impact of residential intensification on urban forest in ... · the urban forest is subjected to...

Impact of Residential Intensification on Urban Forest in the Long Branch Neighbourhood,

Toronto

By: Jacqueline De Santis

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Forest

Conservation

John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design

University of Toronto

J. De Santis 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... 4

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... 6

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 7

OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................. 8

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 9

City of Toronto Planning and Development Policy ................................................................ 9

City of Toronto Tree Protection Policy ................................................................................ 12

Recent City Council Decisions Pertaining to Long Branch, Development and Tree

Protection .............................................................................................................................. 14

Implications of Development on Tree Protection and Condition ......................................... 15

METHODS ................................................................................................................................. 16

Study Site .............................................................................................................................. 16

Tree Canopy Cover Loss Assessment................................................................................... 17

Tree Condition: Field Data from Neighbourwoods© Tree Inventory .................................. 21

Quantity of Applications and Community Involvement ....................................................... 21

The Planning Process ............................................................................................................ 22

RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 22

Measurements of Canopy Cover Loss and Potential Loss.................................................... 22

Tree Condition on Severed Lots and the Adjacent Properties .............................................. 23

Number of Consent and Related Minor Variance Applications Annually ........................... 23

Number of Hours Invested by Community into COA and Appeal Process ......................... 26

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 26

Development, Canopy Loss and Tree Condition .................................................................. 26

Procedural Inadequacies ....................................................................................................... 27

What About Communities with Restricted Resources? ........................................................ 29

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 30

LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................ 31

Appendix 1: Document list ing consent and related minor variance applications

in Long Branch, received from City Planning department (2012 to July 10, 2018)

....................................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix 2: Consent and related minor variance applications in Long Branch,

updated November 20, 2019 ................................................................................................. 39

Appendix 3: Summary of total minor variance/consent applicat ions submitted

per year, Long Branch, Toronto (2012 -2019) ................................................................. 45

Appendix 4: Summary of Committee of Adjustment process for minor variances

and consent applications ....................................................................................................... 46

Appendix 5: Key Steps in the TLAB process ................................................................. 47

J. De Santis 3

Appendix 6: List of select forms required for TLAB appeal process (City of Toronto, 2019f)48

Appendix 7: Reports for Action and Motions pertaining to tree protection in

Long Branch submitted to ci ty council ............................................................................. 49

Appendix 8: COA applications with Urban Forestry Conditions from Report for

Action made by the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, 2017 ..... 50

Appendix 9: Properties in Long Branch for which consent and related minor

variance applicat ions submitted multiple times ............................................................. 51

Appendix 10: List of properties excluded from canopy analysis ............................................. 52

Appendix 11: Neighbourwoods© quick reference guide: crown defol iat ion and

weak or yellow fol iage and conflicts with structures (Kenney & Puric -

Mladenovic, 2019) .................................................................................................................. 53

Appendix 12: Infographic summarizing the COA/TLAB process with or without

an engaged community to appeal COA decisions .......................................................... 54

Appendix 13: City of Toronto, Urban Forestry, Committee of Adjustments

Procedure (updated July 16, 2019) .................................................................................... 55

J. De Santis 4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Provincial and municipal legislation that empowers and informs the COA and TLAB

procedures for consents and related minor variance applications ................................................ 12

Figure 2: Long Branch neighbourhood boundary ......................................................................... 17 Figure 3: Number of redeveloped properties and associated adjacent properties digitized in

canopy analysis ............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 4: Number of applications not approved; the number of properties with canopy digitized

to show potential tree cover susceptible to loss ............................................................................ 20

Figure 5: Total consent and related minor variance applications submitted annually in Long

Branch, Toronto ............................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 6: Committee of adjustment applications and decisions, Long Branch, Toronto (2012-

2019) ............................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 7: Ontario Municipal Board and Toronto Local Appeal Body Appeals, Long Branch,

Toronto (2012-2019) ..................................................................................................................... 25

J. De Santis 5

ABSTRACT

The impact residential intensification has on tree canopy cover in urban landscapes is a

pressing environmental issue. Trees have been widely recognized as important ecological

features for climate change and are especially important in urban landscapes for their carbon

sequestration capacity, cooling effects and improvement of air quality. However, in the City of

Toronto, residential densification and the associated tree removals continue to be approved

through the planning and development application process in spite of municipal tree protection

policies. To understand the impacts of development approvals and the piecemeal land use

planning approach to urban tree canopy, the Long Branch neighbourhood of Toronto was used as

a case study to address three objectives. First, the extent of canopy loss across individual

properties approved for redevelopment between 2012 and 2018 was analyzed using digitization

of high-resolution images in Google Earth. The results showed that 56% of tree cover was lost

on lots following redevelopment. Second, the condition of trees on redeveloped lots and adjacent

properties was assessed using Neighbourwoods© field data from 2018 and 2019. The results

showed no indication of stress on the trees inventoried, however further monitoring over time is

recommended. Third, the yearly number of development applications and approvals, and the role

of the active, engaged community in appealing approvals to prevent tree cover loss was

examined. The high number of approved redevelopment projects in Long Branch have allowed

for a reduction in the neighbourhood’s tree canopy. The community invests immense amounts of

time into disputing redevelopment projects through the formalized municipal process, which is

quite complex and lacks sufficient consideration of tree retention. Based on these findings, it is

highly recommended that the City’s piecemeal land use planning process and its impact on tree

canopy be reevaluated.

J. De Santis 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to extend her sincere gratitude to Dr. Danijela Puric-Mladenovic

for her unending advice, support and guidance throughout the development of this project. The

author would also like to thank her external supervisors, Dr. Andrew Kenney, Senior Lecturer

Emeritus, University of Toronto and Ms. Judy Gibson, Vice Chair of the Long Branch

Neighbourhood Association, for offering invaluable feedback and assistance with the project. A

huge thank you to interns Lucas Udvarnoky, Sarah Heitz, Nicole Bitter, Christian Nario and

Michelle Sarmiento for their hard work assisting with the 2019 Neighbouwoods© data

collection. Thank you to Long Branch residents Sheila and Fraser for their immense generosity

over the summer, allowing the author and the interns use of their living room as a meeting area, a

storage space for equipment, an office on rainy days and a place to eat lunches. Thank you to

Christine Oldnall, Program Standards & Development Officer in the Tree Protection and Plan

Review department of Urban Forestry with the City of Toronto, for providing information about

the City’s role in reviewing COA files. Finally, thank you to Shannon MacDonald for assisting

with setting up the software for data collection this past summer.

The project is part of the larger collaborative project between the LBNA,

Neighbourwoods©, and Dr. Danijela Puric-Mladenovic and Dr. Andrew Kenney. Funding for

the project was attained by the LBNA through the City of Toronto, Canada Summer Jobs and the

Toronto Parks and Tree Foundation.

J. De Santis 7

INTRODUCTION

The ecological, social and economic benefits of the urban forest are well recognized. The

capacity for trees to sequester carbon, cool temperatures, improve air and water quality and

mitigate stormwater flow have been extensively researched over previous decades. Research has

also emphasized the social and human health benefits of urban trees, linking greater tree cover to

improved psychological and physiological well-being, stress reduction and lower crime rates

(Dwyer et al., 1992; Kuo & Sullivan, 2001; Kuo, 2003). As a result, recent research and urban

strategies have focused on the necessity of increasing the canopy cover across municipalities to

capitalize on the aforementioned benefits (McPherson, 2006; Kenney et al., 2011; City of

Toronto, 2013a; Roman et al., 2017). However, opportunistic urban development continues to be

given leeway to implement projects that increase urban intensification, threatening the retention

of tree cover in urban areas (Puric-Mladenovic et al., 2000; Chuang et al. 2017; Guo et al.,

2018). In this study the impacts of the opportunistic, piecemeal residential in-fill development

approach and its impact on tree canopy cover and tree condition will be evaluated, using the

neighbourhood of Long Branch, Toronto as a case study.

Long Branch had a legacy as a cottage community up until the 1930s. This is evidenced

by the large wooded lots that characterize a significant portion of the neighbourhood fabric

(Harris, D., n.d.; Brown, 1997; SvN, 2018). Many of the large diameter trees across the

neighbourhood are remnants of the pre-settlement forest (Suffling et al., 2003; Puric-

Mladenovic, 2011) that existed before the land was cleared for agriculture and the

neighbourhood was built out (Harris, D., n.d.; Brown, 1997; SvN, 2018). The City of Toronto’s

Urban Forestry department generated the report, “Every Tree Counts - A Portrait of Toronto's

Urban Forest," (City of Toronto, 2013b), in which it was stated that Long Branch had an average

canopy cover of 26.5 percent in 2008, comparable with the city average of 26.6-28 percent. The

“2018 Toronto Canopy Study” released by Urban Forestry indicates that Long Branch’s canopy

has declined by 11.5% since 2008, with a current canopy cover of 15% (City of Toronto, 2020).

Development pressures in the community are evidenced by the 101 minor variance and

consent applications submitted in the neighbourhood between 2012 and 2019. Of the 101

development applications 58% have been approved for construction (Appendix 1, 2, 3).

Additionally, 18% of the applications submitted have been deferred or are up for appeal which

could potentially increase the approval rate to approximately 80% (Appendix 1, 2, 3). These are

J. De Santis 8

contributors to City-sanctioned tree removals. The requests put forward in the development

applications have primarily sought the approval of urban intensification through lot severances.

The high percentage of approvals have facilitated an increase in residential density but impact

the existing tree canopy cover and the potential for tree planting.

The process to submit and appeal development applications through the City is time-

consuming, inefficient and only takes into consideration the land parcel interest. The Committee

of Adjustment (COA), a city council-appointed body, comprised of citizen members and

sanctioned under the Planning Act, 1990, is tasked with considering applications from

developers for minor variances from the Zoning Bylaw and/or granting consent to change land

configurations. Up until 2017, once the COA approved or denied an application an appellant had

the opportunity to try and overturn the decision through the Ontario Municipal Appeal Board

(OMB). The OMB was replaced by the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) in May 2017 and is

now the body through which appeals can be made. The Long Branch Neighbourhood

Association (LBNA) was formed in 2017 by community members, in part, to support residents

contesting development applications. The volunteers running the LBNA put extensive time and

resources into compiling pertinent documents and forms, sourcing expert witnesses and

procuring participant testimony to use in appealing applications because of their determination to

protect the tree canopy in the neighbourhood. The tree canopy in Long Branch is one of the

defining features that attracts people to live in the neighbourhood.

In the present study the impact of residential intensification on the urban forest in Long

Branch since 2012 was examined. The impact of approved development applications on canopy

loss and condition was examined along with how the disjointed process to planning is

contributing to canopy loss in the neighbourhood. The study also discusses the necessity to

revaluate the process to plan urban development. A more strategic approach that considers green

infrastructure and tree canopy is necessary to help mitigate urban canopy loss in the city.

OBJECTIVES

The project is guided by the following objectives: (1) To measure the extent of canopy

loss across individual properties approved for redevelopment, and community wide. (2) To

assess the impact of development on trees on adjacent properties. (3) To evaluate the annual

number of development applications and approvals, and the role of the active, engaged

community in appealing approvals to prevent tree cover loss.

J. De Santis 9

LITERATURE REVIEW

The urban forest is subjected to consistent, chronic stressors and is vulnerable to the

effects of extreme weather events, pests and development. The influence development has in

changing the urban landscape is of particular concern, because fine-scale transformations, such

as property redevelopment, can have a large cumulative effect on the urban forest as a whole

(Hostetler et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2018). While urban intensification in development is seen as

necessary to accommodate increasing populations in municipalities and avoid further sprawl, the

process contributes to the removal of trees and planting space to make way for higher density

housing and hardscape (Hostetler et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2015; Kaspar et al., 2017).

City of Toronto Planning and Development Policy

The province provides a broad framework and direction regarding how land can be used,

who can use it and the legal process pertaining to land use planning and development through the

Planning Act, passed in 1990 (Government of Ontario, 2019a). The legislation sets out rules for

land use planning in Ontario, providing the basis for natural resource management, Provincial

Policy Statements, the preparation of municipal Official Plans and the control of land use

through zoning bylaws (Government of Ontario, 2019a). Under the section 3 of the Planning Act

the province can issue directions for municipalities in the form of the Provincial Policy

Statement (Government of Ontario, 2019a; Government of Ontario, 2019b). The current

Provincial Policy Statement was issued on April 13, 2014 and provides an overarching direction

for the province’s land use planning to produce “livable and resilient communities”, by focusing

on settlement patterns, the built environment and the management of resources (Government of

Ontario, 2019b). Additionally, the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 set out

rules for the municipality. The provincial legislation recognizes the City as a responsible level of

government accountable for its own jurisdiction and provides the power to pass and adopt

bylaws (Government of Ontario, 2019c).

The official plan is the City of Toronto’s long-term planning document which guides

future urban change and development and sets out goals for the municipality’s planning

decisions (City of Toronto, 2019d; Government of Ontario, 2019a). It is an integral policy tool

that also affects how the natural environment is managed and how the land is developed (City of

Toronto, 2019d; Government of Ontario, 2019a). The official plan regulates and controls land

J. De Santis 10

use through zoning bylaws and minor variances (City of Toronto, 2019d; Government of

Ontario, 2019a). Zoning bylaws delineate how land can be used, where buildings can be located,

the types of buildings permitted across different land and the sizes and dimensions of lots,

building heights and setbacks of buildings from streets (City of Toronto 2019a; Government of

Ontario, 2019a). Zoning bylaws are legally enforceable requirements that conform to the City’s

official plan and effectively implement it (Government of Ontario, 2019a). The City-wide

Zoning Bylaw 569-2013 was enacted on May 9, 2013 and is currently under appeal.

Long Branch is the only neighbourhood in Toronto that has pursued the preparation of a

set of Neighbourhood Character Guidelines, approved by city council in January 2018 (SvN,

2018). The guidelines were created by SvN Architects and Planners, sourced by the City of

Toronto, and are intended to serve as a template for other neighbourhoods and a tool for the City

in the evaluation of development applications. The guidelines are designed to reinforce the

official plan objective 4.1.5 to ensure that new development in the Long Branch neighbourhood

reinforces the physical patterns of the existing built form (SvN, 2018; City of Toronto, 2019d).

Trees are identified in the document as one of the critical special features that contribute to the

character of the Long Branch neighbourhood (SvN, 2018). Therefore, the guidelines emphasize

the necessity to protect existing trees and maintain sufficient planting and growing conditions for

new trees (SvN, 2018).

The COA is the City of Toronto body empowered under Section 45 in Part V of the

Planning Act that considers and authorizes minor variances to municipal zoning bylaws and

grants consents when deemed appropriate (Figure 1). Minor variances are requested when a

proposed project or development does not comply with rules of zoning bylaws (City of Toronto,

2019a). To decide whether an application for a minor variance is appropriate and should

therefore be approved, the COA employs four tests to each application (City of Toronto, 2019a;

City of Toronto, 2019b; City of Toronto, 2019g). The COA will first determine whether the

proposed variance is deemed to be minor in size and impact. Next, they will evaluate whether the

proposed change is appropriate on the site and neighbouring land, and whether it meets the

general intent of the zoning bylaw (including allowing for green space). Finally, the COA will

test whether the plan meets the general intent of the official plan, specifically if it respects and

reinforces neighbourhood character (City of Toronto, 2019a) (Figure 1). Consents allow the

severance of property and/or the creation of long-term easements or rights-of-way (City of

J. De Santis 11

Toronto, 2019a). Notices from the COA are sent out up to 14 days prior to a hearing to

households within a 60-metre radius of the subject property and do not contain information about

tree removals planned as a result of the development proposal (City of Toronto, 2019g). A

review of the key steps in the COA procedure for minor variances and consents is outlined in

Appendix 4, adapted from the City of Toronto brochure, “Getting to know the City of Toronto:

Committee of Adjustment,” (2019a), the Rules of Procedure (2019b) and the City’s online

Process and Participation information page (2019g).

Within 20 days following a decision by the COA, an appeal can be made to the TLAB

(City of Toronto, 2019a). Previously appeals were handled by the OMB, however now the

TLAB is responsible for those appeals that fall under Section 45, which encompasses minor

variances, and Section 53, which pertains to proposed consents, of the Planning Act (City of

Toronto, 2019c) (Figure 1). City council passed Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 142 in 2017

and created the TLAB under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (City of Toronto, 2019c) (Figure 1).

Additionally, the TLAB is empowered under the Planning Act (Figure 1). The rules governing

the procedures of the TLAB developed upon the body’s initiation in 2017 (City of Toronto,

2017) have since been updated on May 6, 2019 (City of Toronto, 2019e) and all subsequent

appeals submitted are subject to the updated rules. The key steps in the process are outlined in

Appendix 5, adapted from the “Toronto Local Appeal Body Rules of Practices and Procedures”

and “The Toronto Local Appeal Body Public Guide,” (City of Toronto, 2019c; City of Toronto,

2019e). The TLAB process requires the submission of numerous forms and documents and the

participation in a hearing with testimony from participants and expert witnesses over

approximately a six-month timeframe (Appendix 5; Appendix 6).

To better understand the legislative procedure for consent and minor variance

applications, the provincial and municipal legislation that empowers the COA and TLAB and

informs the decisions made in the application process are mapped into a flow chart format

(Figure 1).

J. De Santis 12

Figure 1: Provincial and municipal legislation that empowers and informs the COA and TLAB

procedures for consents and related minor variance applications

City of Toronto Tree Protection Policy

Yung (2018) reviewed urban forest policies and bylaws across Ontario municipalities.

The policy review discussed how no national policies or laws exist dedicated to Canada’s urban

forests and the only province that explicitly recognizes urban forests in legislation is Ontario

(Yung, 2018). The provincial Forestry Act, 1998 includes regulations in section 11.1

empowering the council of a municipality to pass bylaws, (c) “for planting and protecting trees

on any land acquired for or declared to be required for forestry purposes”. Additionally, as

aforementioned, the Planning Act gives municipalities power to establish official plans that set

out land use policies to help with protecting natural areas from development. In Toronto’s

official plan, sections 2.3.2 and 3.2.3 pertain to tree protection, restoration, canopy cover

augmentation and parks and open spaces. Section 3.4 of the official plan provides the basis for

tree bylaws. The section underscores the need for growth without compromising the city’s

natural environment and urban forest and the need for assessments of the impacts new

J. De Santis 13

development proposals will have on the natural environment. The City of Toronto Act also gives

power to the City of Toronto to regulate the destruction or injury of trees. Furthermore, the City

of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 813 contains the bylaws pertinent to trees.

The City of Toronto’s Parks, Forestry and Recreation department created a plan in 2007

to increase the city’s canopy cover to 40 percent and issued a report in 2013 outlining a strategy

to achieve the tree cover target (City of Toronto, 2013a). Toronto’s strategic forest management

plan covers objectives for the urban forest; however as an organizational policy it does not have

the same force of law as a bylaw comparatively (City of Toronto, 2013a). Following the release

of the proposed strategy, the City generated the report, “Every Tree Counts - A Portrait of

Toronto's Urban Forest," (2013b), measuring and documenting the state of the city’s urban

forest. The City has since released the “2018 Tree Canopy Study” to provide a ten-year update

on the state of the urban forest in Toronto (City of Toronto, 2020).

The majority of the trees and plantable space in Long Branch is located on private land,

making the policies that address tree protection on private properties exceedingly important.

Research has reinforced the positive contribution of legislation and bylaws to the retention of

trees during redevelopment (Conway & Urbani, 2007). However, the City of Toronto has

restricted jurisdiction to influence the state of private urban trees beyond enforcing private tree

bylaws. While Chapter 813, Article 2 of the Municipal Code concerns trees on city streets,

Chapter 813, Article 3 pertains specifically to private tree protection including protection

parameters and permits for injury, destruction or removal of trees (City of Toronto, 2015).

The consent and minor variance applications submitted to the COA are provided to

Urban Forestry to review and evaluate the impact the proposed development would have on the

trees on the site (Romoff, 2017; Romoff, 2018a; Appendix 13). The City’s Tree Protection and

Plan Review (TPPR) staff review every COA application submitted (Appendix 13). TPPR

planners and assistant planners use the Committee of Adjustment Procedures document, most

recently updated on July 16, 2019, as a guide for reviewing COA files and applying conditions to

applications when deemed necessary (Appendix 13). The document is a live document,

constantly being changed and updated to improve the process. After reviewing a consent and

minor variance application, staff will object, request a deferral, confirm an application or confirm

an application subject to certain conditions (Romoff, 2018a). The TPPR provides comments and

direction to the COA and applicant when healthy trees are perceived to be unnecessarily

J. De Santis 14

impacted by construction (Appendix 13). The COA is required to take the input from Urban

Forestry into consideration when making their decision to approve or refuse an application,

however they do not need to comply with the recommendation put forward (Romoff, 2017;

Romoff, 2018a). Tree bylaws are not listed as laws under the Ontario Building Code so they

cannot be used to refuse the issuance of a building permit because they do not hold the same

weight as zoning bylaws (Romoff, 2017). However, developers must still go through the steps to

apply for a permit to injure or remove a tree affected by construction (Romoff, 2017). The only

time a permit will not be issued by the Urban Forestry department is in cases where the

development directly or indirectly impacts City-owned trees (Romoff, 2017). Urban Forestry

provides a consistent, clear and diplomatic lens of bylaws and the planning process.

The City’s Urban Forestry department has recently made efforts to further integrate tree

protection into the considerations made for development applications. Two reports for action

submitted by the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation in 2017 and 2018 outlined

how to incorporate and improve tree protection through the COA process, in line with the

existing process (PE24.2 and PE25.1) (Romoff, 2017; Romoff, 2018a). The purpose of the

motions was to provide an idea of how the TPPR advocate for protection of trees on city and/or

private property. The PE25.1 Action was adopted by city council on March 26, 2018 (Romoff,

2018a). As a result, henceforth, development applicants are required to submit a tree declaration

form, current photos, a site plan and tree characteristics (DBH, species, location) of all bylaw

protected trees on the proposed site and within 6 metres of the site (Romoff, 2018a).

Recent City Council Decisions Pertaining to Long Branch, Development and Tree Protection

In February of 2018, Etobicoke-Lakeshore Councillor, Mark Grimes (Ward 3 as of

August 14, 2018, formerly Ward 6), presented a motion (EY28.41) to the Etobicoke York

Community Council (EYCC) requesting that tree protection and enforcement be strengthened in

the Long Branch community (Grimes, 2018a). The request was made given the high volume of

lot splitting in the neighbourhood and perceived insufficiencies of the tree protection bylaws

(Grimes, 2018a). In response, in May 2018, the Urban Forestry department hired additional staff

to focus on responding to violations and improving compliance and enforcement of tree

protection bylaws and submitted a Report for Action to the EYCC (Romoff, 2018b). The report

analyzed data collected between January and June 2017 and showed that COA applications in

J. De Santis 15

Ward 6 involved a higher proportion of severances than that received across the Etobicoke York

District (Romoff, 2018b) (Appendix 8). The Report also showed that Urban Forestry requested

denial of COA applications more frequently in Ward 6 than the rest of the district (Romoff,

2018b). Furthermore, city-wide data indicated that in cases where Urban Forestry requested the

denial of applications the COA panel in Etobicoke York district had the lowest rate of denial as

compared with other districts (Romoff, 2018b). In July 2018, the aforementioned May 2018

Report from Urban Forestry was put forward and adopted by the EYCC to strengthen tree

protection and enforcement (EY32.65). The motion included a request to the Director, Zoning

and Committee of Adjustment to review sections of the City’s Official Plan related to tree

preservation, retention of growing space and the City’s canopy cover targets (consult Appendix 7

for the date, name and summary of each Report for Action/Motion mentioned above).

Implications of Development on Tree Protection and Condition

Guo et al. (2018) examined the impacts of redevelopment on individual trees at the

property level. In the study, 6966 trees were monitored across 450 residential properties between

2011 and 2015/2016 in Christchurch, New Zealand. The results showed that tree removal was

three times as likely on a redeveloped property compared to a property that was not redeveloped,

highlighting the need for effective tree protection during redevelopment. Another study

conducted by Kaspar et al. (2017) in Melbourne examined the reduction in urban canopy cover

driven by infill development on private land. The study emphasized the necessity for robust tree

protection and infill development policy and planning if municipal governments want to achieve

canopy cover targets.

Research has been conducted to understand the impact of construction on trees proximate

to redevelopment projects (Despot & Gerhold, 2003; Jim, 2003). The trenching necessary for

construction projects can destroy parts of the root system of a tree, compromising the structural

stability and capacity for nutrient uptake (Jim, 2003). It takes many years for a tree to restore a

damaged roots system and the process is made more challenging because of disturbed and

compacted soils (Jim, 2003). Ultimately, these factors often lead to the premature loss of trees

proximal to construction sites (Jim, 2003). When the proper measures are not taken to preserve

trees on construction sites, their health has been shown to eventually decline (Despot & Gerhold,

2003; Hauer et al. 2020).

J. De Santis 16

METHODS

Study Site

Long Branch is a 432-hectare neighbourhood in Toronto bounded north by the Canadian

National Railway line; east by Twenty Fourth Street north of Lakeshore Blvd. and Twenty Third

Street south of Lakeshore Blvd.; south by Lake Promenade and Lake Ontario; and west by Forty

Second Street and Marie Curtis Park (Figure 2). Census data from 2016 indicates that the

population of Long Branch was 10,084 and the neighbourhood had 4,815 private households

(City of Toronto, 2018).

The land recognised today as Long Branch was granted to Captain Samuel Smith in 1797

by the Government of Upper Canada for his military service (Harris, D., n.d.; SvN, 2018). The

area was primarily forested until the Smith Estate was sold in 1861 to James and Margaret

Eastwood, who cleared a proportion of the land for agriculture. Subsequently, in 1883 the

Eastwoods sold a share of the property to Thomas J. Wilkie to build a summer resort, on which

wealthy Toronto residents could escape the city and build large cottages on wooded lots (Harris,

D., n.d.; Brown, 1997). Long Branch remained a resort community until the 1930s, when

streetcar service was extended to the neighbourhood, increasing accessibility to the community

and shaping the area into an urban settlement (Harris, D., n.d.; SvN, 2018). Consequently,

landowners began to remodel their cottages to make them into year-round homes and the land

was further divided and developed (Harris, D., n.d.; Brown, 1997; SvN, 2018).

J. De Santis 17

Figure 2: Long Branch neighbourhood boundary

Tree Canopy Cover Loss Assessment

LiDAR remote sensing and aerial photo interpretation are often used in tree canopy cover

analyses (Ward & Johnson, 2007; Walton et al., 2008; Hostetler et al., 2013; Roman et al., 2017;

Ossola & Hopton, 2018). However, LiDAR and multi-spectral imagery is resource intensive,

expensive, and does not go as far back in time as ortho-photography and remote sensing,

therefore is more often suited to large-scale projects (Ward & Johnson, 2007; Malarvizhi et al.,

2016). In recent studies, researchers have addressed the aforementioned limitations by using

Google Earth aerial imagery as a data source (Duhl et al., 2012; Malarvizhi et al., 2016) as it is

high resolution (less than 1 metre), open source and provides multi-year data and is therefore

beneficial for showing changes across landscapes over time (Malarvizhi et al., 2016). The

limitation of Google Earth photography is that it does not have information about the pixel

numbers, brightness or reflectance so the images cannot be used for spectral classification

J. De Santis 18

(Malarvizhi et al., 2016). Regardless, manually digitizing features (polygon creation tool in

Google Earth) using Google Earth imagery is feasible for small areas such as neighbourhoods

and is advantageous because of the high image resolution and the ability to see historical

imagery. It is therefore a suitable data source and platform for photointerpretation and analysis,

specifically for the classification of one class of land cover like tree canopy.

A canopy cover loss assessment was conducted for the re-developed lots and adjacent

properties in Long Branch. To guide mapping canopy loss, a consolidated file of all COA and

OMB/TLAB decisions was used, which was issued by the City Planning Department to the

LBNA on July 10, 2018, upon the request of the LBNA. The document listed all consent and

related minor variance applications submitted for Long Branch from 2012 up until July 4, 2018

(Appendix 1). The data was subsequently updated up until November 20, 2019 using information

provided by the LBNA to reflect any new decisions made by the COA or appeal board

(Appendix 2). A total of 101 consent and related minor variance applications were made to the

COA in the Long Branch neighbourhood since 2012.

Of the 101 applications submitted, consent and/or minor variances were requested from

the COA twice for 8 properties (Appendix 9). For example, an application for a consent and

minor variances was submitted and rejected by the COA for 86 Twenty Third Street in 2012. The

homeowner rebuilt a house on one side of the lot and then submitted an additional application for

the address in 2013, which was not approved by the COA nor the OMB. Four of the applications

out of the 101-total submitted were refused/withdrawn in the initial application process but when

a subsequent application was submitted for the property they were approved (Appendix 9).

Between 2012 and 2019, 59 out of the 101 applications submitted were approved by both

the COA and/or the OMB/TLAB, a 58% approval rate. Two of the properties approved for

development had two applications submitted in two different years, both of which were approved

by the COA and/or OMB respectively. Therefore, 59 applications were approved for 57

properties (Figure 3; Appendix 9). Furthermore, the 58% approved does not include the 7

applications that have been deferred by the COA, and the 11 applications pending appeal or

currently in the appeal process (18% of all applications). Three of the 57 approved properties are

located outside the boundary of the neighbourhood and were therefore excluded from the manual

canopy analysis (28 Twenty First Street; 105 Twenty Second Street, 185 Thirtieth Street).

Twelve of the 54 remaining approved consents have not been built as of October 27, 2019 and

J. De Santis 19

three that have been constructed in 2019 are not shown in the 2018 Google Earth imagery so

were also excluded from the canopy analysis (Appendix 10). One property had two applications

submitted to the COA which were both refused; however, the homeowner built a dwelling on the

one side of the lot, so it was included in the canopy analysis. Therefore, 40 approved lot

severances were analyzed in the canopy analysis (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Number of redeveloped properties and associated adjacent properties digitized in

canopy analysis

Google Earth was used to generate a file with placemarks on the 40 parcels that had been

approved for redevelopment on imagery from 2018. The canopy of each of the 40 parcels was

assessed using multiyear images in Google Earth. Imagery from 2009, taken prior to

development, was used as a baseline to digitize the tree canopy on the affected parcels. The

images from 2009 were clear and provided a good reference year to observe the change. The

canopy changes between 2009 and 2018 were cross-referenced using the ESRI world imagery

basemap, Google Earth and Google Maps Streetview. Data attributes were added to the 2009

canopy layer to indicate whether canopy had been removed or still remained in 2018. The same

59

57

15

3

40

Approved applications (COA

and OMB/TLAB)

Number of properties approved

for development

Approved but not visibly

developed on Google Earth

imagery

Approved and visibly developed

but outside neighbourhood

boundary

Total approved parcels with

canopy digitized

J. De Santis 20

methodology was employed to digitize the canopy on the adjacent properties of each approved

lot severance.

Additionally, the canopy was digitized for the lots on which applications were submitted

but refused, deferred or pending the COA or OMB/TLAB process to show the tree cover

susceptible to loss as a result of development. Of the applications submitted, 42 were withdrawn,

refused either by the COA and OMB, refused by the COA and up for appeal with the TLAB, or

pending a COA decision. There were 42 applications that were not approved. Applications were

only made for 35 properties because multiple applications were made for 3 properties (2

applications per property) (Figure 4; Appendix 9). Therefore, the canopy was digitized on the 28

properties for which applications were submitted and refused, withdrawn, deferred or pending

between 2012 and 2018, excluding those submitted in 2019.

Figure 4: Number of applications not approved; the number of properties with canopy digitized

to show potential tree cover susceptible to loss

42

1315

32

28

Applications that did not get approved

Refused (COA and/or TLAB),

Withdrawn or Deferred

Pending COA/TLAB

Properties for which an application was

submitted twice and refused both times

or refused and pending appeal

Properties for which an application was

refused and the second application for

property approved

Total parcels with canopy digitized

J. De Santis 21

Tree Condition: Field Data from Neighbourwoods© Tree Inventory

The Neighbourwoods© tree inventory and monitoring protocol, developed by Dr.

Andrew Kenney and Dr. Puric-Mladenovic of the University of Toronto, was used to collect data

about the trees on the redeveloped lots and adjacent properties in Long Branch (Kenney & Puric-

Mladenovic, 2019). The inventory data collected included tree location and growing site

characteristics, tree species, tree size and tree condition (health and structure). Between June and

August, the author led a team of four students, under the employment of the LBNA, to continue

the Neighbourwoods© tree inventory that was started in 2018. The data analyzed for this project

was a sub-sample of the larger neighbourhood-level inventory and excluded hedges. Specifically,

the tree inventory data from 2018 and 2019 collected on the lot severances and the adjacent

properties was extracted for analysis. Out of the 45 approved lot severances that were

constructed between 2012 and 2019, a full inventory of 24 applications and a partial inventory of

11 applications, was completed using the Neighbourwoods© protocol. For the adjacent

properties, 17 of the adjacent properties to the 45 applications were fully inventoried and 16 were

partially inventoried (for example, 1 adjacent parcel inventoried, and 1 adjacent parcel not

inventoried). The number and condition of the trees on the lot severances and on the adjacent

properties was then evaluated to determine whether the trees proximate to construction showed

signs of stress. The 12 properties approved for development but not constructed as of the 2019

inventory were excluded from the tree condition analysis because they were not relevant for the

assessment (see Appendix 10 for addresses).

Quantity of Applications and Community Involvement

Three graphs were generated using the data obtained from the City’s Planning and

Development department (Appendix 1) and the updated information from the LBNA (Appendix

2) to show the number of applications submitted per year and the decisions that were made by

the COA and OMB/TLAB. The data was compiled and summarized (Appendix 3). The graphs

were analyzed to evaluate the number of development applications that were approved or denied

in the neighbourhood annually. Additionally, the LBNA volunteers were asked to provide an

estimate of the amount of time they dedicate to each application and appeal to understand the

resources being allocated by the community into the COA and OMB/TLAB process.

J. De Santis 22

The Planning Process

In order to capture the complexity of the land use planning and development decision-

making process, a mind map / flow chart was created to visualize the legislation and procedure

pertaining to consents and related minor variance applications (Figure 1). The flow chart was

created based on the literature and policy review, communications with City of Toronto Urban

Forestry staff, the synthesis of the COA and TLAB processes (Appendix 4 and 5),

correspondence with LBNA members and observations from attending three of the five days of

the TLAB hearing for 77 Thirty Fifth Street.

RESULTS

Measurements of Canopy Cover Loss and Potential Loss

The area digitized in the canopy loss assessment was calculated and the total area of

canopy in 2009 on the 40 severed lots was 11,005 m2 or 1.1 ha. The total area of canopy lost as

of 2018 on the 40 parcels was 6127 m2 or 0.61 ha. Therefore, the percentage canopy loss

between 2009 and 2018 on redeveloped lots was 56%. With respect to the adjacent properties,

the total area of canopy in 2009 was 20,136 m2 or 2.01 ha. The total area of canopy lost on the

adjacent properties between 2009 and 2018 was 0.49 ha, a 24% loss. The tree canopy loss will

presumably be greater once the 15 approved redevelopments are built.

In terms of the potential canopy loss, the area of tree canopy in 2009 calculated on the 15

properties pending COA or TLAB decisions was 0.48 ha. The area of canopy across the 13

parcels on which applications were withdrawn, refused or deferred was 0.46 ha. Therefore, a

total of 0.94 ha could have been impacted by development had the applications been approved.

The neighbourhood-wide data for the 704 properties inventoried in 2018 and 2019

showed an average of 7 trees per property, excluding hedges. Comparatively, the average for

redeveloped and adjacent sites was 4 trees per property. The average DBH of trees on the

redeveloped and adjacent sites was slightly smaller than the average of all trees inventoried

across the neighbourhood (17 cm compared with 21 cm).

J. De Santis 23

Tree Condition on Severed Lots and the Adjacent Properties

Data collected in 2018 and 2019 for 427 trees across the 35 redeveloped sites inventoried

and the 33 adjacent properties inventoried showed no significant negative impact on tree

condition. Based on the scale of 0 to 3, with 0 indicating a healthy normal characteristic and 3

indicating a severe stress signal, the average defoliation was 0.27 and the average measure of

weak or yellowing foliage was 0.33 (Appendix 11). The median and mode of each measure was

zero. Therefore, there is no clear indication of damage to the trees on neither the lots nor the

adjacent properties. Comparatively, the average defoliation rate and weak or yellowing foliage

rate of the entire sample of trees inventoried across the neighbourhood (n=5170) was slightly

lower, with scores of 0.23 and 0.28 respectively. Of the 427 trees inventoried on redeveloped and

adjacent sites, 168 were reported to have existing conflicts with buildings (39%) and 31 showed

potential for conflict with buildings (7%). When the street and public trees were removed from

the analysis, the sample was reduced to 352 trees and the percentage of trees with existing

conflicts increased to 45% and the percentage with potential conflicts remained at 7%.

Number of Consent and Related Minor Variance Applications Annually

The number of approved applications that have made it through both the COA process

and the appeal board between 2012 and 2019 was 59 out of 101 submissions, a 58% approval

rate overall. There is a visible increase in the number of submissions from 2012 to 2016, with the

highest quantity of applications submitted in 2016 (Figure 5). The number of applications

dropped from 23 in 2016, to 18 in 2017 and then significantly dropped to 6 in 2018, showing the

lowest number of applications over the 8-year period (Figure 5). The decline in applications

submitted to the COA coincides with the replacement of the OMB by the TLAB in 2017 and the

approval by City Council of the Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines in 2018

(Figure 5).

J. De Santis 24

Figure 5: Total consent and related minor variance applications submitted annually in Long

Branch, Toronto

The number of applications submitted to the COA are broken down into categories based

on the decision reached by the Committee (Figure 6). In every year, the majority of applications

were approved by the COA, with the exception of 2014, when the same number of applications

were approved as refused, and in 2019, when the same number of applications were approved as

those withdrawn and deferred. In 2012, 75% of the submitted applications were approved and in

2013 and 2016 approximately 62% of applications submitted were approved by the COA.

The applications appealed through the OMB and TLAB are categorized by the year and

the decision reached by the appeal board (Figure 7). The majority of appeals made between 2012

and 2016 were approved, allowing for the proposed consents and related minor variances to be

constructed. However, with the injunction of the TLAB in 2017 and the approval of the Long

Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines in 2018, the number of applications for consents

and submitted dropped and the majority are pending an appeal date or in the appeal process.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Num

ber

of

Appli

cati

ons

Year

J. De Santis 25

Figure 6: Committee of adjustment applications and decisions, Long Branch, Toronto (2012-

2019)

Figure 7: Ontario Municipal Board and Toronto Local Appeal Body Appeals, Long Branch,

Toronto (2012-2019)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Num

ber

of

appli

cati

ons

Total applications submitted Approved Refused Withdrawn Deferred

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Num

ber

of

appea

ls

Year

Total appeals Approved Rejected Pending Withdrawn

J. De Santis 26

Number of Hours Invested by Community into COA and Appeal Process

Based on communications with members of the LBNA (Table 1) the approximate amount

of time expended by the volunteers on each COA and/or OMB/TLAB application in the

neighbourhood was estimated. Overall, the preparation and hearing for a COA application

requires an average of 33 hours and the preparation and hearing for a TLAB appeal requires

approximately 115 hours for a combined total of 148 or the equivalent of 18.5 eight-hour days

per application, start to finish. Currently, there are 11 ongoing TLAB hearings requiring

attention. Furthermore, an infographic was created to show a summary of the COA and TLAB

processes, particularly highlighting the outcomes of development applications with or without an

engaged community to appeal COA decisions (Appendix 12).

Table 1 Approximate time spent by LBNA volunteers for each COA/TLAB application

Step in COA/TLAB Process Estimated Time

Expended by LBNA*

LBNA preparation and letter writing for COA; meetings with

residents to answer their questions and help them understand the

impact of the application

3 to 4 days

COA Hearing 4 to 6 hours

Preparation of materials for the TLAB appeals 2 days

Preparation of materials for TLAB hearing 4 days

Filing a motion 1 day

TLAB Hearing 4 to 8 days

Transportation to/from TLAB hearing 3 hours

Closing submissions 3 days

*A day is equal to a standard 8-hour standard workday

DISCUSSION

Development, Canopy Loss and Tree Condition

The results from the canopy loss analysis in Long Branch indicate that approved consent

and related minor variance applications have predictably contributed to a reduction in tree cover

in the neighbourhood. It is interesting to note the difference in the average number of trees per

property on severed lots (4) compared with the average number of trees per property

neighbourhood-wide (7). The data coupled with field observations by the author and interns

pointed to the fact that there were noticeably fewer trees present on the severed parcels and most

J. De Santis 27

trees that were inventoried on the lots were smaller, newly planted replacement trees and the

average DBH of trees was lower. The observed contribution infill development has made to tree

removal in Long Branch is like that reported in prior works (Guo et al. 2018; Guo et al 2019a;

Guo et al. 2019b).

While it is beyond the scope of this study, future investigation should focus on how the

redevelopment of lots and resulting increased hardscape contributes to the loss of potential

canopy cover, specifically lost growing space for trees as a result of development. The

unnecessary loss of growing space is quite problematic because it removes the potential for new

trees to be planted to augment the urban forest and eliminates the associated prospective

ecological services.

There was little evidence to show that the condition of the trees on severed lots and the

adjacent properties declined, as the data showed no significant stress signals on the trees that

would be attributed to excavation and construction. However, further monitoring of the trees on

redeveloped and adjacent lots is warranted, because the extent of the root damage to the trees is

unknown and signals of stress as a result of disturbance or trenching from construction may take

longer to appear.

Procedural Inadequacies

The piecemeal approach to land use planning is inadequately addressing neighbourhood-

wide forest retention. Planning is complicated because people have the right to build, therefore

there is a constant struggle to comply with the planning process and simultaneously protect tree

canopy. The results show the complexity and time-consuming nature of the process to oppose

applications for consents and related minor variances. If the LBNA did not dedicate the time to

understand the COA/TLAB procedure and become involved, almost a hectare of canopy would

be automatically susceptible to removal. The majority of applications submitted to the OMB for

appeal were still authorized for development and consequently the removal of trees. Therefore,

with the establishment of the TLAB and updated appeal guidelines and the adoption of the Long

Branch Neighbourhood Character guidelines, the number of lot severance applications in Long

Branch has decreased dramatically while applicants wait on the outcomes of all the ongoing

appeals.

J. De Santis 28

Furthermore, the rate of development approval evidenced in Long Branch indicate that

municipal planning growth in the neighbourhood is continuing despite the implications it has for

tree protection. The COA and TLAB only consider the comments of urban forestry but can still

approve development regardless – unless a city-owned tree is being impacted. The LBNA and

the Ward 3 city councilor have expressed concern about the efficacy of the City’s current tree

protection bylaws (Grimes, 2018a; Grimes, 2018b). The canopy has declined by 11.5% in the

Long Branch Neighbourhood despite these laws, countering the City-wide goal to increase

canopy cover (City of Toronto, 2020). Within the hierarchy of planning, bylaws are not

applicable law. To change that a request would need to be made to the Ministry of Municipal

Housing and Affairs, and the question remains as to whether this would improve tree protection.

The aforementioned results of the canopy loss assessment indicate that approved lot

severances have contributed to canopy decline because development plans often involve the

injury or removal of mature trees. Additionally, residents have reported that tree protection zones

that are erected on lot severances during construction provide an inadequate buffer for trees.

Ultimately, the reactive approach to tree protection is evident in the enforcement of bylaws and

the development application process. The City’s urban forest managers have to decide between

preserving trees and removing trees to accommodate urban development (Yung, 2018). The City

must simultaneously protect trees and decide the conditions under which permission for tree

removal permission is granted in development and planning (Yung, 2018).

As such, when examining the development application process and outcomes, an

important question to ask is who is deciding the future of our urban forests? The definitive

decision is dictated by COA or TLAB members appointed by city council. COA members are

not required to have knowledge of urban forestry and environmental planning, the reliance is on

the input of Urban Forestry in the process (City of Toronto, 2019h). COA members only receive

one day of training on everything they need to fulfill their role on the committee and there is no

subsequent assessment to evaluate how much of the training results in knowledge transfer. The

Manager of Urban Forestry Manager has yearly meetings with the COA panel to express what

Urban Forestry does and how they make their decisions within the TPPR. The TLAB members

are collectively expected to have experience in adjudication and mediation, knowledge of land

use planning and some background in urban forestry and environmental planning (City of

Toronto, 2019i). Based on a review of the profiles of the TLAB members, 1 out of the 9

J. De Santis 29

members explicitly mention any environmental engagement or experience, listing volunteer

experience with the Bruce Trail Conservancy (City of Toronto, 2019i). The remaining members

only detail their experience in planning or estate law. Appeals by the TLAB are only heard by

one member of the body, so there is a 1 in 9 chance of having the one chair with any

environmental engagement listed in their experience.

What About Communities with Restricted Resources?

The results of this project show that the community members in Long Branch dedicate

extensive hours into contesting the approval of developments that impact the tree canopy in the

neighbourhood. Furthermore, Long Branch is a relatively affluent neighbourhood, with a median

household income just below the city-wide average and a lower unemployment rate than the

municipal average (City of Toronto, 2018). Research has pointed to the effectiveness of using

neighbourhood groups to organize urban forestry programs (Locke & Grove, 2016). Therefore,

neighbourhoods such as Long Branch with engaged community members under the direction of

an association have the ability to encourage participation in urban forestry initiatives, compared

with neighbourhoods that have a lower average income and no association. What would happen

if new land owners in Long Branch don’t have the same view as the existing association? It is

possible that views could change in a few years as demography changes. Additionally, the

neighbourhood currently has a robust capacity to challenge development applications, begging

the question of how lower income, resource-scarce communities fair in comparison. How can

such neighbourhoods protect the tree canopy from development?

Research has shown a link between greater income and higher urban forest cover. In a

survey across municipalities in the United States looking at how urban residents rate and rank

positives and negatives of urban trees, higher income was linked with more positive attitudes

toward urban trees (Lohr et al., 2004). A literature review and meta-analysis produced by Gerrish

& Watkins (2018) found that income-based inequity exists in the distribution of urban forest

cover. Additionally, a study carried out in Washington D.C. and Baltimore, MD examined the

uptake of programs aimed at increasing the urban canopy on both public and private lands

(Locke & Grove, 2016). The results showed that tree planting programs were most successful in

affluent neighbourhoods where the existing canopy was highest and available planting space was

lowest (Locke & Grove, 2016). It is reasonable to infer that while residents of lower income

J. De Santis 30

neighbourhoods see the benefits of the urban forest, pressing problems and priorities like

affordable housing and employment are of a greater concern to address than development and

trees. Furthermore, the time commitment required in understanding and engaging in the planning

and development process is unfeasible for most when faced with the aforementioned issues.

Generally speaking, they simply cannot afford to spend so many hours on urban forest advocacy.

Therefore, the implications for tree loss in communities with limited resources, time and

knowledge warrants further consideration, especially given the demands of the previously

explained development application and appeal system. A system that better integrates urban

forestry and land use planning, examines the implications decisions have for the entire city, and

is not dictated by the wealth of a community is necessary.

CONCLUSION

The persistent approvals of redevelopment projects in Long Branch have negatively

impacted the urban tree cover in the neighbourhood. If the community were less engaged in

efforts to participate in the resource intensive COA and TLAB processes, increased canopy loss

would be inevitable. The LBNA have taken the time to understand the complexity of the

development application process and the legislation associated with parcel-level planning

decisions. However, it is clear that the current piecemeal system is inefficient, as it requires a

huge investment of time and resources. The system is also inadequate for tree protection, as

development applications and associated tree removals continue to be approved. With the current

process in place, retaining the canopy and growing space in a community rests on the

engagement and inputs of its residents, which is not feasible in neighbourhoods with restricted

resources and other pressing social issues. It is therefore pertinent that the weight of tree

protection policies and the City’s disjointed planning process be revaluated.

J. De Santis 31

LITERATURE CITED

Brown, R. (1997). Toronto's lost villages. Toronto: Polar Bear Press.

City of Toronto (2013a). Sustaining and expanding the urban forest: Toronto’s strategic forest

management plan. Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Urban Forestry.

City of Toronto (2013b). Every tree counts: A portrait of Toronto’s urban forest. Parks, Forestry

and Recreation, Urban Forestry.

City of Toronto (2017e). Toronto local appeal body: Rules of practice and procedure. Planning

and Development. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2019/05/97db-Toronto-Local-Appeal-Body-RULES-hyperlinked-English-

May-3-2017.pdf

City of Toronto (2018). Neighbourhood profile: Long Branch. Social Policy, Analysis &

Research. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from

https://www.toronto.ca/ext/sdfa/Neighbourhood%20Profiles/pdf/2016/pdf1/cpa19.pdf

City of Toronto (2019a). Getting to know the City of Toronto: Committee of Adjustment.

Planning and Development. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2019/04/9895-committee-of-adjustment-brochure-april-25-2019.pdf

City of Toronto (2019b). Rules of Procedure: City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment.

Planning and Development. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9875-CofA-Rules-of-Procedure-as-

Amended.pdf

City of Toronto (2019c). Toronto Local Appeal Body public guide. Planning and Development.

Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2017/10/9789-TLAB-Public-Guide.pdf

City of Toronto (2019d). Official Plan. Planning and Development. Retrieved 17 November

2019, from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-

guidelines/official-plan/

City of Toronto (2019e). Toronto Local Appeal Body: Rules of practice and procedure. Planning

and Development. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2019/05/905a-Toronto-Local-Appeal-Body-Rules-of-Practice-and-

Procedure-2019.pdf

City of Toronto (2019f). Toronto Local Appeal Body forms. Planning and Development.

Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-

development/committee-of-adjustment/appeals/toronto-local-appeal-body-forms/

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/97db-Toronto-Local-Appeal-Body-RULES-hyperlinked-English-May-3-2017.pdf



https://www.toronto.ca/ext/sdfa/Neighbourhood%20Profiles/pdf/2016/pdf1/cpa19.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9895-committee-of-adjustment-brochure-april-25-2019.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9895-committee-of-adjustment-brochure-april-25-2019.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9875-CofA-Rules-of-Procedure-as-Amended.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9875-CofA-Rules-of-Procedure-as-Amended.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/9789-TLAB-Public-Guide.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/9789-TLAB-Public-Guide.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/

https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/official-plan-guidelines/official-plan/

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/905a-Toronto-Local-Appeal-Body-Rules-of-Practice-and-Procedure-2019.pdf



https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/committee-of-adjustment/appeals/toronto-local-appeal-body-forms/

https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/committee-of-adjustment/appeals/toronto-local-appeal-body-forms/

J. De Santis 32

City of Toronto (2019g). Committee of Adjustment: Process and participation. Planning and

Development. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from https://www.toronto.ca/city-

government/planning-development/committee-of-adjustment/process-participation/

City of Toronto (2019h). Committee of Adjustment: Qualifications. Public Appointments

Secretariat. https://secure.toronto.ca/pa/decisionBody/49.do

City of Toronto (2019i). Toronto Local Appeal Body. Public Appointments Secretariat.

https://secure.toronto.ca/pa/decisionBody/381.do#applyNow

City of Toronto (2020). 2018 Tree Canopy Study. Urban Forestry. Retrieved 12, January 2020,

from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ie/bgrd/backgroundfile-141368.pdf

City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A. www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06c11

City of Toronto (2015). Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees. Retrieved 24 November

2019, from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_813.pdf

City of Toronto, City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013.

https://www.toronto.ca/zoning/bylaw_amendments/ZBL_NewProvision_Chapter1.htm

Conway, T. M., & Urbani, L. (2007). Variations in municipal urban forestry policies: A case

study of Toronto, Canada. Urban forestry & urban greening, 6(3), 181-192.

Despot, D. & Gerhold, H. (2003). Preserving trees in construction projects: identifying

incentives and barriers. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(5), 267-280.

Duhl, T.R., Guenther, A. & Helmig, D. (2012). Estimating urban vegetation cover fraction using

Google Earth® images. Journal of Land Use Science, 7(3), 311-329,

Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W., & Rowntree, R. A. (1992). Assessing the

benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture, 18(5), 227-227.

Forestry Act, R.S.O.1990, c.F.26 www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f26

Gerrish, E., & Watkins, S. (2018). The Relationship between urban forests and income: A meta-

analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning. 170, 293-308.

Government of Ontario. (2019a). Citizen’s guide to land use planning. Ministry of Municipal

Affairs and Housing, Provincial Planning Policy Branch. Retrieved 17 November 2019,

from https://www.ontario.ca/document/citizens-guide-land-use-planning

Government of Ontario. (2019b). Provincial Policy Statement (2014). Ministry of Municipal

Affairs and Housing. Retrieved 17 November 2019, from

https://www.ontario.ca/document/provincial-policy-statement-2014

https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/committee-of-adjustment/process-participation/

https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/committee-of-adjustment/process-participation/

https://secure.toronto.ca/pa/decisionBody/49.do

https://secure.toronto.ca/pa/decisionBody/381.do#applyNow

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ie/bgrd/backgroundfile-141368.pdf

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06c11

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_813.pdf

https://www.toronto.ca/zoning/bylaw_amendments/ZBL_NewProvision_Chapter1.htm

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f26

https://www.ontario.ca/document/citizens-guide-land-use-planning

https://www.ontario.ca/document/provincial-policy-statement-2014

J. De Santis 33

Government of Ontario. (2019c). How municipalities and Ontario work together. Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and Housing, Provincial Planning Policy Branch. Retrieved 17 November

2019, from https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-municipalities-and-ontario-work-together

Grimes, M. (2018a). Request to strengthen tree protection and enforcement in Long Branch.

(Report EY28.41). Retrieved from Etobicoke York Community Council (2014-2018), City

of Toronto Meeting Management Information System.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2018.EY28.41

Grimes, M. (2018b). Update on request to strengthen tree protection and enforcement in Long

Branch. (Report EY32.65). Retrieved from Etobicoke York Community Council (2014-

2018), City of Toronto Meeting Management Information System.


Guo, T., Morgenroth, J., & Conway, T. (2018). Redeveloping the urban forest: The effect of

redevelopment and property-scale variables on tree removal and retention. Urban Forestry

& Urban Greening, 35(Complete), 192-201.

Guo, T., Morgenroth, J., & Conway, T. (2019a). To plant, remove, or retain: Understanding

property owner decisions about trees during redevelopment. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 190(Complete), 103601.

Guo, T., Morgenroth, J., Conway, T., & Xu, C. (2019b). City-wide canopy cover decline due to

residential property redevelopment in Christchurch, New Zealand. Science of the Total

Environment, 681(Complete), 202–210.

Harris, D. (n.d.). Long Branch. Retrieved 6 October 2019, from

http://www.etobicokehistorical.com/long-branch.html

Hauer, R. J., Koeser, A. K., Parbs, S., Kringer, J., Krouse, R., Ottman, K., ... & Werner, L. P.

(2020). Long-term effects and development of a tree preservation program on tree

condition, survival, and growth. Landscape and Urban Planning, 193, 103670.

Hostetler, A. E., Rogan, J., Martin, D., DeLauer, V., & O’Neil-Dunne, J. (2013). Characterizing

tree canopy loss using multi-source GIS data in central Massachusetts, USA. Remote

Sensing Letters, 4(12), 1137-1146.

Jim, C.Y. (2003). Protection of urban trees from trenching damage in compact city

environments. Cities. 20(2), 87-94.

Kaspar, J., Kendal, D., Sore, R., & Livesley, S. (2017). Random point sampling to detect gain

and loss in tree canopy cover in response to urban densification. Urban Forestry & Urban

Greening, 24(Complete), 26-34.

Kenney, W.A. & Puric-Mladenovic, D. (2019). Neighbourwoods© field manual.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-municipalities-and-ontario-work-together



http://www.etobicokehistorical.com/long-branch.html

J. De Santis 34

Kenney, W. A., Van Wassenaer, P. J., & Satel, A. L. (2011). Criteria and indicators for strategic

urban forest planning and management. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 37(3), 108-117.

Kuo, F.E. (2003). Social aspects of urban forestry: the role of arboriculture in a healthy social

ecology. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 148-155.

Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation

reduce crime? Environment and behavior, 33(3), 343-367.

Lin, B., Meyers, J., & Barnett, G. (2015). Understanding the potential loss and inequities of

green space distribution with urban densification. Urban forestry & urban greening, 14(4),

952-958.

Locke, D.H. & Grove, J.M. (2016). Doing the hard work where it’s easiest? Examining the

relationships between urban greening programs and social and ecological characteristics.

Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 9(1), 77-96.

Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mims, C. H., Tarnai, J., & Dillman, D. A. (2004). How urban residents rate

and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of

Arboriculture, 30(1), 28-35.

Malarvizhi, K., Vasantha Kumar, S., & Porchelvan, P. (2016). Use of high-resolution google

earth satellite imagery in landuse map preparation for urban related applications. Procedia

Technology, 24(Complete), 1835-1842.

McPherson, E. G. (2006). Urban forestry in North America. Renewable Resources

Journal, 24(3), 8.

Municipal Act, 2001, S. O.2001, c.25 www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25

Ontario Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.28 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o28

Ossola, A., & Hopton, M. E. (2018). Measuring urban tree loss dynamics across residential

landscapes. Science of the Total Environment, 612(Complete), 940-949.

Planning Act, R.S.O.1990, c.P.13 www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13

Puric-Mladenovic, D. (2011). Pre-settlement vegetation mapping for the Greater Toronto Area,

including the regions of Hamilton, Halton, Peel and York and the Credit Valley

Watershed. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough.

Puric-Mladenovic, D., Kenney, W.A., & Csillag, F. (2000). Land development pressure on peri-

urban forests: A case study in the Regional Municipality of York. The Forestry

Chronicle, 76(2), 247-250.

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o28

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13

J. De Santis 35

Romoff, J. (2017). Report for Action PE24.2: Tree Protection through the Committee of

Adjustment Process. City of Toronto, Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department. Retrieved

24 November 2019, from

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-110526.pdf

Romoff, J. (2018a) PE25.1: Presentation from the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and

Recreation on Tree Protection through the Committee of Adjustment Process. City of

Toronto, Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department. Retrieved 24 November 2019, from


Romoff, J. (2018b). Update on Request to Strengthen Tree Protection and Enforcement in Long

Branch. City of Toronto, Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department. Retrieved 10 October

2019 from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-116261.pdf.

Roman, L. A., Fristensky, J. P., Eisenman, T. S., Greenfield, E. J., Lundgren, R. E., Cerwinka, C.

E., . . . Welsh, C. C. (2017). Growing canopy on a college campus: Understanding urban

forest change through archival records and aerial photography. Environmental

Management, 60(6), 1042-1061.

Suffling, R., Evans, M., & Perera, A. (2003). Presettlement forest in southern Ontario:

Ecosystems measured through a cultural prism. The Forestry Chronicle, 79(3), 485-501.

SvN. (2018). Neighbourhood Character Guidelines: Long Branch. Toronto. Retrieved 10

October 2019 from https://www.lbna.ca/wp-

content/uploads/Long_Branch_Neighbourhood_Character_Guidelines_Jan_31_2018.pdf

Walton, J.T., Nowak, D.J., & Greenfield, E.J. (2008). Assessing urban forest canopy cover using

airborne or satellite imagery. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 34(6), 334-340.

Ward, K. T., & Johnson, G. R. (2007). Geospatial methods provide timely and comprehensive

urban forest information. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(1), 15–22.

Yung, Y. (2018). State of urban forest policy and by-laws across Ontario municipalities.

University of Toronto, TSpace Repository. Retrieved 10 October 2019 from

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/81308/1/MFC_Capstone_Yuki.pdf



https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-116261.pdf

https://www.lbna.ca/wp-content/uploads/Long_Branch_Neighbourhood_Character_Guidelines_Jan_31_2018.pdf

https://www.lbna.ca/wp-content/uploads/Long_Branch_Neighbourhood_Character_Guidelines_Jan_31_2018.pdf

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/81308/1/MFC_Capstone_Yuki.pdf

J. De Santis 36

Appendix 1: Document list ing consent and related minor variance applications

in Long Branch, received from City Planning department (2012 to July 10, 2018)

J. De Santis 37

Appendix 2: Consent and related minor variance applications in Long Branch, updated November 20, 2019

ApprovedID

Constructed

on Google

Images

UniqueID Property Address COA Decision OMB/TLAB Decision Year

1 Y 1

15 Thirty Second

Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2012

2 Y 2 74 Elder Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2012

N/A 3 118 Lake Promenade Withdrawn N/A 2012

3

Y

4

86 Twenty Third

Street Refused N/A 2012

4

Y – Outside

LB 5 185 Thirtieth Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2012

N/A 6 48 Thirty Fifth Street Withdrawn N/A 2012

5

Y

7 38 Arcadian Circle

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2012

6

Y

8

2 Twenty Seventh

Street

Approved with

Conditions Approved with Conditions 2012

7

Y

9 33 Forty First Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2013

8

Y

10

52 Thirty Eighth

Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2013

9

Y

11 76 Thirty Ninth Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2013

N/A 12

86 Twenty Third

Street Refused Refused 2013

10 Y 13

58 Thirty Second

Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2013

N/A 14 30 Muskoka Avenue Withdrawn N/A 2013

11 Y 15 48 Thirty Fifth Street Refused Approved with Conditions 2013

J. De Santis 40

12

Y

16

73 Laburnham

Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2013

13

Y

17

56 Twenty Sixth

Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2013

14

N

18 67 Thirtieth Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2013

15 Y 19 6 Shamrock Avenue Refused Approved with Conditions 2013

16

Y

20 68 Elder Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2013

N/A 21

82 Twenty Seventh


N/A 22

60 Thirty Eighth

Street Withdrawn N/A 2014

17 Y 23 18 Daisy Avenue Refused Approved with Conditions 2014

N/A 24 13 Villa Street

Deferred - September 18,

2014

2014

18

Y

25 30 Muskoka Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2014

19 Y 26 20 James Street Refused Approved with Conditions 2014

20

Y

27

60 Twenty Sixth

Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2014

21 Y 28 39 Thirty Third Street Refused Approved with Conditions 2014

22

Y

29 25 Elder Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2014

23

Y

30

4 Twenty Seventh

Street Refused Approved with Conditions 2014

24

Y

31

59 Thirtieth Street Approved with

Conditions

N/A

2014

N/A 32 18 Ash Crescent Refused N/A 2015

25

Y – Outside

LB 33

105 Twenty Second

Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2015

26

Y

34

97 Twenty Seventh


J. De Santis 41

27

Y

35

69 Laburnham

Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2015

28

Y

36

84 Twenty Fourth

Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2015

N/A 37

33 Forty Second

Street

Deferred - November 19,

2015

2015

29 Y 38

25 Thirty Second

Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2015

N/A 39 9 Atherton Crescent Refused Refused 2015

30 N 40 58 Ash Crescent Refused Approved with Conditions 2015

31

Y

41 22 Thirtieth Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2015

32

Y

42

40 Thirty Eighth

Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2015

33 N 43 24 Thirty Third Street

Approved with


34 N 44 56 Ash Crescent

Approved with


35 Y 45 2 Ash Crescent Approved/Refused Approved with Conditions 2015

36

Y

46

88 Laburnham

Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2015

37 Y 47 20 Garden Place Refused Approved with Conditions 2015

38 N 48 30 Thirty Sixth Street Refused Approved with Conditions 2016

39 N 49 2 Shamrock Avenue Refused Approved with Conditions 2016

40 N 50 4 Shamrock Avenue Refused Approved with Conditions 2016

41 N 51 9 Thirty Eighth Street

Approved with


42 N 52 50 Thirty Sixth Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2016

43 N 53

80 Twenty Third

Street

Refused Approved with Modifications and

Conditions (OMB) TLAB 2016

44 Y 54 20 Elton Crescent Refused Approved with Conditions 2016

J. De Santis 42

45

Y – Outside

LB 55 28 Twenty First Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2016

46

Y

56 48 Elder Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2016

N/A 57

82 Twenty Seventh


N/A 58 9 Meaford Avenue

Approved with

Conditions Refused 2016

47 Y 59 5 Thirty First Street

Approved with


48 N 60

40 Thirty Seventh


57 N 61 5 Ramsgate Road

Approved with

Conditions Approved 2016

49 N 62 22 Thirty Third Street Refused Approved with Conditions 2016

50

Y

63 14 Villa Road

Approved with


51

Y

64 9 Thirty Second Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2016

58 N 65

30 Thirty Eighth

Street Refused Approved 2016

52 Y 66 4 Twenty Ninth Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2016

N/A 67

11 Garden Place Deferred - February 9,

2017 - community

consultation; Approved

at the COA in 2019.

2016

N/A 68 32 Thirty Sixth Street

Approved with

Conditions Refused 2016

52

Y

69 4 Twenty Ninth Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2016

53

Y

70 75 Forty First Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2016

J. De Santis 43

54 N 71 50 Laburnham Street

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2017

N/A 72

99 Twenty Seventh

Street Refused (B0007/17EYK) N/A 2017

N/A 73

99 Twenty Seventh

Street

Approved with

Conditions TLAB 2017

N/A 74 38 Thirty Sixth Street Refused TLAB Dismissed 2017

55 Y 75 8 Branch Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2017

N/A 76 10 Lake Promenade Refused Withdrawn 2017

N/A 77 11 James Street Refused

2017

N/A 78 70 Thirty Sixth Street Refused Refused 2017

N/A 79

15 Thirty Eighth

Street TBD - August 30, 2018

2017

N/A 80 90 Ash Crescent Approved TBD (TLAB - not scheduled) 2017

N/A 81

38 Thirty First Street Consent Approved

Variances Refused

TLAB

2017

N/A 82 27 Thirty Ninth Street Approved TLAB 2017

N/A 83

74 Thirty Eighth

Street Approved TLAB 2017

N/A 84 72 Arcadian Circle Application Withdrawn N/A 2017

N/A 85 80 Thirty Ninth Street Refused TLAB (September 4, 2018) 2017

35 Y 86 2 Ash Crescent

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2017

N/A 87

58 Laburnham

Avenue

Approved with

Conditions TLAB (June 29, 2018) 2017

56 Y 88

79 Laburnham

Avenue

Approved with

Conditions N/A 2017

N/A 89 11 Shamrock Avenue Refused TLAB (October 9, 2018) 2018

N/A

90

36 Ash Crescent Deferred - May 24, 2018

-community consultation

2018

N/A 91 65 Fortieth Street Approved TLAB 2018

J. De Santis 44

N/A

92 30 Fairfield Avenue

Approved with

Conditions 2018

N/A

93

21 Thirty Seventh

Street Refused

2018

N/A 94 77 Thirty Fifth Approved TLAB 2018

N/A 95 19 Twenty Ninth Postponed 2019

N/A 96 97 Fortieth Deferred 2019

N/A 97 11 Thirty Sixth Withdrawn 2019

N/A 98 6 Fairfield Avenue Approved 2019

N/A 99 95 James Approved TLAB 2019

N/A

100

69 Long Branch

Avenue Withdrawn 2019

N/A 101 30 Thirty Sixth Street Refused N/A 2019

Key

Cells highlighted in yellow have been updated in August 2019 to reflect new decisions/approvals in

OMB or TLAB

Cells highlighted in orange reflect updates provided from LBNA on November 20, 2019

J. De Santis 45

Appendix 3: Summary of total minor variance/consent applicat ions submitted per year, Long Branch, Toronto

(2012-2019)

Year

Committee of Adjustment OMB or TLAB

Applications

submitted to

COA

Applications

approved

Applications

refused

Applications

withdrawn

Applications

deferred

Applications

appealed in

OMB/TLAB

Appeals

approved

Appeals

rejected

Appeals

withdrawn

Appeals

pending

2012 8 5 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0

2013 13 8 4 1 0 4 2 2 0 0

2014 10 4 4 1 1 4 4 0 0 0

2015 16 10 5 0 1 7 6 1 0 0

2016 23 13 9 0 1 15 12 3 0 0

2017 18 10 6 1 1 10 0 2 1 7

2018 6 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 3

2019 7 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 1

Total 101 55 32 7 7 45 25 8 1 11

Appendix 4: Summary of Committee of Adjustment process for minor variances and consent applicat ions

Committee of Adjustment (COA)

Pre-application Circulation of

application Public hearing and

decision Finalizing the decision

Zoning review with

Toronto Building

(recommended)

Pre-application

consultation with

neighbours and City

Planning

(recommended)

Notice of application

receipt; advised of

likely hearing date

Circulation to

commenting groups

and notice to

neighbours; public

sign posted

Before applying 30 – 90 Days 20 Days

A decision is usually

made at the hearing

with the consideration

of written and oral

submissions by all

stakeholders

Written decision

issued within 10 days

of the decision date

Opportunity for

TLAB appeal within

30 days of Committee

Decision

Decision becomes

final and binding after

20 days if no appeal Proceed with

obtaining a building

permit and satisfy

conditions of approval

Key steps in review procedure for minor variances (City of Toronto, 2019a, 2019b, 2019g)

Pre-application Circulation of

application Public hearing and

decision Finalizing the decision

Zoning review with

Toronto Building

(recommended)

Pre-application

consultation with

neighbours and City

Planning (recommended)

Circulation to

commenting groups

and notice to

neighbours; public

sign posted

Before applying 30 – 90 Days 20 Days

A decision is

usually made at the

hearing with the

consideration of

written and oral

submissions by all

stakeholders

Written decision

issued within 15 days

of the decision date

Opportunity for

TLAB appeal within

20 days of issuing the

written decision

Decision becomes

final and binding after

20 days if no appeal Satisfy conditions of

approval if necessary

(within 1 year)

Key steps in review procedure for consents (City of Toronto, 2019a, 2019b, 2019g)

Obtain certificate of consent and

complete legal transaction

Up to 3 Years

Certificate

of Consent

is issued

Proceed with

carrying out the

necessary legal

transaction (within

maximum 2 years)

Appendix 5: Key Steps in the TLAB process

Appeal submission Administrative and

Adjudicative

screening

Notice of Hearing Parties/Participants and Expert Witnesses

Appellant must

submit the Notice of Appeal (Form 1)

and Appeal Fee to

the Manager &

Deputy Secretary Treasurer of the

Committee of Adjustment

Opportunity for

TLAB appeal

within 20 days of

Committee Decision

Appeals are screened

to ensure they meet

the administrative and legal

requirements

If the TLAB finds

administrative deficiencies* in the

Form 1 submitted,

the appellant has 5 days to fix the form;

if the TLAB

proposes a dismissal* of the

appeal, the appellant

will receive a Notice

of the Proposed Dismissal (Form 16)

and has 10 days to

provide a written response

20 days 30 – 60 Days

Once all the appeal

information is verified, within 5

days of receiving the

file, the TLAB will send a Notice of

Hearing (Form 2) to

the appellant, the

applicant (if different than the appellant)

and, in cases of minor

variances, owners of neighboring

properties within a

60-m radius of the application; it will

include the

time/date/location of

the hearing which is approx. 100 days

from the notice date

Within 30 days from

the Notice of Hearing, persons who wish to

be Party or a

Participant must file a notice (Form 4) and

within 60 days they

must file witness statements (Form 12

and Form 13)

An appellant is automatically a party

but additional parties

can be elected; A

party to a proceeding can bring/serve/file

motions, be a witness,

call witnesses, receive all documents, cross-

examine witness,

make submissions etc. A participant has a

more limited role ;

provide statement but

cannot file motions Within 60 days of the

Notice, an expert

witness can be sourced to support a

case, providing non-

partisan opinion evidence (submit

Form 6 and Form 14)

Up until 15 days

before the hearing

date, mediation is available;

Mediation provides

an opportunity for parties to engage in

discussions with a

TLAB Member to

try and resolve the dispute in an

informal setting; if

the dispute is resolved the hearing

date can be changed

into settlement hearing and if no

resolution is

reached the hearing date can move

forward is

scheduled

During the hearing, motions

can be filed by

the parties for adjournments,

dismissal of a

matter, a settlement

hearing or

directions on a

procedure applicable to the

case (Form 7 and

Form 10).

If the applicant

makes any revisions or modifications to

application heard by

COA, must file an Applicant’s

Disclosure (Form 3) a

maximum of 15 days following the

issuance of the

Notice of Hearing

Mediation

~ 100 Days

Hearing

5 Days*

Final Decision

A final decision or

order is issued

within 14 days of the final hearing

date (however more

complex cases

could take longer)

A party may request

a review of the final

decision or final order made by the

TLAB within 30

days

A summons can be issued (Form 11) by a party to compel a witness to provide

evidence at the hearing no later than 30 days before the time of attendance

14 Days

Review Decision

Review

30 Days

Appendix 6: List of select forms required for TLAB appeal process (City of Toronto, 2019f)

Form 1 – Notice of Appeal – required for appealing a decision made by the COA, submit to

Manager & Deputy Secretary Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment

Form 2 – Notice of Hearing - issued by the TLAB and sent to the appellant, the City of Toronto,

the applicant and any interested parties identified in the Committee of Adjustment hearing

Form 3 – Applicant’s Disclosure – when an applicant plans to make revisions or modifications to

their original application, the must inform TLAB by filing an Applicant Disclosure along with

any supporting documents no later than 20 days after the Notice of Hearing is issued

Form 4 – Notice of Intention (Election) to be a Party or Participant – any individual or

organization that wants to be a party or participant in the hearing must complete this form within

30 days of the Notice of Hearing being issued

Form 6 – Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty – if an expert witness is hired to give evidence

about technical questions at the hearing, the witness will have to prepare an Acknowledgement

of Expert’s Duty (Form 6) and an Expert’s Witness Statement (Form 14). The forms have to be

sent to TLAB and to the other parties/representatives at least 60 days after the Notice of Hearing

is issued

Form 7 – Notice of Motion – if a party wants to submit a motion, they must contact the TLAB

office to receive a date, time and location for the motion; once a date is received the party must

complete this form and a sworn statement (an Affidavit Form 10) and any pertinent documents to

the motion

Form 10 – Affidavit – (see Form 7) – sets out brief and clear statement about the facts relating to

the motion

Form 11 – Request for Summons – when a party wants a person to give evidence who would not

otherwise attend the hearing, they can request TLAB issue a summons at least 30 days before the

hearing date

Form 12 – Party Witness Statement – parties are required to provide a copy of the documents

and witness statements for persons presenting evidence at the hearing within 60 days of the issue

of the Notice of Hearing

Form 13 – Participant’s Witness Statement – participants must provide a written outline of the

evidence they intend to share and a list of the documents they will use at the hearing within 60

days of the Notice of Hearing

Form 14 – Expert’s Witness Statement – (see Form 6)

Form 16 – Notice of Proposed Dismissal – when an appeal does not meet the adjudicative

requirements, the TLAB member may propose that the appeal be dismissed

J. De Santis 49

Appendix 7: Reports for Action and Motions pertaining to tree protection in

Long Branch submitted to ci ty council

Report for

Action/Motion Title of Report Submitted by Date

PE24.2

Tree Protection

through the

Committee of

Adjustment Process

General Manager,

Parks, Forestry and

Recreation

December 13, 2017

EY28.41

Request to Strengthen

Tree Protection and

Enforcement in Long

Branch

Etobicoke-Lakeshore

Councillor, Mark

Grimes

Adopted by city

council on February

21, 2018

PE25.1

Tree Protection

through the

Committee of

Adjustment Process

General Manager,

Parks, Forestry and

Recreation

Adopted by city

council on March 26,

2018

Update on Request to

Strengthen Tree

Protection and

Enforcement in Long

Branch

General Manager,

Parks, Forestry and

Recreation

May 9, 2018

EY32.65

Update on Request to

Strengthen Tree

Protection and

Enforcement in Long

Branch

General Manager,

Parks, Forestry and

Recreation

Adopted by city

council on July 4,

2018

J. De Santis 50

Appendix 8: COA applications with Urban Forestry Conditions from Report for

Action made by the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation , 2017

Appendix 9: Properties in Long Branch for which consent and related minor variance applications submitted

multip le t imes

Address

Number of minor

variance/consent

applications submitted

for address

Decision Summary

Canopy analysis

(in Approved or

refused/pending/withdrawn)

86 Twenty Third Street 2 2012 application refused by COA, not appealed

2013 application for consent refused by COA and OMB Refused/pending/withdrawn

48 Thirty Fifth Street 2 2012 application withdrawn

2013 application refused by COA but approved by OMB Approved

30 Muskoka Avenue 2

2013 application withdrawn

2014 application Approved with Conditions by COA,

not appealed

Approved

82 Twenty Seventh Street 2 2013 application refused by COA and OMB

2016 application refused by COA and OMB Refused/pending/withdrawn

2 Ash Crescent 2 2015 application approved by COA and OMB

2017 application approved by COA, not appealed

Approved (in both

applications)

30 Thirty Sixth Street 2

2016 application refused by COA and approved with

conditions by OMB

2019 application refused by COA, not appealed

Approved

4 Twenty Ninth Street 2

2016 application approved with conditions by COA, not

appealed

2016 application approved with conditions by COA, not

appealed

Approved (in both

applications)

99 Twenty Seventh Street 2

2017 application refused, not appealed

2017 application approved with conditions and pending

TLAB appeal

Refused/pending/withdrawn

J. De Santis 52

Appendix 10: List of properties excluded from canopy analysis

Twelve properties not developed yet as of October, 27th 2019 (therefore no visible change on Google Earth)

80-23rd Street

2 Shamrock Street

4 Shamrock Street

9-38th Street

40-37th Street

30-36th Street

24-33rd Street

22-33rd Street

58 Ash Crescent

56 Ash Crescent

30-38th Street

Two properties currently under construction, but original house not demolished yet on Google Earth imagery

5 Ramsgate Road

67-30th Street

50-36th Street

Construction completed now but original house not demolished yet on Google Earth imagery

50 Laburnham

Appendix 11: Neighbourwoods© quick reference guide: crown defol iat ion and

weak or yellow fol iage and conflicts with structures (Kenney & Puric-

Mladenovic, 2019)

Appendix 12: Infographic summarizing the COA/TLAB process with or without an engaged community to

appeal COA decisions

Appendix 13: City of Toronto, Urban Forestry, Committee of Adjustments

Procedure (updated July 16, 2019)

J. De Santis 56

J. De Santis 57

J. De Santis 58

J. De Santis 59

J. De Santis 60

J. De Santis 61

J. De Santis 62

J. De Santis 63

J. De Santis 64

J. De Santis 65

J. De Santis 66

J. De Santis 67

impact of residential intensification on urban forest in ... · the urban forest is subjected to...

Documents