Conserving Long Branch July 2017 Part 2 including TLAB Mis-steps (David Godley)

Following message is from David Godley. I am late in posting it.

Attachment:

tlab rile&p

CONTENTS

1) Toronto Local Appeal Board

2) Recent COA decisions

3) Outstanding Committee of Adjustment Applications

4) Toronto Local Appeal Board

5) OMB Hearings

6) 39 27th Street, Tree

1) Toronto Local Appeal Board

TLAB are ripping off pretty well every local taxpayer by denying them access to planning appeals through stealth.

Residents are the greatest stakeholders in this process and will not be able to defend their quality of life due to convoluted, time-limited early disclosure.

It took me 40 hours of research to register as participant within the 3 week time frame, 2 if you receive regular mail. This appears to be deliberate to shorten hearings.

IT IS A MASS DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT EVERY POLITICIAN IS GOING TO FEEL UNTIL IT IS CORRECTED.

SUMMARY

TLAB’s rules and procedures are (1) grossly unfair to the general public who are most impacted by appeal decisions, (2) they are much worse than the OMB’s protocol and (3) are awash with bureaucratic red tape.

Letter from Ian Lord, Chair TLAB, Response re 9 38th Street Hearing, Oct 13 ‘17

17 165408 S45 06 TLAB July 9 2017

Dear Mr Lord,

I was delighted to receive this letter promptly and note its professional tone and the number of issues addressed.

I am glad some of my points have been helpful in the short term and that further consideration will be given to them in Spring of 2018 at TLAB’s public meeting..

Clearly there is not going to be a meeting of the minds on the fundamental issues but the response was most helpful in gaining insights.

I have annotated your letter dated 6 July 2017 with comment. Much of it was referred to in my July 4 2017 letter. While I do not wish to harm any relationships, I think strong words help to illustrate points.

Nothing in the letter changes my views that TLAB’s current rules and procedures.

(1) they are grossly unfair to the general public who are most impacted by appeal decisions,

(2) they are much worse than the OMB’s pre-hearing process protocol

(3) they are awash with bureaucratic red tape.

Reading between the lines I feel that rather than minimising public input being a by-product of early disclosure, that it is actually an aim. This aligns with the emphasis on efficiency rather than efficacy and lack of empathy for the public which surprised me.

The rules seem to be based on what is good for lawyers and lots of extra work will be needed around formal submissions and motions. This will be more expensive for the applicant, the City, and anyone else involved and time consuming and challenging for any citizen to follow. The Applicant and the City between them have filed about 100 entries for 174 Milvan, Etobicoke York’s first hearing. This is too onerous. For 9 38th Street there are two City lawyers instead of one.

The process is highly legalistic unlike the OMB which is highly legalistic in their decisions (they mostly ignore citizen evidence on how the community is valued and how they will be affected). This is not surprising since most hearing officers know little of urban design and planning and basically take the development planner’s point of view. This is despite being obvious to most that the development planner has a financial conflict of interest and gives irrational evidence perhaps because of their ignorance of urban design, the third dimension. Their evidence in the hearings I have attended has been false. Planning Department evidence cannot be relied on because of the inconsistency over time and while they may have urban design sympathy are not fully familiar with evaluation of neighbourhood character. (9 Meaford). 9 Meaford had little to do with land use and everything to do with urban design. Despite having qualified urban design staff no expertise is included in Planning Department comments. This is the same with the Official Plan where Strategic Planning staff has different views but no input into Planning comments. Over half the Official Plan’s policies are about urban design. The resultant hearings are basically the blind leading the blind. Also no 3D information or façade comparison with abutting street houses is not used, something essential for most people to comprehend the issue. If a good planning decision is rendered it is usually by accident. This was where it was hoped TLAB would step in and correct the huge imbalance between stakeholders. Generally the OMB values maximisation of profit over the valid concerns of those people most affected.

Instead the rules and procedures have increased the imbalance by having an unfair pre-hearing process. Unfair processes pave the way to poor planning. Compromising good planning for efficiency and timing will permanently reduce quality of life across the City.

In effect the current TLAB rules and procedures are a severe detriment to sound planning

The process clearly contravenes Official Plan policy on implementation. Policy 5.5

They breach the City’s Code of Conduct because they are contradictory to policies

That means an Integrity Commission inquiry would find the Rules and Procedures wanting.

They are discriminatory against the general population by placing often insuperable barriers for participation. They exclude almost all the general public (except the most able citizens) from participation. The only practical way citizens become organised is just prior to the hearing.

Citizens that do become participants become victims of being forced into a process involuntarily in order to protect themselves. They will have their lives dislocated.

They remove rights to defend enjoyment of property

They cost the City more through greater legal time and effort which in turn mean increases taxes.

They have the effect of maximising profit for the applicant and harming the general public;

They give greater power to the powerful and create a feast for lawyers in particular.

They put politicians in an impossible bind because their constituents will want to defend their valid concerns and there will be no way to help. Politicians have had their best intentions in creating TLAB thwarted. As well the electorate will be shafted.

They are an affront to natural justice and an assault on democracy.

Since the OMB pre hearing process works well, it should be followed by TLAB.

Basically the information is on file from the Committee of Adjustment.

Since TLAB is unwilling or unable to suspend the rules unilaterally I have asked City Legal to do this by motion as soon as possible. Accepting this motion would overcome the problem of the many I anticipate wish to participate in this hearing. Rule 2.10 makes it look simple.

Relief and Exceptions to the Rules

2.10

The Local Appeal Body may grant all necessary exceptions to these Rules, or grant other relief as it considers appropriate, to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate matters before it in a just, expeditious and cost effective manner.

Otherwise it has to be done by political means.

As a retired planner with lots of experience in this field I hope to bring a unique neighbourhood perspective to the process in general and to this hearing. I consider myself a friend to the Board.

I have attached my background in planning and urban design.

Sincerely, David Godley

PS It may even be against the constitution as well!

Date: July 6th, 2017

To:

Mr. David Godley

401 Lake Promenade

Toronto, M8W 1C3

Delivered via email: mhairig@pathcom.com

RE: Email Correspondence received July 4th, 2017

Dear Mr. Godley:

The Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) Secretary has forwarded your email correspondence, sent to various persons, dated July 4, 2017, for review.

Insofar as the compilation of material included relates to a specific file matter, I can have no comment. Matters that are to be adjudicated rest with the assigned Member. It would be inappropriate for me to comment; however, insofar as your request to have the material considered on behalf of TLAB, it is noted as received together with this response and that of the Secretary. Communications that are not inclusive of the parties, the Applicant and the Appellant are not generally posted to the public website and do not form part of the TLAB File. Concur

The ‘Recommendations’ in the correspondence are addressed as best I am able at this stage, as Chair; some of the matters can best be pursued by TLAB where a discussion is warranted, in a public meeting. TLAB Members are obliged to meet publically to discuss matters of significance to all Members. Good

In the 11 pages accompanying your email matters are raised that are, variously, constructive, critical, political, commentary, requests, questions, statements of fact or supposition, as well as providing personal opinion and assessment. Concur

I respectfully decline comment on comparisons between practices, attitudes, jurisprudence or perceptions as between TLAB and the Ontario Municipal Board. These entities are independent of each other. With some commonalities, each is directed and constrained by separate applicable legislation, regulations, Rules and governing constitutional documents and oversight vehicles. In the case of TLAB these include in addition: Council’s constituting instruction on the holding of public meetings and its requisite procedural bylaw and the employment of an all-electronic process, for appeal resolution. TLAB, as well, is cognizant of oversight by institutional instruments such as the City Code of Conduct, Office of the Integrity Commissioner, Court Services responsibilities and the Statement of Principles required of the tribunal. Noted 2 of 7

That said, it is appreciated that these and our own Rules and Forms create in your appreciation the appearance of an overly cumbersome and litigious process to address Planning Act appeals.

I can agree that TLAB did take legal counsel on drafting its Rules. The matters addressed in the TLAB Rules are those specified to be addressed by an Ontario Regulation under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. TLAB tweaked the OMB and other Rules of Procedure within the context of the Members appreciation that:

a) Disputes between neighbors can become overly contentious and every effort should be bent to their timely resolution emphasizing alternative dispute resolution within the framework that finality is a hallmark of administrative justice; Support mediation. Anyone involved in a severance mediations knows that it rarely works; much more successful for variances. Good decisions are more important in planning and timing has not been an issue.

b) Justice delayed is justice denied. A lengthy interval between an appeal and an appeal decision serves no party or participant. People lose interest, events change, memories fade, penalties can be incurred, reasons of convenience intercede and timeliness yields procedural consequences and incurs unnecessary expense. Concur

c) Every person with an interest must be provided the opportunity to participate within the statutory scheme, limited only by relevance and repetition. The opportunity to participate is severely restricted by the rules. Only those who have the resources, skills, omnipresence and tenacity of a legal office have the opportunity. The process is a mass of duplication and red tape and costs the City and taxpayer much more to be involved. This is the crunch issue – denial of justice by the process.

d) Moving to an all-electronic format, while requiring the potential of a learning curve for parties, participants, the public and the Members, can also dramatically advance exposure, notoriety, timeliness, connectivity, cost reduction – all the while providing instantaneous file access without the need for surface deliveries, repetitive attendances, reproduction costs, witness meetings, delays, challenges and other risks associated with multiple pre-trial processes. Agree but this is unrelated to having the rules and procedures.

e) Appeals before the OMB revealed almost universal modifications to plans and variances sought at the late stage of Hearing commencement. Parties and participants who had prepared their positions based on the material before the Committee of Adjustment, were faced with changed circumstances and settlements not revealed. This dislocation of effort and resources, angst and cost was instructed by TLAB members to be remedied by the mandatory requirement of an Applicants’ Disclosure up front, early and while the matter on appeal from the Committee of Adjustment is fresh in the minds of those interested. The up front disclosure just adds to elimination, as far as possible of public input and creates duplication as the matters have to be revisited before the hearing. Strongly agree that changes should not be made at the hearing and this has been a problem. This can be a general rule that no change be made 30 days before a hearing.

f) However many Rules and Forms that there are, Members insisted on the flexibility to ensure that individual hardship be able to be addressed and eliminated by a Member in the context of a process that is open to all. As such, the Rules provide for the on-line filing and service of Motions that can request any form of relief and any form of Hearing, written, oral or electronic; Members are open and free on principles of fairness to grant relief in warranted circumstances that are made known by service, even where not presented on consent. Good but this is open only to parties.Residents are extremely reluctant to be parties because of financial consequences and that they are entering a process that they know nothing about.

g) Hearing premises are fixed relatively central to the geography of the municipality with arguably the best public transit resources available, at Yonge/Eglinton. Understand the logistics.

3 of 7

TLAB drafted, exposed and set its Rules and Forms in place in the open and public process that it was required to follow.

The Rules and Forms were drafted from the perspective of equality to all. They do not target or penalize but rather, just the opposite, provide public access to the Hearing process at little or no cost to the individual, other than the filing fee of the Appellant. Attended such open sessions with which I was impressed. Suggest that a radical change of process with radical implications should have been dealt with at a community meeting. . Do not concur that the rules do not target and penalise. That is untrue as we can tell from the 9 38th case.

Your suggestion of ways and means to avoid completing multiple, repetitive Forms applicable to relief on a single property is excellent and has been put under immediate consideration. Your comments respecting the assistance received from TLAB Staff are much appreciated. Thank you

As well, TLAB has undertaken to review its documents in a public meeting by the spring of 2018, with a view to their improvement. At a minimum, your correspondence raises issues that are now added to that commentary, for review.

I can tell you that for the vast majority of files currently being scheduled for Motions and Hearings, compliance is being demonstrated by parties, participants and persons with interests. It is noted that the PDF and signature requirements are of concern; you have acknowledged that a fax of the relevant material somewhat solves those issues. The Secretary advises that the citizen that you reference having difficulty has, in fact, submitted her material well within the period and manner specified in the Rules. Thank goodness after all the confusion, bewilderment, stress and still with another deadline looming for issues while she is away.

At its core, the TLAB process is intended to be focused, expeditious, fair, inexpensive and timely:

i) Hearing appointments are to be set, generally, with five (5) days of the receipt of an appeal; Efficient
ii) Pre-hearing disclosure of applicant revisions, identification of interests, document disclosure and Hearing appointment are all to be set, disclosed and conducted within an approximate three (3) month period; these are on-line Forms in the main, but can be printed, faxed or delivered in completed form. The forms do not work on some computers (mine) as some browsers (as advised by your competent staff) as they appear to have been manipulated from regular pdfs. This is part of the reason it took me 40 hours before I could manage to register.
iii) Decisions are to be focused, timely and fairly determined, on the basis of both professional and lay opinion evidence. Glad to see that the lay evidence is mentioned. Unless those most affected have unfettered access to giving their views the proceedings will not be fair or have good results. Every conceivable barrier appears to have been out in the way for citizen involvement.

Fair and unbiased dispositions are the intended deliverable on all TLAB decision matters.

The Secretary has responded to your specific requests:

1. TLAB will not ‘suspend’ its Rules on participation deadlines generally; such are not proving to be unworkable.
2. If specific File relief is requested, the vehicle to advance this to consideration is by Motion of a Party.
3. TLAB has been provided temporary and permanent space at 40 Orchard View Boulevard as the setting for its Hearing sittings. These premises have and are being fitted out for on-site Staff and the electronic adaptations, recording and audio/visual equipment necessary to provided recordings of the proceedings. This suite of elements is not fully available at former council locations; they are,

4 of 7

however, adequate for the required TLAB Public Meetings, and have been so used.

Noted

Further, I enclose the TLAB response to SERRA which may be of some help in preparation. Your letter referenced the cost obligations of ‘party’ status. I hope the attached alleviates some of the concerns expressed about representation costs at TLAB Hearings. The Law Society Act does not require a license for officers and employees of represented corporations; as such, representation may not necessarily require recourse to counsel, depending on circumstances.

I hope this is helpful. This is helpful, thank you.

Thank you for your continuing review and comments on TLAB and related matters.

I appreciate the time and effort that has been put in preparing this letter.

Sincerely

XIan LordChair, Toronto Local Appeal BodySigned by: Ian Lord

Attached is original letter

2) Recent COA decisions

22 33rd Street, Variances for semis 0.60 density to 0.69. Consent already appealed by owner to OMB. Refused

38 36th Street. 3 storey soldier houses 0.35 density to 0.70. Refused . See comments below.

51 Elder, 3 storey house density 0.35 to 0.98. Approved June 29 COA.

Outstanding Committee of Adjustment Applications

90 Ash Crescent. Severance and variances. Postponed

14 Atherton Crescent. Variance. Second Story Addition 0.35 to 0.51 density

59 31st Street. Variance. no details. 24 August COA

56 31st Street. Variance. Soldier house 0.35 to 0.55 density. 24 August COA

31 25th Street. 2 storey house, 0.35 to 0.59 density. 27 July COA

76 33rd Street. Severance/variances. Soldier Houses 0.35 to 0.67 density. 26 October COA

15 38th Street. severance and variances. Soldier houses 0.35 to 0.70, October 26 COA

70 36th Street. severance and variances. Soldier Houses 0.35 to 0.67 density, Oct 26 COA
27 39th Street. Severance and variances. Soldier House 0.35 to 0.98 density. 23 November COA

38 31st Street. Severance and variances. No details.

15 24th Street. Variance. Postponed.

PREVIOUS

62 30th St. 3 storey modern 0.35 density to 0.84 (Deferred COA April)

32 36th Street, 3 storey buildings, soldier houses 0.35 to 0.91 density. Far too high a density. If 30 32nd is approved a new area of character destruction will be started. (Deferred April COA) No hearing date.

32 28th St 2 storey 0.35 density to 0.70 on corner lot. Deferred for Community Meeting. 24 August COA

11 James Street. Severance variances. No further details. 26 October COA8 Branch Avenue. Classic split for 2 soldier houses, 0.35 density to 0.98 (very high) plus increase in height 31 feet to 37 feet. 24 August COA

75 James Street. Genuine minor variance, detached house from 0.35 to 0.41 density. 27 July COA

31 Fairfield Road. increase in density from 0.35 to 0.63. 29 June COA

75 25th. No information posted No hearing date

31 25th 2 storey house No other information posted COA 27 July

32 36th Soldier houses 0.81 and 0.91 density. Deferred at COA on Planning Advice. No hearing date
11 Garden Place Soldier Houses 0.35 to 0.71 density. Deferred
10 Lake Promenade, 2 soldier houses density 0.35 to 0.59 in a solid area of 50 feet wide lots. 28 Sep COA

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

4) Toronto Local Appeal Board

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

This is Long Branch ‘s first appeal to TLAB. Hearing October 13 2017. Deadline for registering as party or participant 11 July 2017. Deadline for issues August 8 2017. The digital application process is not working and there are problems with the whole Early Disclosure Process. See above TLAB . This is highly unfortunate as TLAB promised to be a significant improvement over the pro development, anti residents OMB. That is until the 9 Meaford decision.

5) OMB Hearings

14 Villa Road, July 17 2017. Severance and variances for Soldier houses (3 story, double density or near on narrow (usually 25 feet frontage) lot. PL170039
Good Luck to Villa Road Residents for their hearing on Monday

80 Twenty Third Street, January 4 2017. Decision to approve severance but deny variances. Same hearing officer as 30 36th with same decision. PL160622

68 Daisy Avenue, 73 4 storey townhouse units, February 24 2017. Prehearing Conference for 1 day held. Hearing Day 10 October 2017

82 Twenty Seventh Street, March 21 2017 Awaiting Decision PL161006

9 Meaford , April 11 2017 No planner on board. Awaiting Decision. Refused PL161048

5 Ramsgate, 16 May 2017 Awaiting Decision PL161257

24 33rd, 1/2 May 2017 No planner on board Approved PL161073

22 33rd Street. Appeal of consent only after COA refusal. A new application has been submitted for semis instead of singles which is likely to be appealed to TLAB. (see above)

55 Long Branch Avenue. Doubling density of existing house and blocking sun, light and viewsfrom their rear garden. Appealed by owners to the north who were away for a couple of weeks with the notice delivered after they went away and decision made before they returned. No comments from Planning. Community have put them in touch with planner and lawyer. Hearing 14 September 2017. PL170469

30 38th Street, 27 June 2017 No planner on board. Awaiting Decision

34 27th, Appeal by City dismissed due to lack of City Approval to appeal. PL161254. Approved

40 37th Street, 18 April Awaiting Decision PL161248.

6) 39 27th Street, Tree

Eileen,

I couldn’t agree with you more on all that you wrote. Especially how devastating this is! I am still having trouble believing that they would do this.

Do you know if the trees in the backyard are coming down today, as well??? Do you know if you would get a response from media if someone chained themselves to the tree???

Jolene

———- Original Message ———-
From: Eileen Mokorich <eileen.mokorich@hotmail.com>
Date: July 12, 2017 at 11:21 AM

Dear Mr Godley

This is devastating! The owner originally assured the neighbours that the

tree would not come down. The COA needs to have full disclosure in the letters that are mailed out.Had we known this ,we would have attended the April 6th hearing.

The COA receives these recommendations & then blatantly ignores them.This group

collectively ignores every recommendation and approves every developer’s plan.

This is far from democratic & action needs to be taken to oust this dangerous group.

The wood from this tree is extremely valuable and will be put in a wood chipper.

At the very least it should be recycled! If anyone knows anyone that can salvage the wood,act now.This wood is probably worth over $40,000.

We need media coverage to do an expose on our area & expose these developers

for their greed. They are tearing down our neighbourhood,piece by piece.The mayor needs to step forward and get laws on place to protect our best interests.The system

is seriously FLAWED!

I emailed Global News & they did not get back to me. Tried unsuccessfully

to reach the Etobicoke Guardian. Maybe you will have some success.

Enough is clearly enough!

People are burning out fighting this uphill battle EVERY DAY!

We desperately need immediate help here !

Eileen Mokorich

Good Morning Ms. Eileen Mokorich:

First of all thank you very much for expressing concerns for the protection of the trees in the neighbourhood.

I found couple of communications between you and tree protection and plan review staff regarding this application. I had a phone conversation yesterday with Ms. Jolene Casella, copied and advised about the process of tree removal request under the Committee of Adjustment applications and tree by law requirements.

Urban forestry received a request for comments from the committee of adjustment, staff attended the site and did provide comments to the Committee of the adjustment prior the public hearing. A stand-alone memo have been sent to the committee of adjustment, Urban forestry objected to the requested variances. Please find attached copy of the memo for your convenience.

The applicant did provide the notice of decision and final & biding letter to our office together with the completed application to remove trees. Urban forestry staff did review the application, did try to protect the private tree in the front advising the applicant to provide a tree protection plan how can develop the project and retain the tree. The applicant owner did provide the revised arborist report dated June 7, 2017 and wanted to remove the tree because the tree is in direct conflict with the proposed plan. The tree is less than 1.5 metre from the required location of an underground sewage (waste water)line. The sewage line must be 1.2 m from the utility lines. Alternative locations are not feasible.

Under § 813-18. Issuance of permits.

The General Manager is authorized to issue permits where:

B. Despite § 813-17C the General Manager may issue permits to injure or destroy healthy trees where: [Amended 2013-02-21 by By-law No. 248-2013]

(5) Injury or destruction is required for trees specifically identified for injury or removal on plans approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, City Council or a final and binding decision of the Committee of Adjustment.

According to chapter 813.18. B (5) Urban forestry issued the permit to remove two private trees at the rear and one private tree at the front conditional that nine new large growing trees will be planted on the site.

Please call me at 416 394 8551 if you have question or need additional information.

Regards,

Max

From: David Godley <mhairig@pathcom.com>
Sent: July 12, 2017 11:41 AM
To: Mayor Tory
Cc: Eugene Knapik; suzanne@suzannebrown.ca; Christine Hannan; Eileen Mokorich; Jolene Casella; Rose MacLeod; Sharon Heaney; Susan and Andy TeohCholes; Svetlana Verbitsky; Brian Liberty; Michael Mizzi; Jennifer Keesmaat; Adam D’Amico; Max Dida; Daniel Fleming
Subject: Re: Tree Removal at # 39 Twenty Seventh St Etobicoke File # A0088/ 17 EYK

The Committee of Adjustment is not doing their job.

Forestry objected.A simple condition to keep this tree would have sufficed. The owner would have had to pay extra for diverting a drain. The owner acted entirely with the law.

Unfortunately, recently, the Committee are doing nearly everything possible to destroy the character of Long Branch.

They constantly undermine the policies in the Official Plan and ignore the zoning bylaw.

Over the last 5 years the neighbourhood has lost about 50 important trees unnecesarily due to intensification which according to Strategic Planning is against the OP.

The Forestry Department appears to be understaffed. Arthur Beauregard , a manager is on record basically as saying intensification is the enemy of the tree canopy.

That is partly the reason intensification is not supposed to happen in Neighbourhoods. The Provincial policies have nothing to do with these cases despite what the financially conflicted development planners say.

Approving severances with double density and often 3 storeys is an insult to the people of Toronto.

A sad day for Long Branch and Toronto and another example showing Toronto is the City that does not work.

David
Hello All,

I have met Rose MacLeod the next door neighbour, Jolene who stood in front of the tree to prevent its early demise and the owner Chrystine’s son who grew up with the beautiful front yard walnut tree son to be destroyed.

Nobody objected to the redevelopment of the house as they were told the tree would remain. The trees roots are penetrating the basement according to the owner’s son. However the root system is much larger and only about an eighth if you consider the crown overlaps

the root system. If the rear trees (another 2 walnuts are to be destroyed) the house could be pushed further back and Rose would prefer that than lose the tree.

The permits are issued but the trees are not legally to come down until a building permit is issued. This is a technical matter.

As Jolene says the only avenue for neighbours is to appeal to the owners better instincts which she intends to do.

Jolene also mentioned that committee should be making recommendations on condition that the trees to which Urban Forestry recommended keeping remain.

Frankly I am so disgusted with the thoughtlessness and lack of comprehension of their role that I have asked the Integrity Commission to investigate.

This concerns Gulli (most of all) Michael Clark from the Toronto East York panel, Smithies and Ted Edmonds.

The City’s tree policy is to increase the tree canopy from 25% to 40%. The policy is also that the neighbourhood’s character be respected and reinforced.

Not to follow City policy is breaking the code of conduct.

The densities are far to high to be considered minor and Committee Members are not permitted to take the market into account.,clearly stated in a recent OMB decision on 30 36th PL160520.

I have copied both the Sec Treas of the Committee of Adjustment and Adam at the Integrity Commission.

Can someone tell me when the Committee considered the variances for redevelopment so I can see which members supported this.

Karma Trees are I believe married to the Etobicoke Lakeshore Press which published an article about how owners should not be worried about selling to developers who want to split lots.

They (Roger) would not publish the counter arguments.

We need a tree group to keep watch on the neighbourhood and monitor all COA applications which affect trees like I do with severances. In fact I can give early warnings when reviewing planning.

Any press coverage is a big plus as the underhanded ways of killing trees is expanding. Urban Forestry should have double the staff as should most other departments. The Low tax regime of Harris, Harper and Tory is impeding Toronto’s potential as Joe Berridge, one of Toronto’s most respected planner’s. sorry if I have stepped on anyone’s political toes.

Long Branch was abused by the OMB, now it seems to be the Committee of Adjustment.

Whhile the new TLAB board to whom appeals will go have started off with a malor misstep trying to minimise or eliminate public input there is still hope for some sanity in Planning.

Enjoy the summer! David

On 10/07/2017 3:57 PM, Sharon Heaney wrote:
Adding a couple more worried neighbours to this thread.

I am especially concerned about the comment made in the email response I received from Forestry that stated that the tree is “in direct conflict with where the service connections have to be in place”.

To me, this just seems to be the latest clever way for developers to get around the rules about removing healthy trees.

The existing house already has all of its service connections in place! Builders should be required to revise the locations of the service connections in their building plans to accommodate the trees.

The whole community is really upset about this one. It’s just one more example of a very troubling trend.

Sharon Heaney

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:44 PM, David Godley <mhairig@pathcom.com> wrote:
Maybe rthur has retired as his mail bounced back so have copied other Urban Foresters. D

On 10/07/2017 3:38 PM, David Godley wrote:
Hi Suzanne,

Thanks for being so concerned about the trees in Long Branch.

They seem to be dropping like flies.

Eugene has a similar concern about the dying tree in front of 2 27th.

I am copying CCFEW aand LBNA and Arthur Beauregard of Forstry to see if they can help.

David

On 10/07/2017 12:59 PM, Suzanne Brown and Associates wrote:
Any suggestions???

The latest fight! See below.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Sharon Heaney <sharonlheaney@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: URGENT – Attempted Tree Removal at 39 – 27th Street
To: tpprwest <tpprwest@toronto.ca>
Cc: Eileen Mokorich <eileen.mokorich@hotmail.com>, Daniel Fleming <Daniel.Fleming@toronto.ca>, Max Dida <Max.Dida@toronto.ca>

Kalliopi,

Are you able to confirm that one of the walnuts on the permit is the one at the front of the lot?

And, if it is, is it likely or possible that the location of the “service connections” was deliberately planned so that the tree would need to be removed? This would seem to be a way for developers to flout the “rules” about removing healthy trees.

This particular tree is enormous and absolutely stunning and to have it taken down (especially after the home owners assured the community that it would remain in place) will be another blow to a neighbourhood that has already seen too many trees destroyed.

Regards,

Sharon

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:54 AM, tpprwest <tpprwest@toronto.ca> wrote:
Good Morning,

The committee of adjustment approved construction, the home owners were granted permits to remove 3 walnut trees as they were in conflict with construction, and one was in direct conflict with where service connections have to be put in place.

Eileen I emailed this information on both July 5th and July 7th to the email you used to contact us, were those emails not received? If not, let me know and I will forward them to you again.

Enjoy your week everyone,

Kalliopi

Parks, Forestry & Recreation

Tree Protection & Plan Review Section – West District, Urban Forestry

City of Toronto

Etobicoke Civic Centre

399 The West Mall, Main Floor – North Block

Toronto, Ontario M9C 2Y2

Main Number: 416-338-6596, Fax: 416-394-8935

tpprwest@toronto.ca

From: Sharon Heaney [mailto:sharonlheaney@gmail.com]
Sent: July-10-17 11:45 AM
To: Eileen Mokorich <eileen.mokorich@hotmail.com>
Cc: tpprwest <tpprwest@toronto.ca>; Daniel Fleming <Daniel.Fleming@toronto.ca>; Councillor Grimes <Councillor_Grimes@toronto.ca>
Subject: URGENT – Attempted Tree Removal at 39 – 27th Street

Kalliopi,

I am writing on behalf of Eileen Mokorich and all of the other concerned neighbours on 27th Street.

This morning there was an attempt to remove the enormous, beautiful, black walnut tree in the front of 39 – 27th Street.

It was our understanding that this tree would protected. In fact, the owners of the property had assured us that they would not be felling it.

This is of enormous concern to residents here as we have lost so many of our wonderful trees.

Are you able to provide us with a status update, urgently, please?

Many thanks,

Sharon Heaney

3 Jasmine Avenue (at the corner of Jasmine and 27th Street)

416-252-5600