Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 17 June 2014

Last night Newmarket councillors waved through the Town’s controversial Secondary Plan that lays the ground for accommodating an additional 33, 000 people along the Yonge Davis corridors. The Plan now goes to the full Council meeting on 23 June for formal approval and then to York Region for ratification.

The Region and other agencies caused a last-minute re-write of the draft Plan when they observed that:

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

When councillors agreed the earlier revised draft Plan they were assured it would meet all the relevant targets set for the Town.

Marion Plaunt, the senior planner in charge of the file, tries to square the circle, explaining there has been no change in the maximum heights of buildings that councillors agreed previously. This is true. But the locations where the highest buildings can go have changed. This will visibly alter the street-scape. We learn that densities in a multitude of sites all along the two corridors have been redistributed in a different way. I see mystified faces and a few furrowed brows.

Schedule 4: the small print

Schedule 4 of the Urban Centres Secondary Plan lists, on page 128, a very large number of changes to height and density. For example, development blocks down at Yonge and Mulock go from Medium High Density to High Density. This means going up from a permitted maximum height of 12 storeys (or 15 with bonusing) to 17 storeys (or 20 with bonusing). Developers can get the bonus of higher heights and density if they promise to give something to the Town – say, a community garden or some other “public good”.

Obviously, developers are interested in height but they positively salivate over the floor space index or “FSI”. This, broadly speaking, is the amount of development that can be squeezed onto the site. At Yonge and Mulock the original medium high density of 2.5 (or 3.0 with bonusing) goes up to 3.5 (or 4.0 with bonusing). This means the sites can be more intensively developed.

Changes needed to achieve the planned intensification

Marion now completes her PowerPoint presentation and we are into questions. Tom Vegh zeros in on the proposed changes to height and density recommended by the Region and York Region Rapid Transit designed “to achieve the planned intensification” yet the population numbers (an extra 33,000 people) in the draft Plan and the revised Plan remain unchanged. Vegh describes this as “counter-intuitive”.

John Taylor seems equally perplexed and calls for a note from staff explaining the reasoning and methodology. The Mayor, too, wants a written explanation.

Just like a Piston

Joe Sponga is now asking about “development blocks”. These “blocks” are agglomerations of individual “development sites”. Marion is explaining things using semaphore. We learn that angular planes can push densities down (to stop tall buildings towering over smaller ones) so the Plan allows densities to be transferred elsewhere within each development block. Just when Joe’s eyes are beginning to mist over, Marion starts pushing down with her right hand while correspondingly raising her left hand. It’s like a piston, she says. She does this a number of times. It is quite effective.

39 Davis Drive: evidence of a planning system that is broken

We learn, following a question from Dave Kerwin, that this principle (of using development blocks) does not apply to 39 Davis Drive – currently a temporary car park - where planning permission was given in 2009 for a 20 storey condo with an FSI of 10.25. Newmarket’s planners changed their recommendation to councillors at the last minute, agreeing that, in this case, the height and density should be “site specific” and not related to the development block.

(39 Davis Drive is owned by Tri-Cap as is 22 George Street. The LCBO/Shoppers site, adjacent to 39 Davis Drive, is probably in the same ownership. I haven’t checked but the three companies that own the three sites have sequential numbers: 1858106 Ontario Inc; 1858107 Ontario Inc and 1858108 Ontario Inc.)

The owners’ planning consultants – who were all geared up to make a presentation to the Committee of the Whole to argue that 39 Davis Drive should be an exception to the development block principle – instead thanked the Town’s planners for their change of mind. Earlier, they told the Town

“The three companies intend to redevelop these sites sometime in the future but the exact nature of the development or developments has not yet been determined.”

39 Davis got approval five years ago and there is still no sign of a condo. If there are no shovels in the ground after a specified period, say 3 years, planning approvals should, in my view, be revoked. Otherwise companies such as Tri-Cap hoard land until they decide the time is right to develop. Manifestly, this can be against the public interest.

Mobility Hubs

Chris Emanuel returns to the issue of mobility hubs, raised on previous occasions. As I am listening to Marion explaining the difference in approach between the Yonge Davis mobility hub and the one at the Tannery, I find myself thinking again about that promised new park and ride GO Train station at Mulock. It is outside the Secondary Plan area but where does it fit in the wider scheme of things? How absurd that something like this should be left hanging in the air.

Jane Twinney also asks about the Tannery and whether Bayview and Prospect would be included in the study area. We learn from Rick Nethery there are road capacity issues that are the subject of a “companion study” – the NSEW Network Study!

I sense we are all beginning to wilt.

Elsewhere… Ward 4’s Tom Hempen wants to know how the Town is going to address the need for parks and open spaces in the light of its burgeoning population growth. Marion tells him parkland dedication will come with development applications. She also tells him the Upper Canada Mall site has effectively been removed from the Secondary Plan area until the special UCM study has been completed.

Taylor points the way

Now John Taylor tries to pull everything together. He sounds like a travel guide. He tells us it would be wrong to suggest we are at the end of the journey. We learn we are moving in a positive direction. But the biggest challenge is where this journey will take us and how fast.

(In fact, the whole expensive process has been rudderless for years. The professional planners stepped in to fill the void when the politicians failed to give a lead.)

Taylor says the infrastructure has to be in place to support growth. Growth should be phased with development being sequenced and aligned with the projected population increase.

Joe Sponga is ecstatic telling us Taylor’s proposal is “refreshing”. Now he thanks Marion in his own inimitable way. “You have been working your proverbial off.”

Secondary Plan must be OMB proof

Chris Emanuel fears piecemeal development and agrees phasing is important. He confesses his frustration with the planning process. Scorched by the OMB decision at Glenway, he says he wants to make the Secondary Plan, insofar as possible, “OMB proof”. Anything within the built boundary of Newmarket seems to be fair game for developers.

Now Maddie Di Muccio, the burr under the saddle, says municipalities have an obligation to provide infrastructure to support growth so why all this stuff from Taylor about phasing and so on.

The Town’s planning chief, Rick Nethery, agrees infrastructure is needed “but it doesn’t all have to be in place at the one time”. I’d have liked a few examples of what can safely be left until later.

Newmarket and Mississagua

Now we are submerged in statistics as Di Muccio suggests Newmarket could become one of the most densely populated places on the planet (I exaggerate for effect). She says we could have more people per square kilometre than… Mississagua. This, she says, is not smart planning. We don’t need all these people.

Now the usually languid Taylor stirs. I have rarely seen him so energised. He is firing statistics at us. The Town has been growing at about 2% a year and this is projected to continue. It is all manageable.

At this point Jane Twinney, back from the campaign trail, sticks her head above the parapet, telling us she will support the Secondary Plan because it is the responsible thing to do.

This infuriates Di Muccio who turns on Jane (whom she loathes), denouncing her for suggesting it would be “irresponsible” not to support the Plan.

I think it is time to go.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 13 June 2014

Newmarket-Aurora is – or rather was - a true blue riding. It is comfortably off with the average family income ($118,060) significantly above the provincial ($90,526) and national ($82,325) figures. There are more homeowners; lower unemployment and more people with degrees.

And yet the conservative vote, once strong and resilient, melted away, mirroring the collapse across the Province.

The share of the vote for PC candidate, Jane Twinney, shrank by 10% when compared with 2011 while Liberal Chris Ballard increased his Party’s share by 8.2%.

The question for Jane is whether she runs again for Newmarket Council, having withdrawn from the race earlier in anticipation of a new berth at Queen's Park.

The NDP share of the vote was down by 2.7% to 11.6% as NDP sympathisers moved across to the Liberals.

The Green, Andrew Roblin, did well to increase his Party’s share of the vote to 4.4%.

The number of valid votes cast in the Riding was also up markedly from 45,349 in 2011 to 52,359 yesterday.

Tim Hudak’s campaign was disastrous for all the reasons that have been reported so widely. In the run-up to polling day even the Globe and Mail, swallowing hard, could only bring itself to call for a minority Conservative government. Its coverage today of the election result is sour, reminding its readers of all the elephant traps ahead for Wynne. By contrast, the Star is in celebratory mood.

The NDP, too, needs to think carefully about its purpose and where it is going. Under Horwath, a shrivelled-up NDP seems to have turned itself into some kind of consumers’ association. The NDP post election is back where it started. 21 seats.

It beggars belief that Andrea Horwath thinks she can lead the NDP into a third Provincial election.

Tim Hudak has bravely fallen on his sword after two failed attempts.

That’s quite enough, thank you.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 11 June 2014

I couldn’t get to the second candidates debate in Aurora on Saturday afternoon (7 June) but a friend of mine who was there paints this fascinating picture and I pass it on. I post it here with permission, but without the writer’s name as requested.

“The Aurora debate was quite interesting. There were four candidates and 70+ people in attendance. Jane Twinney continues to underwhelm in staggering ways, if that even makes sense. She answered questions, particularly in the yes/no portion, in ways that completely contradict her party's platform. You could hear people gasping a little. She answered every other question with eliminate the deficit. She is making it up as she goes along. I'm not sure if she's being willfully misleading or if she's just confused and ignorant.

They got rid of the candidate-to-candidate questions without letting all of the candidates know in advance. (That, or they just forgot about it.) Almost half of the debate, 55 minutes, was given to questions from the audience. There was a question about a national pharmacare program with a couple of statistics. Twinney said "yes, healthcare for those who need it." 

An attendee asked something along the lines of "if you had to vote for someone other than yourself on June 12, who would you vote for?"

The moderator said it wasn't a fair question and that the candidates didn't have to answer. They wanted to.

Roblin said Duff and the NDP

Baxter said Ballard

Ballard said he'd split his vote three ways: social justice message of the NDP, something about the Greens, and Baxter for being Baxter. 

Twinney said she'd vote for the Libertarian candidate (who wasn't there)

One of Twinney's party platform violations was so big that Frank Klees booed her. And that happened within the context of an otherwise non-heckling audience. If only I could remember what the issue was!

I think it's worth noting that Frank stepped out as soon as the candidates were done answering the panel's questions. I guess he had no interest in hearing about what was important to those in attendance. 

The NDP candidate Angus Duff couldn't make it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 10 June 2014

Key sections of Newmarket’s Secondary Plan, the blueprint that will guide development on the Yonge/Davis corridors for the next few decades, have been re-written at the 11^th hour by unelected Regional officials and people from other agencies.

The Plan, over two years in gestation, goes to the Committee of the Whole next Monday for adoption (16 June). It differs markedly from the “revised draft Plan” recently agreed by Councillors.

Opening yesterday’s Council workshop, the Town’s Planning Chief, Rick Nethery, reassures weary councillors “the end is nigh”. Nethery, who always gives me the impression his bank of knowledge is wide but very shallow, tells councillors the Town had consulted outside agencies and that “some adjustments” to building heights had been made. This must be the understatement of the year. Why do I feel Nethery is never quite up to speed on things?

He says York Region Rapid Transit expressed concerns about the Plan “not achieving planned intensification”. Comments from other agencies came in late in the day but this, he says, is “not untoward”.

Maximum Heights to be increased 

Schedule 4 of the Plan shows whole swathes of Yonge and Davis where maximum permitted heights have been changed. So a string of future development sites, previously limited to 8 storeys (or 10 with bonusing), go up to 12 storeys (or 15 with bonusing). Other sites around Mulock and Yonge and around the Slessor site go from medium high density (12 storeys or 15 with bonusing) to high (17 storeys or 20 with bonusing). The lowest density is increased from a maximum of four floors to six with a seventh floor via bonusing.

The senior planner in charge of the Secondary Plan file, Marion Plaunt, tells councillors “we are not increasing densities we have just re-shuffled them”.

We are told the planners are proposing two exceptions to the plan. 39 Davis, owned by Tricap, where planning approval was given in 2009 but the site is still a patch of dirt and the Slessor site, now up for sale, which has “approval in principle” for 21 storeys.

The boundaries of two blocks at Penn Avenue and Walter Avenue are deepened, making them more attractive to developers.

Technical stuff relating to transitional and angular plane policies (preventing high buildings going up next to much lower ones) are to be changed to allow for more “flexibility”.

Polite scepticism

Our councillors, to their credit, express polite scepticism.

(Joe Sponga and Tom Vegh are absent. Jane Twinney is on the "campaign trail")

Tom Hempen, clearly exasperated, says there have been numerous changes to height and density. What happens if we don’t change anything and just submit the Plan to the Region? What would happen?

Nethery tells him the Region is the “approval authority and they could effect modifications to the Plan”.

Regional councillor John Taylor trips up Nethery by suggesting the Province has a role in that its approval powers are, in effect, delegated to the Region. It is the kind of process question Taylor likes. Nethery agrees this is so.

Maddie Di Muccio innocently asks if the Secondary Plan’s proposed building heights were (a) reduced following public consultation and (b) are now increasing again following comments from agencies. Hmmm. Yes, says Marion.

I think that counts as a bullseye.

Putting names to faces

As I am watching Marion go through her Powerpoint presentation, I find myself wondering who these influential (unnamed) people are who can re-write the Town’s Secondary Plan. Of course, it is all done in the name of “the Region” or York Region Rapid Transit or some other Agency giving the changes a spurious authority they don’t necessarily deserve. Other entities representing landowners also make their views known.

Perhaps, next Monday, we can have some photographs inserted into the Powerpoint presentation to allow us to put a face to the change. “Here is Mr Jones behind his desk in the Long Range Planning Department at York Region who changed the building heights on Yonge from medium density to high density. Here is Ms Smith, a consultant from the development industry advising local landowners, who is proposing changes to the bonusing provisions.” You get the idea. 

Now there is a long and complex discussion on transportation and transit and the future of Upper Canada Mall which I fear may have left me behind. Chris Emanuel wants to know about Mobility Hubs and why there isn’t one at Yonge/Davis. (There is one proposed for the Tannery.) John Taylor wants to know if there is any reason why the Town can’t simply press ahead and do a Mobility Hub study anyway.

We are told that Metrolinx believes the “mobility hub principle” should apply to Yonge and Davis. Marion, more Delphic than usual, tells us this is reflected in the text but “there is not going to be a circle on the map”. I am struggling to make sense of all this.

Will the GO bus terminal (which featured so prominently in the Glenway OMB Hearing) be relocated onto the Upper Canada Mall site? We learn that Metrolinx will be involved in a “fulsome analysis”.

 Open Space needed

Now Dave Kerwin moves on to parks and open space. He wants to know where the children are going to play in future, especially as the population grows. He is against the Town taking cash from developers in lieu of green space. Nethery tells him that parkland and open space issues are next in the queue to be addressed by the Town’s planners. In any event, cash in lieu says Nethery can be used to buy open space. (Question: when did that last happen?)

Now Kerwin hits his stride and is talking about the fast food industry and, with employees getting $11 an hour, he is wondering aloud how they can afford to live in Newmarket. He tells us there is not enough affordable housing to sustain the fast food industry.

Meanwhile, the Planners are telling us that the 35% affordable housing target should be scaled back to 25% in the “Regional Healthcare Character Area” on the grounds there are too few people there to make it worthwhile. The 35% target would still apply to the “Provincial Urban Growth Centre (PUGC)” (from Eagle in the south up to Slessor or thereabouts in the north). But Davis Drive and the rest of Yonge outside the PUGC would have a 25% minimum.

Now I am looking at our councillors and their faces tell me there is some unhappiness out there. The Mayor, who enjoys steering the ship but is unconcerned about its destination, decides it is time to jolly up the crew.

The Mayor is now applying his trademark soothing balm, telling councillors - and others watching on the live stream - who may be worried about the way things are going that there will be many, many other occasions to review the Secondary Plan. (Actually, once every five years.) He is, of course, talking the usual Mayoral cobblers. If there are good reasons for changing the Plan, now is the time to do it.