- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Bob Forrest wants to demolish three historic commercial properties in his ownership to make way for his seven storey apartment building at the Clock Tower. But he cannot knock them down without getting the agreement of the Town first which may, or may not be, forthcoming.
An alternative option - and one that is attractive to developers - is simply to allow old buildings to fall down so there is nothing left to save. This is commonly known as demolition by neglect. The Town is presented with a fait accompli. 
Bob Forrest’s slide presentation to the Statutory Public Meeting on 9 May 2016 on his Clock Tower application was posted on the Town’s website. At some point, a second version was substituted replacing the earlier one.
Forrest inadvertently gave the game away.
Slide 24 on the original version was headed:
“Fact vs Fiction – Previous Tenants”
Forrest’s slide states as fact:
“The roofs leak. The roofs and floors sag.”
So if the roofs leak why doesn’t Bob fix them? And if the roofs and floors are sagging why doesn’t he do something about it?
This slide no longer appears in the version posted on the Town’s website.
The Town’s By-law enforcement people are now on to the case and, I am told, will “review, inspect and take action as necessary”.
Watch this space.
(Bob does)
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Clock Tower developer, Bob Forrest, has doctored the record of his deputation to the Town's Committee of the Whole on 9 May 2016. 
In the version posted on the Town's website before the 9 May meeting, Forrest's presentation had 28 slides.
Today, the record of the presentation has 26 slides with two pages saying these were intentionally left blank.
The original page 23 has been doctored and a new version appears on the Town's website.
The original page 24 has also been doctored.
The original page 25 disappears and some points are folded into other slides.
And the original page 28 in which Forrest proclaims he is the "Barbarian at the gate" has gone, no doubt after sober second thought. Forrest was alluding to a reference made in one of my earlier blogs.
A number of questions arise from this sleight of hand.
Which version is the official record?
This could be important if the Town approves Forrest's rental building and, in so doing, votes against its own Zoning By-law and Heritage Conservation District By-law, and residents are forced to seek a remedy at the OMB. 
So, when was the doctored version submitted to the Town?
And by whom?
Were reasons given for the substitution?
Who gave permission for the doctored version to appear on the Town's website?
When was it posted?
Is it usual for documentation lodged with the Town to be subsequently amended?
At what point does the documentation become part of the official record?
Has this happened before at a Statutory Public meeting? If so, when?
I am in touch with the Town Clerk to seek answers to these questions and others.
In the doctored version, a slide appears saying this page has been "intentionally left blank".
This is completely dishonest. The slide should say:
"The original slide has been removed because we had second thoughts."
At the meeting on 9 May, Forrest said he had been asked to cut short his presentation to save time and, as a result, not all his slides were projected on to the big screen in the Council Chamber.
On the right is the original version, page 23. And below is the doctored version of page 23.
On the right is the original version of slide 24. And below is the doctored version of slide 24.
Why the deception?
It's time for answers.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Tim Hortons has an important role in the planning process in Newmarket. It is a neutral location where developers can meet individual councillors and talk about their pet projects over a cup of coffee and answer any questions.
The idea is to sound out the views of councillors and, in a subtle way, to influence them. That is the whole point of the exercise. If it is in the developer’s interests the information gleaned from the unsuspecting councillor is passed back to the Mothership (aka 395 Mulock Drive). Tony Van Bynen and Bob Shelton received briefings from the Forrest Group’s Director of Development, Chris Bobyk, after his meetings with councillors.
In a democracy such as ours it is perfectly legitimate for people to lobby elected officials. To be clear, councillors can and do meet with developers. There is nothing sinister about that. But if the lobbyist wants something from the Municipality – such as a planning approval – then warning bells should ring and the red lights should flash. And the details of any meetings should be entered in a public register.
The City of Toronto puts it this way:
“Public office holders and the public should be able to know who is attempting to influence City Government.”
Newmarket has chosen not to have a Lobbyist Register despite being designated as one of the places to grow in Ontario. The Town anticipates a huge increase in development applications over coming years especially in the Davis and Yonge corridors but we don’t know who is approaching whom for what.
All-in-all, that could mean a lot of new business for Tim Hortons. 
My Freedom of Information request for sight of emails from the Clock Tower developer, Bob Forrest, and his Director of Development, Chris Bobyk, to Mayor Tony Van Bynen, the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer Bob Shelton and others show how information on what councillors are thinking is routinely shared between the developer, the Mayor and top staff.
The Mayor helps set up meetings for the developer to brief some councillors - those new to the Council.
Others are approached directly by Bobyk who promises to update Van Bynen on his colleagues’ thinking.
Why is the Mayor relying on feedback from the developer? Why doesn't Van Bynen simply ask his Council colleagues direct?
Try as I may to be respectful, I cannot help but think of the Mayor as a diminutive ventriloquist’s dummy, huge chain of office round his neck, sitting on Chris Bobyk’s knee, mouthing the words:
“The Clock Tower is a great example of the intensification we need.”
Clock Tower timeline (to be extended)
(see also the early chronology in my November 2015 blog “Van Bynen set to give approval to condo blighting Newmarket’s historic Main Street”
18 October 2013: Bob Forrest emails Andrew Brouwer, Town Clerk, asking the Council to defer any decision on bringing into force the Heritage Conservation District By-law.
12 August 2014: Bob Forrest emails Tina Bates with the agenda for his meeting with the Mayor and Bob Shelton on Thursday 14 August 2014.
“Tina… as requested.
“Clock Tower
1) Density/height/heritage
2) Revitalising Main Street
3) A firm land swap deal
4) OMB
5) A potential Newmarket partner
6) This will only happen if you help
7) Yes, it is an election year
Slessor. An update. Renessa. An update.
19 May 2015: Chris Bobyk emails Tony Van Bynen.
“Mayor Van Bynen, thank you again for setting up the meetings with Councillor Broome-Plumley and Noehammer attended last week.
“As an update I am meeting Councillor Taylor, Twinney, Vegh and Hempen this week independently regarding the Clock Tower redevelopment. Following I will circle back with you as an update.
3 June 2015: Chris Bobyk emails Mayor Van Bynen and Tina Bates about the “Clock Tower municipal parking option discussion”.
“Tina – can you set up a meeting for me with the Mayor next week – based on discussions with Councillor Sponga and the Mayor. It is suggested a meeting with the Mayor is needed relative to a discussion on the Town reconsidering the construction of additional municipal parking in parallel with the proposed redevelopment of the Clock Tower. I understand from Joe that while this opportunity was turned down by past Council the current Council has different views.
“It may make sense to have Bob Shelton attend. Will leave that in the Mayor’s court.
On 16 June 2015 Chris Bobyk emails the Mayor and Bob Shelton about the “Market Square below grade parking expansion option”. The email is heavily redacted. Bobyk closes by saying;
“I look forward to your thoughts/agreed directions regarding this item soon and would be happy to meet again should you wish. We want to get the land exchange proposal to the Committee of the Whole at the earliest opportunity.
“I am setting up individual councillor meetings for next week in follow up to the first meetings and expect there will be some follow up discussion on this same matter.
On 22 June 2015 Chris Bobyk emails Bob Shelton with copies to Forrest and Van Bynen:
“Bob, hope you are well.
“In follow up to below, would you be able to meet tomorrow afternoon or Thursday between 11.30am and 4pm to discuss further. I have councillor meetings both days with time in between. Failing that, happy to discuss on phone.
“We need to get the land exchange item to Committee of the Whole in the scheduled August 31st meeting and the decision on below being incorporated or not (this refers to the option of expanding the below grade parking under Market Square) is needed for the terms and conditions drafting of the land exchange for Committee of the Whole approval.”
“I will raise (this) as a subject of discussion as well in my Councillor meetings relative to individual opinions/comments on the matter and interest levels of its inclusion or not. I will report back to you and the Mayor on that outcome.”
26 June 2015: Bob Shelton tells Bobyk that the Town’s senior staff have looked at the option of expanding the below grade parking under Market Square and they are interested in exploring it further.
26 June 2015: Bobyk replies to Shelton:
“I have had dialogue with all the Council members but two on the below grade parking opportunity at Market Square, FYI, as part of my follow up meetings suggested by the Mayor.”
“I can review with you their comments and we can conclude as to whether it’s worth bringing it back to Committee of the Whole for a second time in conjunction with our stand alone development land exchange requirements. We need to get the land exchange initiative to the next Committee of the Whole meeting which I understand is August 31st.”
6 July 2015: Bobyk emails Shelton:
“I need to start organizing approach/presentation on the land exchange – (I need to) know whether or not the municipal option (of expanding the below grade parking under Market Square) is to be conveyed (and if it) is needed at this time.”
“It appears you want to review it – but whether it is to be presented to the Committee of the Whole for a second time is the question.”
“Joe Sponga called me this morning and is saying it is desired and needed. He is also saying the BIA is of the view that it is needed to accommodate new uses that have come downtown (now) and (in the) future. Nonetheless we need to get the land exchange before (the) Committee of the Whole without delay and carry forward with the Zoning By-law Amendment application. The boundaries for the land exchange vary dependent on whether the municipal parking option is included or not. Need your direction soon.”
24 November 2015: Forrest emails the Mayor:
“Mr Mayor
“We have spent several months studying the prospect of doing the Clock Tower as a new rental building. While we are not ready to make a decision on that, we propose to visit with you and all of the councillors to discuss how this might be made to happen.”
“Some time ago, Bob Shelton asked us to meet with Rick Nethery to discuss how we can firm up the land swap issue in the face of policy matters. We deferred that meeting as we wondered how a switch to rental might impact on us. However, it is scheduled for today.”
“After this meeting we are anxious to meet with you as soon as possible to kick off a renewed effort. I wonder if we could be provided with some times that will work for your side. In the past these meetings have included Bob (Shelton) Rick (Nethery) and Joe (Sponga?) but, of course, it is not our position to determine that part.”
“Currently we are revising our drawings as to renew the public process.
“Our goal will be……
To show you the current plan which has changed little
To discuss how rental might be accomplished
Talk about the land swap, post meeting with Rick, and
Because it has again been raised, determine if there is a strong appetite for funding and building an underground parking garage for the Town beneath Market Square.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Best… Bob
27 November and 1 December 2015: There is a series of email exchanges from Chris Bobyk to the Mayor’s assistant, Pat Noble, asking for a meeting with the Mayor before the end of the year to discuss the Clock Tower.
16 February 2016: Chris Bobyk emails Tina Bates about setting up meetings with councillors to discuss the Clock Tower application.
“Tina, hope you are well. I have forgotten who to approach in your group as to setting up Councillor meetings with the following councillors in red below. I would meet each individually. Last time I met with them at the Tim Horton’s on Yonge Street, north of the Regional Offices, west side of Yonge. If possible, individual meetings next week, the week of February 22nd would be great if possible. Let me know what days and times work for the three of them.
Most appreciated.
1) Kelly Broome-Plumley
2) Christina Bisanz
3) Jane Twinney
4) Tom Vegh – I will contact him directly
5) Tom Hempen – I will contact him directly
6) Dave Kerwin - I will contact him directly
7) Joe Sponga - I will contact him directly
8) John Taylor - I will contact him directly
6 April 2016: Pat Noble emails Bob Forrest about setting up a meeting with the Mayor and Bob Shelton to get an update on the Clock Tower.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
You can see the original emails here. Scroll to FoI records May 2016.
more will follow
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Plans to extend the proposed underground garage at the Clock Tower to allow for municipal parking were explored by councillors last year before being abandoned.
The Forrest proposal, currently before Newmarket Council, is for 199 private underground spaces for residents of the development.
On 3 June last year, Chris Bobyk, Forrest’s Director of Development, asks Tina Bates, Assistant to the Office of the Mayor, to set up a meeting with the Mayor to discuss the possibility of constructing
“additional municipal parking in parallel with the proposed redevelopment of the Clock Tower. I understand from Joe (Sponga) that while this opportunity was turned down by past Council the current Council has different views.”
On 22 June 2015, Bobyk pressed Bob Shelton to get the land exchange item to the Committee of the Whole on 31 August 2015 and “the decision on below being incorporated or not”. (This refers to the option of expanding the parking garage under Market Square.) Bobyk said he was going to talk to councillors about this option and that he would report back to Shelton and to the Mayor on what individual councillors think about it all.
A few days later, on 26 June 2015, Bob Shelton told Bobyk the Town’s senior staff had looked at the option of expanding the below grade parking under Market Square and they were interested in exploring it further.
On 26 June 2015, Bobyk told Shelton that he had “dialogue with all the Council members but two on the below grade parking opportunity at Market Square”. These were part of the “follow up meetings with councillors” that had been suggested by the Mayor.
On 6 July 2015, Bobyk told Shelton:
“I need to start organizing approach/presentation on the land exchange – (I need to) know whether or not the municipal option (of expanding the below grade parking under Market Square) is to be conveyed (and if it) is needed at this time.”
“It appears you want to review it – but whether it is to be presented to the Committee of the Whole for a second time is the question.”
“Joe Sponga called me this morning and is saying it is desired and needed. He is also saying the BIA is of the view that it is needed to accommodate new uses that have come downtown (now) and (in the) future. Nonetheless we need to get the land exchange before (the) Committee of the Whole without delay and carry forward with the Zoning By-law Amendment application. The boundaries for the land exchange vary dependent on whether the municipal parking option is included or not. Need your direction soon.”
On 24 November 2015 Bob Forrest was again in touch with the Mayor. Forrest said he would be meeting Rick Nethery “to discuss how we can firm up the land swap issue” but would like to meet the Mayor afterwards. Forrest also wanted to
“determine if there is a strong appetite for funding and building an underground parking garage for the Town beneath Market Square”.
He was putting this on the agenda “because it has again been raised”.
Key parts of the material I have now seen are redacted. Nevertheless it is clear to me the underground garage for the Town is as dead as the proverbial parrot. We do not have all the details because the Town insists they are confidential.
Meanwhile, the Town’s Engineering Services people are sticking with the line that Forrest’s proposed development requires 290 parking spaces.
Forrest says 199 will do nicely.
More to follow….
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
The ERA Architects peer review of the Clock Tower Heritage Impact Assessment will itself be reviewed says the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton.
Shelton was responding to my email (below) calling for the contract to be terminated.
The peer review has a crucially important role in the validation (or otherwise) of the Heritage Impact Assessment commissioned by Clock Tower developer Bob Forrest. It can be expected to figure prominently in the comprehensive report on Forrest’s development application currently being written up by the Town’s planning staff.
In a memo to the Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee on February 9, 2016 which enclosed an updated Heritage Impact Assessment, Dave Ruggle, the senior planner responsible for the Clock Tower file, solemnly told members "Please be advised that the HIA will be peer reviewed". The Advisory Committee subsequently voted against the Forrest proposal.
The performance standards expected from consultants and contractors working for the Town are set out in By-law 2014-27.
At some point the review of the peer review will be made public.
The on-line petition against Forrest's proposed Clock Tower development, promoted by Margaret Davis, has 1,048 supporters (as of Friday 20th am). The rival petition promoted by Jill Kellie supporting the development has stalled at 219 supporters.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
-----------------------
May 20, 2016
Mr Prentice
I have discussed the review process with staff and advise that your comments and various points will be provided to Planning staff for their consideration as part of the review of the peer review report. We appreciate the time you have taken to provide detailed comments. I also advise that we have a performance review process for consultants and contractors working for the Town.
Bob Shelton CAO
------------------------
May 17, 2016
Dear Mr Shelton
I am writing to ask you to take steps to terminate the Town’s five year contract with ERA Architects.
As you know, staff had been delegated authority by Council to award this contract. There have been two peer reviews of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of 178, 180, 184, 188, 190 and 194 Main Street South – on July 22, 2014 and May 4, 2016 – and neither remotely approaches the standard the Town should expect.
In the guidelines setting out the scope of work and specifications, the Town asked for a peer review of the HIA which would address “inconsistencies, factual errors, discrepancies, inappropriate conservation advice not consistent with recognized standards… omissions and misrepresentations.”
The Town made it clear in its guidelines to proponents that
“the preferred protective and mitigative measures will be consistent with the Lower Main Street Heritage Conservation District Plan…”
First, the peer review does not address head-on the proposed demolition by the developer of the historic commercial buildings in Main Street South even when the Town’s own Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan says at paragraph 4.2.1.2:
“The Town supports the retention of historic buildings in the district. If a property owner proposes to demolish or remove an historic building, a heritage impact assessment may be required at the discretion of the Council to ascertain whether there are alternatives to demolition or removal. Notwithstanding the findings of the heritage impact assessment, the Town reserves its right to refuse the application for demolition or re-location; and the property owner has right of appeal.”
There is no discussion by ERA of the architectural or heritage merits of the historic commercial buildings that are proposed to be demolished by the developer with only the facades remaining. This is clearly a major omission.
Secondly, in the peer review dated May 4, 2016, the Town is advised by ERA that:
“The height of the proposed new construction on Park Street (sic) has been reduced from the 2014 proposal from nine to seven storeys. It is our opinion that the current proposed height on Park Street (sic) is appropriate.”
It is not immediately obvious why ERA should regard seven storeys as “appropriate”.
However, in its earlier peer review of July 22, 2014 in relation to Mr Forrest’s proposed nine storey development, ERA advised the Town:
“A six storey height limit is appropriate based on height permissions contained within the UC-D2 zone, which is found on lands immediately adjacent to the westerly portion of the development site to the rear of the Main Street properties.”
The above-ground development site falls solely within UC-D1 zone which limits new developments to 3 storeys. The height cap in the zoning by-law is also reflected in By-law 2013-50 which designates the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District. The ERA peer review does not address the merits of retaining UC-D1 zoning even though the Heritage Impact Assessment explicitly acknowledges the proposed development would breach the height restriction in the Heritage Conservation District Plan.
ERA Architects appear to believe that at least part of the development site falls outside the Heritage Conservation District boundary. In the July 22, 2014 report, ERA state:
“The document (by Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd) concludes that the proposed development achieves a balance between the heritage and intensification goals of the Town by setting the nine-storey portion of the building outside of the Heritage Conservation District boundary, thus maintaining the Main Street South streetscape.”
This is manifestly incorrect. The proposed nine storey building was entirely within the HCD boundary, with its three storey height cap.
There may be correspondence between the Town and ERA picking up on these points. I do not know.
The latest peer review does not correct obvious errors (Park Street instead of Park Avenue) nor does it examine the Heritage Impact Assessment through the lens of the Town’s Heritage Conservation District Plan which, under the terms of the contract, it is obliged to do.
ERA Architects has not fulfilled the terms of its contract with the Town.
For your ease of reference I am attaching the relevant documentation from the Town.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Gordon Prentice
President
Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (Newmarket Branch)
(The email above corrects two errors in the original. In the fourth paragraph the word “protective” was missed out. In the 8th paragraph “seven” appeared as six.)
Page 188 of 268