Impact of Residential Intensification on Urban Forest in ... · The urban forest is subjected to...
Transcript of 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/
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
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.
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2018.EY32.65
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.
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.
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
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-112920.pdf
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
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
Street Refused Refused 2013
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
Street Refused Approved with Conditions 2015
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
Conditions Approved with Conditions 2015
34 N 44 56 Ash Crescent
Approved with
Conditions Approved with Conditions 2015
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
Conditions Approved with Conditions 2016
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
Street Refused Refused 2016
N/A 58 9 Meaford Avenue
Approved with
Conditions Refused 2016
47 Y 59 5 Thirty First Street
Approved with
Conditions Approved with Conditions 2016
48 N 60
40 Thirty Seventh
Street Refused Approved with Conditions 2016
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
Conditions Approved with Conditions 2016
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