January 2016 Update from David Godley of Long Branch

The following text is from David Godley; I have waited for the go-ahead from him, before I proceeded to post this item. Because of time (and energy) constraints, I have done minimal formatting of this text.

The message includes two attached files:



David Godley writes:

Happy 2016

Long Branch Neighbourhood Association.

The outlook is excellent for the formation of a strong Neighbourhood Association.

At the 7 December meeting of those citizens interested in being actively involved most are concerned about development issues.

Conservation of trees was a second priority followed by parks and safety.

Brian Liberty will send out minutes with a date for another meeting possibly February 1st.
There is plenty for the new body to address. Attached is a current review of some development issues based on the upcoming hearing on 97 27th Street.

Committee of Adjustment Applications

All proposals are for 3 storey houses. All except 29 Ash are severances. 29 Ash is a single house.

November 19, 2015 Committee of Adjustment Hearing

1. B30/15EYK, A259/15EYK & A260EYK – 33 Forty Second Street – In limbo because of Toronto Conservation Authority cocerns. It is in the flood plain. Plans will have to be revised if the applicant proceeds.

2. B51/15EYK, A463/15EYK & A464/15EYK – 58 Ash Crescent – Deferred for community meeting. We await word from the Planning Department on the format. The councillor’s office have set up a meeting to discuss mediation with Susanne Pringle, head of the Committee of Adjustment staff in Etobicoke YorkWe await word from the Planning Department on format.

December 3, 2015 Committee of Adjustment Hearing

1 B54/15EYK, A488/15EYK & A489/15EYK – 22 Thirtieth Street – Deferred for community meeting. The councillor’s office have set up a meeting to discuss mediation with Susanne Pringle, head of the Committee of Adjustment staff in Etobicoke YorkWe await word from the Planning Department on format.

2. B62/15EYK, A531/15EYK & A532/15EYK – 40 Thirty Eighth Street Application deferred for proper notification.

Reviewed Applications in Long Branch – Hearing date to be determined:

1. B68/15EYK, A697/15EYK & A59815EYK – 24 Thirty Third Street – This is an application for consent with associated minor variances. Staff have reviewed the application and are recommending a deferral to provide the applicant an opportunity to have further discussion with Planning staff and the community to develop a revised proposal that is more in keeping with the established physical character of the neighbourhood and more in accordance with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-laws.

Minor variance applications in Long Branch in circulation:

1. B27/15EYK, A646/15EYK & A647/15EYK – 56 Ash Crescent – The is an application for consent with associated minor variances. Staff are currently reviewing the applications. More information to follow. Hearing date TBD

2. B75/15EYK, A667/15EYK & A668/15EYK – 2 Ash Crescent – The is an application for consent with associated minor variances. Staff are currently reviewing the applications. More information to follow. Hearing date TBD

3 B77/15EYK – 42 Exmoor, Severance and Variances submitted November 25.

New Consent and minor variance applications

1 29 Ash A231/15 A third application for the chicken coop house. The first was approved but overbuilt. An application for overbuilding was refused by Committee of Adjustment and an OMB hearing set for 23 February. In the meantime what I assume is a compromise variance is to go to the Committee of Adjustment on 11 January.

2 20 Garden Place B80/15,A716-7/15/EYK Hearing Date TBA

3 88 Laburnham Avenue B/85,A747-8/15/EYK Hearing Date TBA

OMB Hearings. 10am @ 655 Bay, the OMB offices.

1 97 27th, 14-15 January 2016 Mike Flynn who is leading the opposition on these applications has set up a meeting with help from the Councillor’s Office to meet staff for a strategy and inorma-15tion session on January 8th. The City represents City Council and not residents so it is important to have residents represesentation at all meetings. Liz Read, Christine Mercado, Andy Choles and Mike Laffrade are active in preparing for this hearing. Let them know if you wish to help.

2 29 Ash, 23 February 2016 Liz Read is taking aleadership role on this. A meeting with City Staff is the next step in the process and the initiative has to be through citizens perhaps through the Councillor’s Office (Daniel Fleming)

3 9 Atherton Appealed to OMB but hearing TBA.

Neighbourhood Tree Loss

Thank you to Bill Plewes for pointing out the owner of 2 27th Street is to be in Court for the desecration of 7 trees illegally. However trees continue to be lost because of limited resources for enforcement. Staff (although dedicated) are thin on the ground. A boundary tree has been lost at 48 35th and it is up to the part owner of the tree to hire a lawyer and persue the civil matter. Other single trees have been lost illegally and there are no plans to take the matter to court.

Urban Design Guidelines

This study has begun with Long Branch being one of the area to be studied. The City plan is to have the consultants develop templates for determining neighbourhood character to be used in other neighbourhoods. A local group will be needed to help with the study.
“The RFP for the Design Guidelines was issued on September 24 and the closing date for submissions is noon November 13 (tomorrow). The submissions will be reviewed by staff and this evaluation is to be completed by November 27. The expected date for the contract to start is December 7. The Project Manager for this initiative is James Parakh,(jparakh@toronto.ca) who is away until Monday. I’ve cc’ed James on this response who may be able to provide additional information when he returns.” Information provided by Neil Cresswell.

Establishing a Local Area Board (LAB)

A LAB would replace the OMB for appeals from Committee of Adjustment decisions.
The Executive Committee asked for a report by November and a report will be brought forward by the City Manager on 28th January. Thank you Neil Cresswell for pointing out this was not the duty of the Planning Department.

Review of the OMB

Hi David,

As you know we are going to undertake a review of the scope and effectiveness of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in response to feedback from citizens, municipalities and our stakeholders. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will work with the Ministry of the Attorney General, as well as key stakeholders, to recommend possible reforms that would improve the OMB’s role within the broader system of land-use planning. The government is currently looking at the most effective options for undertaking the review and will release details at a later date.


Luke Fraser

Community Planner (A), Provincial Planning Policy Branch

Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing

13th Floor – 777 Bay St. Toronto, ON M5G 2E5

Phone: (416) 585-6088

Email: luke.fraser@ontario.ca

Crombie Review

See attached report by Brian Graff:


Toronto Star Article on NIMBYism (2 January 2016).

Comment from David Godley

Great to see Ed Keenan focus on NIMBYism. It is a term used liberally by proponents to describe opposition to development.

Like “Do gooder” it has negative connotations despite the real meaning of the words.
Not in my back yard is often good planning.

However NIMBYism can do real harm such as the gas plant cancellations.

At the neighbourhood level, especially in Toronto, the word NIMBY contributes to detrimental impacts.

The Official Plan clearly spells out that neighbourhood character must be respected and reinforced.

However the Ontario Municipal Board rarely heeds this fundamental strategy.

Consequently neighboourhoods are being routinely butchered especially in North York and Lakeshore.

The issue is that there is no level playing field in the planning process. Citizens suddenly are faced with a proposal that severely impacts not only the street scene (including destruction of trees) but their whole quality of life. They have 2 weeks to respond by collecting information learning about the complex issues of severances and variances and learning to comment positively. Individual citizens are put under severe stress to such an extent that they sometimes leave the neighbourhood. If a proposal is refused locally, the applicant appeals to the development-friendly OMB.

We will continue to wreck our neighbourhoods unless the City turns back to using citizen stakeholders Neighbourhood Planning or the OMB ceases to abuse City planning.

I am looking forward to Ed Keenan’s next article on the positive side of NIMBYism.

Yours truly

David Godley

Comments and/or additional information are gladly received

Back issues of the Update can be found on Jaan Pill’s blog “preservedstories.com” as well as other Long Branch planning matters.



0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

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