His attachments also include the jpeg image on the right.
David’s text reads:
65 Fortieth St. Urban Design Analysis. Source: David Godley
Greetings from Long Branch
1) Regional Restructuring
2) Public Participation
3) Status of Applications A TLAB, B New, C COA Hearings, D Other E Divisional Court
4) Urban Design Letter from Mayor Tory
1) REGIONAL RESTRUCTURING
The Ontario government says it has decided against pursuing a “top-down approach” and will not radically redraw the province’s regional governments after a review process that took months.
Municipal Affairs Minister Steve Clark announced Friday that instead of acting on a menu of sweeping changes – including Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie’s plea that her city become independent of Peel Region – Queen’s Park will offer up $143-million for municipalities to find new ways to lower costs and improve services.
Many in Simcoe, York, Waterloo, Peel, Oxford, Niagara, Muskoka, Halton and Durham are breathing a sigh of relief. Too late for Toronto where public participation is at a low ebb most notably at the Neighbourhood Level. Fortunately for Long Branch our Councillor has been supportive of efforts to conserve its character and helped launch the Long Branch Character of Guidelines which so far are being studiously ignored especially by the Committee of Adjustment. We will see what TLAB make of them in decisions on 65 40th and 77 35th.
2) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
About 20 years after amalgamation, Public Participation in Toronto governance is relegated to the bottom rungs of Arnstein’s ladder – amounting to non-participation and tokenism.
View and enjoy the linked video (5:05 minutes) explaining Arnstein’s Ladder of Public Participation. copy to browser if interested. Studied this in early 70s at Sheffield University!
a) January 7th and 8th 2019 (extended hearing to Oct 15,18, 24, 25) 80 39th Soldier houses 0.35 to 0.62 density, For TLAB Makuch, for Proposal Kanter/Romano.
b) January 10, 80 23rd St (extended hearing to Oct 29,30 or 31st) Soldier houses (variances only) 0.35 to 0.60. Approved by COA. Appeal by City. For Proposal Cheeseman/Cieciura.
c) January 22, 27 39th,(extended to July 23, 24, 25 and again Jan 8, 9, 10 2020) 2 storey houses (revised from soldiers) 0.35 to 0.60. For Proposal Stewart/Romano. d) February 26th and 27th 2019 (extended hearing December 4, 5 and 11), 11 Shamrock. Soldier houses 0.35 to 0.69 For Proposal Artenosi/Romano.
e) March 21, 25 and April 1 2019 (extended hearing Aug 2 , 20) 38 31st Soldier houses0.35 to 0.66. For Proposal Guglietti/ Hearing Extension December 18 and 20 2019
f) April 17th and 18th, (extended hearing July 17, 18) 99 27th St Soldier houses 0.35 to 0.94. For TLAB Yao, for Proposal Weston Consulting. Plans being revised to lower density. TLAB Chair Ted Yao. Hearing extension Jan 17, 20, 27 2020
g)Aug 6th and 7th (extended Oct 4, 21 and 22), 65 40th, (2) 2 storey houses 0.35 to 0.61 . Approved by COA and appealed by City. I was on the stand for the whole day with an hour battling to be recognised as an local area expert witness by Christine Mercado. She won. Day 6 January 22 2020. Amber Stewart and Franco Romano on the first case under the Long Branch Character Guidelines. Chair Tandulkar advised expert witness statements have to be filled out for local experts and circulated despite technical experts officially required to fill the form. My base evidence attached.
h) July 9th 10th, 77 35th,(extended to Oct 11 and 16) 2 storey semis 0.60 to 0.61 and 0.7. Approved by COA and appealed by City. City dropped appeal because of lack of planner. Neighbour Resident also appealed. LBNA a party. Case conducted by Judy Gibson. Michael Cook, Legal/ Jordan Kemp, Planning. Hearing completed.
i) Nov 19th and 20th, 74 38th, soldier house and 2 storey house 0.58, 0.59 Approved by COA and appealed by City.
j) Oct 2nd and 3rd 90 Ash Crescent, approved by COA and appealed by neighbour. Lawyer/Planner for proposal Cheeseman/Cieciura. Extended Hearing Days 3,4,5 April 20, 24 and 27. Chair Ted Yao.
k) 95 James, 2nd Storey addition (0.35 to 0.64. Approved by Committee of Adjustment. Major tree affected. Appealed by City and Neighbours led by Pat Carey. No hearing date.
l) 17 Garden Place, Soldier House (0.35 to 0.74 density). Appealed by City and Neighbours led by Chuck McWatter. No hearing date
B) New Applications
71 James Street. No information
50 Lake Promenade. Severance and Variances. No information
290 Lake Promenade. 3 storey modern. 0.35 density to 0.95. Hearing November 21.
74 39th No information
68 24th. Modern soldier house. Appears that Zoning Examiner missed density variance. Hearing November 21.
C) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT HEARINGS
COA Nov 7
95 40th Street 2 storey detached 0.35 to 0.75 density
97 40th Street, 2 storey detached 0.35 to 0.75 density
COA Nov 21
19 33rd Reduction in frontage for severance and variances. Small increase in density for one single and about 0.45 for the other.
68 24th Small reduction in frontage for severance and variances. Small increase in density for one single and about 0.45 for the other.
39 Fairfield. Illegal apartments increase from 4 to 6. Already been approved for more apartments by OMB against City and Neighbours but different design.
COA Dec 5 No hearings scheduled
D) Other Applications
36 Ash, Soldier Houses 0.35 to 0.71 Deferred
11 Garden Place, Soldier Houses 0.35 to 0.71 Deferred
46 Park Blvd. Legalising triplex with addition and affecting two healthy trees. Planning recommends refusal
39 Fairfield, no data. Postponed
29 Lake Promenade, Raising (illegally) flat roof by 0.5m. Deferred. Hearing 24 October. Approved
19-21 29th Street, 3 houses replacing 2. 2 soldier houses and a 3 storey without garage. 0.35 to 0.74, 0.75 and 1.07. (postponed for rationale)
6 41st Street. Large Deck (Oct 24th COA) Approved
16 Atherton. New house on wide lot density 0.35 to 0.43 which does not reflect traditional character. (postponed for rationale)
E) DIVISIONAL COURT (No change in status)
9 38th Street. The Divisional Court judge decided on January 31st 2019 that there was enough evidence for one of several items to go to a full hearing – procedural fairness. The issue was how a Request for a Review should be answered after a TLAB decision was overruled. A hearing is expected within months.
11 Stanley was to go before a judge on February 19 about a leave to appeal to the Divisional Court on the legal points of a decision which refused the applications. However further discussions are taking place.
15 Stanley has been the subject of a Review Request and leave to Appeal to the Divisional Court. The resident who appealed both 11 and 15 and acted independently winning both decisions at TLAB has requested that TLAB change their rules not to allow both actions to be done simultaneously. The proposal was well received by TLAB at a business meeting. A classic strategy in legal matters where it is a well resourced party against a not so well resourced party (ie personal finance) is to wear down the opposition.
If you wish to look at all the material online go to “Development Applications Toronto” then check “Committee of Adjustment” “Ward 3” “Search” and follow the cues. However the number of applications in Ward 3 has outstripped the capacity of the Applications Information Website and you cannot view the whole list of applications together.
Previous “Updates” can be found on preservedstories.com a major blog site run by Jaan Pill, formerly of Villa Road.
Submissions on applications need to be in to COA by 3pm on the Thursday before the COA meeting for inclusion in the package that is given to COA members. Submissions before 10am on the day of the hearing will be considered. E&EO. Please feel free to correct, add to or forward information Also feel free to circulate.
4) URBAN DESIGN SUPPORT FROM MAYOR TORY
September 30, 2019 Chair and Members Planning and Housing Committee City Hall100 Queen Street WestToronto, ON M5H 2N2 (PH 9-4)
Dear Chair and Members:
Re: Focusing on Building Design Improvements
Summary Toronto is a global centre for architectural, planning and design talent. However, the city hasn’t always tapped into these vast resources as effectively as we could. With these initiatives and several others I am interested in pursing, I hope to unlock and activate architects, landscape architects, planners and students in these disciplines to help build a more beautiful and engaging city. This summer, my office along with Deputy Mayor Bailao and Councillor Bradford hosted a meeting of international talent from the development, architecture and planning communities to help generate ideas to shape a city we can be proud of. We learned from this meeting that we must consider design in our policy development and procurement and, employ open and transparent competitions whenever possible. The international design competition for the Etobicoke Civic Centre and the Design Review Panel were pointed to as an examples of where the city got it right. With these recommendations in this letter I hope we can expand on our successes and build a culture within the City that embraces the best this city and the world have to offer.
The Design Review Panel represents some of Toronto’s leading designers, architects and landscape architects who volunteer their time to help guide significant developments in our city. We must review the Panel’s mandate and give the experts on the panel a chance to regularly report publically so that we can learn from their expert opinions. Finally, we know that we must look for ways to add density to low-rise residential areas in a way that will enhance neighbourhoods and be embraced by neighbours. To do this effectively we have to ensure new zoning regulations and guidelines are aesthetically exciting as well as functional. I am calling for an open ideas competition to gather the ideas from the public and particularly students, young designers and experts to help us shape the new, more permissive policies Council will consider.
1.City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning include in its upcoming report to the Planning and Housing Committee on the Missing Middle, a plan for a public design competition in order to solicit ideas that could help shape policies for more permissive zoning in areas designated as neighbourhoods in Toronto’s Official Plan.
2.City Council request the Board of CreateTO work with the CEO of CreateTO in order to employ open and international design competitions for major and transformational projects in which it is the lead developer.
3.City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning, as part of existing and ongoing consultations in recently developed higher density neighbourhoods, include questions that solicit feedback on the cumulative impact of design guidelines and policies on the daily lives of residents.
4.City Council invite the Chair of the Design Review Panel to provide an annual letter to Planning and Housing Committee to summarize any relevant observations, suggestions and themes in the applications the panel has reviewed.
5.City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning to work with the Chair of the Design Review Panel to review the mandate of the panel and make recommendations for revision, and report to the Planning and Housing Committee in Q2 2021. John Tory Mayor of Toronto