Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 09 September 2014

The King George School on Park Avenue – a stone’s throw from Newmarket Public Library – has been empty for years. The front steps are now beginning to crumble.

People in the immediate neighbourhood and elsewhere in Ward 5 are understandably curious about the owner’s plans for this fine building that is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The owner, Chrisula Selfe, bought the property on 15 November 2011from the York Region District School Board for $1,275,000.

The tax classification of the old school is “commercial” and has an assessed value of $762,500. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations the annual property tax payable is $15,489 give or take a dollar or two. To most people this would be quite a bundle of cash to fork out every year just to keep the building empty.

Of course, the owners may qualify for a “vacancy rebate”.

I am told by my spies in the Town’s Finance Department: “If the property is vacant and the owner meets the criteria then the owner would be eligible to apply for a vacancy rebate for 30% of the taxes.” To qualify, the entire building must have been empty for 90 consecutive days. If the building is partially used then other criteria apply.

However, all this is a tad academic as we don’t know who has applied for - and been granted - a vacancy rebate. This information is confidential. But why? If people choose to keep a property empty and claim a vacancy rebate the rest of us pay more.

Earlier this year the local developer and self styled entrepreneur, Bob Forrest, disclosed he had been in touch with Chrisula Selfe’s husband, Neil Selfe, in the hope he (Forrest) might relocate some of his business tenants on Main Street South to the old school with the idea of making it some kind of “community hub”. (This was before he decided to cut his losses and put the Clock Tower and the adjacent properties up for sale.)

According to Forrest, the owners are in no rush to do anything with the school. But, intriguingly, Forrest says Neil Selfe - whom he dubs a “Bay Street financial type” - has some very set ideas about what he wants to do there.

Perhaps it is time for the owners to stir themselves and tell the voters of Ward 5 what they have in mind. They have had years to think about it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 09 September 2014

Chris Campbell’s campaign launch is a jolly affair.

No sign of any Newmarket councillors. I am on the look out.

But, inevitably, Darryl Wolk, is here, pressing the flesh with one hand, cell phone in the other.

Campbell paces up and down the stage at the Canadian Legion at Srigley Street, speaking confidently and fluently for over twenty minutes without a note in his hand. You can see it here.

As he fires his first barbs at Tony Van Bynen, my first reaction is one of relief. Thank goodness there is a credible challenger, someone who can have an intelligent debate with the incumbent about his stewardship and where the Town is going.

In the last Mayoral election in 2010, a truly feeble candidate, Michael Cascione, nevertheless took 19% of the vote against Van Bynen’s 81%. Campbell is poised to do much better this time. But it will take considerable skill and effort to prise the old barnacle from the rock to which he has been attached for so long.

Campbell’s speech has some good lines. He tells us being an elected representative is not an entitlement. And that it is time to take back our Town! These sentiments resonate widely.

He is fizzing with indignation when he gets on to the Newmarket soccer controversy which he claims was an inside deal initiated by the Regional Councillor (John Taylor).

He pledges to put a vote to Council “to rescind that stinking deal!”

I gasp at the ferocity of the language. WooHoo!

What does he know that the rest of us don’t?

Personally, I don’t have a problem with councils helping out local organisations, be they sports clubs or theatres or something else – providing always the terms of the deal are out in the open. Councils should be able to act in the wider interests of their communities so long as they do so within their powers. Plainly, the soccer deal was legal otherwise it would never have got off the ground in the first place.

Campbell is on much stronger ground when he criticises Newmarket’s addiction to closed council meetings and the obsessive secrecy that marks this Council term. There is a whole raft of stuff on Glenway, for example, still to get into the public domain.

And it will.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 22 August 2014

Almost five months have elapsed since OMB adjudicator, Susan Schiller, found in favour of Marianneville, the opportunistic developers who intend to shoehorn 742 new dwellings into the heart of a quiet, stable residential neighbourhood in Newmarket.

On 27 March 2014, Ms Schiller, gave her oral decision at the conclusion of Phase 1 (on the so-called "principle of development") after hearing the closing submissions from Mary Bull on behalf of the Town of Newmarket and Ira Kagan for the developers. Her lightning-quick decision came after a short recess of about an hour. The OMB formally gave its seal of approval to the terms of the settlement agreed between the Town and the developer on 23 April 2014.

Ms Schiller didn’t beat about the bush. She was brisk and knew exactly what she was going to say. So why the prolonged delay in issuing her written decision? Almost five months between the oral and written decisions is simply inexcusable.

Most written decisions are published 45-60 days after the final Hearing. We are now on day 119.

If the OMB’s written decision is delayed into September the chances of organising a “lessons learned” meeting as agreed by the Town in April will disappear. With elections in October, the window is closing fast.

The decision in favour of Marianneville was clearly unsafe. On 1 May 2014, I wrote to the OMB’s Glenway Case Administrator asking that my letter setting out my reasons (below) be forwarded to the adjudicator.

The letter never did get to Ms Schiller.

The very next day (2 May 2014) the OMB case administrator for the Glenway file told me:

As the OMB has completed its hearing in this matter, an OMB adjudicator cannot receive communications submitted by a party, participant or members of the public outside an OMB hearing event as any communicative contact to an OMB adjudicator is to take place only within the confines of an OMB hearing event.  Therefore, on this basis, the OMB will not accept your submission below and will therefore not forward it to the attention of Vice-Chair Ms. Schiller.

(Note. This blog was amended on 23 August 2014 to correct an earlier version which stated that Ms Schiller gave her oral decision on 23 April 2014. In fact the oral decision on the principle of development was given on 27 March 2014. The OMB Glenway hearing concluded on 23 April.) 

Dear Ms Schiller

The OMB Glenway Hearing

I am writing to you as I believe your decision on Glenway may be tainted because various relevant matters were not put before you.

I attended the OMB Hearing throughout and followed things closely. I sought your permission to make a statement on the last day of the Hearing after Dave Sovran from the Glenway Preservation Association had spoken. I am not a resident of Glenway and I did not seek Participant status at the pre-hearing in December 2013 and I have no quarrel whatsoever with your decision not to allow me to speak.

The issue

During the Hearing much was made of the fact that a large part of Glenway was within 500 metres of the GO Bus Terminal and there was, in Mr Kagan’s words, “not a shred of evidence” that the Bus Terminal could be relocated. This is simply not the case.

On 21 March in giving evidence, the GPA’s planning expert, Nick McDonald correctly claimed the Town had not identified major transit areas and more work still had to be done. As you will recall, he wanted a Town-led study of the Glenway lands which would include the GO Bus Terminal which, he suggested, could possibly be relocated.

On 27 March, Marianneville’s Mr Kagan told you in his closing submission:

“When, through cross-examination, McDonald was asked to drill down and identify which other lands (beyond the Marianneville lands) he would recommend be part of the Town-led study, he advised he would include both the existing GO Transit bus terminal and the Upper Canada Mall but in both cases solely to determine whether or not to relocate the GO Transit bus terminal. This is simply not reasonable.

“There is not a shred of evidence that the Town, Region or GO Transit want to move this bus terminal. This terminal is identified in a variety of planning documents that the various witnesses reviewed and never once was it identified for relocation. Mr McDonald may think it should move but no-one else seems to agree with him. Even the ongoing OPA 10 study (ie the Draft Secondary Plan for Newmarket’s Urban Centre) is not proposing that the GO transit bus terminal be relocated. Accordingly, the addition of these two parcels to a Town-led study is not supported on the evidence.”

The Draft Secondary Plan and the possible re-location of the GO Bus Terminal

On page 59 of the Draft Secondary Plan we read that Newmarket will encourage Metrolinx to partner with the Town, Region and others “to prepare a Mobility Hub Area Station Plan for the area around Newmarket GO Rail Station” which would look at, amongst other things, “integration between the GO Rail Station, the Rapidway, the future GO bus services and the GO bus terminal.”

On 28 April 2014, the Town called a special meeting to consider a further revision of the draft Secondary Plan.

In answer to questions from Ward 7 councillor Chris Emanuel (Glenway is in his Ward) and Regional Councillor John Taylor on the possibility of relocation or co-location of transit stations, the senior planner in charge of the Secondary Plan file, Ms Marion Plaunt said:

“One of the considerations in (the Mobility Hub study) is how do we as we plan forward integrate the bus station and the GO train station; whether they should be naturally be joined at some point, at one location. That is part of the analysis identified within the Mobility Hub Study criteria.”

Urban Centres Transportation Study and the possible relocation of the GO Bus Terminal

On 2 April 2014, after the Glenway OMB Hearing had finished,  Phase 2 of the Urban Centres Transportation Study, prepared by Consultants GDH for the Town, was posted on the Town’s website. References to this study can be found in the first version of the Draft Secondary Plan published in September 2013. 

On page 5 of the 360 page Urban Transportation Study (Section 2.4 York Region Transit), we read:

Based on consultations with GO/Metrolinx throughout the course of this study, the current vision for the existing GO Transit / YRT bus terminal south of Upper Canada Mall is to remain in its current location. However, it is expected that YRT will gradually supplant GO Transit bus routes, which will be relocated outside of the Secondary Plan area to the East Gwillimbury GO Transit station, and/or the Bradford GO Transit rail station.

The planned Viva Blue (Yonge Street) and Viva Yellow (Davis Drive) bus routes include one-way loops via Eagle Street, Davis Drive and Yonge Street. These routes will likely contribute to additional congestion at some locations, such as the Yonge and Eagle Street intersection due to high pedestrian activity. However, should the bus station be relocated to the UCM site, the volume of associated buses should not significantly impact future operations compared to leaving the station in its current location. Furthermore, the relocation of the bus station to the UCM property may even serve to reduce future net effects, given potential reductions to pedestrian crossings of Davis Drive. The impact of such a change in operations has not been specifically modeled in our study, so any bus station relocation should include an evaluation of localized transportation impacts and requirements.

Clearly, consideration was given to relocating the bus station if only to conclude that, for the moment, it is not part of the “current vision”. The meaning of this phrase was never explored at the Hearing.

I wrote to Ms Plaunt, on 11 October 2013 asking for sight of the Urban Transportation Study (September 2013) which was specifically referred to in the September 2013 Draft Secondary Plan. I wanted to brief myself for the then upcoming Statutory Public Meeting on the Draft Secondary Plan which was to be held on 28 October 2013.

On 18 October 2013, Ms Plaunt told me: “The September 2013 (Urban Transportation Study) has not been posted as there were some edits to the report. We hope to post it shortly.”

I chased the matter up on 7 November 2013 and received this reply from Ms Plaunt by return: “Regional and Town staff are currently reviewing the final draft before it is posted as the final document. Once it is finalised it will be posted on the Town’s website. We are aiming for the mid to end of November.”

I wrote for the final time on 1 April 2014 and was told by Ms Plaunt the Study would be posted on the Town’s website on 2 April 2014 – as I say, after the conclusion of the Board’s Glenway Hearing.

Mr Kagan, in his closing submission to you painted Mr McDonald’s position on the possible relocation of the GO Bus Terminal as being eccentric and that “no-one else seems to agree with him”. That was very wide of the mark.

If the September 2013 Urban Transportation Study had been published alongside the September 2013 Draft Secondary Plan and not six months later then Mr Kagan would not have been able to ridicule Mr McDonald for taking the position he did.

Furthermore, as you may know, throughout the Hearing not a single Town Planner from Newmarket’s Planning Department was present. It would have been very difficult for Ms Plaunt or any of her senior colleagues to sit through Mr Kagan’s closing submission without at least passing a note to Ms Bull setting out the true position.

I appreciate the die is cast but I felt it important to let you have my views before your written decision is put into the public domain.

Yours sincerely

Gordon Prentice

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 25 July 2014

The story so far

On 21 July 2014 Newmarket’s top planners sent a memo to the Mayor and Councillors addressing two key issues that many people found perplexing when the Secondary Plan was adopted by the Town at the Council meeting on 23 June 2014.

Councillors asked about the Town’s future population growth – its pace and how it would be accommodated. They also wondered aloud how it was possible to increase density in future developments along the Yonge and Davis corridors without, at the same time, increasing population.

A staff memo to the Mayor and Councillors entitled “information report” seeks to explain the reasoning. The memo did not appear on any Council agenda and but you can read it here by clicking “documents” on the menu panel on the left and navigating to Newmarket documents. Open “Newmarket Urban Centres Secondary Plan: Population and Jobs”.

Fantasy Figures

The memo on page 3 forecasts a population of 97,100 for Newmarket in 2031. This figure and others cited on that page are fantasy figures for the reasons explained in my earlier blog of 5 December 2013.

The memo tells us that for Newmarket’s Secondary Plan to be compliant (with Provincial and Regional planning policy) it has to satisfy the minimum density requirement of 200 persons and jobs per hectare (set by the Growth Plan); an FSI of 2.5 (set by York Region) and a ratio of 1:1 for population and jobs. (I can’t immediately recall where that came from – probably the Region.)

Population and Jobs on Yonge and Davis

We are told: “The Secondary Plan as adopted provides the policy direction to achieve these minimum requirements.” The question in my mind as I tap this out is whether the 33,000 population and 32,000 jobs represents the minimum or if it goes well beyond it. If the latter, then by how much?

The memo purports to give “the rationale for redistributed population and jobs by Character Area”. We see a blizzard of figures with no convincing explanation how they were arrived at. There is no analysis by development block, only by so-called “Character Area”. It is very broad brush.

Although staff at York Region recommended significantly higher densities along Yonge Street and Davis Drive, we are told by Newmarket’s planners there is to be no change in the forecast population (33,000) along the two corridors. The number of jobs is projected to increase from 30,000 to 32,000. All this is to be achieved by shifting population between development blocks.

Gainers and Losers

Thanks to the memo, we now know which character areas are projected to lose population and jobs and which ones will gain. Personally, I think it is all hokey-pokey.  The projections change from minute to minute and the assumptions the planners make are as elastic as they want them to be. Of course, in some instances, the boundaries of the Secondary Plan area have changed and this would explain different figures. (Major boundary changes have been made, for example, to the Davis Drive character area, expanding the Secondary Plan area and making the development blocks deeper and therefore more attractive to developers.)

Elsewhere, assumptions have changed, probably about the pace and nature of future development. Staff admits there has been a “general re-evaluation of the population and jobs by Character Area”.

The table below shows the change in population and jobs between the revised draft Secondary Plan on 24 March 2014 (b) and the Plan at 16 June 2014, now adopted (d).  The earlier draft was changed at the behest of unnamed staff at York Region who wanted to increase density to give greater flexibility. They had warned:

“The proposed height and density (particularly on Davis Drive) may not achieve the planned intensification along the rapid transit corridor.”

Intensification on Davis Drive

After all the huffing and puffing from the Regional staff, the reworked figures for what they are worth show that Davis Drive is projected to have a smaller resident population (down 900) but more employment (up 1,100)

In fact, the figures put before councillors in the past few months have been bouncing around all over the place. In a report dated 18 February 2014, councillors were told that, at build out, Davis Drive would have a resident population of 4,000. By 24 March 2014 this figure had increased to 4,500. In April it had dipped to 3,993. And by 16 June 2014 this had dropped to 3,600.  The employment forecast for Davis Drive went from 1,700 jobs to 1,500 to 1,648 before increasing to 2,600.

In the space of four months, we saw the employment forecast for the Regional Healthcare Centre go from 7,000 on 18 February to 6,700 on 24 March to 6,363 in April to 8,400 on 16 June 2014.

Does any of this matter?

Possibly not for in the long run we are all dead. But in the meantime we are right to feel a little nervous. My fear is that a turbocharged Newmarket will grow well beyond what was originally envisaged under Places to Grow. The planning establishment at municipal and regional level are moving in lockstep to deliver their city-building mission and we are all trapped in their laboratory.

Most people accept the inevitability of change but growth must have limits. As it is, the Town will be a construction site for years to come.

We cannot take things on trust from a planning establishment with its own separate agenda. That’s why the assumptions made by the Town’s planners and their colleagues at York Region should be out in the open and tested to destruction.

A couple of inaccuracies

Since our councillors called for more details, we learn that:

“A more in-depth analysis has revealed that a couple of inaccuracies have occurred on the spreadsheet for the population and jobs calculations, therefore the population and jobs figures by Character Area will be re-evaluated and if there are any changes, they will be brought back to Council for approval along with any other issues that may emerge through the Regional review and before the Region makes a decision on the Secondary Plan.”

Why can’t the spreadsheets referred to in the memo to be put into the public domain? Why can't we crowd-check? Personally, I’d like to know when, if ever, the planners expect construction work to start on 39 Davis Drive. Planning approval was given for a 20 storey condo in 2009. (My own view is that planning approvals should expire after three years or so if owners don’t act on them.)

The Secondary Plan will go to York Region early next year for approval and will then be folded into the Town’s Official Plan. Once that happens, no-one will look behind the text. Who will remember the concerns that people had?  Who will recall the soothing reassurances? Everything ever said will disappear into the ether. All will be forgotten.

That's why Newmarket’s new Council, to be elected on 27 October, must be more hands-on. Councillors must involve themselves closely in planning issues.

$47,000 per councillor is way too much to pay if all we get for our money is a spectator and a rubber stamp.

TABLE: Population and Jobs by Character Area (taken from 21 July memo with additional information added)

Note: The change in population and jobs is between the revised draft Secondary Plan (b below) and the adopted version (d below)

Character Area: Yonge North                               Pop            Change            Jobs            Change                                                           

(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors:              6,000                                  2,400                       

(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan:              6,000                                  2,300

(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study:                5,837                                  2,367

(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted:                    6,300           +300               2,700        +400

Character Area: Yonge and Davis

(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors:              11,800                                12,000

(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan:              13,000                                 11,000

(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study:                12,202                                 11,387

(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted                      13,500          +500               10,100        -900

Character Area: Yonge Civic

(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors:              1,500                                    6,200

(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan:              1,500                                    6,000

(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study:                1,639                                    6,481

(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted                     2,200            +700                5,400        -600

Character Area: Yonge South

(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors:               6,200                                     2,700

(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan:               6,500                                     2,500

(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study:                 7,079                                     2,902

(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted                       6,300            -200                 2,800      +300

Character Area: Davis Drive

(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors:                4,000                                     1,700

(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan:                4,500                                     1,500

(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study:                  3,993                                     1,648

(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted                        3,600            -900                  2,600     +1,100

Character Area: Reg Healthcare Centre

(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors:                 1,500                                      7,000

(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan:                 1,500                                       6,700

(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study:                   1,401                                       6,363

(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted:                       1,100           -400                     8,400     +1,700