Details

Canada's greatest Main Street can expect construction turmoil and mayhem for years if Bob Forrest's seven storey condo gets the go ahead on 28 November 2016.  

If Newmarket councillors accept the recommendations of their own planners to allow a giant apartment block in the very heart of the Town's Heritage Conservation District it will be an act of unparalleled civic vandalism. 

Treasured historic buildings will be demolished including one at 184 Main Street South which dates from the mid 1840s. It was from here that Mary Anne Simpson, Ontario's first female pharmacist, operated an apothecary. We are told the facades of the doomed historic commercial buildings will be retained if possible.

If Forrest gets the green light to redevelop, councillors will be shredding their own Heritage Conservation District Plan, agreed in 2011, and, with it, the By-law passed in 2013.

Cut and Paste

The report from the Town's planners is a curiously limp and half-hearted affair. (scroll to agenda item 24) There are slabs of text lifted straight from Provincial Policy Statements and other official documents but relatively little in the way of commentary. It is a cut and paste job.

The recommendations from the Newmarket Heritage Advisory Committee which was against the Forrest application are set out without comment, context or explanation. Councillors are simply advised they must take them into consideration before making a decision on the proposal.

The authors of the report describe it as comprehensive. It is anything but. It doesn't address all the issues that were raised by the public who wrote in to the Town Hall or spoke at the Statutory Public meeting in May 2016. Many important issues such as the impact of construction, garbage removal and servicing the proposed retail units are left to another day.

Accommodating the developer

The report tries to reconcile two different but not necessarily mutually exclusive objectives: (a) getting more people living in the old downtown and (b) protecting the integrity of the Heritage Conservation District. The latter lost out in a big way. The authors of the report have bent over backwards to accommodate the developer, recommending everything Forrest needs to get the project off the ground. Even the so-called land  swap. 

The report says:

"... recognising competing interests, the positive attributes of the proposal and comments from professional heritage planners, staff support greater development on a scale that would not negatively impact the heritage attributes of the district."

Staff want a new by-law that would allow five storeys instead of three on Main Street and seven on Park Avenue with step backs. Personally, looking at the graphics, I think this will have a huge impact on the look and feel of Main Street.

Demolition: when it's gone it's gone

The three historic commercial buildings south of the Clock Tower and owned by Forrest are to be demolished but next to no consideration has been given to their architectural or historic merits. The cursory peer review by ERA Architects did not even address the issue even though they were obliged to do so under the terms of their contract with the Town.  

The report (page 3)  refers to the proposed land swap without indicating if it is a fair exchange. Certainly the swap allows the development to proceed but, other than that, it is hugely lop-sided. The Town would be giving a large amount of land to the developer for his underground parking garage but getting next to nothing in return. The underground car park has no public spaces whatsoever.

Places to Grow

In this section we read about the Province's Growth Plan and the need for municipalities to "cultivate a culture of conservation". In the Animal Farm that is Newmarket Council, words end up meaning the exact opposite of what you might expect. "Conservation strategies" describe demolition.

Now the report morphs into a solid indigestible slab of text from the Provincial Policy Statement of 2014. We are told

"The PPS is meant to be read in its entirety and no one section of the PPS overrides others."

After wading through the waffle, we get to this little gem:

"The PPS would consider the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District a Significant Cultural Heritage Landscape that must be conserved."

If Forrest's development were to go ahead as proposed it would have big negative impacts. So, rather than throw it out, the planners see how they can make it work. They pose the question:

"Can the Provincial goal of intensification be achieved while meeting the provincial goal of heritage conservation?"

But earlier we were told the proposed development

"is not required for the Town to meet the intensification targets set..."

Now we are reading more planning-babble from the York Region Official Plan. This stuff is painful to read but we've gotta press on.

Density is way over the top

Now the Town's planners are on to Newmarket's Official Plan. They focus on density and scale and such matters. We learn:

"The Historic Downtown Centre designation permits a number of uses including residential uses up to 80 units per net hectare. The Official Plan allows for greater densities provided background studies demonstrate that the proposed development will not create an unacceptable level of traffic and will be compatible with the existing surrounding development."

The density Forrest wants comes in at 430 units per net hectare and an FSI of 2.9. This blows apart the density standards for the old downtown which stipulate an FSI of 1.0    

Parking

The current Town By-law requires 289 spaces for the proposed 165 apartment units. Forrest wants 199 spaces. The planners agree with Forrest, calling in aid yet another "peer review" this time  from WSP Canada Inc. The parking spaces per resident go down from 1.5 to 1.2.

Heritage Impact

At long last we come to pages 10-20 of the report which look at the heritage impact of Forrest's proposal. We are told:

"... the proposal does not meet (the) policies of the Heritage Conservation District Plan by exceeding the 3 storey height recommendation for new construction within the district."

and

"To assist in the on-going review of the application against the HCD Plan (Heritage Conservation District Plan), a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) has been submitted and peer reviewed."

The HIA was commissioned and paid for by the developer and concluded that although Forrest's development did not meet the HCD Plan in terms of height restrictions it could, nevertheless, be mitigated to allow the Town to meet other planning goals in the historic downtown core. The HIA was peer reviewed by ERA Architects. It is useless. Yet the Town's planners' report does not point to any of its inadequacies.

ERA proposed 8 storeys on Park Avenue - or as they say in their report "Park Street". Newmarket staff regarded this as excessive and, as we know, settled on seven. 

I have very little that is positive to say about ERA Architects but they do get a pat on the back for mentioning their concerns about the proposal altering the current skyline "which is a described heritage attribute" set out in paragraph 2.3.8 of the Heritage Conservation District Plan:

"Panoramic views of the district from outside the district's boundaries are valuable to the entire Historic Downtown Centre and include... the view from the southwest corner of Water and Prospect streets, looking northwest and featuring the four historic landmark buildings."

Now I am learning more about the staff's position. First, they say they would go for four storeys on Main and six on Park Avenue but, after thinking about those "competing interests" again, they settle on five and seven. They say the seven storey massing on Park is OK because it is off Main Street. But the Heritage Conservation District boundary (three storeys) extends along Park Avenue to Forrest's property line. It's all three storeys. Or was. 

Shafted

The treasured Heritage Conservation District is being shafted right, left and centre. 

The Historic Downtown Urban Centre is zoned (UC-D1) where there is a minimum height of two storeys and a maximum of three. The planners want step-backs on Main Street and a fully glazed fifth storey. The original Forrest application, which the planners are now amending, proposed step-backs along the Main Street frontage. The staff report these would

"... give some distinction to a Main Street facade of two storeys however floors above the second will remain visible and could have impact on the heritage character of the area."  (My underlining)

Adamantly recommend

Now we are on to the important contribution the Newmarket Heritage Advisory Committee made to the debate.

They "adamantly recommend" the Council to reject the Forrest proposal. But that statement was made before the Town's own planners got to work on Forrest`s application, coming up with recommendations making it more palatable to the Council.

There is no commentary from the Town's planners although they pick up elsewhere in the report the concerns the Advisory Committee had about the re-zoning being "precedent setting". Apparently, precedents don't come into the equation.

"With regards to the idea that if this proposal is approved, it will set a precedent for development of other properties on Main Street, any application for land use amendment is judged on its own merits. Future applicants would be required to make a complete application and provide the necessary justification for any proposal."

Fraudulent and phoney

This is a perfect illustration of a planning system which is totally fraudulent and phoney.

Three storeys never means three. And five may never mean five. It is all capricious.

We have a section on economic development penned by the Town's economic development officer. He says nine new restaurants have opened in the last five years - to my mind hardly a sign that the area is down on its heels.

Water and sewage allocations

The Forrest condo has not been given, as yet, a servicing allocation. Until it can be hooked up to the water mains and sewage pipes it can't be built. And since water and sewage allocations are rationed until 2024 (when the Upper York Sewage Solutions project is commissioned) any allocations made to Forrest reduce the number of allocations available for developments in the Town's corridors which are earmarked for high density buildings and intensification. 

And it is not clear if the Forrest condo will cost the Town any money. Engineering Services say they are willing to support the zone change provided there is a Hold in the Zoning By-law which would not be lifted:

"until such time as it is demonstrated that adequate downstream sanitary sewage capacity is available or acceptable arrangements have been made with the Town to carry out any downstream improvements deemed necessary to accommodate flows from this development."

There are other issues concerning remediation of the site which could also warrant a Hold. (That is, the development could not proceed as planned until the issues specified in the "Hold" have been resolved.) 

Community consultation

The report ends with a section on community consultation. Many of the comments wait to be addressed. If approval is given it will be conditional on certain things happening. People were concerned about damage to adjacent buildings. No need to worry says the Town's planners, Forrest will have to submit a heritage conservation plan or strategy which will detail demolition techniques.

"Where there is a common wall between two properties, an engineer's report is required detailing how the structural integrity of the remaining structure will be maintained during demolition."

Tell that to the owner of the Olde Village Free House at 196 Main Street who shares a common wall, cement pad and roof with 194 that Forrest wants to knock down.

The high water table - eight feet below the surface - is, apparently, nothing to worry about. And there are other matters too which are for another day.

What is perfectly clear is there is no community buy-in to what is being proposed.

Neither the Downtown Business Improvement Area Committee nor the Town`s Heritage Advisory Committee has had a chance to comment on the latest revised proposal, drafted by the Town`s own planners. They should have an opportunity to comment. As should the rest of us.

Councillors should throw out the recommendations and stoutly defend their own Heritage Conservation District Plan.

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

Update on Saturday 19 November 2016: The heritage blogger, Dan Schneider, has commented on an important OMB case which may have relevance. It concerns the impact of a proposed development in Toronto on an adjacent heritage property. You can read the full OMB decision here.

Update on Sunday 20 November 2016: the section on set-backs in the paragraph headed "Shafted" has been amended to make clear the quotation refers to the Forrest application before the Town's planners amended it.

 

Details

The Town's Planning staff are recommending approval for Bob Forrest's condo in the heart of the Heritage Conservation District in Main Street. (See agenda items 3 and 24)  

We are told Forrest's re-submitted planning application for a Zoning By Law amendment should be approved subject to various conditions.

The planners want the height of the development fronting on to Main Street to be pegged to five storeys including step backs and the height on Park Avenue, including steps backs, to be capped at seven storeys.

On the one hand the Town's planners cite Provincial policy which promotes the desirability of "residential dwellings in the downtown core" and on the other they conclude that "the massing and height of the proposed development... would be in conflict with the heritage attributes of the Heritage Conservation District.."   

The recommendations from the planning professionals try to square the circle.

The Town's own planners have been working closely with the developer to come up with some kind of compromise.

The image at top reflects the planners' recommendation to councillors. The graphics would have been done by Bob Forrest's people.

A critique will follow.

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

updated on 17 November to include images and further commentary.

 

Details

It is now official. Newmarket's historic Main Street is one of the great places in Canada according to the Canadian Institute of Planners.

I have a strange love/hate relationship with professional planners who, too often, are the handmaidens for brutal and inappropriate development. But this time, they have come up smelling of roses. 

The big question in my mind is whether this prestigious accolade will change the mindset of Newmarket's Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, who wants to see the demolition of historic commercial properties and the construction of a seven storey apartment building in the heart of the old Main Street.

In the CTV news clip aired last night Van Bynen waxes lyrical about the attractions of Main Street.

I listened carefully to His Worship but didn't hear him say he was planning to make it even greater by knocking down some fusty old historic buildings and replacing them with a gleaming giant out-of-place seven storey block!

All across Ontario the character of many fragile historic Main Streets is being transformed out of all recognition. In Meaford, for example, a new five storey 52 unit condo is going to change the look and feel of this historic row of buildings even though some facades are to be preserved. 

But we shouldn't have to be grateful for small mercies. If something is worth saving we should say so, loud and clear, and face down the developers and those who help them destroy irreplaceable historic buildings and unmatched views and panoramas.

The Town's Committee of the Whole will consider Bob Forrest's Clock Tower application on Monday 28 November 2016 at 7pm at 395 Mulock Drive.

The planners' report with their recommendations will be available on the Town website this Friday (18 November 2016).

I shall be posting a critique here on ShrinkSlessorSquare.ca

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

Town of Newmarket planner Adrian Cammaert nominated Main Street for the award. Good on him.

Details of the Great Places in Canada awards can be found here.  The CTV video can be accessed via:

CityNews Toronto (@CityNews) tweeted at 11:03 PM on Tue, Nov 15, 2016:
Newmarket wins people’s choice award for greatest main street in Canada https://t.co/qd8cYEGr5O
(https://twitter.com/CityNews/status/798738292489547776?s=02)

 

Details

In April 2015 the City of Vaughan decided to dock Regional Councillor Michael Di Biase's pay for 90 days on the grounds that he had improperly interfered in the Council's tendering processes. The decision followed a report from the City of Vaughan's Integrity Commissioner who is independent.   

Di Biase cried foul and protested his innocence.

He said he would challenge the decision in Court.

The matter came before the Assistant Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario, Frank Marrocco, and two of his fellow judges, Carolyn Horkins and Michael Varpio.

Judgement was handed down on 19 September 2016 with the Court dismissing Di Biase's arguments saying

 "There is no merit in any of the applicant's (Di Biase) submissions."

The Court observed:

"The maximum penalty that may be imposed by the Council is a suspension of pay for 90 days. The applicant cannot lose his elected position, and the Integrity Commissioner cannot make the applicant civilly liable.

The decision is important to the applicant because it affects his reputation."

Di Biase serves on two municipalities; his home City of Vaughan and York Regional Council.

While Di Biase forfeited his City of Vaughan salary for 90 days he continued to claim his full salary from York Region. In 2015 he received $54,071 in salary plus $8,949 in benefits and $2,104 in expenses from the Region.

The report from the Integrity Commissioner which triggered this series of events makes jaw-dropping reading.

At the time I called on Biase to volunteer to give up three month's pay from York Region and stand down as Chair of Planning and Economic Development on the grounds that his integrity and impartiality had been totally compromised.

Blind eye

Biase's colleagues on the Regional Council turned a blind eye to his transgressions.

They felt able to do this because, astonishingly, the Regional Council has no Code of Conduct for its members. And without a Code of Conduct there is no need for an Integrity Commissioner.

At their meeting in October 2015, members decided that a Regional Code of Conduct wasn't needed.

Michael Di Biase is clearly the wrong person to be chairing Committee of the Whole meetings when far-reaching planning and development issues are considered.

But will anyone on York Regional Council do something about it?

Don't hold your breath.

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

Note. This blog was amended today (14 November 2016) to make it clear that York Region has a Committee of the Whole structure in which Planning and Economic Development matters are put forward by the Chair, Michael Di Biase, to the Committee for its consideration and decision.

  

Details

There is something surreal about watching a debate in York Regional Council about affordable housing.

It is a very clubby atmosphere and disagreements, where these exist, are expressed gently.

The members of the club are comfortably housed yet all around there is an unfolding housing crisis. The report before them describes the scale of the challenge.

New housing is unaffordable for many. New rental housing scarcely exists.

61 new private sector rental units were built in the whole of York Region in the last four years. Of these, 4 were completed last year and 7 in 2014.

The situation is dire.

The average resale price of a house in the Region rose by 103% between 2005 and 2015. Yet, over the same period, average hourly wages only rose by 18%. 

Going through the roof

The average price of a new single detached home is going through the roof. In 2015 it was a staggering $988,638. It is anyone's guess what the figure is today.

Last year, the maximum affordable ownership price (using the provincial definition) was $459,170 region-wide. Only 40% of all new housing was affordable and one bedroom condos made up over half of these "affordable" units.

Mayor Justin Altman, the self confessed quiet man from Whitchurch-Stouffville and a relatively new member of the club, laments that new houses are selling for $1.1-$1.3m in his patch. He can be nervous talking to the older and more experienced members. Now he is gabbling, firing a million questions at the bemused Chief Planner, Valerie Shuttleworth. Now Altman plaintively asks: what is to be done?

Do developers need incentives?

Newmarket's John Taylor switches the focus to rental where the numbers are "abysmally low". But, apparently, we are in a fortunate moment in time where we can nudge the market and the development industry into action. He says they are very close to doing it themselves - without incentives. But now he is warning us we have got to make sure we are not "over-incentivising".

Now he is wandering into the weeds, talking about rental related development charges (DCs). Why not consider a different rate for rental housing? We have one for hotels.

Valerie Shuttleworth, talking slowly and deliberately so as not to leave anyone behind, is not sure DCs can be structured by tenure. But perhaps they can do it by apartment size? This is a rare admission of ignorance and is all the sweeter for it. Ms Shuttleworth has perfected the art of talking down to people, perhaps without realising she is doing so. Earlier she apologises for using the word "decile" as if we would all be left bewildered.

Now she looks to Bruce Macgregor, the Chief Administrator, who agrees the Council should be able to incentivise rental.

Land Prices and Land Supply

Richmond Hill's Vito Spatafora wonders aloud how it is possible to get more affordable housing when land prices are rising in the corridors.

Yes. Perhaps land supply is the problem. Mayor Steve Pellegrini from the rural fastness of King certainly thinks so. He tells us whole swathes of land in the Greenbelt and in the Oak Ridges Moraine are out of bounds, putting pressure on what's left.  

Gino Rosati from Vaughan says where demand is high and supply is low the number of people who fall into the "can't afford" category will grow. I see people nodding their heads as if they've heard something new and profound.

Tippy-toe

Shuttleworth senses controversy lies ahead and says she will "tippy toe" into the land supply issue. She tells her audience the Region is required to have a 10 year supply of land designated for residential use and a three year supply serviced for residential development. Land supply, she says, may be a factor. We may not have an "over supply". And homes are bigger now. (True. But who are the people buying these gigantic mansions?)

Up on the screen we see a list of potential incentives to get developers building what is needed rather than what they can sell for the biggest profit. There are grants and loans and deferrals and exemptions from taxes and charges and fees of one kind or another.

But do the developers need these inducements?

In a telling intervention, the Region's treasurer Bill Hughes reminds us that development charges represent less than 5% of the cost of new residential build in York Region. In 2012 when development charges were raised, developers predicted this would lead to a slump in new building. Hughes says it doubled.

A little less conversation, a little more action

Vaughan's Mayor, Maurizio Bevilacqua, ruffles feathers when he says the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and he fears for the future. He asks Shuttleworth to "bring the future to the present". What will 2026 look like in terms of housing options?

Shuttleworth says future housing trends are the hardest of all to predict. We rely on the market. The developers build our communities.

The Region's Director of Strategies and Partnerships, Lisa Gonzales, says the development industry is building what people are buying. The fact is many people can't afford to buy what is being built now. Shuttleworth says people like teachers and nurses and even urban planners are being shut out of the market. To gentle amusement she excludes herself from the list.

Bevilacqua says a big bang is needed - not endless incrementalism. The development community, who are doing very well thank you, is absent. They are not coming up with ideas. They've got to be creative and put things on the table.

"There are too many conversations on process."

Naturally lit product

Markham's well paid Mayor, Frank Scarpitti, calls for more "ground level naturally lit product". This is the weird language senior club members use to describe what the rest of us call houses. Secondary suites (or basement apartments) are not the solution. He says businesses need people to live close to where they work.

In an astonishing break with the Club's unwritten code of conduct, Taylor directly challenges Scarpitti, dismissing his comments about basement apartments, saying they are "absolutely crucial" in Newmarket and have been for many years. He tells us they represent a big piece of affordable housing in the Town.

Taylor is more energised than I've seen him in a long time. He looks at Bevilacqua for support and tells him his insights are important. We learn from Taylor there were 5,500 people on the waiting list for social housing ten years ago. Now there are 13,600.

"We need rental housing and we can make progress on this file ourselves."

212 Davis Drive

Now he is bathing in the glow of the new rental apartment block going up at 212 Davis Drive. As we all know, he has been to the top. He chastises his colleagues for their neglect of rental housing and for their lack of vision. He wants to see buildings like 212 Davies Drive sprouting up every two years all over the place.

Newmarket's Tony Van Trappist, a club member for fourteen years, snoozes in his chair, saying nothing.

His thoughts are elsewhere.

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

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home