Conserving Long Branch – May 2016 Update from David Godley

The following message is from David Godley; I have not had time to adjust the line spacing or to add headings and attached files:

Spring Greetings From Long Branch

Michael Laffrade

Mike passed away at age 57 leaving a wife and 2 adult children. He died in hospital 2 weeks after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

Mike was a key player in Long Branch’s push for conservation of character. He attended OMB hearings to protect the neighbourhood and worked with the citizens to try to achieve fair decisions.

He was a fighter. He was about to embark on a front yard sign blitz, similar to the yellow ones asking drivers to slow down, including the wording Builders And Developers. He was going to self finance this.

He also advocated having a community sit-in on Shamrock Avenue to draw attention to the plight of the residents.

In any move for change those with more passionately expressed ideas are complementary to those who speak calmly.

Mike should have had at least 20 more years of fight in him just as Zaha Hadid, one of the world’s best architects and queen of curve, should have had 20 more years of designing buildings.
MAY 9 MONDAY, LONG BRANCH NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATION 7pm HUMBER

On May 9th, there will be a working meeting open to all that wish to join a sub-committee (or 3) in the interim. Come and join the conversation that excites (or frustrates) you the most.

When: May 9, 7:00 to 9:00pm
Where: Humber College (Lakeshore Campus) – Building A, Room A170 next to the large cafeteria (see link below for campus map).

Brian Liberty
Interim Chairperson, Long Branch Neighbourhood Asssociation
ph. 647-400-2047

MAY 12 THURSDAY, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 3pm Etobicoke Civic Centre

Anyone from the neighbourhood please attend if you can and allow a couple of hours. Reports and maps attached for 4 Shamrock and 32 27th.

Two controversial severance applications are before the OMB, 4 Shamrock and 80 23rd. They have important implications for the development of the neighbourhood.

4 Shamrock is a proposal for 2 soldier homes. At 6 Shamrock twin soldiers are being built. There is also a proposal for 2 more soldier houses at 2 Shamrock. This is by the same applicant as # 4 but the application is being held back.
To prevent the first row of 6 out of character the COA needs to refuse outright this proposal.

80 23rd is where a severance is sought immediately south of the single soldier home. The second soldier home was firmly quashed by the OMB at 86. The proposal is for 2 more soldier houses.
This also needs an outright refusal.

As well 32 27th Street is a proposal for 2 stories to be added to an existing single storey house, plus additions to more than double the density.
Apparently the applicant is open to modifications so this could be deferred. That would mean presentations may not be heard. If this is the case it is important to have a community meeting to let impacted residents air their concerns.
This is supposed to heard at 5pm but with a heavy agenda is likely to be later. Everyone involved should be ready with their presentation.

Any support at the COA for the community is welcome even if no speaking is involved. You get to see political theatre into the bargain.


MAY 17 Community Meeting FOR LONG BRANCH URBAN DEIGN GUIDELINES, ASSEMBLY HALL 6.30pm

All Long Branch residents are invited.

Attending the Willowdale Community meeting this week (on a parallel study) leads to the conclusion this is going to be a useful exercise, especially so for the Committee of Adjustment. This will produce a guide for them and all concerned on more detailed appearance. Hopefully the OMB or other appeal body will give the guidelines weight. An advisory group to meet over the summer is also proposed as well as further community meetings.

Long Branch was the first neighbourhood to be chosen for an urban guideline study in Toronto. You will find the Sinclair, van Nostrand, urban design staff, the City’s Urban design group and local planners enlightened and plentiful. Public participation is central to this exercise. Contact Sabrina Salitano ssalati@toronto.ca Local Planner or Shawna Bowen sbowen1@toronto.ca Urban Designer for additional details. Some areas of Long Branch did not receive their mailed notification so please spread the news to Long Branch residents and owners.
LOCAL APPEAL BOARDS
It now seems certain that Local Appeal Boards will replace the OMB for Committee of Adjustment appeals probably before the end of the year. All applications submitted before the LAB’s establishment will still go to the OMB.

OMB, NEW CHIEF
My letter dated 3 May 2016

Dear Dr Krushelnicki

Congratulations on your appointment as Executive Chair of ELTO with responsibilities for the Ontario Municipal Board. I do not think that a better person could have been picked based on our working together when you were in Niagara and I was with the City of Hamilton.

Over the last dozen years the OMB seems to have changed from serving the overall community to serving the rich and powerful.

I have been sharply critical of the OMB over last few years. I have been a member of the Toronto Committee of Adjustment for about 6 years and latterly am helping people on a bone fide basis in the Long Branch neighbourhood. Consequently I have had numerous dealings with the OMB including giving evidence at 10 hearings.

The OMB has metamorphised from an impartial agency into one overriding local democracy to support the building industry.

Development planners, in my view in conflict of interest situations, mostly win against the City’s Planning Department in Long Branch.

The members seem to take little notice of the Official Plan and mostly ignore any evidence from the public which of course is non expert.

The City does not represent the neighbourhood at OMB hearing (as their Legal Department never tires of telling us and they are right.)

Consequently citizens have their rights under the Planning Act to be able to influence decisions extinguished unless they pay. That would mean $20,000 to $30,000 to hire a planner and legal representative as well as a large commitment of time.
With the variances often doubling the residential density and severances for small lots out of keeping with the neighbourhood little weight is given to the De Gasperis decision.
My belief is that members should be trained planners who can use their own judgement on the merits of a case. At the moment this does not happen even with the members who are planners.

Also I support the English system where most smaller applications are dealt with in written form including cross examination.

Another issue is the barely concealed contempt that some members have for the public who have often spent lots of time and money and are stressed out in an intimidating environment.

I have to mention Mary Anne Sills and Reid Rossi in this context.
Reinvention of processes internally and following the mission and mandate would go towards relieving unfairness of the current process which has led to huge unpopularity of the current OMB.

At a community meeting in North York this week the audience was groaning every time the OMB were mentioned and applauded when a Councillor said that the OMB could not do a worse job!
All the best with your current challenges. David
CURRENT APPLICATIONS WITH MY UPDATES IN RED
Reviewed Applications in Long Branch

1. B75/15EYK, A667/15EYK & A668/15EYK – 2 Ash Crescent – 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. On April 14 the Committee of Adjustment approved the severance but refused the variances. No appeal yet.

2. B77/15EYK, A692/15EYK & A693/15EYK – 42 Exmoor Drive (on the edge of Long Branch) – This is an application for consent with associated minor variances. Planning staff are recommending that the applications be deferred in order for the applicant to submit revised plans that would be more in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Hearing date TBD

3. B2/16EYK, A13/16EYK & A14/16EYK – 30 Thirty Sixth 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. On April 14 the Committee of Adjustment refused the severance and variances. No appeal yet.

4. B8/16EYK, A73/16EYK and A74/16EYK – 2 Shamrock Avenue – This is an application for consent with associated minor variances. Staff have reviewed the application and are recommending refusal.

5. B9/16EYK, A76/16EYK and A77/16EYK – 4 Shamrock Avenue – This is an application for consent with associated minor variances. Staff have reviewed the application and are recommending refusal. May 12 meeting of COA see attached submission which is my personal submission. I will speak on behalf of the LBNA to refuse the application.

OUTSTANDING APPLICATIONS IN LONG BRANCH

1. B11/16EYK, A95/16EYK and A96/16EYK – 9 Thirty Eighth Street- This is an application for consent with associated minor variances. Currently under review by staff.

2. B12/16EYK, A121/16EYK and A122/16EYK – 50 Thirty Sixth Street This is an application for consent with associated minor variances. Currently under review by staff.

3. B16/16EYK, A167/16EYK and A168/16EYK – 80 Twenty Third Street – This is an application for consent with associated minor variances. May 12 Meeting of COA.

4. B17/16EYK, A174/16EYK and A175/16EYK – 20 Elton Crescent – This is an application for consent with associated minor variances. Currently under review by staff.

5. A 280/16 – 32 27th Street, Application for 0.74 density from 0.35 for adding 2 storeys to single storey. May 12 meeting of COA, see attached submission. This is my personal submission. I will speak on behalf of the LBNA to have the matter deferred subject to a community meeting. All those interested should attend and be prepared to present, in case the matter is heard.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Many thanks, Jill

[The text from David Godley also provides following contact information.]

Jill Hogan

Manager, Community Planning

City Planning – Etobicoke York District

City of Toronto

2 Civic Centre Court, 3rd Floor

Toronto, ON M9C 5A3

416-394-8219

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 *

Enter Captcha Here : *

Reload Image