Details

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.

 

Details

We have the talented Julie Cochrane to thank for these insightful takes on the Clock Tower saga.

 

And who can this possibly be?  The one rogue vote on the BIA?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The person with the first correct answer gets a big hug!

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

 

Details

Colleen Forrest, Bob's wife, will be asking councillors on Monday evening to reject the recommendations from the Town's own planners on the Clock Tower and "support our original application".       

Delicious!

The photo shows Bob and Colleen and Tony Van Trappist in happier times.

Tony has probably just told Bob that the Clock Tower is a great example of the intensification we need in the old downtown.

What fun!

On Monday night I think the Mayor ought to have Robert's Rules of Order close to hand. It is all getting a bit tangled.

Just to remind everyone here is the original application image and the reworked version from the planners that allegedly

"would not negatively impact the heritage attributes of the district".

There are 18 deputations including the one from Colleen Forrest.

The text of the deputation request can be viewed here. Scroll to agenda item 30.

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

 

Details

It would save a lot of time and trouble if councillors showed their hand before Monday's crucially important Committee of the Whole meeting which will decide the future of the Clock Tower application.

John Taylor has already shown the way.

Now he has the final staff report and recommendations he says:

"I will not, and I cannot, support the current proposal for a seven storey development. It is simply too large for the site and for the Heritage Conservation District"

But he values our old friend "flexibility" and says:

"I will be proposing at the appropriate time that we, as a Council, take a formal position to support a maximum of four storeys at this site and throughout the entire Heritage Conservation District with a fourth storey subject to certain conditions." (My underlining)

He says four storeys would be allowed providing the development is not directly fronting Main Street. He says a set-back or development on a side street would be allowable.

Taylor says the amendment to the Heritage Conservation District Plan that he is proposing would require a staff report and public consultation. I dare say there will be graphics and visuals showing what Taylor's Main Street will look like.

But all that is for another day.

Time to slay the dragon

Monday's priority will be to slay the dragon, finally.

So, where do the other councillors stand? Chris Simon has a very useful piece in the ERA on-line. He tells us:

Ward 5 councillor, Bob Kwapis, will not support the proposal.

Kelly Broome will only accept a three or four storey development at the Clock Tower site.

Tom Hempen will not vote, declaring a conflict of interest as he has a business on Main Street.

Dave Kerwin is keeping his powder dry and will give his views after hearing Forrest and residents.

Tony Van Bynen, at his waffliest best, says it is still too early "to develop a final position on this". Give me strength!

Tom Vegh says any development must be "in sync with the area's unique character, driven greatly by its architectural features. The proposed development does not".

The views of Jane Twinney and Christina Bisanz are not quoted.

What happens if there is a tied vote?

If there is a 4-4 tie on Monday evening the planners' recommendation is lost.

Councillors can move an alternate motion if they so wish, independent of any staff recommendations.

So, on this one, it's not over til the fat lady sings.

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

 

Details

Three and a half years ago I wrote to Mayor Tony Van Bynen urging him to bring in a Heritage Conservation District By-law without delay to save the historic neighbourhood from predatory developers.

In a few short days, on 28 November 2016, Newmarket's councillors will decide the fate of the Town's Heritage Conservation District.

Everything I thought might happen is now, tragically, unfolding before our very eyes.

On 30 April 2013, the Mayor knew what the consequences would be if he did not  immediately implement the Heritage Conservation District By-law. I told him. At that stage the developer was poised to submit an application to redevelop the Clock Tower site.

The Director of Planning must have known that without the safeguard of a Heritage Conservation District by-law entrenching the three storey height cap, the face of the historic downtown could be transformed in a way the 2011 HCD Plan never envisaged.

Were councillors ever explicitly told that a by-law was needed to protect and entrench the 2011 Heritage Conservation District Plan? Or was a conscious decision taken to delay the by-law as one way of keeping options open and keeping Forrest's redevelopment plans alive?

Were councillors ever told that s 41.2 of the Ontario Heritage Act gave iron-clad protection to a Heritage Conservation District Plan where buttressed with an entrenching By-law? If not, why not?

If councillors were told, why didn't they act?

The questions cry out for answers but, in a very real sense, it is all water under the bridge.

What matters now is that councillors do the right thing and reject the advice of their own planners whose mis-steps have led us to this sorry state.

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

On 30 April 2013, I wrote to Van Bynen:

I am writing to ask you to take immediate steps to bring forward a By Law to create a Heritage Conservation District on Main Street South.

The Council approved the Heritage Conservation District Plan for Lower Main Street South at its meeting on 30 May 2011 but the enabling By Law has never been implemented.

The matter is now urgent. As you know, developers are knocking at the door with plans to transform the Heritage District and, in the process, ruin precious sight-lines and vistas.

At the Committee of the Whole yesterday, you received the 5 March 2013 Minutes of the Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee when a presentation was given to Committee members on the proposed Clock Tower redevelopment which would involve, amongst other things, the demolition of historic commercial buildings.

You also received the Minutes of the Main Street District Business Improvement Board of Management held on 19 March 2013. We are told Councillor Sponga “provided a descriptive chronicle of the property issues and former ownership” before informing members that the owner would be outlining the proposed redevelopment at a meeting on 3 April 2013.

You were present at that April meeting (along with Regional Councillor Taylor and Councillors Hempen, Sponga, Emanuel and Twinney) and you would have heard Chris Bobyk, on behalf of the Forrest Group, tell the audience that he hoped an application for the redevelopment of the Clock Tower site would be lodged with the Town in the next few months.

Now that we know what is in the developer’s mind, the Town should take immediate steps to protect the integrity of the historic conservation area and entrench in a By Law the existing Council policy which is set out in the 2011 Heritage District Conservation Plan.

If matters are allowed to drift and the developer, at some point in the future, goes to the OMB, the absence of a By Law could be of material importance.

I am copying this to Regional Councillor Taylor and all Town Councillors and to Athol Hart, the Chair of Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee.

On 8 May 2013, the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, replied on behalf of the Mayor:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the implementation of the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District. Mayor Van Bynen has asked me to respond to your e-mail on his behalf.

Council has directed that the Heritage District bylaw be approved however,  administratively the Town has not been in a position to do so due to lack of human resources to fully administer the Plan.   Staff will bring the matter of the implementation of this plan forward as part of the 2014 Budget deliberations. 

We can assure you that in the interim, any applications that are received by the Planning Department for redevelopment within the district boundaries will be reviewed against the policies of the plan, including consultation with the Town’s Heritage Committee, Heritage Newmarket as well as requiring Heritage Assessments as appropriate.

Furthermore, the normal and usual Planning Act processes are still required for any significant development proposals in the area. This may include site plan approval and/or zoning by-law amendments which require Council approval. Through these processes, Council can, among other things, consider the compatibility of any proposal with the surrounding uses.

Thank you for your continued interest in Newmarket’s growth.

In my blog at the time, I wrote:

This is very encouraging but it does beg one or two questions.

If the Heritage Conservation District policy stands on its own, buttressed if needs be by the usual Planning Act processes, why is a By Law needed?

Put simply, what does the By Law do that the policy on its own does not do?

And does it matter to the Forrest Group that there is, as yet, no By Law?

I asked for further clarification and Nethery replied on 17 May 2013:

In short, the by-law adopting a Heritage Conservation District is required to fully implement the District Plan and have it be in full force and effect. While we utilize the Plan to assist in evaluating proposals, the passing of an adopting by-law gives the Plan it’s Official status.

Council has tools other than a Heritage Conservation District at their disposal that can guide the character of new development and significant additions to properties. However, a Heritage Conservation District Plan is more than the way in which buildings are altered, it also provides guidance on signage, improvements to sidewalks and roads, access to open space etc. The adoption of the by-law at the appropriate time will add a level of formality to the process for redevelopment in the district.

For your information, proposals that do not necessarily conform to all aspects of a Heritage Conservation District plan, whether it is in full force or not, can continue to be approved by Council if deemed appropriate.

  • You are here:  
  • Home