Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 03 February 2017

On Monday (6 February 2017) the public will have a chance to comment on plans by 400 Park Avenue Inc (aka the Rose Corporation) to redevelop the King George School site, a stone's throw from Newmarket's historic Main Street.*

The developer - who is close to completing the big rental apartment building going up at 212 Davis Drive - proposes to retain the old school and convert it into 11 condo apartments.

I am very much in favour of this.

However, the developer is also proposing a two-storey Townhouse development on the school lands. There are no Townhouses in this heritage neighbourhood at the moment so, if the development goes ahead, we've got to make sure we get it right.

The developer, whose approach is imaginative, is trying to squeeze as much as possible on to the site.

Height

A block of six Townhouses will front on to Botsford and a block of eight will front on to Church Street.

The two blocks are of different heights.

The completed planning application form, signed by Dan Berholz of 400 Park Ave Inc, says the floor area of the proposed development is

"subject to change during the design process".

The Botsford block will be 6.4 metres high and the Church Street block 8.4 metres high.

A Room with a View - or not

The Church Street block - so much higher than its sister block - will crowd the very important heritage building at 182 Church Street. At its closest point, the block of eight Townhouses on Church Street will be only 3 metres from the heritage building whose occupants will be presented with the view of a solid brick flank wall.(see below right)

To me, this is unacceptable. 

The Townhouses will obscure the view of the fine heritage building at 182 Church Street from Park Avenue and, perhaps, other vantage points.

It is very difficult to visualise what is being proposed. Plans and elevations help but they only go so far. What is needed is a 3D model or computer graphics which allow us to get a better feel for what the developer is trying to do with this important site.

Unique

The developer wants the Council to rezone the land to R4-R - Townhouses. But, so far as I am aware, there is no other Townhouse development in Newmarket with R4-R zoning that comes close to what is being proposed here. Nowhere else is there a Townhouse that abuts a heritage property or, indeed, another built form. If there is, we should be told so we can go and have a look.

I hope our councillors take a serious look at the Townhouse component of the development.

If I ruled the world the eight unit block would be reduced to six to give 182 Church Street more breathing space and to preserve views of this fine old building which is in the first rank, historically and architecturally.

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

*The meeting is being held in the Council Chamber at 395 Mulock Drive at 7pm.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 01 February 2017

I promised myself not to feel sorry for them but, increasingly, I do. 

I noted three years ago they were made for each other.

 They see swirling conspiracies everywhere. People are out to frame them and defame them.

Now he is commenting at length on my recent blog about Snapd and its intervention in the municipal election in 2014. He is, once again, unhappy with the world.

I suspect I may soon see him panting and wobbling up my drive to hand deliver some document from the Newmarket Small Claims Court, accusing me of some calumny or other and claiming $25,000 in damages.

This is what he does when he is not selling insurance.

In the meantime, the days will pass and it will soon be 10am on 10 February 2017 - the date of their next rendezvous at the Small Claims Court in Eagle Street.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 31 January 2017

The highest paid Mayor in Ontario - and possibly Canada - Frank Scarpitti is considering whether to contest the riding of Markham-Thornhill which is now vacant following the appointment of John McCallum as Canada's new ambassador to China.

I see Newmarket's Darryl Wolk, a Conservative, believes Scarpitti

"would be a star candidate for Trudeau and would hold the seat".

John McCallum won the seat in 2015 with over 55% of the vote with Conservative Jobson Easow trailing with just over 32%. On paper it looks like a very safe Liberal riding. And one that should be very difficult to lose.

But Wolk - who likes to hedge his bets - says he wants Scarpitti to run for Chair of York Region in 2018 - the first ever direct election for the position.

Scarpitti comes across - at least to me - as the archetypal municipal fixer and boss.

Only a few months ago he spoke against letting the cameras into York Regional Council telling his colleagues

"audio is more than adequate".

Is this the openness Trudeau is looking for?

Sunny ways?

Seriously?

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 29 January 2017

The sunny, smiley newspaper Snapd intervened anonymously in the 2014 municipal election in Newmarket when it paid Canada Post to deliver flyers to thousands of homes in Wards 6 and 7.   

The imprint on the flyers claimed they were from NmktTownHallWatch - a spoof which mimicked the well known and equally anonymous NwktTownHallWatch.

We still do not know who wrote the text of the flyers but the two candidates targeted by Snap'd were both steamrollered, losing badly.

Did the flyers affect the result? It is, of course, impossible to know how much of those crushing defeats was attributable to the intervention of an anonymous third party.

But it begs two questions:

Was it legal?

And is it going to happen again?

Given the image Snapd projects (which is all Mom and apple pie) its intervention last time was clearly duplicitous, hypocritical and unethical. But it was not illegal.

As I tap this out, there is no evidence to show the campaign spending returns submitted by all the candidates in Wards 6 and 7 were anything other than accurate. If anyone has proof they are false they should present their evidence to the Town.

In any event, we can now be certain that what happened in 2014 will not re-occur in 2018 because the Municipal Elections Act 1996 has been amended to preclude it.

Last year, during the third reading debate on Bill 181 the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ted McMeekin, told MPPs:

"To increase transparency in municipal elections, we are proposing a framework to regulate third-party advertising... This would include setting contribution and spending limits. Third parties would also have to specifically identify themselves on signs and advertisements. Candidates would not be able to direct a third-party advertiser on where they should focus their efforts or what their advertisements should say."

The Minister explained the definition of third-party advertising would be changed so that it covers only advertisements supporting or opposing candidates during an election.

"It would not affect advertising on issues. So if you want to fight for a clean environment, you can do that. The proposed definition of third-party advertising will allow charities and groups that do public outreach on issues as a matter of normal business to continue their issues-based advocacy work throughout the election period."

Former Vaughan councillor and now Federal MP, Deb Schulte, told MPPs in the Bill Committee that, in her view, third-party advertising should be registered to an elector.

"Make it mandatory to identify all the flyers, emails and videos with an identifier so they can be traced back to the source..."

One way or another, I think we can be pretty sure no candidate running for Newmarket Council in 2018 is gonna get Snapd.

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