The following message is from David Godley:
Good morning Residents of Long Branch.
This [the text below] has been circulated to key politicians and some press. There is no real chance of changing the decision.
Greetings from Long Branch
PL140761 Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approves 3 storey houses with double the density 48 35th St.
I am thankful that the Province is to review the OMB this fall.
The review delay by Linda Jeffrey (former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) has caused major suffering for people across the Ontario.
The Ontario Municipal Board is not fit for purpose. Everyone involved with this dinosaur knows that.
It is essential that planning decisions are made by planners. See review of OMB decision below.
Written representation is far cheaper on the English model.
Please do your utmost to thoroughly reform the OMB.
Local Area Boards may come to Toronto but we will still be dealing with prior applications for years to come.
I am also thankful the Province has announced a local government review of Toronto City.
Community Boards aka New York would go a long way to restoring the massive imbalance between the development industry and Toronto citizens.
I can send a copy of the OMB decision if requested.
I would be grateful to receive any feedback.
David Godley 416-255-0492
Corrosive OMB. Decision PL140761 48 35th St, Toronto
Below is what appears to be the situation with the approval by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) of two 3 storey houses on narrow lots at over double the density.
The decision to approve the severance and variances is unusually dimwitted even by the OMB standards which in planning terms is appalling.
No reality or rationality is exhibited in any of this decision. All the extensive counterpoints below were made by resident’s testimony and ignored.
Residents asked for conditions which cost virtually nothing. These were ignored.
The decision is contemptuous of citizens who pay her salary.
Joyita Zuidema ran a good hearing by the poor standards of the OMB. The only difficulty (which was major) was that the lead objector had her evidence curtailed.
The hearing officer
1. does not recognise the highly conflicted nature of the developer’s planner. Bias is evidenced through avoiding critical sections of the Official Plan
2. does not understand that the developer’s planner has no urban design training or indeed knowledge. He would not be acting on this project if he did.
3. does not understand that urban design expertise is needed to evaluate character
4. states that this area is identified as a target growth area. The opposite is true as stated in the Official Plan. This could be reason for a review request.
5. says that only neighbourhood wide character is relevant. This is wrong according to
4.1.5c of the Official Plan which was cited by residents. The micro neighbourhood is more important as resident evidence attests.
6. says this fits into planned and existing context. Figures show this is wrong.
7. says these are minor adjustments. More than doubling the permitted use cannot possibly be seen as minor in size or impact.
8. says that there are no issues of overlook when the raised balcony (by at least 2m) either side of back yards and swimming pools of abutting owners; even the developer’s planner admitted there was by offering screening.
9. says the intent of the zoning is met when low density is the intent where there is plenty of space around the property. Yet the houses are crammed in.
10. says that there are no issues of shadowing and lighting when the abutting properties are half the length and fit to the zoning density.
11. says that there is urban fit when the designs are alien (tall and thin rather than wide and short) to the existing street and neighbourhood.
12. says the project is good planning, desirable for the community and that citizens are irrelevant to the process. This is the same as saying black is white 3 times.
Unfortunately the hearing officer has no knowledge of planning or indeed reality. She analyses nothing and does not give reasons as required by law.
She is supremely unfit as a planning adjudicator like many of her colleagues. This is an example of the worst type of decision which has caused the Province and its inhabitants so much difficulty.
She has no idea of the damage she is doing not only to the neighbourhood but to people’s lives.
Why should residents suffer severe hardship due to the incompetence of the OMB.
Neighbours are still in shock at the flimsiness of the decision.
[End of text from David Godley]