Councillor Mark Grimes sums it up, prior to Nov. 14, 2017 Etobicoke York Community Council vote, regarding Long Branch Character Guidelines
A previous post is entitled:
The following transcript is part of a package of links appearing at the above-noted previous post regarding the Nov. 14, 2017 meeting at which the Etobicoke York Community Council unanimously adopted the Long Branch Character Guidelines.
Before the vote, on a motion regarding the Guidelines, two Councillors – Mark Grimes (Ward 6) and Sarah Doucette (Ward 13) – spoke. The current post is devoted to Councillor Grimes’s remarks.
I have missed a few words, here and there, in my transcript of remarks by Mark Grimes, as I was not able to hear them clearly. As well, given that it’s a transcript, some errors in any transcript may occur. When time permits in future, I will double-check it.
Long Branch is a neighbourhood in south Etobicoke on the Lake Ontario waterfront: West beach at Marie Curtis Park, April 4, 2018. Jaan Pill photo. Click on image to enlarge it; click again to enlarge it further.
The transcripts are from the Etobicoke York Community Council’s Nov. 14, 2017 YouTube video, Part 2 and Part 3.
Remarks by Mark Grimes on Nov. 14, 2017, prior to vote on Guidelines motion
Councillor Grimes: Thank you, Councillor Crisanti.
So, I have a motion; I’d like to move that City Council request that the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines adopted by Council be used by homebuilders, the community, City staff, Committees and Appeal Bodies to provide direction for the decision making as they develop plans, review applications in redevelopment or enhance the public realm.
And I’ll move the Staff recommendations on top of that. So this gives it a little more teeth.
I want to thank – to start off by thanking the members of the community – many of them came forward with these issues, starting years ago – we saw the Long Branch [Neighbourhood] Association formed out of this.
But I also want to thank City staff – Sabrina Salatino did a lot of work initially to get this going, [with] James [Parakh] and his team coming in.
Comments regarding Lake Shore, from 2003 on
But I tell you, in came in in ’03 and ’04, and you know we had kind of a stagnant boulevard on Lake Shore, like the lady deputant who moved in in the seventies [said], this was supposed to be the next Beaches in the West, which I hate that term, Long Branch was a very historic name, but we did the Avenues Study, which allows a six-storey, very European storefront.
We’re starting to see the fruits of that. Arvin Meritor across the street, where the Beer Store was, that was always contemplated – we took that out of the plan. We didn’t want to force that employment out but we saw that evolving, once Arvin Meritor left and, you know, Castrol’s there, we’re protecting them, but we saw that would eventually evolve.
Through that – you see the new buildings coming in, the new retail; you heard somebody [that is, a deputant] talking about the new restaurants and shops, which people are screaming for, so we’re starting to see the fruits of Lake Shore.
Lot-splitting
But we were under siege, in Long Branch. And I tell you, there are not a lot of people lining up, at my office, in favour of lot-splitting.
There was a couple of deputants today, that do live in the community, and they’ve lived there, they’ve lived there for a long time, they’re moving forward with their [unclear].
I’m not ani-development, but we were under siege.
So, what would happen, it would go to the Committee of Adjustment. Sometimes, it would go through. We’d appeal at the OMB, and some we’d win, and some we’d lose.
What we started to do, after you sent letters to the Committee of Adjustment, the community got organized.
You’d go to the Committee of Adjustment, and they would send it back for a public consultation. We had successes with that. When the developer sat down with the community, there were some wins – not all the time. But I think these Guidelines will give us a little bit more than that.
But, you know, developers coming in, hacking out these 100-year-old trees – and, there’s good developers and bad developers, but, you know, I’m not representing the developers.
If they’re coming in and hacking out, you know – and this fired up the community. And, they were ticked off, to put it mildly.
So, I asked Planning to look at this, and I think Councillor Filion is going through the same problems I’m having – but again, this was something that forward, and I know a lot of these Councillors here go to the Committee of Adjustment, and I don’t have a lot of letters to support sever these lots.
I have six, seven – sometimes 50 names – opposed to a lot-split, building two houses.
So, I represent the community, and that is what they asked for. I brought this forward.
I know some people aren’t happy with it, but I think this is the will I have, when I have six, seven people every time, on a lot split – there are neighbours, direct neighbours, who send letters to me. That’s who I represent.
So, I want to thank Planning staff for bringing this forward, and I ask for your support, and I ask for a recorded vote.
Councillor Crisanti: Okay. So we have a request for a recorded vote. Oh. Another speaker. Councillor Doucette. [Her remarks will be the subject of the next transcript, in a separate post.\
[End of transcript featuring Councillor Grimes]
Note regarding transcripts
In posting the transcript of any speaker, I am reporting the words that were said, period.
The posting of a transcript, including for each of the deputants, does not imply a statement, one way or another, about the accuracy or validity of its contents.
The latter features are matters for each reader to assess, using fact-checking or any other means of analysis, as she or he deems appropriate.
As well, given that it’s a transcript, some errors in any transcript may occur; the source for the transcript, in the event you want to check for errors yourself, is at the Nov. 14, 2018 YouTube video, Part 2 and Part 3.
In response to a recent message, I have removed a photo from this post. I appreciate knowing the views, of the person who sent the message.