Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 01 December 2016

A belated round of applause for the seven Newmarket councillors who voted against Bob Forrest's Clock Tower application. The Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, who is now well past his sell-by-date, eccentrically voted in favour.

I say "eccentrically" because the Clock Tower, even to the untutored eye, was a truly massive development that would have loomed over the old downtown. If approved, the development would have had the greatest density in the whole of Newmarket with an FSI of 4.279, eclipsing even the highest buildings in the Yonge and Davis corridors. 

The Town's Secondary Plan, adopted in 2014, imposes a maximum FSI of 3.5 in the areas of high density (coloured orange on the Schedule, right). But there is, in addition, a discretionary maximum FSI of 4 with bonusing. This would be for major buildings of 20 storeys. So, in terms of density, the Clock Tower development would have dwarfed them all, squeezing the proverbial quart into a pint pot.

Even the 15 storey rental apartment building now going up at 212 Davis Drive comes in with an FSI of 1.836 and is deemed to be "medium density".

So what's the big deal about FSI?

According to planners from the City of Toronto Floor Space Index and Gross Floor Area

"are devised, in part, to regulate the size and massing of structures on a given lot".

To calculate the FSI the gross floor area is divided by the lot size.

According to the developers' own figures (in his Planning Rationale Report) the gross floor area is 11,059 sq m and the lot area is 2,655 sq m. This should give an FSI of 4.279.

But that is well above the 2.9 FSI which appears throughout Forrest's documentation.

Cheeky Boy!

It seems as if Forrest cheekily 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 divides the Gross Floor Area 11,059 by 3,838  and gets an FSI of 2.88 which is the figure (2.9) he has been is relying on. 

So Bob relies on the underground parking space - largely owned by the Town - to get his FSI down from an eye-watering density of 4.279 to the (relatively) more modest 2.9.

Sleight of hand

Yet no-one picked up on this sleight of hand. Not the so-called and much over-rated "heritage professionals" nor it seems our own planners. And this is despite the fact that the Town's own Secondary Plan (Office consolidation 25 October 2016. Section 6.4.5 xii) stipulates:

"The calculation of gross floor area shall not include the floor area of underground and above grade parking structures, bicycle parking, or public transit uses, such as stations or waiting areas."

Other major cities adopt the same approach.

Ottawa says the Gross Floor Area means the total area of each floor whether located at or below grade... but excluding:

(c) bicycle parking, motor vehicle parking or loading facilities.

Magic Box

I may have missed something and got this completely wrong. There may be a straightforward explanation. Perhaps there is some trick in the planners' magic box of which I am unaware. Maybe it's "density transfer" or some other hocus-pocus. I am not a professional planner, nor am I a conjurer.

I have asked the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, to tell me how he verified Bob's FSI of 2.9

I hope to hear an explanation at the Council meeting on Monday (5 December) when the Clock Tower decision will be ratified by the full Council.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 30 November 2016

The much anticipated action for defamation brought by Maddie "death stare" Di Muccio against Regional Councillor John Taylor will come to trial on Wednesday 7 December 2016 at the Small Claims Court in Eagle Street, Newmarket.  

On 26 October 2016 the fragile Di Muccio dropped her libel action against Taylor. She says in an affidavit lodged with the Court:

"Even though I assert that the Defendant's comments published in the Newmarket Era were libellous I do not believe my complaint would be successful due to the Limitations Act."

Instead Di Muccio claims Taylor is guilty of

"misfeasance and malfeasance of public office, abuse of power, targeted malice, intentional infliction of mental suffering and injurious falsehoods, breach of confidence and breach of privacy."

Wow!

This guy Taylor sounds like a real monster!

In a delightful twist to the tale, Di Muccio has cited the 2012 case of Morris v Johnson "et al" which she believes is relevant.

The "et al" in the case citation above includes a certain William "Bill" Hogg.

Bill Hogg is, of course, seeking the nomination to run for the Progressive Conservatives in Newmarket-Aurora in the next Provincial election in 2018. Also vying for the nomination is the irrepressible Matilde Di Muccio whose vaulting ambition knows no bounds.

Di Muccio was blocked from contesting the nomination in 2014 by former PC leader, Tim Hudak, on the grounds that she didn't cut the mustard.

I may see the diligent Bill Hogg in Court, making notes.

If so, he too will get the death stare.

Guaranteed.

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

Note: Get briefed for the big event here. 

The earlier trial date, set for 28 October 2016, was postponed as Taylor was unwell.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 29 November 2016

A letter dated 28 November 2016 from Clock Tower developer Bob Forrest to the Mayor and councillors of Newmarket brazenly tells them:

"we are not accepting of either the current Staff Report or the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment."

In a long rant Forrest tells us he is baffled by the decision to reject his application when it was supported by heritage consultants who, it seems, walk on water:

"Staff retains outside consultants and peer reviewers because it does not have in-house expertise in many areas. Certainly, the two heritage consultants have brought monumental experience and expertise to support staff. That experts of this caliber (sic) should be arbitrarily rebuffed without consultation or explanation is disappointing, surprising and, in the end, shocking."

Clearly Bob is angry. He feels betrayed by his friends. I do not know what to say to comfort him.

Where would he be without his hired guns and malleable "professional experts" ready to do his bidding for a big fat fee?

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 29 November 2016

Last night's meeting of Newmarket's Committee of the Whole voted 7-1 to reject Bob's Forrest's original application for a seven storey condo on Main Street in the heart of the Town's Heritage Conservation District. By the same impressive margin the Committee rejected the so-called "compromise" recommendations of their own planners which would have capped the redevelopment at five storeys on Main, with set backs, and seven storeys on Park Avenue, also with set backs.

The Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, who said Forrest's condo was a great example of the type of intensification the old downtown needs, was left isolated. 

The councillors' decision, which will be ratified at the next meeting of the Council on 5 December 2016, drives a stake through the heart of Forrest's condo and kills it stone dead.

Appeal to the OMB

So, where does this leave Forrest's appeal to the OMB? He has spent years sweet-talking the OMB, telling the Board the municipality would make a decision in his favour. That has now gone pear-shaped and the Board will be chasing Forrest for answers after the Town's Council meeting on 5 December 2016.

The OMB Order of 19 August 2014 excluding the Forrest Clock Tower lands from the Heritage Conservation District did not say this should be in perpetuity. It would apply until Forrest's planning application had been determined by the municipality.

Forrest can now reactivate his sleeping appeal but to what purpose? The OMB cannot force the Town to sell or otherwise make its land available to Forrest.

Forrest has only two options: bring forward another application respecting the Council's policies or sell the land and move on with his life.

Deputations

The deputations against the Forrest development were all of exceptional quality. And they are now on the record and video archived. Some deputations told stories that were deeply personal, recounting the impact that Forrest's actions had on their lives. What happens now to the business people who were evicted by Forrest using a demolition clause in their lease to kick them out?  

Role of the Planning Department

The record of the Town's planning department is woeful. It needs a good shake-up. Important information raised by members of the public at the Statutory meeting in May and in correspondence were not followed up or otherwise ignored.

Some of these issues were critically important if, at times, a tad technical. In May, councillors and staff were told the Forrest development was way too dense for the tight site. Planners use a tool - the floor space index - to measure density. To calculate the FSI the gross floor area of the development is divided by the lot size. Forrest said his FSI was 2.9 whilst acknowledging the Town's Zoning By-law stipulated 1.0.  

Forrest used the underground car park area (belonging to the Town) to massage his FSI figure downwards. Had he excluded the underground area, the FSI would have been way over 4 indicating a development with massive density. The planners did not reference this once in all the years they have been dealing with the Forrest applications.  

That is, perhaps, one of the more egregious omissions but there are many others. They chose to rely uncritically on the partial and discredited opinions of so-called "heritage professionals". At no stage was any consideration given to the architectural merits or historic significance of the historic commercial buildings earmarked by Forrest for demolition.

When the planners told us the amended application "would not negatively impact the heritage attributes of the district" we all enjoyed a belly-laugh. We could see with our own eyes how damaging the development would be to the historic downtown.   

Role of Heritage "Experts"

Last night, we were asked to suspend our critical faculties in the face of advice from heritage professionals. Only the credulous fell for that. The Town's planners knew the work of the "peer reviewer" ERA Architects was seriously sub-standard but said nothing. The terms of ERA's contract with the Town obliged them to take into account the Town's existing heritage conservation district policy when offering their considered opinion. The policy was ignored. All that mattered was facilitating the proposed development and seeking out "mitigations".

The Mayor  

This morning the Mayor is a much diminished creature. But at least he explained his position at the end of the meeting - something he never did with Glenway. Van Bynen told us there was often opposition to new proposals but his way is to hold fast and take the flak. People would come round in the end. They didn't.  

With the Clock Tower he seriously underestimated the opposition.

In his closing remarks he congratulated us all on being "respectful".

In Van Bynen's world, "respect" trumps everything else - even being economical with the truth.

The Councillors

John Taylor gave his colleagues reasons to vote against the planners' amendment and the original application. He wants to create a Clock Tower site specific zoning by-law allowing three storeys plus a fourth storey set-back on Main and Park Avenue. In his blog he told us he would support a maximum four storeys on the site (Clock Tower)

 "and throughout the entire Heritage Conservation District with a fourth storey subject to certain conditions".

We shall see how this plays out. Like many others, I am not persuaded and need to be convinced.  

The veteran councillor Dave Kerwin burned his boats with Forrest by seconding Taylor's motion to deny the application and the planners' amended version.

Tom Vegh said Main Street was unique and should be protected while not putting it under a glass bubble.

Jane Twinney said the proposed development didn't fit in. And she was concerned about approval establishing precedents.

Kelly Broome told us of the value heritage brings to townscapes. She was not convinced Forrest was the answer.

Christina Bisanz wrestled with the issue, believing at the outset the existing 3 storey maximum should be retained. She ended up supporting Taylor's motion giving a long list of detailed reasons why.

Ward 5 councillor Bob Kwapis said Taylor offered clear direction and would support him. He said he would be bringing forward proposals to deal with the blight of empty stores on Main. 

And back to the deputations.

John Heckbert focussed on the land swap. He said the development could not go ahead without it.

Ann Campbell on behalf of Julie Cochrane talked about the potential adverse impact of the proposed development on the arts community and culture.

Glenn Wilson said the development would set back the downtown business community ten years.

Jone Wright, of Lemon and Lime on Main Street, told how she had lovingly restored 194 Main and that the basements are not crumbling.

Jone Wright, speaking on behalf of her husband, David Hunter, said he felt betrayed by Forrest who had forced them out of 194 Main Street on a "demolition" clause. Forrest is not "community minded".

Margaret Davis told us 300-400 people would have their lives turned upside down by this "monstrous development". She was one of many to point to the recent "People's Choice Award" for the best Main Street in Canada and the irony of the situation.

Gerald Fox took us through the intricacies of garbage removal, asking if we wanted Market Square to be turned into a waste transfer station.

Chris Howie said Main Street did not need to be "saved". He reminded us of the two years it took the Council to bring the Heritage Conservation District By-law into effect. The development was not appropriate for Main Street but would be OK on Davis or Yonge.

Siegfried Wall told councillors they should defend their own Official Plan. He said the actual FSI was 4.27 not the 2-9 Forrest claimed. The development would be a "mis-fit" in the historic downtown.

Ted Heald made a very spirited contribution focussing on the role of the planning department. The public expects more transparency.

Tracee Chambers, Ron Eibel and Darryl Wolk all spoke as former Ward 5 candidates. They told us people they talked to in the recent campaign wanted the 3 storey cap protected.

Bill Wolske said the new must respect the old. The proposed development would diminish and degrade the cultural heritage.

Elaine Adam wanted intensfication to go where it belongs - on Davis and Yonge.

Glenn Wilson, on behalf of Jude Lauzon, spoke about the potential damage to businesses and residents arising from the diversion of water flows during and after construction.

Anne Martin, a business owner on Main for 34 years, reminded us of the fragile nature of the rubble stone foundations on which Main Street is built.

Atholl Hart, the Chair of the Town's Heritage Advisory Committee, in a rousing finale, said our heritage was worth preserving and nurturing - especially with so many people now researching their roots and where they came from. Historic buildings - in their entirety - have their own stories to tell and retaining facades is not enough.

There were a handful of contributions from people in favour of the development.

Trinity United Church, in a letter from their lawyers, came out opposed to the original application and to the amended proposal from the planners. The Church feels the scale of the proposal is still not compatible with the historic character of Main Street "and oppose its approval".

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