Shrink Slessor Square!

  • Decrease font size
  • Default font size
  • Increase font size

Parkland in Newmarket

How livable will Newmarket be in, say, ten years time?

We know “intensification” is coming but how will it impact on us?

Can the Town grow and breathe at the same time?

Tomorrow’s Committee of the Whole (29 August) will consider a new Parkland Dedication By-law which will supposedly secure the open spaces the Town will need in the future. 

Perversely, it does so by recommending a new, revised strategy which:

(1)  reduces the amount of parkland required by the municipality

(2)  applies a cap on the amount of parkland conveyed to the municipality per application and

(3)  accepts more urban forms of parkland that previously would not have been accepted. The draft by-law talks of Pocket Parks, Sliver Spaces and Pedestrian Mews which developers can use to contribute to the parkland dedication requirement of the Town.

The amount of parkland we need is, of course, directly related to the number of people living here – and the projections are all over the place.

The open space Bible, the Parkland Policy Development Manual, tells us the Town will grow to 97,133 residents by 2031 (from 85,000 in 2012).

This contrasts sharply with estimates published by Ruth “Glenway” Victor in November 2013 who told councillors:

“for 2031, the projected growth is estimated at 116,521 people as per the Secondary Plan currently in progress”.

In fact, York Region expects the Town’s population to reach 97,100 by 2031.

The report going to councillors tomorrow says the Town’s population will grow by 10,356 to 95,356 by 2025.

So, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Whatever the population estimates may be, we are told with iron certainty that at build out (when there is no more land to develop) there will be 33,000 people living in the Davis and Yonge corridors – compared with a few thousand now. That is the figure we should focus on.

How big is the area in Newmarket that can be developed?

According to the Town’s Secondary Plan there are approximately 130 hectares of developable area with about 30 hectares of land identified as parks, open space, natural heritage and stormwater management. The Plan as adopted in June 2014 excludes the historic downtown.

The report on Newmarket Urban Centres parkland requirements that went to councillors in December 2014 (after the Town adopted the Secondary Plan) told them the developable area was 160 hectares – not 130 hectares.

The latest report (29 August 2016) tells us the total land area in hectares in the urban centres is 232 hectares.  I am assuming this figure includes the historic downtown centre.

Intensification that you can see vs steady growth that is imperceptible

Our Mayor, the retired banker, Tony Van Bynen, is by nature and instinct a cautious administrator rather than a visionary.  As soon as Newmarket was identified by the Province as one of 25 places to grow, Van Bynen predictably became the champion of “intensification”.

The Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor, John Taylor takes a more measured approach. He doesn’t want to frighten the horses. Sure, he says, change will happen but it will be so slow and incremental you will hardly notice. Nothing dramatic will happen before 2024 anyway because the Town can ration water and sewage hook-ups under its Service Allocation policy. At that date, new pipes and treatment plants will end the need to ration and the brakes will then be off.

But Taylor also supports the proposed GO Rail Station at Mulock Drive (as do I) and is suggesting a new Secondary Plan to intensify development in the area to persuade Metrolinx that the station will, in future, attract passengers from those who live and work nearby. And that will mean more people.

What do the developers think of the Parkland By-law?

My general rule of thumb is if the “development community” thinks something proposed by the Town is OK then we should have a careful second look at what the Town is proposing. There were only five submissions from the development industry and others commenting on the proposed By-law and

“overall, there was a large degree of support expressed for the intent and direction of the draft by-law and it was agreed that the proposed approach offered a reasonable and effective means to help reduce soft costs of development within the corridors.”

The wily lawyer, Ira Kagan (who acted for the owners/developers in Slessor Square and Glenway) told the Bill Committee at Queen’s Park which was examining possible changes to the rules on parkland dedication that he wanted an amendment to the Planning Act that would provide a percentage cap on parkland takings for high-density residential development.

When asked by PC MPP Ernie Hardeman:

“If I had a magic wand and I could fix one thing for you, what would it be?"

Without missing a beat, Kagan replies:

 “Parkland. That’s why I did it first. Hands-down, the parkland charge in the GTA exceeds all other development charges combined by a significant factor. If you want to fix one thing that will make a really big difference, put a percentage cap on parkland, please.”

The Town’s Parkland By-law sets a maximum 25% cap of development lands for parkland with cash-in-lieu to make up for any differences between what is required from developers and the actual land that transfers. Curiously, the Town can use this cash-in-lieu of parkland for tangential purposes such as buying vehicles and equipment used in parks.

What is a Park?

The Town’s earlier draft parkland by law was peer reviewed by Barry Lyon Consultants who thought the standards too burdensome on developers and

“would likely discourage investment and delay the achievement of the Town’s policy objectives regarding intensification as per the Urban Centres Secondary Plan.”

The Town then brought in the consultants “The Planning Partnership” which proposed

a parkland system that adequately serves the needs of the Town and outlines specific strategies of parkland dedication for urban contexts that will not discourage investment.” (My underlining)

I see in an addendum to tomorrow’s agenda that Ron Palmer from the Planning Partnership is going to address councillors on the Parkland Dedication By-Law. If I were a councillor I would ask him:  Is it enough? Are we going to get the open space we need or are we going to be crushed together with no room to breathe?

The Parks Policy Development Manual forecasts there will be a 10.5 hectare parkland shortfall on a Town wide basis by 2031 and a whopping 45 hectare shortfall by build out. (The map below shows Town owned land in 2016.)

Newmarket is a million light years away from the contemporary Middle East where public parks have largely disappeared. But unless we are very, very careful, Newmarket will not have the green lungs it needs as it grows into a small city.

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




Ward 5 candidate, Peter Geibel, says disruption “inevitable” if Clock Tower gets go-ahead

The latest estate agent to enter the race to succeed Joe Sponga in Ward 5, Peter Geibel, is pro Clock Tower and says redeveloping the area will mean disruption “but we can’t avoid the inevitable”.

Geibel’s office on Main Street South is a stone’s throw from the proposed development but he was not there when I dropped by on Saturday to say hello and introduce myself.

Geibel signed Jill Kellie’s pro Clock Tower petition four months ago. He commented:

“I believe it is time to share the jewel of Newmarket with more people and I think any development will come with some disruption but we can’t avoid the inevitable.”

Kellie’s pro Clock Tower petition attracted 222 signatures. Margaret Davis’ rival petition backing the Town’s Heritage Conservation District policy secured the support of 1,212 people.

Fellow estate agent, Wasim Jarrah, who is also running for Ward 5, backs the proposed Clock Tower development while realtor Ian Johnston - the self-styled “community driven leader” - feels it is “too large” and “will add more chaos for a highly intensification area”.

The by-election is on 17 October 2016. Nominations close on 2 September 2016.

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

Tony Van Bynen and elections

Newmarket’s retired banker Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, is pleased with himself.

He used his column in yesterday’s Era newspaper (25 August) to proclaim:

“I am pleased to announce I was elected as a representative on the 2016-2018 AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) Board of Directors Regional and Single Tier Caucus.”

We are told this is a prestigious elevation.

Explaining his success, he told the Era’s Chris Simon in his weird management-speak:

“I scoped it out in advance.”

Van Bynen will be joining a 43 strong Board of Directors and will be unpaid though he will be able to claim reasonable expenses.

So let us celebrate our Mayor’s success in being one of the six successful candidates in a field of nine in a caucus election to represent the Province's regions and larger cities.

But while doing so, let us not forget that Van Bynen is in favour of elections only when they suit his purpose.


When the issue of electing York Regional Chair came up for discussion at the Regional Council on 18 February 2016 Van Bynen was one of 14 voting for the status quo, openly snubbing the views of his colleagues on Newmarket Council who voted 7-1 for direct election.

The current Chair of York Region, Wayne Emmerson, was not even a councillor when he was indirectly elected in 2014 by 20 members of the Regional Council on a 16-4 vote.

Clearly, Van Bynen does not see it as part of his job to reflect the views of Newmarket Council at the regional level when he disagrees with its position.

This, despite the fact that Van Bynen only serves on York Regional Council by virtue of his position as Mayor of Newmarket, getting over $50,000 a year for merely being present, more often than not contributing absolutely nothing to the debates. His interventions are few and very far between.

Reform of the OMB

Elsewhere… I see the Province will be bringing forward in the Fall its long awaited review of the OMB. At the last municipal election in 2014, after the Glenway debacle, Van Bynen, promised Newmarket voters:

“Bringing reform to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Planning Act to ensure our residents have a say in shaping their community will be a priority in the next term. Our Council’s decision to fight for Glenway and defend our Town’s official plan was the right thing to do. I will be working with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and a number of mayors to meet with the Province to bring about real change to the municipal planning process.”

I am left wondering what Van Bynen has done to advance OMB reform since he made that statement almost two years ago.

Our next door neighbour, Tom Mrakas from Aurora, seems to have been making all the running on OMB reform with a little help from Newmarket’s Christina Bisanz.

Can it possibly be the case that Van Bynen has been shunning the limelight, labouring in the background, lobbying Ministers and working with the AMO on reforming the OMB just like he said he would?

(more to follow)

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

Wasim Jarrah and his sensible solutions

Like most people I find Wasim Jarrah very personable.

With his easy manner and flashing smile and obvious interest in what is happening in our town, he should be a serious contender for the Ward 5 vacancy. He lives outside the ward but this should not be a disqualification.

Unfortunately, he believes in “sensible solutions” (unlike, I suppose, the whacky ones his opponents are drawn to) and this slogan is now plastered all over his new website, crafted for the campaign.

As it happens, the Triscuits in my pantry (seasoned with black pepper and olive oil) come in a box that tells me they are the “sensible solution” because they are a source of fibre, have zero trans fat and are low in saturated fat. What you get is on the box.

So, with Triscuits, at least I know what I am buying, but with Wasim I haven’t the faintest idea what his sensible solutions may mean in practice. He tells us he is going to fill in the blanks as the campaign progresses.

Wasim tantalizes:

“I will have more to say about the sensible solutions I want to discuss with you in the coming weeks.”

However, we already know he is in favour of Bob Forrest’s controversial Clock Tower development because he told us.

But with all the vocal opposition, would a sensible solution try to modify Bob’s project in some way. Perhaps Bob should reinstate the condo and forget rental? Perhaps 7 storeys is too intrusive and Bob should go for 3, 4, 5 or even 6 storeys (according to the most sensible preference).

But, hey, not so fast!

The Council has in front of it now, a planning application for a seven storey rental apartment block.

Bob’s heritage wrecking project can only be tweaked so far. It is not infinitely elastic. If Bob tries to satisfy every Tom, Dick and Harriett, there will come a point when the new amended proposal is so distant from the original that it is deemed to be a new application.

Think of the delays! The extra costs! All the additional one-to-one meetings with councillors and other important opinion formers. All those coffees at Tim Hortons! That would destroy completely Bob’s chances of redeveloping the Clock Tower and walking away with millions.

Which brings me back to where I started…

So, Wasim, what is your sensible solution for the Clock Tower?

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