Tomorrow (20 March 2017) at Newmarket's Committee of the Whole, Councillors will vote on whether they keep their special tax status.

At the moment, one third of their Council remuneration comes tax free. According to the relevant Council by-law (R7-2002) this is

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

At the meeting they can vote to maintain this tax free status or repeal their earlier resolution as from 1 January 2018.

If they vote for the latter they cannot subsequently vote to return to tax free status. The last time councillors addressed the issue was in May 2012 when they supported the continuation of the tax free allowance.

Personally, I think this tax free status should be done away with. It seems an anomaly in today's world which puts a premium on openness and transparency. And it just feeds the (false) narrative that councillors are out to feather their own nests.

If the Council votes to get rid of this special tax free status councillors can claim for expenses in the usual way.

Tax free status is also unfair. One third of Van Trappist's substantial remuneration comes tax free. Other councillors, who don't snooze through meetings and who get more modest remuneration, by definition, get less.

If councillors feel they are not properly remunerated they should do something about it using the appropriate comparators. I don't have any problems with this whatsoever.

Councillors do an important job on our behalf and they should be fairly rewarded. But tax free status should not be part of the package.

You can read the report on the Committee of the Whole agenda for 20 March 2017. Open the packet and scroll to page 97.

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

Note: Mayoral and Councillors' expenses are posted on-line quarterly on the Town's website.


 

 

The Town and the Province's transit planning agency, Metrolinx, are now, at long last, working on the Mobility Hub study for the GO Rail Station at the Tannery.  

There are two mobility hubs in Newmarket - a so-called "Gateway Hub" at the Tannery and an "Anchor Hub" at the GO Bus Terminal at Eagle. 

Metrolinx say they are aiming for public consultation in the Spring with completion by the end of Summer. If they deliver on this they deserve a thunderous round of applause. We've been waiting for signs of action for light years.

But let's not be too critical. This is a major undertaking involving lots of moving parts.

The Yonge/Davis corridors are earmarked for very significant growth in coming years with the promised arrival of 33,00 new residents and 32,000 new jobs. How are we going to accommodate all these people and how are they going to get from A to B?

What will the Tannery look like and how will it connect with the GO Bus Terminal at Eagle? Should the train and bus stations be co-located?

Getting to the station by car

Just over a year ago (in December 2015) Metrolinx published updated profiles of the two Mobility Hubs in Newmarket, at Eagle Street and at the Tannery. We learn that 2,470 people start their morning commute from Eagle Street and 5,340 end it there.

10% of the mobility hub area is used for surface parking and there are 274 dedicated parking spaces. 

By contrast, 2,940 people start their morning commute from the GO Rail Station at the Tannery and 4,370 people end it there. There are 361 dedicated parking spaces occupying 22% of the mobility hub area.

Many people depend on their car to get to and from the bus and train stations. The Town wants the Tannery to move away from park-and-ride to so-called kiss-and-ride and, of course, to public transit.

Limiting park-and-ride

The Town's Secondary Plan - agreed only two and a half years ago - says at Section 9.3.3 that the GO Rail Station at the Tannery

"will be planned as an urban station that is primarily accessed by pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders, with limited park-and-ride capacity. Park-and-ride service should be focused at the East Gwillimbury GO Rail station and the future Mulock Drive GO Rail station".

The Town may face an uphill struggle persuading people to change their travel habits - at least in the short term.

Grade separation

The Town's Secondary Plan goes on to say the mobility hub study should address as a minimum

* the potential for grade separation of the rail line at Davis Drive;

* the potential re-location of the Newmarket GO Rail Station access to Main Street to improve access and reduce traffic impacts on Davis Drive and

* integration between the GO Rail Station, the Rapidway, the future GO bus services and the GO bus terminal

I don't know what the Mayor thinks about any of this. Except we shouldn't rush things.

Snoozed

He snoozed through a Metrolinx presentation to York Regional Council on 2 March 2017, completely oblivious to the fact that questions were being asked about grade separations and the future of level crossings.

At an earlier presentation to Newmarket Council on 9 November 2015, Van Trappist told Metrolinx’s Chief Planning Officer, Leslie Woo:

“In my own mind the difference between a 15 minute and 30 minute service doesn’t change the world immensely although I think eventually we’ll need to get there. But I’d rather see us easing into that, responding to the demand as we go forward.”

Just imagine if we all said that in the forthcoming public consultation!

It would make Metrolinx sit up and take notice.

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


 

We are told a picture says more than a thousand words. So let's test the proposition. Here is 1011 Elgin Street at the time of its sale on 8 October 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this is what 1011 Elgin Street looks like today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here (below) are the immediate neighbours to the left of the Monster Home on the same side of the street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am left wondering how we got from A to B.

With this new Monster Home invading the street and setting the precedent, I should imagine the rest of Elgin on the north side will, given time, fall like dominoes.

It is all very strange. I recall the discussions about construction at Glenway and how new buildings and their immediate neighbours should, if at all possible, be like-with-like.

Clearly, on Elgin Street like-with-like wasn't part of the conversation.

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


 

As I am driving down Elgin Street towards Leslie I notice this mega-structure under construction, sticking out like a sore thumb in a street full of neat, well-ordered bungalows and low rise buildings.  

It is in Jane Twinney's Ward 3.

When I get home I consult the Town's Zoning By-Law (as one does) and discover the area is designated RC-1 (which I presume is the same as R1-C) which is shorthand for Residential Detached Dwellings.

The maximum lot coverage is supposed to be 35% though this monster home at 1011 Elgin Street seems to be shoehorned into a tight space.

Detached dwellings come in zones with many permutations.

Lilliputian

The ones in this part of Elgin Street seem to be governed by a  zoning by-law specifing a maximum height of 10.7 metres or 35 feet even though neighbouring buildings all appear Lilliputian by comparison.  

Of course, the Town's consolidated Zoning By-law 2010-40 allows exceptions to the general rule. Where would we be without them, the exceptions? 

If a developer doesn't want to conform with a particular zoning by-law, it seems to me it is much simpler to put in for a "site-specific" exemption. The Town's Zoning By-Law has trillions of these exemptions which explains why it is a big fat tome running to 197 pages.

Space Invaders

These monster homes seem to be sprouting up everywhere. They are the new space invaders. 

If they tower over neighbouring properties then, perhaps, the area zoning was wrong in the first place.  Is the object to protect and preserve existing stable residential neighbourhoods or is it to promote "intensification" and the efficient use of land?

Different agendas  

If it is the latter we all need to get real. If you think zoning is designed to protect the public you better wise up fast. It is something for the developers and planning professionals to worry about. And they have their own agendas.

I am sure the new monster home in Elgin Street got all the necessary permissions.

I have absolutely no reason to doubt all the relevant boxes were ticked and everything was properly signed off.

And that is precisely what is so worrying.

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


 

Joanne Barnett, the matriarch of Marianneville and developer of Glenway, was at her soothing, reassuring best yesterday (6 March 2017). She was centre stage at the Site Plan meeting at the Town Hall seeking approval for the latest tranche of Townhouses which will soon cover the fairways and putting greens of the now defunct golf course.

The fairways are now, of course, a distant memory. Today, they are churned up and muddy, much like Paschendale.

Ponds, like bomb craters, dot the landscape where future basements will be.

My spies tell me water continues to be a problem for the developer. I am told it doesn't seem to run away.

But inventive  engineers and hydrologists will surely solve the problem and make the water disappear.

Fewer Townhouses

As I am thinking about this, I hear Ms Barnett announce without ceremony that Marianneville is cutting the number of Townhouses in Block 160 (the area where she is seeking site approval) from 153 to 140. There will be 22 buildings with three to eight units in each. Later she repeats:

"There are fewer than the number permitted."

Why is she doing this? What is in it for her?

Ms Barnett explains:

"...although it is zoned for 153 Townhouse units we, because of considerations with respect to buffering and the appropriate amount of green, we are proposing to develop 140 Townhouses."

As a result, the saintly Joanne will be foregoing the profit from 13 Townhouses.

Will she lose sleep over this? I doubt it. After all, Marianneville bought the Glenway lands - the entire shooting match - for $9.9m on 21 January 2010 from the Glenway Country Club (1994) Limited - a sum which Dave Kerwin later described as

"a fantastic buy".

Defining issue

For me, from the outside looking in, Glenway is one of the defining issues of this current Council term – and, indeed, the one before. Hundreds of people have been dramatically affected as their once quiet and leafy neighbourhood is transformed before their eyes.

Unfortunately - as I have repeatedly said - we have never had an honest answer from the Mayor on his role in the debacle. He thanked people at the Glenway "Lessons Learned" meeting for their contributions but, other than that, said nothing himself. It was only afterwards, and in the context of the Clock Tower, Van Bynen revealed his true colours.

"We learned from Glenway that polarity doesn't help anybody."

Translated, this means his preference is always to cut a deal with developers.

Ironies

There are, too, the ironies.

Glenway is being built over at a time when the Town now recognises there will be a shortage of public open space in this part of town - the so-called North West quadrant. In its decision on Glenway, the OMB remarked that by 2010 the Town knew the golf course was available for development but took no steps:

"...to acquire these lands for public open space and public park purposes."

We also wait to see what, if anything, happens to the GO Bus Terminal at Eagle Street. There is - and always has been - a very strong case for co-locating it with the GO Rail station at the Tannery.

However, at the OMB Hearing, much of the argument in favour of the Glenway redevelopment was predicated on the Bus Terminal staying where it is.

Not a shred of evidence

Indeed, the developer's lawyer, Ira Kagan, told the OMB on 27 March 2014:

"There is not a shred of evidence that the Town, Region or GO Transit want to move this bus terminal."

But now that the long awaited Metrolinx/Town “mobility hub study” of the GO Rail station at the Tannery is under way, the Bus Terminal could be on the move too.

If so, much of the rationale for the Glenway development goes with it.

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

A site plan meeting looks at the design and technical aspects of a proposed development to ensure everything is in compliance with all the relevant rules and regulations.