Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 12 May 2016

Back story: In November 2013 Town awarded a “peer review” contract to ERA Architects of Toronto. They would be responsible for peer reviewing any Heritage Impact Assessment for 180-194 Main Street South and for any future peer reviews on an “as needed” basis for five years. You can see the documentation here. 

Taylor breaks the (expected) news.

Regional Councillor John Taylor tweeted this morning:

Clock Tower Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review is in:

It recommends:

1. Decrease the height of the proposed new construction by Main Street South by at minimum one storey so that the overall height does not compete with the height of the former Post Office clock tower. The proposed stepback at the upper level should remain to maintain appropriate views of the clock tower from the south.

I have not seen the full report. As soon as I have read it I shall post my comments. But some preliminary thoughts.

From what Taylor says, the peer review seems to be stressing so-called “mitigative measures”. It cannot possibly say that Forrest’s proposals are in line with the Heritage Conservation District policy because, manifestly, they are not. So the peer review will focus on how the most damaging aspects of Forrest’s Clock Tower proposal can best be mitigated. The peer reviewers were never going to say the Clock Tower development should not proceed. That was always something for the fairies.

Planning and architectural consultancies such as ERA operate in a marketplace. They take commissions from developers as well as municipalities. They are not disinterested.

In Leslieville, ERA recommended retaining facades as a way of preserving at least some part of an historic building. But facadism is not appropriate in every case.

Our councillors must not sub-contract their judgement to an outside planning consultancy, no matter how distinguished.

More to follow...

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

Newmarket appoints peer reviewer in 2013. Here is the relevant extract of what was expected:

 1.     SCOPE OF WORK

The Corporation of the Town of Newmarket (the Owner) is inviting proposal submissions for the Peer Review of the Heritage Impact Assessment for a zoning by-law amendment application for 178, 180, 184, 188, 190 and 194 Main Street South, including the Clock Tower Inn and the three adjacent buildings to the south. This contract may be utilized by the Owner for additional similar scope assignments (see Item 3 below)

Information on the Clock Tower redevelopment proposal can be found at: www.newmarket.ca/en/townhall/plannotic.asp”

The Town requires submission of a heritage impact assessment in order to:

? determine compliance with relevant cultural heritage policies

? assist staff with their analysis and report preparation

The rationale for the requirement for the heritage impact assessment arises from: the Ontario Heritage Act; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005);

The Peer review will evaluate the assessments provided for heritage impact assessment. This review will include, but is not limited to, addressing inconsistencies, factual errors, discrepancies, inappropriate conservation advice not consistent with recognized standards (see below), omissions and misrepresentations.

It is expected that the preferred protective and mitigative measures will be consistent with the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan and recognized standards for heritage conservation, including:

? Link to the District Plan http://www.newmarket.ca/en/townhall/resourcelibrary/FinalOctober52011HeritageConservationDistrictPlan.pdf )

? Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties

? Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties

? Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Heritage Conservation Principles for Land Use Planning

? Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation

? the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada

? the Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment

? the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (the Venice Charter)

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 11 May 2016

I think I owe my readers an apology. I was wrong when I said our process and procedure driven Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, had re-jigged the agenda to prevent the public from questioning Bob Forrest.

In fact, the public has no right to question anyone about anything at a Statutory Public Meeting.

For a fleeting moment I thought I might have an opportunity to quiz Bob at the close of his presentation when he specifically invited questions.

But when Van Bynen told Forrest

“We’ll ask you to come back if there are any questions later on.”

he was referring to questions from his Council colleagues not from the great unwashed.

In fact, there were no questions to Forrest from our incurious Mayor or councillors. And those who did have questions – ie the public - were never going to get an opportunity to put them.

As our excellent Town Clerk, Andrew Brouwer, told me on 28 April 2016:

“The purpose of the public hearing meeting is to provide comments on the application to Council, not to enter into dialogue with staff or the applicant.”

It seems to me the Statutory Public Meeting was chaired in a very casual manner by Van Bynen who never asked his colleagues if they had any questions of clarification for any of the people making a deputation. This was a serious oversight for someone who lives and breathes process and procedure.

Am I splitting hairs?

Probably. 

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

The Land Swap

At the Statutory Public Meeting on the Clock Tower on Monday 9 May 2016 Bob Forrest’s much anticipated slide show makes no mention of the land swap which, to all intents and purposes, might be happening in a parallel universe.

We do not know what Bob Forrest proposed and the justifications he advanced. That is why I have lodged yet another Freedom of Information request to see the correspondence and details of the land exchange at the Clock Tower requested by Forrest (and/or his alter ego Main Street Clock Inc) in the period up to 24 June 2013 when a Special Committee of the Whole in closed session agreed in principle to land transactions involving Town-owned land.

The Town is steadfastly refusing to give any details. My Freedom of Information request last week for sight of all the papers relating to that 24 June 2013 meeting was turned down because

“the (Clock Tower) development application and related land negotiations have not been finalized, the closed session records are still confidential at this time.”

Yet the Town Solicitor, Esther Armchuk, told me on 23 February 2016:

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

The development application is now before the Council. And it seems to me there is no good reason why the terms of Forrest’s approach to the Town cannot be made public.

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

My Freedom of Information request for sight of the agenda, minutes and any supporting papers regarding the proposed land swap was turned down on 4 May 2016 (citing the provisions of Section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Section 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act.)

The powers given to municipalities are permissive (may) not mandatory (shall). Councils can make information available, in whole or in part, if they so choose. But in Van Bynen’s closed world secrecy always trumps transparency.

Municipal Act 2001

6. (1) A head may refuse to disclose a record,

(a) that contains a draft of a by-law or a draft of a private bill; or

(b) that reveals the substance of deliberations of a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them if a statute authorizes holding that meeting in the absence of the public.

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

S239 (2) A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is,

(a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board;

(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;

(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board;

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 10 May 2016

I am in the Council Chamber waiting for the big event to begin. It is the second statutory meeting on Bob Forrest’s latest plan for the Clock Tower. Six storeys then nine. Now we are on seven.

The place is packed and there is a uniformed fire fighter at the door to make sure the numbers stay within safety limits. People who are turned away are directed to an overflow room.

Sitting behind Bob Shelton, the Chief Administative Officer, their backs to the wall, is the developer Bob Forrest and his faithful lapdog, Chris Bobyk.

Van Bynen rules no applause allowed

The Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, calls the meeting to order and reminds us what is expected. We are to be on our best behaviour. Respectful. Mindful of decorum. He sternly warns us there must be no applause.

Bob Forrest makes his way to the table where he will take us through his presentation – which we learn has been cut back from 20 minutes to 10.

I notice his shirt tails are out.

He is a cool dude.

Or that’s what he wants us to think.

The last time I saw him he was wearing bright orange shoes.

He walks us through his proposals in a strangely pedestrian and listless way, making it clear he is happy to answer any questions.

Not so fast! The Mayor has other ideas.

“We’ll ask you to come back if there are any questions later on.”

Van Bynen’s safety first strategy

Van Bynen wants to hear from the many deputations first. This, of course, is Van Bynen’s safety first strategy. Questions to Forrest could open up lines of questioning (for example, on the land swap) that the old banker would find difficult to control.

By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, 20 deputations are, for a variety of reasons, against the Forrest development. Seven are in favour.

The last time I looked at the on-line petition 797 people were against Forrest’s development and 218 in favour. Crude numbers can often be misleading but, in this case, real people have posted real, considered comments on why they oppose Forrest’s proposed make-over of the Town’s heritage district.

Now we are on to the deputations.

Real estate mover and shaker, Wasim Jarrah, is for the development but doesn’t show up. Now it is Art Weis (for) and Siegfried Wall (against). Siegfried has too much material. He eviscerates Forrest on the crucial issue of density.

Where can I buy a cauliflower?

Now it is David Kempton (for) who tells us in his tortured way that he sympathises with the difficult decision facing councillors. (Don’t lose sleep over it.) Now his feisty partner, Peggy Stevens (for), tells us why Main Street has got to change with the times. She wants to buy her cauliflowers downtown. (I made that up.)  Greg King (for) follows.

Now the splendid Ann Campbell (against) explains why the heritage district is worth protecting. Heather Burling (against) tells us she is going to fight for what she believes in. You don’t do things that harm other people and their neighbourhoods.

Heather is followed by Margaret Davis (against), 94 years old, who gives a stirring speech on why the area’s heritage district should be respected. She deserves and gets a round of applause. This displeases you-know-who.

Order! Order please! cries our stuffed shirt Mayor, all process and procedure.

Next up is Main Street business owner Ann Martin (against) whose easy conversational manner masks a steely resolve to protect Main Street from the calamity that is Forrest’s Clock Tower.

Scale model steals the show

Now it is Lisa Heckbert (against) who speaks on behalf of Ron Eibel (against) who created the magnificent Clock Tower model showing its huge overbearing mass and scale. The BIA’s Glenn Wilson (against) follows. Main Street’s business organization blows Forrest a big raspberry. They don’t want it.

Now it is the turn of another business owner, Olga Paiva (against). She tells me afterwards she was nervous. It didn’t show. Another bravura performance. Now it is Mollie Coles Tonn speaking on behalf of her husband, James (against), who is out of the country. Now it is the turn of Newmarket’s grande dame, Jackie Player (for) followed by me (against).

We move swiftly on to John Heckbert (against) who, on the big screen, shows us various calculations about the merits or otherwise of owner occupied vs rental. Now Jude Lauzon (against) tells us there is no cure for stupid.

The councillors remain expressionless. Their faces like Easter Island statues.

Now Elaine Adam (against) warns of the dangers of retail businesses, facing years of construction disruption, upping sticks and leaving. Dave Partington (for) follows.

Ted wants to tell us about Joe but Tony says no

Now it is the turn of Ted Heald (against) who wants to tell us something about Councillor Joe Sponga. (There are rumours on the street there is a tape recording of Joe speaking forthrightly on various matters but who knows? I am an innocent in these matters.)

The Mayor, increasingly testy, will have none of it. He is upset with Ted and constantly refers to him as “Sir!”

“If you have an issue about any councillor there is a process!”

I hear groans behind me. The Mayor and his processes!

Now the Mayor is pulling rank.

“We’ll recess and I’ll ask to have this gentleman removed from the room!”

Whoo Hoo! What excitement!

Ted gathers his papers and considerately allows the meeting to proceed without interruption. We move on to Ted Bomers who is, I suppose, on balance unconvinced. I put him down as against.

He says 213 housing units – mainly multi bedroom town houses have been added to the downtown housing stock in recent years without transforming the fortunes of Main Street. How can Forrest’s additional 165 units – many one bedroom - make a material difference? An interesting angle.

Evicted by Forrest

Now it is the turn of Jone Wright (against), a Main Street business owner of ten years standing who was evicted by Bob Forrest. She speaks powerfully of the contribution small businesses make to the street and why the Town should back them.

Up next is the splendid chair of the Newmarket Heritage Advisory Committee, Athol Hart (against), who reads out a very lengthy and impressive sounding motion from his Committee. “Whereas” follows “Whereas” follows “Whereas” until we finally get to the nub of it. His Committee “adamantly recommends” Forrest’s proposal is rejected.

Malcolm Watts (against) follows.

Why stop at 12 storeys?

Now it is Terry Alderson (for), a local historian and life member of the Newmarket Historical Society. He says his books are in the library. He tells us 7 storeys is too modest. It should be twelve!

Because he has such a distinguished pedigree, I collar him afterwards and tell him the underground car park couldn’t go down deep enough to accommodate all those extra parking spaces. He says the parking for the 12 storey building should go on the other side of Main Street. Oh! I see. So simple!

Ness Daniel, a business owner on Main Street, working his socks off 7am-7pm, is against. And so too is Chris Howie. A man of few words. He is against.

Show of hands

Now the councillors are invited to comment. John Taylor says we are all wonderful. He loves us all. What a civilized and well mannered debate. He is proud of us all. He wants a show of hands from everyone who has ever rented. I stick my hand up. To my mind this is not about tenure.

With my hand waving about in the air, I find myself wondering if our Mayor will ask us if we support his stated position that

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

I don’t think so.

I think the great man now realizes he made a humungous mistake in publicly advocating the Clock Tower development and now he is furiously back pedaling, retreating into his safety zone of processes and procedures.

Everyone is, of course, allowed one slip-up. He realises now that discretion is the better part of valour.

Joe gets the last word

The last word goes to Ward 5 councillor, Joe Sponga, the man at the centre of last night’s controversy. He tells us:

“I feel very confident and very positive that through a constructive dialogue that we’ve seen tonight the Clock Tower development is gonna be something that we can all be proud of at the end of the day.”

Sounds like for. Could be against.

That's our Joe.

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

You can watch the video here. The statutory public meeting starts 2 hours 9 minutes in.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 07 May 2016

Last month, in a gushing public tribute from a long-serving Newmarket councillor, we learned that Bob Forrest is a gentleman whose word is his bond. He is “absolutely transparent”. 

So, as he takes centre stage on Monday evening, I know that Bob will be completely straight with us.

And I hope he will bring along a scale model of his proposed Clock Tower development so we can have a better understanding of how all the pieces fit together.

In Bob’s presentation on Monday (agenda item 19a) he will say he wants to separate fact from fiction (slide 23). He will say it is a fact that three and six storeys are permitted on Park Avenue. He is proposing seven. Bob is being economical with the truth.

The importance of zoning: how Bob gets to 7 storeys

The proposed development, above ground, falls entirely within the zoning classification Historic Downtown Urban Centre Zone (UC-D1) and goes right up to Bob’s property line. The underground garage extends beyond the property line into land owned by the Town of Newmarket and into another zoning classification – the Downtown Urban Centre Zone (UC-D2).

The Town’s Zoning By-law 2010-40 specifies a maximum height for new developments of three storeys (or 9 metres) in UC-D1 and six stories (or 18 metres) in UC-D2.

Bob uses the fact that he will be taking ownership of Town land in UC-D2 to justify his claim that six storeys are allowed for his Clock Tower development. It is a three card trick in all but name. (Bob told his colleages last year that he believed he could get approval for a seventh storey if the building were rental.)

Town makes its land available to Bob: but we don’t know the terms

Bob wants to enter into a strata ownership agreement with the Town which would allow for the underground parking area to extend beyond the site boundary. Town land would, therefore, be conveyed to Bob by way of stratified title. Crucially, the Town refuses to publish the details of the agreement-in-principle it entered into with Bob in 2013 telling me property matters must remain confidential.

I may be wrong about all this. In which case I shall be eating a lot of humble pie on Monday evening. But the upside is this. Even if I am wrong, honest Bob will have to tell us what he provisionally agreed with the Town on the land swaps way back in 2013.

Fact vs Fiction

Bob will tell us the objectives of his presentation are to (a) review the current Clock Tower proposal (b) address heritage considerations (c) distinguish fact from fiction and (d) answer questions.

On Thursday (5 May) I asked the Town’s planning people if they would comment on Bob’s presentation, giving us their professional planning view on whether Bob is correct on all the matters he states as fact on his slides. No. That would be a step too far. I am told we must wait for the forthcoming comprehensive report to a future Committee of the Whole and Council.

So, on Monday night folks, we, the public, are on our own. The Town will not be providing a commentary on Bob’s presentation nor offer any validation of the points he makes. Doesn’t really surprise me. After all, in a very real sense, Bob and the Town are partners. And the Mayor is the project's handmaiden.

Bob pours a quart into a pint pot

Bob uses his slide 6 to compare his proposal to the Town’s By-law. In an oversight, Bob forgets to mention that By-law 2010-40 specifies a maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 1.0 and his project comes in at 2.9. This is critically important. The FSI is the ratio of a building's total floor area to the size of the piece of land upon which it is built. Put simply, Bob is trying to pour a quart into a pint pot.

Bob’s own Planning Justification Report tells us the Historic Downtown Centre Zone (UC-D1) permits up to 80 residential units per net hectare and up to and including a 1.0 FSI. Yet the cheeky Bob wants a residential density of 430 units per net hectare and an FSI of 2.9.

Bob’s report justifies this by saying:

“While the proposed density exceeds the Official Plan policy requirements in Table 1, it must be recognized that the Proposal does not have the benefit of additional land for surface parking and landscaping.”

“The units per hectare value appears much higher due to the building footprint mirroring the property line and as such this condition must be taken into consideration when considering the appropriateness of the density.” (my emphasis)

Whoa!

Who says we must take this into consideration? The site, quite simply, cannot carry this scale of development.

Bob drafts the Town’s Zonong By-law Amendment

The ever helpful Bob has conveniently drafted a Zoning By-law Amendment for the Town of Newmarket. (You can read it at Appendix B in Bob’s Planning Justification Report).

Bob wants an FSI of 3.0!

And he wants the maximum building height to go from 9 metres or three storeys to 21.5 metres or 7 storeys.

Old buildings. I just love ‘em

Bob cherishes heritage buildings and tells us:

“the retention of historic buildings is important to us, and to the Town of Newmarket”. (Slide 12)

Bob loves these old buildings so much he plans to knock them down! The facades will be the only bits left to remind us of what was once there. The historic commercial buildings at 184,188 and 194 Main Street South will be a heap of rubble behind the smiley facades.

Four more parking spaces

Bob tells us there will be four more parking spaces than are currently available – after years of construction and mayhem.

Bob has been busy “collaborating with near neighbours” including Trinity United Church and Newmarket Public Library (slide 21). Trinity told the Heritage Advisory Committee it wanted to be indemnified to the tune of $10 million against any damage caused by Bob’s construction work. I don’t know what guarantees he has given.

Significantly, Bob does not mention the shadows that will fall across Trinity United Church. His Planning Justification report on page 15, risking an avenging bolt of lightning, concludes

“there is no significant impact from the proposed development on the enjoyment of surrounding land uses.”

We must all pray he is right. But the congregation will wish to see the evidence.

Bob's Tenants evicted. Retail units on Main boarded up for 18 months.

Bob tells us in his website that he is an honourable man, of conviction and tenacity. I wonder how his former business tenants on Main Street South view him?

They will, no doubt, have their own stories to tell. The leases all had demolition clauses which allowed Bob to terminate with six months notice. The business tenants met Bob a  number of times as he was putting his plans together. He offered to extend the leases to nine months and then on a month by month basis. Bob told them this arrangement was conditional on them withdrawing all objections to his development proposals.

At the end of the day, they were all evicted before Bob had any Town approvals to redevelop the site.

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