Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 22 April 2017

Background: Last Thursday's meeting of York Regional Council (20 April 2017) was important. I knew it the moment I walked into the Council Chamber and saw the Men in Suits with their expensive looking briefcases. The "Development Community" is in attendance!

The meeting is all about development charges. I learn that a total of 58 projects with a gross capital cost of $1.5 billion are to be added to the Region's "contingency schedule". They are not paid for. The paperwork tells me the contingency schedule has two types of projects:

* Assets the Region doesn't currently own/have responsibility for. These projects require the Region to enter into an agreement with another party. An example is the GO rail grade separation at Davis Drive.

* Additional roads projects in the Region's Transportation Master Plan that are needed to support new development.

These projects are subject to financial triggers. You can view the slides here. (Scroll to bottom of page and open.) Now read on. 

Developers are unhappy

The Regional Council is meeting to discuss the latest proposed revisions to the Development Charges By-law. DCs are big bucks. They are extracted from developers to help pay for things like roads, water and sewage that new subdivisions rely on if they are not going to be stranded in the middle of nowhere, hooked up to nothing.  

A trio of aggrieved developers and consultants make their way to the microphone.  They are, to varying degrees, unhappy.

First up is Randy Grimes (real name not an alias) from the IBI Group but speaking for BILD's "York Chapter" which sounds kinda threatening. Then there's the eloquent Maria Gatzios from Gatzios Planning. And, bringing up the rear, the flamboyant Marco Filice from the Liberty Development Corporation. He speaks on behalf of nine development project owners in York Region.

I notice his smart leather briefcase is sitting on top of a banker's box which, in turn, sits on a little trolley with a telescopic handle. He has a heavy caseload. When he is not giving his presentation he is gazing intently at his cell phone, one ear cocked towards the podium.

Important new roads deferred and delayed

The Region's new Revised Background Study is a huge document, intimidating in its thickness. The developers - made corporeal by Randy Grimes - complain that too many roads projects have been shuffled into a "contingent list". The money is not there to pay for them. The developers are upset and feel short-changed.

Now it is the turn of planning consultant Maria Gatzios who speaks clearly in well formed sentences. She says there is a mismatch between big infrastructure projects which are, apparently, 100% funded and roads which are 50% funded. She points to a long list of unfunded projects in Appendix G of the fat tome. I go to page 473 and, true enough, I see pages and pages of roads projects that appear to be parked, going nowhere soon.

Ms Gatzios says the Region's own Transportation Master Plan is a work of fiction when some of its key projects are not funded. I made that up but you get the idea.

Now Mr Felice is at the microphone talking us through his slideshow. He points to ancient policies and pronouncements from York Region, drawn from their own documentation, that have never been acted on. They don't follow through. He thinks this will help his case.

Higher Development Charges. Is that what the developers want?

Frank Scarpitti from Markham wants to know if developers are prepared to see higher DCs if the contingency projects are put in the main list. Ms Gatzios says she's just a consultant planner but the "necessary projects" have got to be in the list.

Newmarket's John Taylor cunningly asks if she has the support of the entire development community for DCs to go up - even if it doesn't affect them personally as their projects don't need new infrastructure to go ahead.

Ms Gatzios is getting a lot of questions - I suppose because her presentation was interesting and easy to follow and she invited them. She says it is, inevitably, a balancing act. But there is real alarm out there that there are so many gaps in transportation spending.

"You are hearing from the development community that significant things are missing."

Van Trappist's question  

Now the Trumpets blast! The cymbals clash! A hush descends and the Chamber falls silent. It is time for Van Trappist to ask his annual question, justifying his York Region "stipend" of $54,337.92 a year.

"What about site specific development charges?"

A decent enough question but is it worth $9,056 per word?

Now the Region's affable Bill Hughes - the man in charge of the money - moves to the microphone. He affects a gentle professorial air. Looking at his students, seated around the hemicycle, he says he is going to present a structured argument on "Financial Sustainability". They wait to hear what the great man is going to say.

He starts by telling them:

"When you bring a problem to politicians you (must) also bring a solution."

Hmmm. We all wonder what's coming next.

He says Southern Ontario is growing but the distribution of that growth is uneven. Toronto is growing faster than expected with 20,000 new people moving into the city every year since 2009. By contrast, the GTA is growing more slowly than expected.

Closing the fiscal gap

This means there is a "fiscal gap" which sounds painful. The development charges coming in are lower than predicted. But the Region still has to build the infrastructure to accommodate the newcomers - even if there are fewer than expected.

He says development charges do not cover growth. This used to be unsayable but now it is the received wisdom. I learn that York Region has the highest debt per capita in Ontario - or is it the Western Hemisphere? Anyway it is three times Peel's and nine times Durham's.

Infrastructure is expensive but it supports growth. Water comes up. Sewage goes down. Hughes quotes his excellent colleague, the head of engineering, Erin Mahoney.

"We do not have a straw to the lake."

But building this infrastructure is not pain free. Debt servicing costs are significant. And if the projects in the contingency list became live then those costs would be "significantly higher".

Food for Thought  

Now I see the Regional Chair, the Great Potentate, Wayne Emmerson, shuffling in his big chair. This usually signals he is about to say something profound. True enough. He looks at Bill Hughes and says:

"You've given us food for thought. We have to live within our means, just like everyone else."

Now Markham's Jim Jones wants to know why Hughes is so surprised by Toronto's turbocharged growth and what effect the proposed foreign buyers tax will have.

Now Hughes is talking again about closing the fiscal gap which is not going to happen:

"Unless the Council is prepared to do very terrible things."

By this I assume he means putting up taxes.

Vaughan's Gino Rosati squeaks:

"This is a reality check!"

We don't have enough money

Now Hughes adds, darkly:

"The bottom line is we don't have enough money."

He says the best path is to find new sources of revenue such as those available to the City of Toronto. Land Transfer Tax. Vehicle Licensing and so on.

Now it is the turn of Markham's Frank Scarpitti, il capo di tutti capi.

He says our needs are as great as Toronto's and the DCs will have to be paid.

"We are gonna get that money."

He smiles but, as always, there is a hint of menace.

"We are gonna get that money even if we have to build a wall to keep people in. It may take longer to get the money but we'll get the money."

The temperature in the Council Chamber drops a few degrees. The developers feel a chill in the air.

New tax powers needed

Now he is talking about pushing a rope up a mountain, getting the cash they need for all their projects. He wants new tax powers from the Province.

The school swat, Markham's Jack Heath says we've heard realism we haven't heard before.

Now Newmarket's John Taylor is wondering if and when all the development charges will be collected. He talks about a future full of "precariousnesses"

"What if growth doesn't happen as projected?"

Taylor has been sitting next to the old banker for too long. He is worried about being saddled with debt we can't pay off.

Now Vaughan's Maurizio Bevilacqua, York Region's resident philosopher, pronounces:

"When there is confusion, you seize the moment!"

He wants to ask people how much they are prepared to pay in taxes! I think I know the answer he will get.

He says his colleagues can try to finesse the debate but facts are facts - there's not enough cash.

On that we can all agree.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 20 April 2017

We are now less than two weeks away from the OMB Clock Tower prehearing and we still do not know the terms of the "agreement in principle" that was entered into by the Town and Bob Forrest in closed session of the Committee of the Whole on 24 June 2013.   

That's why I am taking a deputation to the Council on Monday (24 April). It will be my final stab at getting the information before the OMB process starts. Then it will be brought up formally as an issue.

We know some kind of agreement exists. On 5 September 2015, Forrest told his business partners:

"Bob Sheaffer is drafting the land swap agreement. When we are happy with it, it will be reviewed by the Mayor and senior staff, then we must go before Committee of the Whole in camera to seek their blessing on it. We already have their agreement in principle."

On 23 February 2016, the then Town Solicitor, Esther Armchuk, told me the Council received a land exchange request from the Clock Tower developer but deferred any final decision until the application for a zoning by-law amendment received approval from the Council. As we know, it was denied. She told me:

If or when the developer's development application comes before Council, the details of the requested land exchange will likely become public information."

That hasn't happened.

What's the big secret?

So why is it so important to keep this information under lock and key? 

If councillors were told that the proposed land swap could mean some public parking spaces under Market Square that wouldn't come as a huge surprise.

But were they aware that the land swap would allow for the manipulation of the Clock Tower development's FSI which would, in turn, have a direct impact on the development's built form? This would allow Forrest's development to appear much bigger than its neighbours on Main Street, shattering the Town's existing FSI and height standards for the old downtown.

At the statutory public meeting on 9 May 2016, Forrest remarked in his insouciant way:

"There is no issue of a failure for us to be to scale."

Excuse me? We now know the success of the entire project depended on a covert manipulation of the development's FSI.

On 27 March 2017, the Town told me:

"The Town maintains its position to continue to withhold the records at this time. Council discussions related to any land transaction that has not or will not close(d) remain confidential until such a time as their disclosure will no longer have an impact."

Clock Tower and Glenway

Of course, this very same strategy was deployed during the OMB Glenway Hearing.

The Board, in its written decision on 18 November 2014, observed:

"There is no evidence before the Board that the Town took any steps to acquire these lands for public open space and public park purposes."

In fact, on 17 March and 28 April 2008, the Town considered in closed session the possible purchase of the Glenway lands but decided, on the recommendation of the CAO, Bob Shelton, that

"the Municipality was not in the golf course business and the property should not be pursued."

Of course, the Town should not have asked itself whether it was in the golf course business but whether the Glenway lands should be acquired for public open space purposes. At that time it was private open space.

The Town consciously chose not put this information before the OMB.

Changing the dynamic

Had it been made available to the public at that time it would have changed the whole dynamic.

Instead it came to light as a result of a Freedom of Information request I submitted (along with the Glenway Preservation Association) on 24 June 2015.

What does this tell me about the whole OMB process?

Plainly, it is not about getting to the truth.

It is about gaming the system to get the result you want.

These days (and, admittedly, with the benefit of hindsight) it would have been an astute move for the Town to acquire the Glenway lands for public open space.

Of course there is a big difference between Glenway and the Clock Tower. Back in 2014, during the OMB Glenway Hearing, we didn't know the Town had considered buying the Glenway lands. But we do know the Town has an agreement in principle with Bob Forrest.

The OMB will know that too.

I doubt that the Town will be able to keep details of the agreement in principle under wraps

"until their disclosure will no longer have an impact."

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 20 April 2017

Read this first. The OMB prehearing on Bob Forrest's Clock Tower development will be held at 10am on Wednesday 3 May 2017 in the Council Chamber at 395 Mulock Drive, Newmarket. Here is a condensed Reader's Digest version explaining how we got here. Forrest's OMB Appeal will throw up a million issues, many of the more important are not even touched on in this blog. Over the coming days I shall look at the issues, one by one, that will take centre stage.

The Background: The developer, Bob Forrest, sought a Zoning By-law amendment to allow him to build a seven storey apartment building around the Clock Tower - the old Federal Post Office on Main Street South which is designated. Three historic commercial buildings south of the Clock Tower also in Forrest's ownership would be demolished with their facades preserved, if possible. The proposed development lies in the very heart of the Town's Heritage Conservation District.

The application was considered by councillors at a Committee of the Whole on 28 November 2016 when it was denied. An alternative, proposed by the Town's planning staff, was not supported by Forrest nor by councillors and it too was rejected.

These decisions were ratified by the full Council at a meeting on 5 December 2016 following which Forrest appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Town's Newmarket Heritage Advisory Committee, ably led by Athol Hart, is "adamantly" opposed. So too is the BIA (Business Improvement Area) which represents businesses in the historic downtown.  (The photo below shows Main Street in the 1950s)

The Clock Tower application has morphed through three distinct iterations - nine storeys then six and now seven. In every case the development could only proceed with Town-owned land being made available to the applicant.

Forrest claims an "agreement in principle" was entered into with the Town which would allow him to use Town land for his underground car park. Without this, his project, quite literally, could not get off the ground.

The Market Square Project

Parking in the old downtown has always been an issue and as far back as 2003 the Town had a Market Square "project" which would look at parking infrastructure and how it could be improved. It was against this background that Forrest put out feelers to the Town once he had acquired the Clock Town building in early 2011. He subsequently purchased the historic commercial buildings to the south of the Clock Tower and with them the rights to a small area of surface parking in Market Square.

Forrest believed he could kill two birds with one stone. He would do a land swap, exchanging his small parcel of surface land on Market Square for a much larger Town owned space under Market Square where he could locate the underground parking his development needed.

The developer held out the possibility of allocating some of this space for public parking. This was seen by senior Town staff and at least some councillors as a win-win. In the event, the public parking element proved to be a non-starter when the developer made it clear he was seeking $30,000 from the Town for every space.

The Land Swap

Although the idea of the land swap has been in the public domain for years - and is available for all to see in the plans and drawings related to the proposed development - the details of the so-called agreement in principle have never been published by the Town.

Forrest's proposed development in the heart of the Heritage Conservation District would have had a Floor Space Index of 4.27 (one of the highest densities in the whole of Newmarket) but was massaged down to 2.9 when the Town-owned underground land was factored in. These calculations were never made available to the public.

It was only in December of last year, seven months after the issue had been raised at the Statutory public meeting, that Town staff eventually conceded what we had long known - that the development's FSI was derived by using underground space not in Forrest's ownership.

Manipulating the Floor Space Index

The FSI for new developments in the Heritage Conservation District is 1.0 and there is a three storey height cap. Manipulating the FSI in this way directly influenced the nature of the development's built form.

Forrest sought to get all his ducks lined up in a row before formally submitting his application to the Town. Over a lengthy period, he got close to people and Town staff whom he thought could help him. As his development gestated and mutated, he worked at building support through his community "ambassadors" and "teams".

He and his senior colleague, Chris Bobyk, had one-to-one meetings with councillors reporting back to the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, and to the Town's Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton, on their views and what was said.

Staunch supporter

The Mayor became one of Forrest's staunchest supporters, declaring to the local press in April last year that the Clock Tower was just the kind of intensification the historic downtown needed. Fortunately, despite his enthusiasm, he could not take his councillor colleagues with him and in November 2016 - just before the crucial vote - the Deputy Mayor, John Taylor, wrote in his blog that he would not and could not support a seven storey development. He said:

"It is simply too large for the site and for the Heritage Conservation District."

In the event, the Mayor voted against the Forrest application on 28 November 2016, preferring to support the Staff compromise. This proposed restricting the height on Main Street to five storeys including step-backs and 7 storeys on Park Avenue, again including step-backs.  

Mayor Isolated

The Mayor was left isolated and councillors voted both down.

On 5 December 2016, Newmarket Council confirmed its decision to deny the Forrest application for the following reason:

"The development of the subject lands as proposed would adversely impact the character of the established neighbourhood and adjacent properties within the Heritage Conservation District."

This triggered Forrest's appeal to the OMB.

(The sketch above is by George Luesby showing the west side of Main Street around 1920.)

Good Heritage Planning

Forrest's lawyer, Ira Kagan, told the acting Town Clerk on 14 December 2016:

"It is fair to say that Town Staff's most important issue (policy and otherwise) is heritage."

He goes on to say: 

"The proposed development represents good heritage planning and good planning in general."

It is this contention that will be tested at the OMB.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 15 April 2017

104 Belfry Drive, Newmarket, has just sold for $1,240,000. It was on the market for seven days. It is a modest bungalow with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. 

The flyer that dropped into my mailbox from real estate brokers Jay Miller tells me it sold for a staggering $240,000 over the list price. And, more breathtaking still, a jaw dropping $380,000 above the previous highest sale of any house on the street.

Jay Miller cautiously adds - "to date of sale".

Housing hysteria

House prices are spinning wildly out of control. And it cannot go on. This madness is infecting the entire GTA. The prices in Toronto are insane.

According to statistics from the Toronto Real Estate Board the average price of all homes in the Toronto area (condos, townhouses, semi-detached and detached)  was $916,567 last month - up $228,556 from a year ago. That is an unbelievable 33% year-over-year increase.

A long piece in this morning's Toronto Star says this:

"Earlier this week, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz warned that the Toronto-area housing market isn't sustainable. Moody's Investment Services suggested that the Canadian housing market invites comparisons to the US housing crisis of a decade ago."

Which brings me back to 104 Belfry Drive. What is it about this address that makes it so special? 

Warning Bells

The house looks nice enough but appears unexceptional. No better and no worse than lots of houses in Town. But it sits on a big lot and is zoned R1-C - detached residential. The warning bells should start ringing.

I don't know if the buyer is going to (a) live in the house (b) leave it empty or (c) tear it down and build a monster home, towering over its neighbours.

Useless Zoning By-laws

But if it is the latter the new owner won't need any permissions from the Town providing the submitted site plan indicates the house satisfies the Town's useless zoning by laws.

But, of course, this is just speculation on my part. We shall soon see if the curtains go up or the house comes down to make way for another

Just like 1011 Elgin Street, 104 Belfry Drive is in Jane Twinney's Ward 3.

She is concerned about the rash of monster homes which are beginning to disfigure so many neighbourhoods.

Twinney calls for a review and debate

At the last Council meeting on  27 March 2017 Councillor Twinney, supported by the old warhorse Dave Kerwin, called for a staff review of Zoning By-law 2010-40 and By-law 2013-30:

"to address best practices related to infill development standards across the town as a whole and provide a report to Council".

She tells me she doesn't have a date yet for the debate. 

I hope the Planning Department is not going to drag its feet, complaining of too much work.

The analysis has already been done.

What is missing is the will to implement measures to protect the Town's older neighbourhoods from massively inappropriate development.

As Newmarket's very own Dorian Baxter has been known to say:

it's time for a little less conversation and a little more action.

A new zoning by-law is needed now.

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