Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 08 June 2016

I hear Neil and Chrisula Selfe, who bought the King George School on Park Avenue in 2011 for $1, 275, 000, are selling it to Sam Reisman of Rose Corporation.

The old school has been empty for years and parts of it  are now gently crumbling away. I am told the plan is for townhouses and luxury condos in the revamped school building.

The old barbarian, Bob Forrest, had discussions with Rose Corporation when looking for a partner for the controversial Clock Tower development – which increasingly looks like it is dead in the water.

The Rose Corporation is the developer behind the 15 Storey rental apartment building on Davis Drive.

Sam Reisman founded the Rose Corporation in 1982, naming it after his wife, Rose, the celebrity chef.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 06 June 2016

Parking has been as issue in Newmarket for at least a century. We have this on the authority of Dave Kerwin no less, the longest serving councillor in Canada, perhaps the Western Hemisphere. He tells the Committee of the Whole last Monday (30 May 2016 – agenda item 10) that, as a member of the Newmarket Historical Society, he can state without fear of contradiction that:

“In Newmarket for the past 100 years there has been as issue with parking in the Downtown core.”

This is the same Dave Kerwin who told the Committee of the Whole on 31 August last year that he never has any difficulty finding somewhere to park downtown.

Personally, I think consistency is an over-rated quality in politicians. The fact that Kerwin bounces around all over the place hasn’t damaged his electability. He says he is “unorthodox”. True. But why stop there?  He can also be irascible, curmudgeonly and theatrically angry when it suits. He is also a flamboyant flatterer.  

Nine months ago at that August meeting, Kerwin-the-Contrarian took issue with Joe Sponga who was complaining about lack of enforcement of parking regulations. Last Monday, Joe was playing the same old record again but with an interesting new twist. Maybe parking spaces are not needed at all!

We can learn from Venice says Sponga

He tells us he recently visited the oldest continuously operating restaurant in Venice (as one does) which goes back to 1600 and he saw the future.

“Not only aren’t there any cars - or a parking lot for cars – there is not even parking for boats! Yet people are visiting this restaurant all the time for the food is delicious.”

Joe says we gotta go for a “sustainable solution”. The way forward is to go for high end restaurants. As soon as you pull in they step out and ask if they can park your car. Then at the end of your meal when you get your check, they get the valet to bring your car to the front door. You feel you’ve had a higher level of service and, sure, you’re gonna pay more. But that’s the future – “valetisation”. (I made the word up.)

Joe’s Ward 5 covers the historic downtown and he isn’t going to be voting for any parking solutions that are not sustainable.

He and the Mayor, for their own reasons, are the only two voting against John Taylor’s proposal to boost parking provision downtown by extending the car park at the entrance to Fairy Lake, adding 33 spaces next to the rail track (photo right). Seven old and diseased trees will have to go but there will be 21 sturdy young replacements. Taylor, enthusiastically supported by Dave Kerwin, also wants another 22 spaces carved out of Council owned greenery behind the Cachet restaurant costing approximately $150,000 (photo at top).

Sand in the gears

This is too much for Van Bynen who spends the entire meeting throwing sand into the gears. Why not wait to see what effect the additional 33 spaces will have before we chop down trees behind Cachet? He tells us we are getting mixed messages from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority who must first agree any parking on a flood plain.

He wants to investigate feasibility and costs. Now he is gazing at the tea leaves at the bottom of his tea cup. He tells us he sees a lot of unknowns. He sees options that he wants to explore.

This infuriates Kerwin. He thinks Van Bynen is always trying to put a spoke in the wheel whenever someone comes up with a good idea. In Kerwin’s mind, Van Bynen is a born procrastinator, prevaricator and equivocator. Kerwin tells us the Mayor really believes the land behind Cachet looks like a junk heap. Van Bynen bristles.

“I didn’t say it looked like a junk heap!”

Kerwin, who sits on the board of the Conservation Authority, says they are fine with the proposal. Taylor weighs in saying he has an e mail from the Chief Executive of the LSRCA and they are OK about it. Taylor tells the Mayor respectfully it is a non-issue.

Our success has created the problem

Now Kerwin, warming to his theme, tells us

“Our success in the downtown core has created our problem. We have revitalized the downtown core. That’s incredible! We’ve brought people down to the downtown core! They are going to Cachet. They are going to Hungry Brew Hops. They are going to Made in Mexico. They are going to the Fish and Chips place…”

Tom Vegh says he will be supporting Taylor because the Old Town Hall, opening in September, will be a very successful venue and will add to parking pressures.

We learn that staff are to be asked to prepare an analysis of parking at the Old Town Hall.

On cue, Kelly Broome-Plumley, who is also in favour of Taylor’s recommendations, innocently asks if this analysis is not something that should have been done before. Without meaning to, she scores a bullseye. Why was nothing done when the Council was deciding to do up the Old Town Hall?

“Just curious” she says, diffidently.

We now sit through a very, very long pause…..

The Mayor invites one of the Town’s top officials, Peter Noehammer, to respond. He says he will “take a stab at it”.

“I guess the short answer is the Town did conduct a parking study of the downtown area. I don’t believe the report specifically looked at it when the peak events at the Old Town Hall would be held. Just more in the context of what the existing parking was and how it could be configured to accommodate future growth like restaurants and things like that….”

Ah!

Downtown is thriving

Now Jane Twinney reveals she, too, is lining up to support Taylor. She tells us the downtown is an “incredible thriving area” and the Old Town Hall is going to be well used. But she laments the length of time it takes to get anything done under Van Bynen’s sclerotic leadership. She is fed up with constant delays. The parking report took six months!

“Sometimes we just need to make decisions about things!”

The Mayor is not at all happy with the way the debate is unfolding.

“I am not sure that I agree that parking behind Cachet is going to provide any relief for the Old Town Hall. Or Joia. I don’t believe that would provide any relief for those two locations… Burble… Burble… Burble… ”

The cautious Van Bynen wants to adopt a wait and see approach. We should go for the 33 spaces at Fairy Lake but put a hold on Cachet parking and, while we are at it, let’s examine the options for temporary parking structures. He wants another report! He warns councillors they will regret it if they press ahead and pave over the green space behind Cachet.

Christina Bisanz, who also supports Taylor, wants to know how much it will all cost and if the land is home to any rare threatened creatures. She looks at the Mayor as she mentions the salamander.

Now Dave Kerwin is getting increasingly exasperated. He will not allow the Mayor to out-manoeuvre him again. He brings to bear his impressive knowledge of arboriculture. He says the trees behind Cachet are nothing more than Manitoba Maples – an invasive species! He wants them chopped down and replaced by beautiful Colorado Blue Spruce, which sounds a tad foreign to me.

The Mayor, now fighting a rearguard action, tells us taking the trees down would have a very significant impact on the landscape.

Joe Sponga is Van Bynen’s only ally – but for different reasons. Joe tells us he will not support any of the recommendations. Joe wants underground parking on the Community Centre lands.

Respect

Taylor shakes his head sorrowfully while telling us he respects Cllr Sponga. With that out of the way, he tells us why he disagrees with Sponga.

“An underground parking solution on the Community Centre lands is at least five years away.”

That is absurdly optimistic.

Taylor is on safer ground sticking to his line that parking in the downtown is always going to be work in progress.

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

Joe Sponga has posted his own thoughts on downtown parking prompted by a story in the Era.

Attached is the story on the proposed parking solutions for Main Street. Unfortunately my statements are not reflected in the article, as the Ward Councillor and a long time resident of Historic Downtown Newmarket, I felt I should post my opinion. I support adding 200-300 Public Parking Spots split between above ground at the Community Centre Lands and underground at the Parking Lot in front of the OTH within five years, I cannot support grading, draining and paving portions of Fairy Lake for a mere 53 spots that will be tied up immediately and will make no difference now or tomorrow.

Green Space, does not have to be pretty or used in order to serve its purpose as Green Space, that is its natural state. I am surprised at the LSRCA for giving their nod of approval.

Sustainable Communities, such as ours, look for long term solutions that will benefit us and our children for many years, that is smart and sustainable. Valet Service by the Restaurants, above and below ground dedicate, urban, Green-P type parking, and maintaining and sustaining both our Green Space and Main Street are the solutions I would support.

Did anyone realize that five years ago we added 43 parking spots in P3? Have they made a difference? Should we do the same at the expense of Fairy Lake? 

In sum, I support long term, sustainable parking solutions that make a difference. Not 22 parking spots behind Cache in Fairy Lake and not 33 at the entrance of our same Park.

My humble opinion.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 02 June 2016

The Town’s Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, today confirmed that the Comprehensive Planning Report for the proposed Clock Tower development will not be going to the Committee of the Whole on 20 June. Instead it is likely to go to the Committee of the Whole on 29 August – but it could slip to 26 September or even later.

In the meantime, the on-line change.org petition promoted by Margaret Davis will be formally presented to Newmarket Council at its meeting on Tuesday 7 June 2016. The petition has been a resounding success with 1,213 signatories, the overwhelming majority local people.

Trinity United has concerns

Elsewhere, in a key intervention, lawyers for Trinity United Church have listed a number of issues that will have to be fully addressed by planning staff when they are writing up their comprehensive planning report. The lawyers say these are “matters of concern” to the Church:

(1)  Shadow Study Impacts – the proponent’s study concludes serious shadow impacts to the Church during the spring and fall mornings. The east and south facades are prominent due to their entrances and stained glass windows and therefore the impacts are concerning.

(2)  Town staff recognized “significant breathing room” has been provided to the clock tower. The proposed setbacks along Park Avenue should be increased and stepped from the second storey to the seventh storey to provide more “breathing room” for the Church.

(3)  The Main Street perspective elevation is misleading as it suggests the Church is the same height as the seventh storey of the proposed building.

(4)  Official Plan section 1.3.2 indicates the Town’s cultural heritage will be a priority for the Town. The Church requests Council support this policy as we are concerned the development proposal could impact the cultural heritage of the Church. The rich history of the Church needs to be protected for the residents of Newmarket.

(5)  The Official Plan encourages appropriate development scale with the historical character of Main Street. The Church is concerned about the proposed massing and impacts on the Church.

(6)  The Church supports the Staff Engineering comments regarding the concern for the parking shortfall. Parking for the 165 residential units is intended to be accessed by Park Avenue. The Church remains concerned about the parking shortfall and congestion on Park Avenue.

(7)  The proposed development needs to contribute to the historic character of the Main Street.

(8)  The proposed development should respect the Town’s 45 degree angular plane standard to reduce the impact this development will have on the Church.

(9)  The proposed 430 units per net hectare and 2.9 FSI is excessive and therefore impacts the prominence of the Church.

(10)                 The Church has experienced problems with groundwater affecting its foundations so it is concerned about the impact of the proposed underground construction on groundwater flows and with the impact of the vibrations of the proposed construction generally.

You can read the Trinity United correspondence here. Scroll to the bottom of the page.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 01 June 2016

Back Story: On 30 May 2016, at a public meeting held in the Council Chamber, bewildered residents from a relatively new subdivision challenged councillors to explain to them how a developer (724903 Ontario Inc) could be allowed to build ten townhouses, four storeys high, on land zoned for commercial at 16333 Leslie Street. Instead of the promised low rise commercial plaza they have been patiently waiting for, residents would get townhouses significantly higher than the surrounding detached homes. Residents fear a loss of privacy. They believe their neighbourhood would be adversely affected in ways never envisaged when they bought their properties only a few short years ago. See agenda item 21 here.

Blistering Attack

Veteran councillor, Dave Kerwin, has launched a blistering attack on Newmarket’s Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, accusing him of “never showing leadership” and chairing a meeting that was “poorly conducted”.

At Monday night’s Committee of the Whole, Kerwin dramatically rose to his feet and taunted Van Bynen to throw him out of the meeting. Kerwin, getting wild applause from the audience, accused Van Bynen of failing to properly inform the residents and help them understand the process.

Kerwin startled many in the Council Chamber when he asked the audience to raise their hands if they were born in Canada. Van Bynen told Kerwin his question was inappropriate. Kerwin hit back:

“These people do not understand the process and we should have informed them before they came here.”

It seems to me that what is happening at 16333 Leslie Street is further evidence of a planning system that is broken beyond repair. Zoning by-laws - on which people rely when making major investments such as buying a house – can be changed at the drop of a hat, sometimes for capricious reasons, often to satisfy the development community.

Planning system no longer works in the public interest

We all know Van Bynen is a man of process and procedure, ticking boxes in his bank manager’s way. He is content to follow the corroded rules of a planning system that is no longer fit for purpose. When people rely on the planning system to deliver a measure of certainty they get instead quick-silver. Developers call the shots.

The planning system, such as it is, no longer works in the public interest. There are any number of local examples. Van Bynen would never dream of using the influence of the Municipality to seek to overhaul the system and get the Planning Act changed. His talk of reforming the OMB was all hot air. It was left to Councillor Christina Bisanz to do the heavy lifting.

Van Bynen is, above all, an unimaginative administrator. He wears the chain of office and picks up his pay cheque. Don’t look for much more.

He is a man who, in Councillor Kerwin’s caustic and memorable description, “never shows leadership”.

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

The Exchanges on Monday 30 May 2016

Councillor Kerwin: Just some questions. And Rick Nethery answered some of the questions. You are here strictly for a rezoning on this property at this particular point. Is that correct?

Developer's representative: Yes

Councillor Kerwin: The second thing would be addressed in site plan and you - or through Mr Ruggle or Mr Nethery. When you built the house in this subdivision called Copper Hills what was the maximum height you could build that house? Under the building code and under our by law?

Developer: I would have to double check that in the Zoning By-law.

Councillor Kerwin: I can tell you what it is. 35 feet from the corner of your house to the top of your roof. Is that correct?

Developer: Correct.

Councillor Kerwin: What is that in metres?

Developer: Sorry. Quick correction on that. To be clear, the height of a residential home in this neighbourhood. The height is calculated not to the peak of the roof but to the middle line between the eave and the peak of the roof. That’s the 35 feet that you are speaking (about).

Councillor Kerwin: But it is 35 feet?

Developer: Correct.

Councillor Kerwin: Converted to metres how much is that?

Developer: 13 metres roughly (muttering noise from audience)

Councillor Kerwin: 13? No.

Developer: 11 metres.

Councillor Kerwin: OK you are dealing in imperial. No these are questions I need answers to.

Developer: I understand that.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: I wonder if maybe our planning department might be able to provide that information? (pause)

Am I wrong?

Rick Nethery (?) I think it is 10.75 metres.

Developer: It is 11 metres.

Councillor Kerwin: OK. Let’s say 11 metres.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: Quiet please! (to audience)

Councillor Kerwin:  And you are proposing that these four storeys would be 14 metres?

Developer: Correct.

Councillor Kerwin: That’s ten feet taller.

Developer: Correct.

Councillor Kerwin: Ten feet. So where would you get the change for that? At site plan?

Developer: I would defer to the Planning Department.

Councillor Kerwin: Where do you get the change for that Mr Nethery? Mr Ruggle?

Rick Nethery, Director of Planning: In the event that Council were of the mind to approve this then they would ultimately be passing a by-law. So there would be a zoning by-law amendment first of all to change to the appropriate zone…

Councillor Kerwin: Residential

Rick Nethery; That by-law would also identify whatever specific requirements were necessary so, for example, if we needed to address height and provide a specific height that may differ from the parent by-law then that’s the mechanism that that could be done.

Councillor Kerwin: Would there be… Would another re-zoning have to be passed for another site specific re-zoning on that site to allow them to be higher than the residential buildings around them?

Rick Nethery: The process we are in now could address that.

Councillor Kerwin: It could but it would be a double whammy. It would be the change from commercial to residential and also the height restriction. I couldn’t build beyond 35 ft when I built my house.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: I am just wondering at this point… The purpose of this meeting is to receive comments…

Councillor Kerwin: I am making the comments but, you know, through all of this – and I know Mr Mayor you will shut me down and cut me off because I am not orthodox. I am unorthodox. But how many people in the audience were born in Canada? Put their hands up.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: I don’t think that’s an appropriate comment.

Councillor Kerwin: I do.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: I don’t think that’s an appropriate comment.

Councillor Kerwin: I do because…

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: Councillor Kerwin this is a planning application…

Councillor Kerwin: these people do not understand the process and we should have informed them of the process before they came here…

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: I understand that…

Councillor Kerwin: so they… And you are not doing that (informing them).

(applause from audience)

You never show leadership. And that’s what’s wrong. Whenever you try to achieve something here…

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: I am trying to help…

Councillor Kerwin: I am trying to help the residents. They should have been better informed before they came here and that’s part of the problem

(applause from audience)

Councillor Kerwin: That’s why you get confrontation.  Now throw me out! (Kerwin now standing) Do you want to throw me out? Throw me out!

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: Councillor…

Councillor Kerwin: It was a poorly conducted meeting so far as I am concerned. These people need to be better informed.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen: Please be seated. Please be seated councillor! The process is to inform people.

Councillor Kerwin: You didn’t inform them. They can hardly speak English.

(Now there are contributions from the floor – away from the microphone – that are, for the most part, inaudible).

You can see the exchanges on video beginning at 6.20. Check the script above against delivery.