Details

The report written by the Town's planning staff that went before councillors on 28 November 2016 contained key information which was known at the time by the Director of Planning to be bogus and misleading.

The report did not challenge the stated FSI (Floor Space Index) of the Clock Tower (2.9) when it was known to be much higher (4.27). Developments in the historic downtown are supposed to have an FSI of 1.0 

The FSI is calculated by dividing the gross floor area by the lot size. Forrest's own Planning Rationale Report says the gross floor area of his proposed development is 11,059 sq m and the lot area is 2,655 sq m. This gives an FSI of 4.279 yet the figure 2.9 appears throughout Forrest's documentation.

Forrest brazenly added the underground car parking area (1,183 sq m) to the surface lot (2,655 sq m) and came up with 3,838 sq m. To calculate his bogus FSI he divided the Gross Floor Area 11,059 by 3,838 to get an FSI of 2.88 which is the figure (2.9) he has been is relying on. The public was never told about this subterfuge.

Forrest used Town owned land under Market Square, earmarked for the Clock Tower’s underground car park, to bring down the development’s FSI.

At the end of the meeting on 28 November 2016, Van Trappist, reading from a prepared script, said:

"...whether we agree with the recommendations or not this is a very comprehensive report that has been thoroughly examined."

He went on to ask Rick Nethery to comment on the FSI issue which had been repeatedly raised by a member of the public, Siegfried Wall, who told the Statutory Public meeting on 9 May 2016 that underground parking space, owned by the Town not the developer, was being used in the calculations to massage the FSI downwards.

Nethery told Van Trappist:

"There's no question that what Mr. Wall was saying is that we're looking at an FSI that's above what is currently in the documents. We don't dispute that. That is a question of whether or not if Council were to approve it they would be so approving with that in mind.

I guess there is some differences based on whether or not you're looking at a net and a gross. There is some question of whether or not we're going underneath the ground for parking versus completely within the area currently owned by the Clock Tower property.  (My underlining for emphasis.)

Is it not truly astonishing that a Planning report with recommendations being put before councillors for decision, knowingly contained a misleading FSI? And Nethery would have known that the FSI is calculated using the gross floor area. The "comprehensive" report contained no comment or explanation of the developer's 2.9 FSI. It was accepted uncritically. 

This begs the question:

When did (a) Van Trappist and (b) councillors first learn that the FSI was being manipulated in this way?

When did the developer's heritage consultants, Goldsmith Borgal, and the Town's peer reviewer, ERA Architects, learn that the Clock Tower's FSI had been calculated by using underground land in Town ownership? And what was their reaction? Did they appreciate that this would have a knock on effect on the built form of the development, allowing it to be much bigger in scale and mass than otherwise would be the case? Was this manipulation - which had been concealed from the public - considered legitimate and par for the course?

Answers to these questions will eventually come out - at the OMB Hearing or, hopefully, beforehand.

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

Background: The last time a report from the Town's Planning staff mentioned an FSI of over 4 was in November 2013 when Forrest's (then) development had an FSI of 4.25. (Development and Infrastructure Services/Planning and Building Services Report 2013/55).

An applicant can, of course, apply for a zoning by-law amendment covering land he or she doesn't own. This is precisely what Forrest has done. But, even if approved, the developer must secure the rights over that land by buying it or by an easement or some other legal device.

In May last year, Forrest's Planning Rationale Report told us the Historic Downtown Centre Zone (UC-D1) permitted up to 80 residential units per net hectare and up to and including a 1.0 FSI. Yet Forrest wanted a residential density of 430 units per net hectare and an FSI of 2.9. He tried to justify this humungous departure from the Town standard in this way:

"It must be recognised that the Proposal does not have the benefit of additional land for surface parking and landscaping. The units per hectare value appears much higher due to the building footprint mirroring the property line and as such this condition must be taken into consideration when considering the appropriateness of the density. (my emphasis)

But why must this be taken into consideration?

There is no reason whatsoever why the Town standards should be set aside to accommodate a giant out-of-place development which is simply too big for the land on which it sits.

 

Details

Read this first: I quote extensively from the Community Services/Planning & Building Services Report 2012-09 on Intensification in Stable Residential Areas because it is not available on-line.  

Good Planning

The Monster Home going up at 1011 Elgin Street is in conformity with the Town's zoning by-laws but does it represent "good planning"?

Some time in mid-March, at the request of a councillor, the Town's Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, paid a site visit to the Monster Home going up at 1011 Elgin Street and reported back that it was in compliance with the zoning standards.

I was left wondering how Rick Nethery would feel if a giant house went up next door to him. Would he be delighted? Would he be perplexed?

We know he wouldn't be surprised.

Almost exactly five years ago, on 6 March 2012, a report on intensification in stable residential areas (2012-9) went before councillors. It was signed off by Rick Nethery. He knows the issues.

Let's debate the report again

Councillors should ask for the report to be brought up from the basement for debate, a second time round. It is still very relevant, perhaps even more so now than before.

If I ruled the world I would insist they have another debate. Most of today's councillors were around back in 2012.

In my mind's eye I see a slightly nervous Mr Nethery introducing the old report. He starts by describing the issue:

"Residential trends in Newmarket are shifting from suburban growth to urban intensification and redevelopment. It appears that developers are now searching out oversized lots or remnant vacant lots in older established residential communities with the intent to sever these lots into smaller ones through applications to the Committee of Adjustment and building new dwellings.

"Concerns have been raised regarding the compatibility of new homes or additions to existing homes that comply with the current zoning by-law regulations but are considered to be out of character with the built form of the established neighbourhoods in which they are located.   (The monster home's neighbours shown below)

"One of the fundamental objectives of planning and zoning is to ensure compatibility between properties and land uses. Compatibility is achieved by regulating land use and built form. (My underlining for emphasis)

"Residential dwellings have evolved substantially over the past half-century; homes today have greater lot coverage and floor area and are much higher. This disproportion is most evident with intensification developments in low-density residential areas where a new or remodelled home is situated next to one that is approximately 40 to 50 years old."

Respectful development

Now Mr Nethery is describing "respectful development"

"While intensification is directed to the Town's urban centres, limited intensification can still occur in stable residential neighbourhoods. If done respectfully, the redevelopment can be of value to the community. However, redevelopment can occur in a manner that does not respect the built form that exists. In older neighbourhoods, the existing lot areas and frontages are large enough to accommodate larger homes while still meeting the requirements of the Zoning By-law. As a result, new development can occur in a form that is inconsistent with the height, building footprint, design and character of the existing residential dwellings in the neighbourhood." (My underlining for emphasis)  

Now Mr Nethery is getting into his stride. He is now talking about the options that are available to Council to address this issue:

"As intensification and redevelopment of existing properties become more common, Zoning By-law 2010-40 could be updated to recognise the built form of neighbourhoods and dwellings that have existed and evolved over several decades. Such amendments may improve the implementation of the intensification and design policies of the Town's Official Plan which require new residential development to be compatible with its surrounding area in terms of scale, height, setbacks and coverage." (My underlining.)

"The principle behind establishing new standards is that the regulations would be reflective of the existing built form for an identified neighbourhood. The minimum lot area and frontage, maximum lot coverage and minimum building setbacks would be similar to the existing dwellings."

Height

Now Mr Nethery turns to the matter of height:

"It should be noted that bungalows and two storey dwellings are compatible from a planning perspective and can be found co-existing harmoniously in many neighbourhoods in Newmarket. One of the keys to their successful interface is to manage their respective heights properly."  

"It is a trend in new housing to provide a high roofline that can skew the mass and height of a dwelling. In most circumstances the grade of land in existing neighbourhoods is fixed and as ceiling heights of storeys are relatively inflexible the roofline is the only area to significantly reduce the overall height of the dwelling. The intention behind a proposed height reduction is to establish a proportional relationship with the heights of the dwellings on adjacent properties. This proportional relationship, which is common in older neighbourhoods, can improve the integration of new or remodelled homes in older established areas." 

"An example of a height policy that could be included in the Zoning By-law might be that a maximum proposed building height may not exceed the height of the highest points of the rooflines of existing residential buildings on immediately adjoining properties sharing lot lines with the lands subject to new development."

Setbacks

Now Mr Nethery turns to setbacks:

"In low-density residential neighbourhoods, the relationship between side yard setbacks and building height is important in establishing compatibility with adjacent properties. Many of the established neighbourhoods in Newmarket are zoned R1-C and R1-D having the following side yard setbacks:

1 storey   -    1.2 metres

1.5 storeys - 1.5 metres

2 storeys -    1.8 metres

"Any increase in these setbacks may reduce impressions of crowding of the streetscape and lessen the impacts on adjacent owners of newly developed properties."

Lot coverage

Now Mr Nethery is moving on to lot coverage:

"Many of the established neighbourhoods in Newmarket are zoned R1C and D having a maximum lot coverage of 35%. The newer subdivisions in the Town's southwest, northwest and southeast quadrants, typically consisting of smaller lots, have a maximum lot coverage of 45% to 47% and the lots are typically built to the maximum permitted."

"Regulating lot coverage is an excellent way to prevent overbuilding in low density residential areas. If it is determined that a particular area has an average lot coverage of 25% an approach could be to set the lot coverage for a two storey building at 25% and allow a greater amount of coverage for a bungalow at 35% This would also encourage one storey buildings in established neighbourhoods."

Now it's time for questions

There are one or two other issues arising in the old 2012 report but now Mr Nethery has finished his presentation and is inviting questions.  

How did policy on new developments in stable residential areas change or evolve in the light of Report 2012-09?

The side yard setback has not changed for properties in zone R1-C. Given the new developments we see in R1-C - such as 1011 Elgin Street - was that a mistake?

Is it now Official Town policy to allow monster homes to be built in low rise stable residential neighbourhoods where they stick out like a sore thumb and tower over adjacent properties?

Does the Director of Planning ever put himself in the shoes of someone living next door to a monster home?

Is it fair that someone living next door to a monster home under construction has to employ his or her own qualified Ontario Land Surveyor to check the property complies with the Town's zoning by-law?

Is 1011 Elgin Street an example of a "respectful development"?

Does he consider the present situation satisfactory? If not, what would he recommend?

And, coming full circle, does the new building going up at 1011 Elgin Street represent "good planning"?

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

 

Details

Metrolinx will be giving a presentation to councillors on Monday (10 April) on the Regional Express Rail (RER) expansion programme and how it will impact on the Town. (See the Committee of the Whole agenda here.)  

There are two key projects in the pipeline: the Newmarket GO Rail Station Mobility Hub Study at the Tannery and the Concept Plan (right) for the proposed new GO Rail Station at Mulock Drive.

Metrolinx has commissioned consultants IBI to look at the

"potential for grade separation of the rail line at Davis Drive" .

The reports tells us there will be a preliminary evaluation to understand the feasibility of a grade separation which was not identified as a priority.

Oh dear! It doesn't sound terribly urgent to me but perhaps I'm just reading it the wrong way. (The grade separation study is being done at the request of the Town.)

Metrolinx Manager of RER Project Planning, Nadine Navarro, told me last month there will be public consultation in the Spring with the Study completed by the end of summer.

Is this remotely feasible if grade separation is to be part and parcel of the completed study?

Prepare to be told grade separation is something for later, not for now.

I suspect grade separation - inevitably involving huge sums of public money - is a can that will be kicked down the road for a good while to come.

The report tells us there will be a non statutory public Open House in early May.

Planning for the proposed Mulock GO Rail Station is still very much in its early stages.

I hope the Mayor has one or two penetrating questions to ask about these transformational projects if only to show he is listening and following things.

Metrolinx gave a presentation to members of York Regional Council last month which included two hot potato issues - level crossings and the new GO rail stations. Van Trappist, head down, was glued to his cell phone, contributing nothing to the debate.

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

 

Details

As we know, one third of Newmarket councillors' remuneration comes tax free. The policy was reaffirmed on 20 March 2017.  

This allows Van Trappist's remuneration to appear as $117,162 on the Sunshine List rather than $148,560 if he paid tax on his entire income just like the rest of us have to do.

(Of course, $148,560 is not his "entire income" but let's not muddy the waters.) 

Some municipalities have gotten rid of tax free status and others like Newmarket cling on to it, making meaningful comparisons between municipalities impossible. The bald, unqualified figures shown in the Sunshine List are worse than useless.

Yesterday, after Kathleen Wynne told us the Sunshine List is here to stay, I wrote to my MPP, Chris Ballard, asking if it could be tweaked in some way, perhaps by putting an asterisk after Van Trappist's name (and others in the same category) indicating a portion of their remuneration is tax free.

According to the relevant Newmarket Council by-law (R7-2002) the one third tax free for elected officials is

"deemed to be for expenses incident(al) to the discharge of their duties".

I am left wondering if Van Trappist can point to a single expense borne by him that is not already picked up by the Town.

Maybe there is one.

He doesn't claim a cell phone subsidy.

But why not?

It seems quite out of character.

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

 Update on 4 April 2017: This is from the Aurora newspaper on 11 March 2011.

While Newmarket Mayor Tony Van Bynen carries a BlackBerry and embraces technology as the new way to engage residents in town business, he doesn’t agree council meetings are the place to use it. “I have noticed an increase in use during meetings and it has become problematic,” he said.

Short-changing the taxpayer

“I think it’s not only disrespectful to your colleagues, because it says you’re not listening, but you are short-changing the taxpayer, too.”

It is difficult for anyone to do two things at once, he noted. Only half of the information, half of the discussion and half of the debate will be absorbed if you’re busy typing on an electronic device.

How is someone to make an educated decision on an issue, especially something as complicated as the budget, without hearing every point made? Mr. Van Bynen asked.

Newmarket has yet to discuss the need for  a cellphone policy, but Mr. Van Bynen doesn’t think it will be long before he brings forward the issue.

 

Details

If a Monster Home goes up in your neighbourhood and you have concerns, what can you do about it?

The short answer is you are on your own. Don't look to the Town for help.  

A few days ago an email came winging in from a certain Mr X, eager to let me have his views on my earlier blog about the huge structure taking shape at 1011 Elgin Street. He lives in the same street.

"You use the words "seems like" and "appears" in your article. But you don't say "it is". So you don't know, do you?"

He goes on:

"Were there any objections by neighbours to the size of the house?"

I'll take these points in turn.

After I discovered this monster home going up in a low rise residential neighbourhood, I contacted the Town. I told the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, I was concerned that:

"before long this low rise residential neighbourhood is going to be studded with huge, out of place, monster homes, transforming the character of the area. The zoning by-laws as they stand clearly offer residents no protection from monster homes."

Mr Nethery told me:

"Essentially the proposal (for the new building at 1011 Elgin Street) only required a routine building permit issuance as it complies with the relevant zoning requirements in respect of height, setbacks and lot coverage." 

It seemed to me - a complete layperson who knows nothing about surveying - the monster home just didn't look right. It seemed way too big for the lot. (It reminded me of the monstrous Clock Tower development which to the untrained eye seemed way too big, yet the professionals appeared to suggest that, with a tweak, it could be made to fit in.)

Mr Nethery was happy to show me the site plan - and I was grateful - but what if the building under construction was bigger than what was shown in the plan or was situated too close to the property line?

He told me measuring a structure "in the field" was not something the Town’s Building Division could do. It would have to be done by an Ontario Land Surveyor.

And who, I asked, would commission this?

Not the Town. It would be up to me! Or anyone else with concerns.   

Which brings me to Mr X's second point - did anyone complain? 

If the Town does not police its own by-laws does it fall to members of the public to step in to the vacuum if they have concerns?

Mr Nethery tells me:

"It is not a requirement of either the Building or Planning Division to "police" the location of a dwelling after construction. When applying for a building permit, an applicant submits a site plan, typically prepared by an engineer, architect, designer or surveyor to confirm compliance with the zoning requirements regarding setbacks, coverage etc. The preparer of the site plan is therefore responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information submitted."

He goes on

"I don't know if I'm in any better position than you in determining the setbacks in the absence of a survey however I can't conclude that the property is not in compliance."                        

Led up the garden path                                                                

Yet he concluded the property was in compliance when he visited 1011 Elgin Street after receiving a request from a councillor to do so.

Following his site visit several weeks ago, he now tells me on Friday (31 March 2017)

"I satisfied myself that the permit that was applied for was in compliance with the relevant requirements and didn't feel further action was necessary."

Why on earth didn't he say that earlier rather than spin this yarn about his views being no more authoritative than mine?

Mr Nethery now offers an olive branch and

"Under the circumstances of your on-going concern, we will contact the applicant to determine if there is or will be a survey they could share with us to determine compliance."

But what if the owner says no?

Does the Town employ a surveyor or have one on a retainer for this kind of eventuality? And if not, why not?

The issue of "who complained?" is beside the point.

A better question is this:

Who represents the wider public interest - and ensures its own by-laws are being complied with - if it is not the Town of Newmarket?

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

 

The site plan for the property under construction at 1011 Elgin Street indicates:

Front yard setback of 9.88 metres. (minimum 7.5 metres required)

Side yard setback of 1.83 metres. (minimum 1.8 metres required)

Rear yard setback of 10.71 metres. (minimum 7.5 metres required)

Lot coverage of 31.33% (maximum 35%)

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home