Details

As I tap this out, scaffolding is now going up outside Bob Forrest’s properties in Main Street South (188, 190 and 194 Main Street South).

We know that Bob wants to demolish the historic commercial buildings and retain the facades to make space for his apartment building.

He needs to know what is behind the siding that conceals the original brickwork. It would suit his purpose if the old bricks were crumbling. But if there is anything worth saving he says he will take the façade down brick by brick, repair, renew as appropriate and re-instate.

This inspection of the facades was not done before Bob submitted his planning application to the Town in August 2013 when it was deemed “complete”.

Bob commissioned and paid for a Heritage Impact Assessment from Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd, Architects which tells us

“The original façade of 194 Main Street South has been altered many times – most notably the ground floor which has been reconfigured. Another common renovation, undertaken in attempts to modernize the facades, was the application of new materials, often installed over the original building fabric. In the case of 194 Main Street South, a cementitious board siding was applied in 1970s… covering the windows.”

“Currently the facades of both 194 and 190 are covered in a pre-finished corrugated metal siding with two of the original four windows on 194 facing on to Main Street.”  

So far as 188 Main Street South is concerned:

“Again, numerous alterations have removed the original shop front configuration and a pre-finished corrugated metal siding conceals the brick facing of the building. Archival documentation shows that the brick facing had been painted over the years.”

My spies tell me Bob wants to remove the siding to allow an investigation of what lies behind. I have asked the Town if this investigation is to be purely visual or if it will be intrusive. I want to know if the work will be supervised by a heritage architect and whether Town staff will be present. The photo above, taken in the 1940s, shows the properties on the right that Bob now owns.

Those who have followed Bob's devious manouevrings to get approval for his out-of-place apartment building in the heart of the old Town’s Heritage Conservation District appreciate that eternal vigilance is required. Bob knows what he wants. He plays a very long game and doesn't take prisoners. The old downtown is now thriving but is blighted by Bob's boarded up properties, empty for years. When I see them dead and shuttered I think of the business tenants he evicted.

We need to know how long this work on the facades will take. And what commitments the Town has been given concerning reinstatement of the siding or other ways of protecting the facades from weather damage. 

I see Bob is now thinking aloud about whether his seven storey rental apartment building should be a condo. The truth is, Bob is all over the place.

We've had six storeys, nine storeys and now seven storeys.

On tenure we've had condo then rental and now, possibly, condo again.

He is desperate to get any kind of approval from the Town which allows him to walk away, laden down with cash, from a project that is giving him so much grief.

These days, even the overt support of Tony Van Bynen counts for little.

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

Update at 17.00 on 19 August 2016: The Town informs me that permission was granted to Forrest for the removal of the steel coverings only. No masonry is to be removed. I am told this will allow for a digital scan and visual inspection to assess the condition of the original facade and allow the heritage consultant to prepare a heritage conservation plan. I am told Forrest's heritage consultant will be inspecting the site as the work progresses and Town staff will be there as much as possible. The removal of the siding should not take more than a couple of days. Any holes or cracks in the masonry will have to be plugged/filled to prevent damage from the elements.

Details

Since I was invited to Darryl Wolk’s Campaign Launch at the Goulash House in Main Street South last night I thought it would be impolite not to show up.

It was a convivial affair hosted by Mayoral “runner-up” Chris Campbell.

I see 35-40 people including the former PC MP, Lois Brown.

As I enter the lounge, Chris Campbell approaches and says he is there to meet and greet. His face is creased into a wide grin as he points to the bar and invites me to get a drink. It’s free.

I can’t believe what I am hearing. Just the first one, surely?

No, he beams. It’s on the house from 7pm to 9pm.

I am at the bar watching my Boneshaker being poured and I find myself thinking of the poor innocents supping their beer at the Olde Village Ale House two doors away – and paying for it! They are unaware that a 60 seconds saunter could take them to a land where they could drink for free.

They’d just have to listen to a few speeches. Painless!

On cue, master of ceremonies, Chris Campbell, in his booming voice, calls us all to order. He describes Darryl Wolk in glowing terms. He paints him as a true man of the people. A champion for Ward 5! Darryl Wolks on water!

To Campbell’s right stands the candidate himself, looking slightly tense. He is called forward to a big round of applause.

Wolk begins by thanking Chris. We learn they got close during the 2014 election campaign and became good friends. Now he thanks Lois Brown for bringing federal funds to Newmarket. I turn to get her reaction. She acknowledges the tribute with a watery smile.

Wolk lays out his stall

Now Wolk is taking us through his election platform which, we must all agree, is comprehensive if nothing else. He ticks all the boxes. We hear about the Clock Tower – he is opposed. We are reminded we should treasure Main Street and build on the success it is currently enjoying. He thanks the business owners who are present for the part they played in bringing a new buzz to the downtown. Wolk lays out his stall. There is something there for everyone. He is very focused on policy and doesn’t mention the other candidates once. I approve of this approach.

There is no doubt he would press his agenda if he were elected. And he would undoubtedly challenge the group-think which seems to envelope most new councillors as soon as they get to Mulock Drive. But whether he would have allies on Council is an open question. He says he would take on the Town Hall establishment and I believe him. But would that be a creative or a wholly destructive process?

Wolk’s delivery is faultless with every sentence well constructed. It is as if he is reading from an invisible teleprompter. He finishes to enthusiastic applause and goes round the room shaking hands.

Now Darryl is standing in front of me and I congratulate him on his speech. He tells me he didn’t use notes because his delivery becomes wooden.

Who are the stooges?

I find this honesty and self awareness quite engaging. So, expecting him to be equally candid about the other candidates, I ask him what he thinks of them. Who are the serious candidates?

He tweeted earlier about “stooges” but tonight he steers clear of this self-defeating language. He is complimentary about Tracee Chambers, pointing to her roots in the area. He tells me some candidates will be spending serious money on the by-election. But to make an impact it seems to me they will need a detailed policy platform that covers the big issues.

Policy on its own is not, of course, enough. In 2014, Wolk had a policy on everything and got 5,128 votes when the incumbent, John Taylor, got 14,459.

Money helps. Taylor spent $57,737 on his campaign; Wolk $22,595.

But, to get elected, candidates need to connect with the voters and grab their attention - and they must have a story to tell.

Candidates' Debate

Looking at the field, I am more convinced than ever that we need a candidates’ debate. Surely the Era Newspaper and the BIA can organize one?

In many very important respects, Wolk’s politics are not mine. But he is obviously hungry for the job and has thought seriously about what he wants to do if he gets elected.

Many people are drawn to that.

Wolk, in his slightly stiff and awkward way, moves on and now I am asking others what they think.

One captures the mood in this admittedly partisan crowd.

“If he wants it that bad, why not give him a shot. It’s only two years.”

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

 

Details

Tracee Chambers is the latest hopeful to throw her hat into the ring for the Ward 5 by-election. She tells me:

“I have owned a home and business in the downtown core for over 25 years and I feel the uniqueness and authenticity of Main Street is very important. As an entrepreneur I realize the importance of growth and change however feel confident that these two worlds can complement each other… I feel that a 7 storey building would be too high for our Historical Main Street.”

This means that six out of the seven declared candidates for Ward 5 say they are against Bob Forrest’s Clock Tower development in the form that is currently before Council.

To build his out-of-place and disfiguring apartment block, Bob Forrest needs a zoning by-law amendment to the existing Historic Downtown Urban Centre (UC-D1) zone which restricts development to three storeys.

Just say no

The Council is under no obligation to give him the permission he needs.

It is plain to all with eyes to see that the development would wreck the old town’s unique character, ambiance and panoramas and set a precedent for others to follow in future.

The Town’s own website reminds us:

“The purpose of declaring an area a heritage conservation district is to conserve and enhance the character of the neighbourhood. A heritage conservation district plan guides physical change over time so that any change contributes to the district's historic character.”

Forrest filed his redevelopment application with the Town in August 2013 - before the slothful Van Bynen got round to enacting the Heritage Conservation District by-law on 21 October 2013. But that by-law simply replicates to the last dot and comma the policy adopted by the Council in 2011.

Injured innocence

Forrest, all injured innocence, cries foul. He appeals to the OMB claiming the by-law should not apply to the land he owns. The OMB rules that the future of the Forrest lands will be determined by the Town when it comes to consider Forrest’s rezoning application. Forrest’s appeal can then be resurrected after the Town has made its decision. And that is where things stand. (See note from Town Solicitor below)

Zoning by-laws infinitely flexible

Zoning by-laws are, of course, notoriously flexible and amendments are ten-a-penny. A whole industry has grown up designed to circumvent their intent. People buying property, who place weight and reliance on the Town’s zoning by-laws believing the words mean what they say, are often shocked later on at the ease with which these very same by-laws can be subverted by rapacious developers aided by a compliant council. The whole system is utterly fraudulent and dishonest.

Janus-faced Mayor

This built-in flexibility allows our smiling janus-faced Mayor to do two mutually contradictory things. He signs the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District By-law on 21 October 2013 capping any new development at three storeys and then, thirty months later, he tells the ERA newspaper on 11 April 2016 that a seven storey apartment building in the middle of the Heritage Conservation District is a great example of the kind of intensification the historic downtown needs.

Van Bynen knows how to game the system using his old friends "process and procedure" to get the result he wants.

We now know that for our Mayor, “intensification” trumps “conservation” any day.

If Van Bynen succeeds and Forrest gets his zoning by-law amendment, the Historic Downtown Urban Centre (UC-D1) zone and its three storey height cap will not be worth the paper it is written on.

In these circumstances, it is an absolute racing certainty that concerned residents will go to the OMB to defend the Heritage Conservation District against the decision of Van Bynen and his colleagues to ignore their own policy.

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

Last September 2015, the Town Solicitor reminded councillors of the status of Bob Forrest’s appeal to the OMB:

“In August 2013 a rezoning application was filed to redevelop the lands at 180-­194 Main Street. A public meeting was held on February 3, 2014. On October 21, 2013 Council enacted the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District By-law 2013-51. The lands are located within the Heritage Conservation District. In August 2014 the OMB ordered that By-law 2013-51 save an except for the lands located at 180-194 Main Street shall be deemed to have come into effect on October 21, 2013. A date has not been set for hearing of the appeal until after Council makes a decision regarding the rezoning application for the lands.”

Details

Bob Forrest has found his champion.

Real estate salesperson, Wasim Jarrah, is an enthusiastic advocate for the controversial seven storey development in the heart of Newmarket’s heritage conservation district. Throwing caution to the wind, he has just decided to run for the Ward 5 vacancy.

Jarrah told the Era newspaper on 19 April 2016:

“Main needs to be revitalized; that’s the main thing. From a real estate, business and economics standpoint, people need to come to Main and live on it to attract and retain businesses in the area. This will bring in that much needed customer base. Rentals are much needed. Newmarket does not have much vacant land to build on and the only way to redevelop is vertical.”

Jarrah was down to speak in favour of Forrest’s proposal at the Statutory Public meeting on 9 May 2016 but, without any explanation or apology, didn't show up.

The Change.org petition against the Forrest plan, promoted by Margaret Davis, won the backing of 1,213 people – the vast majority Newmarket residents. The petition called on the Council to respect its own planning policies and stick to the mandated three storey height cap that applies in the heritage conservation district. It was a powerful statement of opposition.

By contrast, Jill Kellie’s petition backing the development languished far behind with 222 supporters.

Jarrah chose not to post a comment.

He will now have plenty of opportunities to explain his position to an overwhelmingly sceptical public.

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

Update at 18.15: Tracee Chambers becomes the seventh candidate to join the race.

Update on 5 August 2016: Bob Kwapis' website is now up and running.

Details

Newmarket Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, appears isolated in his enthusiasm for Bob Forrest's Clock Tower development which would blight the the historic downtown.

All five candidates battling to fill Joe Sponga’s vacant council seat in Ward 5 have repudiated Van Bynen’s eccentric view that

“the Clock Tower is a great example of the intensification we need”.

Darryl Wolk, the first to declare, has repeatedly made clear he is unequivocally opposed to Forrest’s plan. Earlier today he tweets:

“A vote for WOLK is a vote against 7 storeys of rental in our heritage district. Our historic downtown will NOT be destroyed on my watch!”

Darryl Wolk is a known quantity who relishes speaking his mind. But it is unclear whether he can translate his impressive presence on social media into votes in the ballot box. There is no straight read-across. Remember Maddie Di Muccio? She tweeted and blogged from dawn to dusk and was crushed in the 2014 election by the then unknown Kelly Broome-Plumley.

The hitherto low profile Bob Kwapis, perhaps best known for his work as co-chair of the Ward 5 traffic safety committee, declared his candidacy on the same day as Wolk (26 July 2016). He tells me he has "great concerns" about the development in its current form. He says:

“I cannot support a mammoth building that does not respect our heritage.”

Tom Pearson, the veteran anti-poverty campaigner, says he believes any new development should be sustainable

“within the three floors designation of the original official plan.”

Ron Eibel, who stood unsuccessfully in Ward 5 in 2014, is deeply concerned about the huge bulk and mass of the controversial proposal. Eibel won plaudits for his scale model of Forrest’s development which took pride of place in the Council Chamber for the second Statutory Public meeting on the application. 

Ian Johnston, who ran against Maddie Di Muccio at the last election, is keeping his powder dry, telling me he is waiting for the Planning Report on 29 August 2016. But his views on the Clock Tower are on the record when he told the Council earlier this year:

“I think the project is “too large” for the area in consideration…”

We have five candidates and counting. Others are still thinking about throwing their hat into the ring.

But, for the moment, retired banker Tony Van Bynen looks increasingly isolated, a cheerleader for a doomed project with very few friends.

Nominations close on 2 September. The By-election will be held on 17 October 2016.

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

Update on 3 August 2016: See Chris Simon's coverage of the by-election candidates here. And you can read Bob Kwapis' detailed views on the Clock Tower here.

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home