On 21 October 2013, Newmarket’s Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, signed By-law 2013-51, bringing into force the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District which specifies a 3 storey height cap on any new developments.

On 11 April 2016, Van Bynen told the Era newspaper that the seven storey Clock Tower development

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

and

“There may need to be some fine tuning on how we get there.”

but

“This is the kind of invigoration Main needs if it truly intends on being sustainable in the longer term.”

According to Van Bynen, these robust and forthright statements should not be taken as support for the proposed Clock Tower development. Oh no!

Van Bynen supports the concept and principle of the Clock Tower project

On 18 April 2016 at the Town’s Committee of the Whole, Van Bynen said:

“I don’t think our community is so naïve as to think that, by making general statements about a concept and a principle, is evidence of having a pre-determined position.”

However, by supporting the concept and the principle of the Clock Tower project Van Bynen is abandoning any pretence that he supports his own Heritage Conservation District By-law. The two are mutually exclusive.

The Heritage Impact Assessment that Forrest himself commissioned (from Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd, Architects) makes it crystal clear that the proposed development does not meet the Heritage Conservation District Plan in terms of height restrictions but

“could be mitigated in order to allow the Town to meet a number of other planning goals in the Historic Downtown Core”.

Forrest’s Heritage Impact Assessment goes on:

“In this current development proposal, the new commercial/residential building seeks to balance the complementary interests of increasing density, while preserving heritage character as best as possible. The proscribed goal of maintaining two-to-three-storey buildings throughout the HCD boundaries is weighed against the goals of increased density, sustainability, financial viability and vibrancy in the historic Downtown.” (My emphasis)

The Town has commissioned a peer review of the Forrest Heritage Impact Assessment which will be carried out by ERA Architects in Toronto. It will come to the same inescapable conclusion – that the Clock Tower development falls squarely outside the terms of the Heritage Conservation District Plan. They too will almost certainly comment at length on the mitigation measures promised by Forrest and will probably welcome the retention of facades, even though the accompanying historic buildings will end their days facing the wrecking ball.

Demolition and Destruction

But let us be clear about one thing. The slippery Van Bynen is throwing overboard all talk of heritage conservation and he is embracing “revitalization” with a vengeance, even if that means the demolition and destruction of heritage properties and the obliteration of renowned panoramas and vistas.

But it doesn’t stop there.  The prolonged construction period for such a huge undertaking could force many Main Street businesses to the wall. Forrest’s development doesn’t meet the Town’s parking standards by a mile. It would cast a shadow on Trinity United Church and its famed stained glass windows. And the excavation of Market Square for the three level underground garage could change the flow of the underground water courses, exposing other fragile heritage structures to damage. This point was made forcefully by the Newmarket Heritage Advisory Committee whose report to the Committee of the Whole

“adamantly recommends that the Council of the Town of Newmarket rejects this proposal”.

Trust me says Van Bynen

And, to cap it all, Van Bynen, is prepared to make Town land available, without which this whole monstrous project cannot proceed.

Van Bynen has the nerve to ask us to trust him. He tells the Era:

“Let’s give Council the opportunity to take an objective review of what’s available. Let’s review within the context of what the objective of revitalizing Main was all about. The fact is, there’s been modification talks about the desire for the developer to find something that will work. We’ve learned through Glenway that polarity doesn’t help anybody.”

Personally, I don’t trust Van Bynen to take an objective review of what is available. It is as plain as a pikestaff that he has made his mind up.

That is the long and short of it.

And that’s why he should not be chairing the Statutory public Meeting on Monday 9 May 2016.

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


 

This poster below is one of a series that will going up in Main Street over the coming days to warn the public what to expect if Bob Forrest gets planning approval for his monstrous seven storey rental building, dumped in the heart of a heritage conservation district zoned for three storeys max.

The photo at the top of the poster shows what Forrest's 7 storey building will look like. It is, of course, an artist's impression and it gilds the lily. The photo directly below it shows a new six storey building currently under construction near Younge and Wellington in Aurora. It is not an artist's impression. It is a photo. It is the real deal.

Concerned residents are pressing for a scale model of the proposed development to be made available at the public meeting on 9 May 2016 which will accurately show the height and the massing of this huge monolith. The artist's impression of the Main Street perspective, prepared for Forrest, carries a health warning in the top right hand side in tiny print:

"This drawing is not to be scaled."

This means it cannot be relied upon to guide construction. It is simply one item in a parcel of drawings and artist's impressions submitted to the Town with the sole purpose of getting planning approval.

Sceptical residents are not going to be beguiled by artist's impressions that warp perspective and massage downwards the huge, over-bearing scale of Forrest's project.

It is time for Forrest to go back to the drawing board.

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


 

The Town of Newmarket has zillions of By-laws. And a report published last week tells us the Town is planning to beef up enforcement of some of them.

Woe betide anyone who flagrantly disobeys a By-law. Selling burgers from an unlicensed food truck? Making too much noise? Not keeping your property up to scratch? There will be a municipal enforcement officer knocking on your door before you can say “Tony Van Bynen”.

Sweet irony

It is a sweet irony that the Town is ratcheting up enforcement of some By-laws while it considers trashing By-law 2013-51 which regulates building height and other matters within the downtown Heritage Conservation District. The Mayor has already made his position clear on the seven storey Clock Tower development in an area where a three storey height cap ostensibly applies.

The Heritage Conservation District is zoned Urban Centre D1 or (UC-D1). The Zoning By-law 2010-40, consolidated in December 2013, stipulates a minimum building height of 2 storeys and a maximum of 3 storeys or 9 metres.

The Town’s Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, told me in May 2013 that:

“The By-law adopting a Heritage Conservation District is required to fully implement the (Heritage Conservation) District Plan and have it be in full force and effect. While we utilize the (Heritage Conservation District) Plan to assist in evaluating proposals, the passing of an adopting By-law gives the (Heritage Conservation District) Plan its Official status.”

That seems clear enough. But no. Nethery goes on:

“Proposals that do not necessarily conform to all aspects of a Heritage Conservation District Plan, whether it is in full force or not, can continue to be approved by Council if deemed appropriate.”

So no matter what the By-law says a majority of councillors can trump it. If it takes their fancy, they can vote for Forrest’s zoning By-law amendment.

Phoney rules and processes

This is what is so utterly fraudulent about our broken planning system and its phoney rules and processes. They are infinitely flexible and, as such, they are hardly worth the paper they are written on.

I told the Mayor at the Committee of the Whole on 18 April 2016, if he doesn’t like By-law 2013-51 he should repeal it and bring in another version more to his liking.

Why doesn’t he mandate a maximum height of 7 storeys in the Heritage Conservation District and allow the demolition of historic commercial buildings on condition the facades are retained? That would be the honest approach for a retired banker. Instead we all have to navigate our way through a hall of mirrors where things are not as they appear to be.

Public Love-in

As it is, the fate of the Clock Tower development is all going to come down to the crude counting of heads. We know that Tom Hempen will be abstaining in any vote because he owns a retail business on Main Street. That leaves 8 members of Council and one of them, Tony Van Bynen, has already shown his hand. Dave Kerwin’s public love-in with Bob Forrest at the same April 18 meeting also raises very serious concerns.

What about the others? Who knows?

They are, each one of them, a law unto themselves.

Quite literally.

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


A Newmarket Branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) is being formed to help defend the Town’s fragile Heritage Conservation District from rapacious developers intent on transforming forever the Town’s unique historic Main Street and its unmatched panoramas and vistas.

Why is it that some historic Main Streets in Southern Ontario thrive while others wither and die?

This was the existential question posed earlier this month by ACO President, Catherine Nasmith, to an audience of residents deeply concerned about Bob Forrest’s proposals to redevelop a swath of Main Street South at the Clock Tower in the very centre of the Town’s Heritage Conservation District.

Catherine told a packed meeting at Trinity United’s Church Hall in Park Avenue that old buildings had to be given special consideration. Once demolished, there is no bringing them back.

Unfortunately, the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, arrived too late to hear the presentation and caught only the tail-end of the meeting.

Built 20 years before Confederation

One of the buildings Bob Forrest intends to demolish to make way for his seven storey rental apartment building dates from 1845 (184-186 Main Street South). It was owned by Charles Simpson who migrated to Newmarket from England. Simpson apprenticed himself for seven years under Dr John Bentley to become an apothecary and he ran his business from this address. He died during the 1879 typhoid epidemic that took the lives of 1 in every 10 people in Newmarket. This is one of the buildings casually earmarked for demolition with only the façade being retained.

Why settle for a pastiche when we already have the real thing?

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

Catherine told the meeting that Heritage Conservation District (HCD) status offers protection from inappropriate development. But what happens if the Municipality itself votes against its own Heritage Conservation District By-Law? This is the Alice in Wonderland situation we now face in Newmarket with the Town’s Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, recently proclaiming:

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

Catherine said the OMB may offer a remedy but everyone knows it is capricious and impossible to read. And then there is the expense.

Councillors in Newmarket could vote in favour of Forrest’s seven storey apartment building in full knowledge it breaches their own Heritage Conservation District By-law which mandates a three storey height cap.

Sign the on-line Petition

Setting up a branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario will allow us to tap into architectural, planning and heritage expertise from across the Province.

Your support is invaluable. Add you name to this on-line petition to preserve and protect our historic Main Street.

There is no time to lose.

The Barbarians are at the gates.

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


The Town is now actively considering Forrest’s intrusive, seven storey proposed development in the heart of the Town’s cherished heritage conservation district.

But, in October 2013, when the Town brought in its Heritage Conservation District By-law, Forrest cried "foul!"

He said his completed application to redevelop the Clock Tower was lodged with the Town before the By-law was enacted. He sought to safeguard his position by appealing to the OMB.   The matter is now sleeping at the OMB until the Town decides on the present application. (See Clock Tower appeal to the OMB here.)

But what does this all mean in practice?

On 29 November 2013, Forrest’s silver-tongued planning lawyer, the theatrical Ira Kagan (whose clients include the Slessors), sent a letter by overnight courier to Newmarket Town Clerk, Andrew Brouwer.

Kagan wrote:

“We are the solicitors for Main Street Clock Inc. On August 23, 2013 our clients filed a rezoning application to redevelop the lands known municipally as 180-194 Main Street, Newmarket. By letter dated September 11, 2013, it was deemed complete."

“At the time of the filing of the rezoning application none of the above noted properties were included within a Heritage Conservation District (pursuant to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act). Approximately six (6) weeks later the Town enacted By-law 2013-51. To the extent that By-law 2013-51 creates any additional burden (procedural or substantive) to the redevelopment of our client’s lands, our clients object and hereby appeal By-law 2013-51 to the Ontario Municipal Board. Our clients take the position that their redevelopment should be judged against the policy regime in place at the time of their application and that their redevelopment application should not be subject to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Accordingly, our client appeals By-law 2013-51 insofar as it applies to the proposed development."    (underlining shows my emphasis)

Fancy Dancing

This is the kind of fancy dancing I have come to expect from expensive planning lawyers like Kagan. But the "policy regime" Kagan talks about is still very specific.

Earlier that year, on 30 April 2013, I wrote to the Mayor urging him to enact a Heritage By-law without delay, putting fully into place the Town’s established Heritage Conservation District Plan and policies, agreed in 2011. Forrest was, by then, seriously sniffing around, planning his next move.

The Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, replied on behalf of the Mayor on 8 May 2013 saying:

“Thank you for your e-mail regarding the implementation of the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District. Mayor Van Bynen has asked me to respond to your e-mail on his behalf. Council has directed that the Heritage District bylaw be approved however, administratively the Town has not been in a position to do so due to lack of human resources to fully administer the Plan.   Staff will bring the matter of the implementation of this plan forward as part of the 2014 Budget deliberations.”

Nethery goes on: 

“We can assure you that in the interim, any applications that are received by the Planning Department for redevelopment within the district boundaries will be reviewed against the policies of the plan, including consultation with the Town’s Heritage Committee, Heritage Newmarket as well as requiring Heritage Assessments as appropriate. Furthermore, the normal and usual Planning Act processes are still required for any significant development proposals in the area. This may include site plan approval and/or zoning by-law amendments which require Council  approval. Through these processes, Council can, among other things, consider the compatibility of any proposal with the surrounding uses.”

Heritage By-law brought forward to 2013

Many influential people, including Bob Buchan from the Newmarket Historical Society and Athol Hart from the Heritage Advisory Committee, brought pressure to bear and the By-law was brought forward from 2014 and was enacted on 21 October, 2013.

Forrest was very upset. He feared this new By-law, which he maintains was sprung on him without warning, would fatally undermine his plans to re-shape the historic downtown.

Forrest's plan doesn't meet the requirements of the Heritage Conservation District Plan

So, what do we take from all this? Nethery confirms that any redevelopment received before the By-law is enacted would be reviewed against the existing policies of the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan.

And what does this Plan say? It clearly specifies (a) a height cap of three storeys and (b) no demolition of historic commercial buildings.

Forrest’s latest application, if allowed to proceed, would drive a coach and horses through the Plan on these two fundamental points.

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