Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 23 February 2016

As we all know, Bob Forrest’s proposed seven storey apartment block in the heart of Newmarket’s heritage conservation district can only go ahead if the Town agrees to a land swap.

In documents lodged with Newmarket’s Planning Department earlier this month, Forrest’s planning consultants, MHBC Planning, say an “agreement in principle” was entered into with the Town. But who entered into this agreement on behalf of the Town and when did this happen?

The land swap initiative came from the wily Bob Forrest years ago because, without it, his monstrous project would never have gotten off the ground.

Councillors last discussed this in closed session way back on 24 June 2013.

Since then, Forrest must have spent a small fortune working up his proposals, tantalized by this “approval in principle” dangling enticingly in front of him. But what in practice does “approval in principle” mean?

Is it conditional, for example, on the development being below the highest point of the steeple on the adjacent Trinity United Church? Or is it linked in some way to rental tenure? Or to the colour of the bricks to be used in construction? Who knows? The list of possibilities is endless.

And we the public are cut out of the discussion. We won’t know the details of the land swap until Forrest’s current planning application is presented to the Town’s Committee of the Whole in April or May.

I am told the details must remain top secret because this agreement in principle involves the potential acquisition/disposition of Town owned lands. Confidentiality in land transactions is standard practice, to protect the Town’s bargaining position. This seems reasonable enough. But in the present circumstances it is totally weird. It is all back-to-front.

In this strange Alice in Wonderland world, called Newmarket, the land swap kicks in only after the Council has approved the apartment block. But Forrest’s project would be dead in the water now if the Town had made it clear at the outset it was not interested in any land swap that would compromise its priceless heritage conservation district.

As it is, Forrest’s plans, if approved, would blow the Town’s Heritage District By Law clean out of the water.

I suppose the Town is trying to have it both ways. Give “approval in principle” and let’s see what the developer comes up with. Well, we've seen it now. And it is dire.

We already know in broad terms what Forrest needs from the Town. Just look at the illustration on page 7 of his Planning Justification Report (above) which helpfully shows who owns what.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 21 February 2016

Should the Ontario Municipal Board be reformed? If so, in what way?

Or should it be abolished outright? And if so, what, if anything, should replace it?

These are big questions that have been pre-occupying the capacious brain of Newmarket Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, for years. Unfortunately, he has chosen not to let the rest of us into his thinking. As a retired bank manager, he is by nature cautious and secretive, a man of process and procedure rather than original thought. But now, at long last, we are close to finding out what Van Bynen really thinks about the reform of the OMB.

Newmarket’s Committee of the Whole will tomorrow consider a letter from Aurora (agenda item 15) urging

“the Government of Ontario to limit the jurisdiction of the OMB to questions of law or process; and that the Government of Ontario be requested to require the OMB to uphold any planning decisions of Municipal Councils unless they are contrary to the processes and rules set out in legislation”

The Town Clerk, Stephen Huycke, tells Newmarket councillors the resolution from his Council in Aurora is for their information and

“any attention deemed necessary”.

I am startled to read the recommendation that the correspondence should “be received”. This is officialese for “do nothing and file away”.

I expect a lot more than this.

Aurora takes the initiative

Newmarket councillors should congratulate Aurora for taking this initiative and support it, enthusiastically. By taking a lead, Aurora is doing all the heavy lifting.

Aurora is totally exasperated by the failure of the OMB and planning law more generally to protect settled neighbourhoods from clever developers intent on infilling open land and steamrollering all opposition into the ground. The redevelopment of the Town’s pleasant Highland Gate golf course echoes what is now happening in Glenway where the fairways and putting greens of the former golf course are now being built over.

Later this year Aurora will be hosting a municipal summit on the redevelopment of golf courses in stable residential areas and it is perfectly obvious that, after the searing experience of Glenway, Newmarket should be a key participant.

Van Bynen: the keynote speaker

In fact, I would go further. Van Bynen should be invited as the keynote speaker.

Before the last municipal election in 2014, Tony Van Bynen, promised Newmarket voters:

“Bringing reform to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Planning Act to ensure our residents have a say in shaping their community will be a priority in the next term. Our Council’s decision to fight for Glenway and defend our Town’s official plan was the right thing to do. I will be working with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and a number of mayors to meet with the Province to bring about real change to the municipal planning process.”

The Sound of Silence

Alas, when Tony Van Bynen talks Glenway we are treated to the dance of the seven veils. To this day, we do not know with any certainty when Van Bynen really knew the outside consultant Ruth Victor (hired to handle the Glenway file) was going to recommend building over the golf course and what, if anything, he did about it. Nor do we know what his reaction was when he learned that senior Newmarket town planning staff was going to boycott the OMB Hearing.

However, we know Van Bynen voted to go to the OMB in November 2013 at a cost of over $500,000, fully aware the Town’s case was going to be sabotaged by its own employees. We are asked to believe that the Mayor and his ineffectual Director of Planning only knew in November 2013 that Victor was going to recommend the redevelopment of Glenway - the very same month the Council voted unanimously to support Glenway residents. (see Glenway Q&A below, prepared by the planning department for the Glenway Lessons Learned meeting, dated 2015)

Van Bynen chose not to speak about any of this at the Glenway Lessons Learned meeting.

Complete hokum

I expect the Deputy Sheriff, regional councillor John Taylor, to back the Aurora initiative. Before the last municipal election, Taylor told the Era (25 September 2014) “the issue is with the “highly flawed” OMB system, not the Town’s approach”.

This, as we now know, is complete hokum. It is a bit of both. Van Bynen allowed Ruth Victor to work alone in the basement with no supervision and with no line management. And when she revealed her thinking it was too late to do anything.

Taylor also told the Era that Ontario municipal leaders and provincial government representatives need to meet to brainstorm OMB reform and ways to improve growth planning. Quite so.

It seems to me that Tony Van Bynen and John Taylor could perform a great public service tomorrow by ending the equivocation and tell us how they would like to see the OMB reformed.

They have had time enough to think about it.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Glenway: Questions and Answers (2015)

5. When did (a) the Mayor and (b) the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, learn that Ruth Victor was minded to recommend allowing development on the Glenway lands?

Generally, Ms. Victor’s position was made known through the submission of Planning Reports to Council. Ms. Victor submitted Report 2013-47 in October 2013 which indicated that there were a number of outstanding issues and development on the site as proposed could not be supported. In November 2013, Ms. Victor prepared a memorandum to Council providing responses to a number of questions raised by the public at the October 15, 2013 Committee meeting including indicating that there was not a planning basis to recommend a no growth option.

Update on 23 February 2016:  OMB Reform: Christina Bisanz takes the initiative

Glenway councillor, Christina Bisanz, tells the Town’s Committee of the Whole yesterday (22 February 2016) that she will be bringing specific motions to the Council on OMB reform.

Bisanz tells councillors she attended a meeting convened by Aurora councillors Thompson and Mrakas to see whether it was possible to develop a collaborative approach to OMB reform with a view to bringing specific recommendations forward to Newmarket Council. She will be going to another meeting on 5 March to discuss things further.

The letter from Aurora Council is received without debate.

The Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, tells Bisanz:

“I know that the AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) is also looking at the municipal framework reform/review in the context of the OMB so I’ll try to stay in touch with that and keep you posted on what I hear there as well.”

That's my boy! Leading from the front again!

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 19 February 2016

To the York Region Administrative HQ to hear the big debate on whether the Chair should be (a) directly elected by the people or (b) indirectly by Council Members with all the nods, winks and nudges that that entails. There is also a related and overlapping debate on whether York Region should embark on a review of its governance.

But first up there is a deputation from the City of Markham. Ward 4 councillor, Karen Rea, is in favour of direct election. People should judge the candidates on a multiplicity of measures. What is their vision for the Region? Are they capable of doing the job? Are they honest and trustworthy? She says that where municipalities have taken a position on the issue of direct election their Mayors should vote in line here at the Region. She says councils in Markham, Aurora, Newmarket and East Gwillimbury all voted in favour of a directly elected Regional Chair but their Mayors, as we shall soon see, will vote against.

One of them, Markham’s silver-tongued Mayor, Frank Scarpitti, the highest paid Mayor in Ontario in 2014 on a salary of $230,234 (including taxable benefits), looks on impassively as Rea makes her points. He will not forget what she said today.

Stunned and Electrified

Now York Region’s appointed Chair, the jovial Wayne Emmerson, electrifies the meeting by telling us the Region learned unofficially last night that Bill 42 (which mandates the direct election of the Chair of York Region) would be going into Committee at Queen’s Park on Wednesday 24 February 2016 and Wednesday 2 March 2016 and the committee clerk at Queen’s Park had to be informed of any requests for deputations by 5pm tomorrow (Friday 19 February).

I hear howls of outrage. The Region’s Chief Administrative Officer, Bruce Macgregor, tells us the Region’s Director of Communications discovered this little nugget on Canada Newswire last night. There has been no official communication from the Province. But I suppose that is because the Bill has nothing to do with the Government. It is a Private Member’s Bill promoted by Chris Ballard and individual MPPs will choose either to support it or not as takes their fancy.

“Structured on a go-forward basis”

Now we turn our attention to another report on the agenda that lies alongside the one on the Regional Chair. Newmarket’s Tony Van Bynen called for a review of regional governance, believing it impossible to change the method of electing the Chair without looking at all the other bits and pieces of the machinery of government. He tells us in his weird bank manager prose it is important to look at all the options and “how we should be structured on a go forward basis”.

Markham’s Frank Scarpitti confesses he doesn’t know why we are doing this. Our model here at the Region works quite well. Why is the Province just singling out York Region? I am tempted to shout out: "It is a Private Member’s Bill. Why not ask Chris Ballard!”

Scarpitti tells us that if it ain’t broke why try to fix it?

His face creases into his trademark smile as he aims to wound. “These discussions (about electing the Chair) are good for (raising) the political profile of people.” He says we should instead be talking about the many positive things the Region has done. He tells us we are the envy of the Province and, indeed, Canada. South of the border people are filled with awe when they see what is happening inYork Region. Never one for understatement, Scarpitti tells us:

“At the end of the day there is no perfect system… but what we have is 80%-90% perfect.”

“We are perfect”

Now the serious love-in begins with Wayne Emmerson telling his electorate (ie those sitting around the horseshoe table)

 “this municipality has worked really well together”.

That said, he thinks a governance review could be useful. He is bending over backwards to appear reasonable. He hears direct election in Waterloo seems to work.

Markham’s Jack Heath, famous for reading and digesting all his committee papers and then regurgitating them at length, agrees with Scarpitti. The current system doesn’t need fixing. 

Aurora’s Mayor Geoffrey Dawe gushes on about collegiality and how everyone is really nice to him. He has to rely on that goodwill if he is absent and needs a colleague to speak on his behalf. He is the sole representative of Aurora. He hopes the review will look at “alternate representation” so someone else from Aurora can step into his shoes if he is away.

King’s Steve Pellegrini agrees the Region is 80%-90% perfect and wonders why the review of governance is necessary. “We get along extremely well.”

East Gwillimbury’s sole representative, Mayor Virginia Hackson, unsurprisingly agrees with Dawe about alternates and says the study should go ahead. She talks about collegiality which morphs into congeniality. Either way, she’s a happy Mayor.

Georgina’s Mayor Margaret Quirk also wants the review to take a look at alternates. She wonders aloud why Georgina has two reps before reminding us that her colleague, Danny Wheeler, has been off sick for three months. Had he been the sole rep Georgina’s voice would not have been heard.

Cottage Country bonus representation

There are gales of laughter when we are told Georgina gets two representatives because the population of cottage country doubles in the summer. It was decided in the old days this was the right thing to do.

Now Newmarket Regional Councillor, John Taylor, makes the first in a series of spirited interventions. He supports the governance review and the accompanying analysis. He also supports direct election of the Chair and it is time to look at things holistically.

Former MP and Mayor of Vaughan, Maurizio Bevilacqua, doesn’t see a downside to the review. He wants a review of governance every three or four years. It is that important. Perhaps he has been seared by the Di Biase scandal. He says he wants greater representation for Vaughan despite the widely held view that four members from Vaughan equal five members from Markham. This unleashes more hoots of laughter.

Vaughan’s Gino Rosati punctures the balloon. The review is a futile exercise. He says there are more important things to spend their time on.

Bruce Macgregor says they have a couple of academics on board to help staff with the review. But, curiously, he wonders what problems they are trying to solve.

Made in York

Emmerson says Chris Ballard wants a “Made in York” solution so he wants the Region to put together a menu of its own making and hand it over to Queen’s Park.

The usually reactive Van Bynen has been taking an initiative. He says he has been in touch with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and something on municipal governance will be coming forward within the year! That kind of imprecision is worse than useless. He complains, with some justification, the Region has been left flat-footed with no time to respond to Bill 42.

Markham’s Frank Scarpitti says Van Bynen is sincere in his comments but the reality is the Province is gonna do what it is gonna do. Scarpitti is against the governance review, believing it will soak up valuable time, and deflates expectations of the academics, saying dismissively:

 “We can get great professors who have written books but have they sat around a Council table?”

Emmerson puts the governance review to the vote with only Scarpitti against.

“I am quiet and like to listen”

Now we are moving on to the related debate on the election of the Regional Chair with the motion being moved by one of Markham’s four Regional Councillors, Joe Li. With York Region responsible for raising and spending billions of dollars he says it is time for accountability and transparency.  The motion is seconded in a strange lukewarm and listless way by Whitchurch-Stouffville’s  Mayor, Justin Altmann, the man who tells us

“I am quite quiet and like to listen”.

He says, almost apologetically, it is essentially a matter for the Province.

Scarpitti immediately asks him if he is withdrawing his support for the motion.

No, says Altmann, quietly.

Now Markham’s Jim Jones is telling us we need a directly elected Chair. So too does Markham’s Nirmala Armstrong though she is not pleased with the way the Province has handled things.

Where power really lies

Vaughan’s Gino Rosatti wants the Province to make the decision on electing the Chair.

“The real power here lies with Mr Macgregor! And he is not elected!”

There is much chuckling. Everyone realizes the power of the bureaucracy, while often camouflaged, is immense.

Markham’s Jack Heath is not in favour of direct election. People owe their allegiance to their local municipality and not to the regional tier. And where are people going to find over $600,000 to contest an election across the region. From developers?

Richmond Hill Mayor, David Barrow, is also against direct election. He again misunderstands that Bill 42 is a Private Member’s Bill. “If the Province is looking for change let the Province make the change.” And any change should apply Province-wide. Barrow says the Chair should have a municipal background. It seems to me the candidates will, in large part, be self selecting. Are we going to see someone run for Regional Chair with no previous municipal experience? Perhaps but unlikely.

More tellingly, Barrow believes the Chair should wield some meaty executive powers. This needs to be explored further.

Popularity v Experience

Richmond Hill’s Vito Spatafora is indignant that York Region is being singled out. He says the Chair should have the experience to deal with big regional issues. “That’s quite a juggling act. You don’t want someone (getting elected) on a popularity vote.”

Turning to Emmerson, he gushes:

“The Chair is there to guide and lead us along. To say we are not transparent is insulting.”

King’s Pellegrini is also against direct election. Why are they targeting just one Region? (Duh! Because it’s Ballard’s Private Member’s Bill and it only applies to York Region.)

East Gwillimbury’s Virginia Hackson says councils are split on the issue. Her council voted for direct election. She voted against and she will again today.

Love is in the air

Mayor Margaret Quirk tells us that Georgina didn’t take a position on Bill 42. But looking at Emmerson she confesses:

“I don’t know if direct election can get us a better candidate than what we have now.”

Now Newmarket’s Van Bynen is telling us he supports democracy, but not right now. He was the sole vote at Newmarket Council against direct election but that won’t stop him voting against direct election today. Parroting the speech he gave at Mulock Drive he says direct election would “change the dynamics of the Regional Council”. He wants a governance review first. It’s putting the cart before the horse. And any change should be applied Province wide.

Maurizio Bevilacqua now applies the soothing balm for which he is famous. Everyone presents a very valuable perspective. Wayne Emmerson has given “stellar leadership”. But if there are changes these should be uniform across the Province.

Big Money

On the vexatious question of raising huge sums of money to contest elections across the Region, he wants to turn the taps off at source. He doesn’t take money from developers or from unions. He suggests there is a way of keeping big money out of municipal politics.

Markham’s Nirmala Armstrong will be supporting direct election. We all saw the votes being cast for Wayne Emmerson but the process for electing the chair was not transparent. Who knows what deals or trade-offs she was thinking of?

Taylor wants to send a message to the Province. Direct election of the Chair offers an exciting opportunity to engage with people and get a conversation going. He says the Region has struggled to catch the eyes and get the ears of residents. Elections will bring energy to regional government.

Aurora’s Geoffrey Dawe was in a minority of one on his Council (8-1) and nothing he has heard since has changed his mind. He will be voting against today.

Vaughan’s Gino Rosatti wanders all over the shop, musing about the nature of democracy and opining on the relative merits of Parliamentary and Presidential systems. All that, I think, is for another day.

Now it is time for Emmerson to wind up. Like a controlled explosion, he vents in a muffled way, taking exception to statements that suggest there is not enough accountability or transparency at York Region. (Fair enough. But why not live stream Council and Committee of the Whole meetings? Having an audio feed is simply absurd. It's not the 1950s.)

We have come full circle and it is time to vote. In favour of direct election 5. Against 14.

In favour: Joe Li (Markham), John Taylor (Newmarket), Justin Altmann (Whitchurch-Stouffville), Nirmala Armstrong (Markham) and Jim Jones (Markham).

Against: Steve Pellegrini (King), Margaret Quirk (Georgina), Gino Rosatti (Vaughan), Frank Scarpitti (Markham), Vito Spatafora (Richmond Hill), Tony Van Bynen (Newmarket), David Barrow (Richmond Hill), Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan), Geoffrey Dawe (Aurora), Michael Di Biase (Vaughan), Mario Ferri (Vaughan), Virginia Hackson (East Gwillimbury), Jack Heath (Markham), Brenda Hogg (Richmond Hill).

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 11 February 2016

Bob Forrest’s latest plans for a condo in the middle of Newmarket’s Heritage Conservation District are worse than even I expected. His 7 storey building will disfigure forever the Town’s historic downtown. And, if approved, it will set a precedent for a rash of similar developments blighting Main Street South.

Bob Forrest tells us “the current proposal is 4^th generation since the initial June 2013 public meeting” as if this makes any difference. If the concept was bad at the outset, a few tweaks here and there do not change that original assessment. It is monstrously out-of-place. It is a massive intrusion on the Town’s delicate historic centre.

Forrest wants to build a seven-storey mixed use building with 165 residential units and 5 retail/commercial units.

Forrest’s consultant planners, MHBC Planning, say

“the proposed residential units are intended to be rental in tenure, providing housing options for young people and empty nesters within the historic downtown. The Proposals will provide 199 private parking spaces in three levels of underground parking.”

To make money, Forrest is packing them in with a vengeance at a density of 430 units per net hectare. He has also reduced the floor to ceiling heights to ensure the new condo is lower than the highest point of the steeple in the adjacent Trinity United Church.

Let there be Light

Forrest’s shadow studies (which show the impact of shadows cast by the new development) seem to suggest the Church will be in shadow at certain times of the year. This is not good news for the Church and its magnificent stained glass windows nor for the parishioners but I am no expert and need more information on this.

Forrest is quick to say the new Condo won’t take parking spaces away from others elsewhere. He does this by exceeding the Town’s parking standards which specify 1.10 spaces per residential unit. His condo requires 1.21 spaces.

Most telling of all, Forrest’s condo only works if he can use Town-owned land but the Town is under no obligation whatsoever to comply. Yet Forrest claims he has an "agreement in principle" for a land swap. Who promised him that?

His planning consultants, MHBC Planning, say:

"The Subject Lands are comprised of a number of parcels owned by both the Owner and the Town of Newmarket… The Owner has an agreement in principle with the Town that will allow for a land exchange and strata agreements that will accommodate sub-grade parking for the rear of the Proposal, while allowing the Town to continue to own and operate the surface.

Beyond the Pale

The underground parking will extend beyond the boundary of the land that Forrest owns.

Forrest’s consultants say the

“proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan.”

They go on to say Forrest’s condo plan

“is in the public interest and represents good planning”.

I laugh out loud as I read this. It is the kind of statement I regularly hear from planning professionals and planning lawyers who are the hired guns of rapacious developers with very deep pockets. It is standard formulaic planning prose meaning absolutely nothing.

Forrest’s own heritage advisers are, nevertheless, slightly more circumspect.

GBCA (Architects) say their client’s plan

“finds a balance between maintaining two-to-three-storey buildings throughout the Heritage Conservation District Plan boundaries and increasing, density, sustainability, financial viability and vibrancy in the historic Downtown.”

But, tellingly, they go on to say there are numerous competing interests that “ultimately must be weighed by Town Council.”  

They are throwing the ball back into the Town’s court.

Forrest’s proposal

“seeks to balance the complementary interests of increasing density, while preserving heritage character as best as possible.”  (My underlining.)

They conclude:

“(Our analysis) concludes that the proposed development, while not meeting the Heritage Conservation District’s Plan in terms of height restrictions, could be mitigated in order to allow the Town to meet a number of other planning goals in the Historic Downtown Core. This Heritage Impact Assessment includes examples of how architectural design can further enhance the compatibility of new construction in Heritage Conservation Districts. The conservation and rehabilitation of four heritage buildings as part of the development is in keeping with the intent of the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan.” (my underlining)

Disneyfication

The reference to conserving and rehabilitating the four heritage buildings (including one dating from 1840) essentially means retaining the facades. It is the casual Disneyfication of irreplaceable historic commercial buildings.

Our charming streetscape goes from 3 storeys to 7. The Heritage Conservation District policy is shredded. The Town’s historic centre is transformed forever with copy-cat proposals waiting in the wings. The Town’s parking standards are ignored. The developer gets Town-owned land and laughs all the way to the bank.

Unless we stop it.

Once and for all.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

See the plans and drawings here.