Federation of North Toronto Residents' Associations
Neighbourhoods Working Together on Community Issues
The Act gives Toronto permission to install safety cameras on streetcars to find and fine drivers who speed by a streetcar at a transit stop, putting riders at risk.
The Act also includes Bill 148 The Doored But Not Ignored Bill to provide better protections for cyclists. Dooring is one of the most common causes of injury for cyclists, but it’s not considered a collision under the Highway Traffic Act.
We join many community-based groups including resident, business, service, environmental and heritage organizations to express our support for the direction of the staff report, and our concern for the unilateral approach of the provincial government in its Transit-Oriented Communities Program.
We are concerned that what is happening now at the First Parliament site is a preview of what communities may expect anywhere that the province has a planned transit station, and where there is an opportunity to hand land to the private sector to raise revenues!
Based on our experience to date with the Eglinton Crosstown and the Ontario Lines, especially the lack of transparency in decision-making, we fear that the rush to accelerate planning and maximize provincial revenues will compromise long-term community building, heritage conservation, and complete communities, including affordable housing, community space, and public open space on these sites.
We appreciate the extensive research and stakeholder consultations now being reported on by Transportation Services Division staff, including the learning from other jurisdictions with more experience on the matter. Experiments in large cities such as Chicago, New York, London, and Amsterdam, which have comparable population size and density to Toronto, point to many unresolved issues associated with the use of e-scooters. The experience of e-scooter-associated issues in those cities are more likely to be similar and relevant, than that of smaller cities like Ottawa and Calgary. However, we note that even Ottawa, one of those smaller cities, has banned e-scooters from its most popular destination, the Byward Market, and from National Capital Commission walkways and paths.
The staff report outlines in detail the unique risk factors associated with Toronto’s existing public infrastructure – both road and sidewalk design – that did not contemplate the addition of e-scooters. These include:
FoNTRA has been active in bringing forward the concerns of residents across the area about the Committee of Adjustment, and interrelated processes in residential infill, such as neighbourhood planning guidelines, zoning review, TLAB appeals, and construction issues.
The Report responds to City Council direction and requests related to the COVID related measures taken by City Planning in the past year, which focus on four operational matters: application volume; staffing and panel member capacity; public notification improvements; and participation at virtual public hearings. The Report’s basic message is all about efficiency in handling volume, not about making decisions that are fair, that are based on input from neighbours, and that respect and maintain neighbourhood character.
FoNTRA has serious concerns with the Ontario government’s plans to exempt the GTA West highway from a full and thorough environmental assessment, and instead move to a streamlined assessment. This highway represents the start of what is in essence a whole new 400 series highway system north of Toronto, and requires a thorough and complete environmental assessment to determine its true impacts.
Our concerns may be summarized as follows:
Minutes of the December 2, 2020 meeting are not posted, but we recall the Past Chair Ian Lord saying in that meeting that he would respond to FoNTRA’s correspondence regarding the TLAB Annual Report. However, FoNTRA has not received the promised response.
FoNTRA’s submission (as quoted from our correspondence) is as follows:
“Given the importance of the Chair’s Annual Report in providing for transparency about TLAB’s operation and results, we suggest that the TLAB Annual Report be formally received and approved at a Business Meeting. This could be established as a procedure or “rule”. Assuming consideration of the item occurred in open session, this would allow an opportunity for input and deputation by all stakeholders, such as residents associations, on matters raised by the Report”.
We will briefly summarize our position relative to the DVTLF:
The recently enacted legislative changes to the Planning Act enhance the Minister’s authority for zoning orders across the province. This enhanced authority does not apply to lands within the Greenbelt Area. The enhanced authority allows the Minister to:
The changes are not helpful. Our issues with the expanded use of MZOs are:
We find that the government’s consultations on legislation it has already passed are a cynical attempt to green-wash legislation that was subject to totally inadequate consultation in the course of the legislative process before it was passed.
This is to advise of our support for this report and its recommendations to consult widely on its proposals.
We note the report‘s reference to the extensive network of rail networks in Toronto; all wards in the city except one (Willowdale) being affected. Further to this we recommend that the consultation involve all residents associations.
We also note that the report makes no mention of SafeRail, which is a national grass roots organization addressing safety matters in communities adjacent to rail lines. We suggest that this group be considered as a key stakeholder in the consultation.
The Front Yard Parking Bylaw permits parking pads despite the Zoning Bylaw prohibiting parking in front of a house. The Front Yard Parking Bylaw specifically lists neighbourhoods where parking pad are permitted. Such areas will have been included following a public consultation process prior to City Council approval. Then the licensing of each pad must be separately approved by the City. Detailed requirements must be met, such as the actual size and location of the pad, distances from trees, provisions for permeable paving and the requirement that the rest of the front yard area remain landscaped.
City Council and City staff are to be applauded for their efforts to ensure that residents have opportunities for outdoor recreation through the ActiveTO. program. Throughout the spring, summer and fall, people have taken to our outdoor spaces in large numbers to walk, run and bike while remaining physically distant. With the COVID-19 pandemic, walking and biking are more important than ever to physical and mental health, especially for seniors and people living with mobility challenges.
On 29 January 2019, FoNTRA submitted the attached brief commenting on the Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2017. Four members of FoNTRA’s Steering Committee also attended your Ministry’s Toronto Regional Round- table on Proposed Changes to Growth Plan on 13 February 2019, which you chaired. Un- fortunately, when the new Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 came into effect on 16 May 2019, FoNTRA noted that few, if any, of its proposals had found their way into the new policy framework.
We appreciate the comprehensive review and report by Ian Lord, TLAB Chair. However we feel that while the report raises various matters related to the ongoing operation of the TLAB, it fails to look deeper to the workload generative issues that lie behind some of the issues raised.
Residents play a key role in the operation of the TLAB and need it to operate in a way that is fair to them. TLAB operates largely without input from residents. TLAB business meetings have been established but these are largely ineffective as mechanisms to provide input from residents. Procedure and rules continue to be added to the processes without effective input from residents. (See attached) Given that the appeal process is important to residents as it greatly affects their neighbourhoods, we play close attention to how TLAB is operating and see how it is unfair to residents.
As you know, we supported virtual hearings for applications based upon your commitment that these hearings would be used for applications with (truly) minor variances. We have been increasingly concerned that complex applications with many variances, and multiple community objections are being heard in virtual hearings. In addition:
The agenda for the meeting included a couple of new initiatives: Draft Practice Direction 6: Expert Witnesses, and Evaluation Form). We were pleased that the Chair was willing to allow enough time to hear from residents’ representatives as well as to allow for a fulsome discussion among some Members. However in the end we feel that a multi-step approach to developing and approving such policies is required in order to achieve the best results. We suggest that, at a minimum, an initiative should go through two readings, with an initial meeting to present a proposal and gather stakeholder input, followed by a second meeting to present and receive input to the TLAB on a revised proposal. We suggest the Board might consider organizing the first meeting with mixed stakeholders so that there is an opportunity for enhanced understanding, perhaps with independent facilitation.
As you are aware the above noted survey has been (or was intended to be) distributed to all resident associations registered with the City. While we appreciate the attention to the views of residents of neighbourhoods, through their resident associations, we are hearing from our members of a number of serious operational concerns with the survey, as well as fundamental concerns about the whole initiative.
A number of active residents associations did not receive the survey when it was first sent out. Some of them received the link forwarded from other organizations such as FoNTRA, and likely several never did receive the survey, or received it very late, and did not have time by the deadline (March 17) to complete it.
Several RAs found that they were either unable to open the survey, or received a message that the organization had already completed the survey. The latter problem has led to the concern that, in some cases, individuals who may or may not represent the RA have completed the survey.
We are the collective voice for neighbourhood associations in North Toronto and North York and have many concerns about the ongoing health and sustainability of our tree canopy. We are writing to voice our support of the Infrastructure and Environment Committee recommendations.
Specifically, we support: using the findings in the 2018 Tree Canopy Study to inform ongoing programming; to increase tree planting and maintenance on private land; to increase the tree canopy to 40%; to facilitate plans to enhance the tree canopy in identified neighbourhoods that have experienced significant losses; and to facilitate the enforcement of tree protection.
The Federation of North Toronto Residents’ Associations (FoNTRA) strongly supports the recommendation of the Infrastructure and Environment Committee to request the General Manager, Transportation Services, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to prepare a report on implementing a new right-of-way occupancy permit policy that defaults to a denial of requests, except when no other options are available.
In the event no other options are available and closure of the right-of-way adversely impacts the public use of the right-of-way, FoNTRA supports requiring that a percentage of the additional Gross Floor Area achieved by the developer, as a result of City right-of-way use for construction, is to be provided for public amenities, such affordable housing, childcare, or seniors’ services.
FoNTRA is pleased to see the staff report outlining various application analyses and service improvements over the past two years.
While some process improvements, including efforts to standardize procedures across all four districts, have been accomplished, the overall question remains – are Neighbourhood Planning (City Planning), the Zoning By-law (City Planning), the Committee of Adjustment (City Planning), administration of the Zoning By-law (Building) and Building Permit issuing (Building) producing outcomes intended by the Official Plan?
We strongly support the cancellation of the upload of the TTC ownership to the province and in principle are in favour of a more ambitious Ontario Relief Line that extends all the way north to Eglinton and west to the Exhibition GO station. This expanded line will provide additional high density neighbourhoods with high speed transit and take pressure off the existing Yonge and Bloor-Danforth subway lines.
The Ontario Line is still at a conceptual stage, both in terms of route and transit technology. This poses a significant risk of delay beyond the alternate City Relief Line completion date. A relief line component of any Ontario Line Plan must be fast tracked. The Yonge and Bloor-Danforth lines are already heavily congested. And ridership demand for both lines is expected to continue to grow significantly.