- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Plans to extend the proposed underground garage at the Clock Tower to allow for municipal parking were explored by councillors last year before being abandoned.
The Forrest proposal, currently before Newmarket Council, is for 199 private underground spaces for residents of the development.
On 3 June last year, Chris Bobyk, Forrest’s Director of Development, asks Tina Bates, Assistant to the Office of the Mayor, to set up a meeting with the Mayor to discuss the possibility of constructing
“additional municipal parking in parallel with the proposed redevelopment of the Clock Tower. I understand from Joe (Sponga) that while this opportunity was turned down by past Council the current Council has different views.”
On 22 June 2015, Bobyk pressed Bob Shelton to get the land exchange item to the Committee of the Whole on 31 August 2015 and “the decision on below being incorporated or not”. (This refers to the option of expanding the parking garage under Market Square.) Bobyk said he was going to talk to councillors about this option and that he would report back to Shelton and to the Mayor on what individual councillors think about it all.
A few days later, on 26 June 2015, Bob Shelton told Bobyk the Town’s senior staff had looked at the option of expanding the below grade parking under Market Square and they were interested in exploring it further.
On 26 June 2015, Bobyk told Shelton that he had “dialogue with all the Council members but two on the below grade parking opportunity at Market Square”. These were part of the “follow up meetings with councillors” that had been suggested by the Mayor.
On 6 July 2015, Bobyk told Shelton:
“I need to start organizing approach/presentation on the land exchange – (I need to) know whether or not the municipal option (of expanding the below grade parking under Market Square) is to be conveyed (and if it) is needed at this time.”
“It appears you want to review it – but whether it is to be presented to the Committee of the Whole for a second time is the question.”
“Joe Sponga called me this morning and is saying it is desired and needed. He is also saying the BIA is of the view that it is needed to accommodate new uses that have come downtown (now) and (in the) future. Nonetheless we need to get the land exchange before (the) Committee of the Whole without delay and carry forward with the Zoning By-law Amendment application. The boundaries for the land exchange vary dependent on whether the municipal parking option is included or not. Need your direction soon.”
On 24 November 2015 Bob Forrest was again in touch with the Mayor. Forrest said he would be meeting Rick Nethery “to discuss how we can firm up the land swap issue” but would like to meet the Mayor afterwards. Forrest also wanted to
“determine if there is a strong appetite for funding and building an underground parking garage for the Town beneath Market Square”.
He was putting this on the agenda “because it has again been raised”.
Key parts of the material I have now seen are redacted. Nevertheless it is clear to me the underground garage for the Town is as dead as the proverbial parrot. We do not have all the details because the Town insists they are confidential.
Meanwhile, the Town’s Engineering Services people are sticking with the line that Forrest’s proposed development requires 290 parking spaces.
Forrest says 199 will do nicely.
More to follow….
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
The ERA Architects peer review of the Clock Tower Heritage Impact Assessment will itself be reviewed says the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton.
Shelton was responding to my email (below) calling for the contract to be terminated.
The peer review has a crucially important role in the validation (or otherwise) of the Heritage Impact Assessment commissioned by Clock Tower developer Bob Forrest. It can be expected to figure prominently in the comprehensive report on Forrest’s development application currently being written up by the Town’s planning staff.
In a memo to the Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee on February 9, 2016 which enclosed an updated Heritage Impact Assessment, Dave Ruggle, the senior planner responsible for the Clock Tower file, solemnly told members "Please be advised that the HIA will be peer reviewed". The Advisory Committee subsequently voted against the Forrest proposal.
The performance standards expected from consultants and contractors working for the Town are set out in By-law 2014-27.
At some point the review of the peer review will be made public.
The on-line petition against Forrest's proposed Clock Tower development, promoted by Margaret Davis, has 1,048 supporters (as of Friday 20th am). The rival petition promoted by Jill Kellie supporting the development has stalled at 219 supporters.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
-----------------------
May 20, 2016
Mr Prentice
I have discussed the review process with staff and advise that your comments and various points will be provided to Planning staff for their consideration as part of the review of the peer review report. We appreciate the time you have taken to provide detailed comments. I also advise that we have a performance review process for consultants and contractors working for the Town.
Bob Shelton CAO
------------------------
May 17, 2016
Dear Mr Shelton
I am writing to ask you to take steps to terminate the Town’s five year contract with ERA Architects.
As you know, staff had been delegated authority by Council to award this contract. There have been two peer reviews of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of 178, 180, 184, 188, 190 and 194 Main Street South – on July 22, 2014 and May 4, 2016 – and neither remotely approaches the standard the Town should expect.
In the guidelines setting out the scope of work and specifications, the Town asked for a peer review of the HIA which would address “inconsistencies, factual errors, discrepancies, inappropriate conservation advice not consistent with recognized standards… omissions and misrepresentations.”
The Town made it clear in its guidelines to proponents that
“the preferred protective and mitigative measures will be consistent with the Lower Main Street Heritage Conservation District Plan…”
First, the peer review does not address head-on the proposed demolition by the developer of the historic commercial buildings in Main Street South even when the Town’s own Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan says at paragraph 4.2.1.2:
“The Town supports the retention of historic buildings in the district. If a property owner proposes to demolish or remove an historic building, a heritage impact assessment may be required at the discretion of the Council to ascertain whether there are alternatives to demolition or removal. Notwithstanding the findings of the heritage impact assessment, the Town reserves its right to refuse the application for demolition or re-location; and the property owner has right of appeal.”
There is no discussion by ERA of the architectural or heritage merits of the historic commercial buildings that are proposed to be demolished by the developer with only the facades remaining. This is clearly a major omission.
Secondly, in the peer review dated May 4, 2016, the Town is advised by ERA that:
“The height of the proposed new construction on Park Street (sic) has been reduced from the 2014 proposal from nine to seven storeys. It is our opinion that the current proposed height on Park Street (sic) is appropriate.”
It is not immediately obvious why ERA should regard seven storeys as “appropriate”.
However, in its earlier peer review of July 22, 2014 in relation to Mr Forrest’s proposed nine storey development, ERA advised the Town:
“A six storey height limit is appropriate based on height permissions contained within the UC-D2 zone, which is found on lands immediately adjacent to the westerly portion of the development site to the rear of the Main Street properties.”
The above-ground development site falls solely within UC-D1 zone which limits new developments to 3 storeys. The height cap in the zoning by-law is also reflected in By-law 2013-50 which designates the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District. The ERA peer review does not address the merits of retaining UC-D1 zoning even though the Heritage Impact Assessment explicitly acknowledges the proposed development would breach the height restriction in the Heritage Conservation District Plan.
ERA Architects appear to believe that at least part of the development site falls outside the Heritage Conservation District boundary. In the July 22, 2014 report, ERA state:
“The document (by Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd) concludes that the proposed development achieves a balance between the heritage and intensification goals of the Town by setting the nine-storey portion of the building outside of the Heritage Conservation District boundary, thus maintaining the Main Street South streetscape.”
This is manifestly incorrect. The proposed nine storey building was entirely within the HCD boundary, with its three storey height cap.
There may be correspondence between the Town and ERA picking up on these points. I do not know.
The latest peer review does not correct obvious errors (Park Street instead of Park Avenue) nor does it examine the Heritage Impact Assessment through the lens of the Town’s Heritage Conservation District Plan which, under the terms of the contract, it is obliged to do.
ERA Architects has not fulfilled the terms of its contract with the Town.
For your ease of reference I am attaching the relevant documentation from the Town.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Prentice
President
Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (Newmarket Branch)
(The email above corrects two errors in the original. In the fourth paragraph the word “protective” was missed out. In the 8th paragraph “seven” appeared as six.)
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
24 hours after legislation was introduced to ban corporate and union funding for provincial elections, the Government, in a remarkable change of heart, has decided to extend the ban to cover municipal elections.
In a story buried at the very back of the Toronto Star’s GTA section, Noor Javed reports today that
“initially, the province had proposed passing legislation as part of Bill 181, the proposed Municipal Elections Modernisation Act, which would give municipalities the power to make their own decisions on whether to change the contentious fundraising rules.”
But, yesterday, almost as an after-thought, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ted McMeekin, said it made sense to follow suit at the municipal level.
I am very much in favour of keeping developer money out of elections but we wait to see the small print.
Elections have to be financed. And some elections at municipal level are big, very big. If Chris Ballard’s Bill 42 passes, we could be electing a new Chair of York Region in 2018 with an electorate of 750,000 people. And at municipal level there are no political parties to share the financial burden.
A report to York Region in February 2016 pointed out that candidates could incur significant expenses in a region wide election campaign.
“Campaign spending limits are prescribed by the Municipal Elections Act using a formula based on the number of eligible electors. For a head of council, the spending limit is $7,500 plus $0.85 per eligible elector. Based on 2014 statistics, a candidate in a Region-wide election for the Regional Chair would have a spending limit close to $600,000, Based on population projections the spending limit in 2018 could be in excess of $650,000.”
This sum is enough to alarm even the stout-hearted.
That said, we need a directly elected Regional Chair but there must be tight spending caps, rigorously policed.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
update on Sunday 22 May 2016: Here is today's Toronto Star editorial
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
The appeal against Newmarket’s Urban Centres Secondary Plan (OPA10) will not be settled at the OMB until January 23, 2017 – almost seven years after the whole tortuous and flawed process began.
Newmarket’s Secondary Plan was approved by York Region in March 2015.
At that stage, the Region heard pleas from the Estate of Thomas Mulock (whose land lies on the north west corner of the intersection at Yonge and Mulock) which wants their land designated for medium and high density mixed use development. They don’t want a neighbourhood park.
A group of fast food restaurants (Tim Horton’s, A&W, McDonalds and Wendy’s) raised concerns about the Secondary Plan prohibiting drive through facilities.
The sclerotic OMB had its third pre-hearing conference on 28 April 2016 and yet another one is penciled in for 7 July 2016 at 395 Mulock Drive. What on earth do they get to talk about?
The hearing of the merits is, astonishingly, almost nine months away.
It is obvious to all that the OMB is completely silted up and the system totally useless.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Last week I wrote that the peer review of the Heritage Impact Assessment - commissioned by Bob Forrest from GBCA (Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd) to support his Clock Tower application - was worse than useless.
In fact, the work of the peer reviewer is so shoddy the Town should terminate its contract with ERA Architects forthwith.
ERA have carried out two peer reviews of Forrest’s proposed Clock Tower development. The first on 22 July 2014 when Forrest was pushing for approval of a nine storey condo.
The second review on 4 May 2016 comments on the latest 7 storey rental building. (You can read them here.)
In 2014, when Forrest was trying to get approval for a nine storey condo, ERA Architects reviewed the conservation strategy proposed by GBCA noting:
“The (GBCA) document concludes that the proposed development achieves a balance between the heritage and intensification goals of the Town by setting the nine storey building outside of the Heritage Conservation District boundary, thus maintaining the Main Street South streetscape.” (My underlining.)
In fact, the proposed nine storey building was never going to be outside the Heritage Conservation District.
The 2014 ERA peer review continues:
“ERA Architects Inc agrees with the recommendation to relocate the massing away from the low-scale heritage buildings along Main Street South and notes that it is an improvement on the previous proposals.”
ERA goes on to recommend the nine storeys be reduced to six for these reasons:
“A six storey height limit is appropriate based on height permissions contained within the UC-D2 zone, which is found on lands immediately adjacent to the westerly portion of the development site to the rear of the Main Street properties.” (My underlining.)
In the 4 May 2016 peer review, ERA Architects observe:
“The height of the proposed new construction on Park Street (sic) has been reduced from the 2014 proposal from nine to seven storeys. It is our opinion that the current proposed height on Park Street (sic) is appropriate.”
It is only appropriate if you disregard the current UC-D1 zoning which covers the entire Clock Tower development footprint (which limits new development to three storeys or nine metres) and use instead the zoning for the adjacent piece of land, not in the ownership of Bob Forrest, which falls into zone UC-D2 where the limit is six storeys or 18 metres.
This is contorted logic.
ERA is bending over backwards to accommodate the developer while ignoring the Town’s relevant zoning by-law.
Retaining ERA Architects as the peer reviewer for the proposed Clock Tower development no longer serves any useful purpose.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Page 193 of 273