with Planning Staff and the issue has been acknowledged by TLAB (tlab@toronto.ca)
An independent Lawyer is preparing a report on “What is Minor” to be produced shortly. How anyone could imagine soldier houses qualify as minor is a mystery. Doubling weight, salary, or cost cannot by any definition be considered minor. This is yet another reason planning for severances and variances has gone off the rails. A few refusals by the OMB on this ground would have killed the issue which is still damaging people’s lives.
The City Policy

Small size of variance, as well as impact, is a legal requirement. The Toronto definition of minor is “Small changes or exceptions to existing land use or development restrictions contained in the zoning bylaw are called minor variances.” The word “Adjustment” defines the Committee’s role. A further recent clarification is included in the Blue Brochure “Getting to know the City of Toronto, Committee of Adjustment” produced by the Planning Department which states “Whenever your project or development largely complies with the rules in the Zoning Bylaw but does not quite, you need to have to apply to a minor variance. Example. The maximum permitted height for the building is 10m. The altered building is proposed to have a height of 10.5m.” Planning decisions are to determine the public interest and decisions need to be in line with City policies.

In other words De Gasperis rules.

NB The North Barrie case had nothing to do with size being relevant. Rather it related to how it is addressed in decisions.

Compiled by David Godley October 2017

11 Mediation Pilot Project Private consultants were brought in to assist with settling issues at the Committee of Adjustment meetings prior to hearing. This program has now finished.

12) Councillor Jim Tovey for Lakeview, immediately west of Long Branch in Mississauga. Obituary attached. Jim was cut from the same cloth as Mayor David Crombie where the people rule the roost rather than the development sector.
He promulgated the neighbourhood planning. Stakeholders, with the help of planners, prepared policy for their area. The result was invariably supported by the Planning Department and Council. Since the Planning Department in Toronto is understaffed they cannot manage this more effective mode of planning. Community meetings on Lakeview were inspiring and productive whereas Toronto’s community meetings are usually confrontational. Under David Crombie the Planning approach was based on strong local democracy, not a strong suit in the current administration.

Feel free to comment and have a good weekend.

David

 

Share this:

This entry was posted in Long Branch, Newsletter, Toronto. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *