Details

Earlier today, I wrote to Bob Forrest's lawyer, Ira Kagan, in these terms: 

"On 3 May 2017 at the OMB pre-hearing on the Clock Tower you told the OMB adjudicator, Mr Blair Taylor, there was no difference from the outside between the original application submitted by Main Street Clock Inc and Option B which you presented to the pre-hearing that very morning.

In the absence of a transcript or audio recording I should be grateful if you would confirm this is what you said."

Mr Kagan replied:

"What I said at the PHC (pre-hearing conference) was that when viewed from Main Street and Park Street, (sic) that the development was essentially the same.  I indicated, for example that it remained 7 stories in height but that the number of dwelling units was less.  The same cannot apply to Market Square since that is where the land swap was contemplated."

I didn't hear Mr Kagan draw the adjudicator's attention to the Market Square side of the proposed development where there would be visible differences between the original application and Option B. I didn't hear him tell the adjudicator the Market Square elevation was not available. Mr Kagan was flying by the seat of his pants.

We do not yet know the extent of these visible differences because, astonishingly, we do not yet have the Market Square elevation nor do we have an artist's impression. I am assuming that Mr Longo (Counsel for the Town) is asking for this information. And if not, why not?

Personal Assurance

Given Mr Kagan's earlier demand that I give him a personal assurance I was not audio recording the pre-hearing, I now believe audio recording is now more essential than ever. Starting at the pre-hearing phase. And I would like the Town to arrange for this.

People will want to fact check everything that is said.

Earlier today, I wrote to the Town's Commissioner for Corporate Services, Esther Armchuk:

"You will recall you told me on 11 April 2017 that the Town would consider retaining a reporter/transcriber for the OMB Clock Tower Hearing in consultation with Mr Longo.

On 14 May 2017, Mr Ira Kagan, Counsel for Main Street Clock Inc, was in touch with me asking if I had audio recorded the OMB pre-hearing on 3 May 2017 or if I was aware that anyone else had recorded it. I told him that I did not record the pre-hearing nor was I aware that anyone else had.

During the course of that pre-hearing, the adjudicator Mr Blair Taylor, invited Mr Kagan to speak to the appeal that was in front of the OMB.

Mr Kagan described the original application and an Option B, declaring there was no difference between the two "from the outside".

Mr Longo told Mr Taylor that he was prepared to accept, on his friend's word, that Option B looked like the original application.

The difference or not between the original application and Option B is a matter of some importance and, in the absence of a transcript or audio recording, I am writing to Mr Kagan to ask him to repeat in writing to me what he told Mr Taylor.

It seems to me this underlines the importance of having a record of what is said at pre-hearings and at the OMB hearing proper.

Now that Mr Kagan has put the thought into my mind I am content with an audio recording (rather than the more expensive transcript) and I would be grateful if you would take this as a formal request.

I am copying this to Mr Shelton."

Ms Armchuk replied:

"As this appeal is now before the Ontario Municipal Board, it is the Board who decides whether proceedings may be recorded and/or subscribed. I have been advised that at the Pre-hearing on May 3, 2017, you requested Party status on behalf of the ACO. I understand your request was adjourned for consideration at the next Board Pre-hearing. Any person can make a request to the Ontario Municipal Board to permit an audio recording of the proceeding. As a result you may make that request directly to the Ontario Municipal Board."

Town should request audio recording

For the avoidance of doubt, M'Lud, I am making the request to the Town of Newmarket, as a principal Party. I want the Town to seek approval from the Board to make an audio recording of the next Pre-hearing on 11 August 2017 and any subsequent OMB Hearings.

The Town may be on course to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending its position on the Clock Tower at the OMB. And, after the searing experience of Glenway where the Town's performance was truly lamentable, it is in the clear public interest for the Clock Tower OMB Appeal to be audio recorded.

Ms Armchuk sat through the Glenway OMB Hearing from start to finish as I did. I winced at the appalling incompetence of it all. And there is no record to show just how bad it was.

I thought the Town had learned from Glenway.

Apparently not.

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

The relevant sections of the OMB's Rules of Practice and Procedure state:

91. Media Coverage - Photographic, Audio or Video Recording

No person shall take or attempt to take a photograph, motion picture, video recording, or other recording capable of producing visual or aural representations by electronic means, or otherwise, at any proceedings of the Board otherwise open to the public, unless the presiding Board Member authorizes the recording and the following conditions have to be satisfied by the person making the request:

(a) authorization for the request was submitted to the presiding Board Member or the Chair;

(b) the Board Member determines that the proceedings will not be disrupted or delayed if approval is given;

(c) the Board Member determines that the approval will not result in any prejudice to any party to the proceedings;

(d) the equipment must be of a type approved by the Board and be placed in locations approved by the presiding Board Member; and

(e) photographing and/or visual recording may take place only within the times designated by the Board Member prior to the commencement of the Board’s proceedings and no approval of the Board shall apply to any time during which the proceedings actually occur or in which the proceedings are in session.

92. Submissions to a Request

The Board Member shall afford the parties to the proceeding an opportunity to make submissions to the Board of any of the items set out in Rule 91 and respond to those submissions. The Board may impose conditions to any approval necessary to ensure the items in Rule 91 are satisfactorily addressed.

93. Withdrawal of Approval

The Board may withdraw permission to record temporarily or permanently if the conditions are not met, if any of the factors in Rule 91 become relevant, or if the Board in the circumstances cannot conduct a full and fair hearing.

94.Verbatim Reporters

Any party may arrange for the attendance of a qualified verbatim reporter, at his or her own expense, for the purpose of recording all testimony and submissions during a hearing event. Before a qualified verbatim reporter is permitted to record only part of a proceeding, the party retaining the qualified verbatim reporter must obtain the consent of the Board. In considering whether to provide its consent, the Board will consider, among other matters, whether to permit a record of only part of the proceedings would result in prejudice to a party.

95.Transcripts

If a party orders a transcript or partial transcript of the hearing event, the party must notify the Board, and the other parties to the proceedings that it has done so, and the Board shall receive a copy free of charge, if the Board requests a copy. The party must furnish the copy of the transcript to the Board within three days of the date of the party’s receipt of the transcript. The Board may at its own expense and on notice to the parties, order a transcript or partial transcript from the qualified verbatim reporter without furnishing a copy of the transcript to the parties; however, in any such case the Board will advise the parties that it has ordered the transcript and where the Board orders a partial transcript, the Board shall notify the parties as to the part of the transcript the Board has ordered.

Update on 19 May 2017: In the original email to Ms Armchuk the word pre-meeting was used interchangeably with pre-hearing. 

 

Details

Ira Kagan, the lawyer acting for Clock Tower developer, Bob Forrest, told the OMB prehearing on 3 May 2017 that there was no difference "from the outside" between Forrest's original application and Option B.

Kagan's statement, made without any qualification, was untrue. There are significant differences between the original and Option B. 

Compare the plans for the Market Square side of the proposed development. The plan shown at the top is from the original application. The plan below is from Option B.

Forrest's original application (resubmitted in April 2016) was for a seven storey building with 165 apartments and 199 parking spaces with underground parking extending under Town-owned land.

Option B which was sprung on everyone on the day of the OMB prehearing proposed 143 rental units and 177 parking spaces - all on Forrest's own land. (The Town's counsel, Leo Longo, was told about Option B on Monday evening, 1st May 2017 - less than 48 hours before the prehearing.) Forrest now intends to build entirely within his property line. 

At the prehearing I was given a sheaf of drawings for the new Option B but one key elevation was missing. The view of the Clock Tower development from Market Square. Yesterday, I emailed Kagan with the question:

"There was no artist's impression or elevation for the proposed development as seen from Market Square. Is this available?"

He replied:

"No. I gave you all that was available."

When Kagan assured the OMB adjudicator, Blair Taylor, that even with the loss of the Town-owned land required for the underground car park, the development looked the same from the outside, he must have been relying on information from his client, Bob Forrest. I am certain Kagan would never knowingly mislead the OMB. 

Why is this important?

Bizarrely, the OMB has two applications before it. The original application which is under appeal and Option B which is being sold as a minor variation of the original. This strains our credulity.

If Option B is an entirely different beast from the original - and it is - then the OMB should not even consider it. It should instead adjudicate on the original which everyone now knows cannot be built. If the OMB presses ahead with a series of Hearings on a building that cannot be built then, truly, we have entered Fantasyland.

Delicious irony 

In a delicious irony, and to the best of my knowledge, we do not have a transcript or an audio recording of the OMB prehearing on 3 May 2017 but perhaps Mr Kagan can tell us what he said or what he meant to say if he "mis-spoke". The Council Chamber was packed and I am prepared to bet people heard what I heard.

My hunch is the revised Clock Tower is still work in progress. If it is not then Forrest should make all the plans, drawings and supporting statements available to the Clock Tower Parties immediately. And he should brief his counsel, Ira Kagan, comprehensively and honestly, holding nothing back.

In the meantime, the Town should formally request the OMB to dismiss Forrest's appeal without a hearing.

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

On 28 November 2016, after the Committee took its decision to deny the Clock Tower application, Bob Forrest told councillors:

"We have informally shared with Planning Staff that we have found the means to re-design the underground so that it does not extend under the Newmarket Library parking. This revised configuration, which was accomplished as to reduce our construction impact upon Library operations, is to be presented as part of a Site Plan Application."

Earlier today, I wrote to the Town to ask for sight of any elevations or artist's renditions of the revised Clock Tower development (as referred to above) as seen from Market Square.

Details

Big changes are coming to the land use planning appeal system.

The Government announced this morning that the OMB is to be abolished. A new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal will replace it giving "greater weight to the decisions of local communities".

Significantly, the Province will set up a Local Planning Appeal Support Centre

"mandated to provide free and independent advice and representation to Ontarians on land use planning appeals".

This will make a huge difference. At the moment the system is infested with lawyers, bogus experts and special interests with lay people frozen out and silenced - unless they can raise thousands of dollars to hire their own lawyers and planners.

The front page story in this morning's Toronto Star highlights the OMB's failings.

The whole system is totally broken.

Today's news is very good news indeed. It has been a long time coming.

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

 

Details

On Sunday evening at 9.41pm an email arrived from Bob Forrest's lawyer, the feared and slightly sinister Kim Jong Kagan. As you would expect, the email had the whiff of North Korea about it. 

Mr Kim's email reads:

Subject: RE: Main Street Clock Tower OMB Appeal

Mr Prentice. I attach a pdf of one of your latest blogs (May 5th). It raised a question in my mind which I should appreciate your response to. Did you have an audio recording device at the May 3rd prehearing conference? Did anyone else have one that you were aware of?

Kim Jong Kagan

I had my Apple iphone with me. It is a recording device but it wasn't switched on. I suspect many of my readers who attended the prehearing (including Mr Kim himself) had similar recording devices. If yours was in record mode it is important you let me know and I shall send your details on to Mr Kim. What happens then is up to him. But, be warned, it could be very painful.

Filming not allowed

The OMB's rules of practice and procedure make it clear that Hearings are not recorded by the OMB.

"You may also arrange, at your own expense, for a Court reporter to transcribe the hearing. Filming the hearing is not permitted. For an audio recording of a hearing, you must request permission in advance of the hearing."

I would like to see a record kept of all OMB hearings. It seems faintly absurd to me that millions of dollars can turn on an OMB decision and there is no record of who said what. Yet proceedings in the Small Claims Court are transcribed. Maddie Di Muccio's ludicrous claim against Regional Councillor John Taylor for $5,000 in damages for hurt feelings is captured word for word and stored in a locked vault somewhere.

Changing the dynamics

Having a record also changes the dynamics. Everyone is on their best behaviour. Including the OMB adjudicator. Self represented Parties should be treated with respect and consideration and should not be regarded as an unwelcome intrusion. I am certain having a record helps.

In fact I owe it to Kim Jong Kagan who first alerted me to the fact that OMB hearings could be recorded. On 23 June 2013, at the Glenway Lessons Learned meeting, I was beckoned over to Mr Kim's table to join the great man. I did so with great trepidation. People have been known to disappear after meeting Mr Kim. 

Most people think of lawyers as men in grey suits. But that evening Mr Kim was resplendent in a colourful Hawaiian shirt and he had a deep tan. He spent much of the evening gazing, in a distracted way, at his recording device.

Total Recall

As it happens, I was not recording our conversation but I have total recall of what was said. I told him it was a tragedy the Glenway OMB Hearing was not recorded and that everything that had been said had disappeared into the ether. It was then he told me any Party could request a record be taken.

With this earlier advice in mind, I contacted Newmarket's Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton, on 10 April 2017, asking the Town to arrange for a transcript to be made of the Clock Tower OMB hearing. My email was forwarded to Esther Armchuk, the Commissioner for Corporate Services and former Town Solicitor. The following day, she told me:

"Your request that the Town arrange for a transcript of the above-noted proceedings has been forwarded for my attention. The Town will make a determination about whether of not to retain a reporter/transcriber for this hearing in consultation with our external legal counsel."

Audio recording is required

Armed with all this information I am now summoning up the courage to approach Mr Kim with a request that he, on behalf of his client, will raise no objections to an audio recording being made of the forthcoming OMB Hearing on the Clock Tower. 

I hope to see you all again.

As a postscript, I hope Mr Kim is not billing his client, Bob Forrest, for entertaining emails sent out on Sunday evenings.

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

email to Bob Shelton requesting a transcript (10 April 2017)

I am writing formally to request the Town to arrange for a transcript to be made of the forthcoming OMB Hearing on the Clock Tower. As you know, Parties can have a transcript made of the proceedings.

There are some compelling reasons why we should have a transcript.

1. A transcript will be a permanent record of a Hearing whose significance extends well beyond Newmarket. 

2. A transcript will help us understand how the adjudicator came to his or her decision.

3. A transcript will change the dynamic of the Hearing with all the actors (the Parties and Participants, lawyers, planners, Newmarket staff, witnesses and so on) being aware that a record is being taken of the proceedings. 

4. Millions of dollars can ride on an OMB decision. The expense of getting a transcript done is very small beer indeed when compared with the expense of defending the municipality's position at the OMB. As you know, Glenway cost the Town $588,291 and, unfortunately, no transcript was taken. The arguments and debate have all disappeared into the ether, lost forever. 

5. Perhaps as a result of this, one of the recommendations coming out of the Glenway Lessons Learned exercise was that, in future, a transcript should be considered. 

6. The Government is currently considering OMB reform and the Clock Tower could well be a useful case study. 

When I was sitting in for the Metrolinx presentation at the Committee of the Whole earlier this afternoon I noticed that a person was sitting on your right, apparently taking a verbatim note of the proceedings. Perhaps the Town employs a stenographer?

 I look forward to hearing from you.

Gordon Prentice

 

Details

I take it as an incontestable fact that if John Taylor lived in the beautiful historic house at 182 Church Street a block of townhouses would not be built 7' 5" away from his bedroom window. 

Taylor is a hugely influential figure on Newmarket Council. When he speaks others listen. Where he leads others follow. Most councillors have contracted out their thinking to Taylor who does the heavy lifting for them.

Taylor wants to see the old school brought back to life (as we all do) but this blinds him to what is happening elsewhere on the development site. He has nurtured a good relationship with the developer - the Rose Corporation - and is proud of the role he played in bringing to Newmarket the much needed rental building at 212 Davis Drive. Unlike the rest of us, he has been to the top and was dazzled by the experience.

Shoulder high

The application for the King George School development was "site specific" meaning it was drawn to fit the space available rather than meet existing zoning standards. It was clear from the plans and drawings of 30 August 2016 that the Church Street Townhouses were going to be 1 metre (3' 3") away from the side lot line. The end Townhouse would be 5' 10" away, wall to wall, from the 1881 house. 5' 10" is probably up to Taylor's shoulder.


 

 

Didn't this ring any alarm bells?

182 Church Street is built on rubble stone foundations just like the Old Town Hall. The two buildings were constructed within months of each other. Taylor knows the problems associated with these old foundations. You don't mess with 136 year old rubble stone.

Taylor votes to abandon restoration of Old Town Hall

In August 2013, Taylor voted to abandon the restoration of the Old Town Hall on the grounds that problems with the foundations were driving the costs ever upwards. On this occasion, mercifully, he was on the losing side in the 4-3 vote and we now have a beautifully restored OTH.  Had Taylor's views prevailed, we would be looking at a derelict old wreck of a building. 

 But the take-away is this. Taylor would have known the perils of building townhouses 5' 10" away from 182 Church Street but he chose not to engage with the issue. After all, it was someone else's back yard, not his.

After the public meeting on 6 February 2017, the developer responded to public concern about the distance between the buildings by increasing the side-yard set back from 1 metre to 1.5 metres (the distance specified in the Town's zoning standards).

Rose Corporation: money in the bank

Taylor reads my blogs and picked up on points made in my earlier one on 182 Church Street. I said the Rose Corporation had loads of cash and could afford to lose one Townhouse out of the eight planned on Church Street to give the historic house more breathing space. Just like any other developer, the Rose Corporation would have to pay development charges to York Region and the Town of Newmarket. These run into many millions of dollars and - as part of a policy to encourage rental - have been deferred for three years with no interest. 

I also said that in approving the King George application they had blown apart their own planning standards.

In his first email on Friday (12 May 2017) Taylor writes:

"I looked up the Regional report approving 212 Davis. It stated that "The opportunity cost of deferring the development charge collection by an additional 18 months would be approximately $290,000 based on the Region’s current cost of borrowing rate at 4.52 per cent. "

"The Regional cost of lost interest was 290,000 dollars the town would be about half of that which would be about 150,000.  So all in it is about 450,000 investment at both levels.  I still believe this is a very good investment in securing the first Rental building in York Region in over 20 years.  Cities and towns everywhere have recognized the importance of new purpose built rental housing and many offer far greater incentives than we did."

and in the second email he quotes me (in the first paragraph below):

"On Monday, councillors agreed a site specific zoning application setting the distance between the heritage home and the townhouses at 7' 5" - blowing apart their own zoning standards in the process."

"I hope you don't mind me asking Gordon but what zoning standard did we blow apart in relation to the distance between the two houses?"

I take these points in turn.

Deferral of Development Charges

Development charges (DCs) help pay for essential regional infrastructure such as roads, water, wastewater and so on. DC collections are critical to managing debt levels. In 2013, for York Region, development charge debt servicing costs actually outstripped DC collections by $24m. So, as with taxes, it is vital the money comes in. The three year deferral is a big concession but one that can be justified on public policy grounds.

If the money doesn't come in as expected, the municipalities incur additional debt and financing costs. The roads, the bridges, the sewers and so on still have to be built.

Taylor quotes the loss of interest over a 18 month period, not 36 months. He focuses on 18 months because condo developers can get this deferral, almost as a matter of course, if they provide a letter of credit at the time the building permit is issued. All this stuff is explained in the Region's DC background study (open here and scroll to bottom of page).

DCs are calculated and are payable in full when the building permit (or permission to build) is issued.

Deferral policy for private purpose built rentals is set out in the background study.

Currently, the Region does not have a formal policy to allow the deferral of development charges for private purpose built rentals. However, policies do exist for the deferral of development charges for high-rise condominiums, offices and retail developments.

Through a pilot project, the Region has provided a development charge deferral for a purpose-built rental building at 212 Davis Drive located in the Town of Newmarket. This 36-month deferral agreement helped facilitate the development of 225 rental units, including up to 56 subsidized units.

Deferring DCs for three years allows the developer to have access to the cash that otherwise would have to be paid over to the municipality. The developer can use the money to make more money. And, as I say, no interest is payable. 

 

So, how much are we talking about?

Taylor's figures suggest DCs of around $6.5 million based on an 18 month deferral and an interest rate of 4.52%. Interest lost to the Region and town would amount to just over $440,000. (My figures need to be checked. This is back of the envelope stuff for me. I am not an older version of Mike Mayes.) A three year deferral doubles the interest foregone.

The DC background study tells us the proposed Residential DCs for Newmarket (which includes the York Region, Town and Education components) comes in at $46,390 per large apartment over 700 sq ft and $36,387 per small apartment (under 700 sq ft).

Just like the Region, the Town also agreed to defer its DCs for 36 months.

Leaving aside the education component (which is relatively small) and excluding the large apartments over 700 sq ft, the amount, broadly speaking, that doesn't have to be paid up front is:

$36,387 x 225 (no of apartments) =  $8,187,075.

Taylor's figures are different from mine but I don't have all the information at my fingertips so I defer to him. I don't have all the answers. The simple point is this. Give or take a million dollars or two, the Rose Corporation has money in the bank and the resources to do the right thing. Our taxes help the development industry.

Conclusion: They should get rid of the townhouse nearest to 182 Church Street and settle for seven rather than eight in the block.

What Zoning Standards did we blow apart?

The application is site specific.  

1 metre (3' 3") between the end of the Townhouse block and the lot line would not have satisfied the Town's Zoning By-law. The applicant chose to stretch the distance to 1.5 metres (4' 11") which does. The staff report that went to last week's Committee of the Whole indicates that the applicant made the concession ("the applicant has increased the side yard set back from 1 metre to 1.5 metres").

When the King George application went in to the Town, the distance between 182 Church Street and the Townhouses, wall to wall, was 5' 10". It was only after the applicant had conceded the extra half metre than the distance went up to 7' 5"

Personally, I suspect the planners would have gone along with 5' 10". But I can't be certain. To insist on anything else would have been to mess around with the application. And I don't think that would have appealed to them. 5' 10" would probably have passed as "good planning".

Nothing has happened on the King George site for decades. the School was built in 1912 and the heritage house, 1881.

182 Church Street is zoned R3-K.

It is classified as a duplex dwelling. If it were being built today, and not generations ago, it would require a minimum yard set-back from the interior side lot line  of 1.8 metres (or 5' 10") to satisfy the Town's zoning standards.

For Townhouses, the Zoning By-law stipulates a minimum 1.5 metres (4' 11") from the lot line and 3 metres (9' 10") separation between Townhouse blocks.

But if we were to apply today's standards, and we were building a new duplex it would have to be built 5' 10" away from the side lot line and the Townhouses would have to be 4' 11' (1.5 metres) away from their lot line. Making a total of 10' 9".

Instead of this, we are left with a shrunken buffer of 7' 5"

The Town's Heritage Advisory Committee recommended a minimum separation of 20'

The developer will get a lot of support from local people - and loads of goodwill - if he acts on the sound advice of the Heritage Advisory Committee.

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

When Taylor voted to torpedo the Old Town Hall restoration.

This is the yorkregion.com story from August 2013. (The OTH was officially opened on 23 September 2016)

"At Thursday’s meeting, council had the option of terminating the project at a cost of nearly $1.725 million, or removing and replacing the existing footings and foundation walls at a cost of more than $1.4 million.

During council’s discussion, questions were raised about the due diligence undertaken by project managers Mettko, architecture firm Black and Moffat and structural engineers Reed Jones Christofferson Ltd., the fact that just a single exterior test pit was dug and why, if the foundation problems were uncovered in June, council was only hearing about it now.

For his part, Mettko’s Bill Katsiroumpa said it’s unclear if more test pits would have revealed the problem, while heritage architect Walter Moffat said the spot that could be accessed was tested.

“This would have been unknowable unless you excavated the entire building during the design phase,” he explained.

In the end, council voted to move forward with the removal and replacement of the existing footings and foundation walls, with Mayor Tony Van Bynen and councillors Chris Emanuel, Tom Vegh and Dave Kerwin voting in favour. Councillors Jane Twinney and Maddie Di Muccio and Regional Councillor John Taylor dissented. Ward 4 Councillor Tom Hempen declared a pecuniary interest and did not participate in the debate or vote on the matter.

  • You are here:  
  • Home