Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 10 May 2016

I am in the Council Chamber waiting for the big event to begin. It is the second statutory meeting on Bob Forrest’s latest plan for the Clock Tower. Six storeys then nine. Now we are on seven.

The place is packed and there is a uniformed fire fighter at the door to make sure the numbers stay within safety limits. People who are turned away are directed to an overflow room.

Sitting behind Bob Shelton, the Chief Administative Officer, their backs to the wall, is the developer Bob Forrest and his faithful lapdog, Chris Bobyk.

Van Bynen rules no applause allowed

The Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, calls the meeting to order and reminds us what is expected. We are to be on our best behaviour. Respectful. Mindful of decorum. He sternly warns us there must be no applause.

Bob Forrest makes his way to the table where he will take us through his presentation – which we learn has been cut back from 20 minutes to 10.

I notice his shirt tails are out.

He is a cool dude.

Or that’s what he wants us to think.

The last time I saw him he was wearing bright orange shoes.

He walks us through his proposals in a strangely pedestrian and listless way, making it clear he is happy to answer any questions.

Not so fast! The Mayor has other ideas.

“We’ll ask you to come back if there are any questions later on.”

Van Bynen’s safety first strategy

Van Bynen wants to hear from the many deputations first. This, of course, is Van Bynen’s safety first strategy. Questions to Forrest could open up lines of questioning (for example, on the land swap) that the old banker would find difficult to control.

By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, 20 deputations are, for a variety of reasons, against the Forrest development. Seven are in favour.

The last time I looked at the on-line petition 797 people were against Forrest’s development and 218 in favour. Crude numbers can often be misleading but, in this case, real people have posted real, considered comments on why they oppose Forrest’s proposed make-over of the Town’s heritage district.

Now we are on to the deputations.

Real estate mover and shaker, Wasim Jarrah, is for the development but doesn’t show up. Now it is Art Weis (for) and Siegfried Wall (against). Siegfried has too much material. He eviscerates Forrest on the crucial issue of density.

Where can I buy a cauliflower?

Now it is David Kempton (for) who tells us in his tortured way that he sympathises with the difficult decision facing councillors. (Don’t lose sleep over it.) Now his feisty partner, Peggy Stevens (for), tells us why Main Street has got to change with the times. She wants to buy her cauliflowers downtown. (I made that up.)  Greg King (for) follows.

Now the splendid Ann Campbell (against) explains why the heritage district is worth protecting. Heather Burling (against) tells us she is going to fight for what she believes in. You don’t do things that harm other people and their neighbourhoods.

Heather is followed by Margaret Davis (against), 94 years old, who gives a stirring speech on why the area’s heritage district should be respected. She deserves and gets a round of applause. This displeases you-know-who.

Order! Order please! cries our stuffed shirt Mayor, all process and procedure.

Next up is Main Street business owner Ann Martin (against) whose easy conversational manner masks a steely resolve to protect Main Street from the calamity that is Forrest’s Clock Tower.

Scale model steals the show

Now it is Lisa Heckbert (against) who speaks on behalf of Ron Eibel (against) who created the magnificent Clock Tower model showing its huge overbearing mass and scale. The BIA’s Glenn Wilson (against) follows. Main Street’s business organization blows Forrest a big raspberry. They don’t want it.

Now it is the turn of another business owner, Olga Paiva (against). She tells me afterwards she was nervous. It didn’t show. Another bravura performance. Now it is Mollie Coles Tonn speaking on behalf of her husband, James (against), who is out of the country. Now it is the turn of Newmarket’s grande dame, Jackie Player (for) followed by me (against).

We move swiftly on to John Heckbert (against) who, on the big screen, shows us various calculations about the merits or otherwise of owner occupied vs rental. Now Jude Lauzon (against) tells us there is no cure for stupid.

The councillors remain expressionless. Their faces like Easter Island statues.

Now Elaine Adam (against) warns of the dangers of retail businesses, facing years of construction disruption, upping sticks and leaving. Dave Partington (for) follows.

Ted wants to tell us about Joe but Tony says no

Now it is the turn of Ted Heald (against) who wants to tell us something about Councillor Joe Sponga. (There are rumours on the street there is a tape recording of Joe speaking forthrightly on various matters but who knows? I am an innocent in these matters.)

The Mayor, increasingly testy, will have none of it. He is upset with Ted and constantly refers to him as “Sir!”

“If you have an issue about any councillor there is a process!”

I hear groans behind me. The Mayor and his processes!

Now the Mayor is pulling rank.

“We’ll recess and I’ll ask to have this gentleman removed from the room!”

Whoo Hoo! What excitement!

Ted gathers his papers and considerately allows the meeting to proceed without interruption. We move on to Ted Bomers who is, I suppose, on balance unconvinced. I put him down as against.

He says 213 housing units – mainly multi bedroom town houses have been added to the downtown housing stock in recent years without transforming the fortunes of Main Street. How can Forrest’s additional 165 units – many one bedroom - make a material difference? An interesting angle.

Evicted by Forrest

Now it is the turn of Jone Wright (against), a Main Street business owner of ten years standing who was evicted by Bob Forrest. She speaks powerfully of the contribution small businesses make to the street and why the Town should back them.

Up next is the splendid chair of the Newmarket Heritage Advisory Committee, Athol Hart (against), who reads out a very lengthy and impressive sounding motion from his Committee. “Whereas” follows “Whereas” follows “Whereas” until we finally get to the nub of it. His Committee “adamantly recommends” Forrest’s proposal is rejected.

Malcolm Watts (against) follows.

Why stop at 12 storeys?

Now it is Terry Alderson (for), a local historian and life member of the Newmarket Historical Society. He says his books are in the library. He tells us 7 storeys is too modest. It should be twelve!

Because he has such a distinguished pedigree, I collar him afterwards and tell him the underground car park couldn’t go down deep enough to accommodate all those extra parking spaces. He says the parking for the 12 storey building should go on the other side of Main Street. Oh! I see. So simple!

Ness Daniel, a business owner on Main Street, working his socks off 7am-7pm, is against. And so too is Chris Howie. A man of few words. He is against.

Show of hands

Now the councillors are invited to comment. John Taylor says we are all wonderful. He loves us all. What a civilized and well mannered debate. He is proud of us all. He wants a show of hands from everyone who has ever rented. I stick my hand up. To my mind this is not about tenure.

With my hand waving about in the air, I find myself wondering if our Mayor will ask us if we support his stated position that

“The Clock Tower is a great example of the intensification we need.”

I don’t think so.

I think the great man now realizes he made a humungous mistake in publicly advocating the Clock Tower development and now he is furiously back pedaling, retreating into his safety zone of processes and procedures.

Everyone is, of course, allowed one slip-up. He realises now that discretion is the better part of valour.

Joe gets the last word

The last word goes to Ward 5 councillor, Joe Sponga, the man at the centre of last night’s controversy. He tells us:

“I feel very confident and very positive that through a constructive dialogue that we’ve seen tonight the Clock Tower development is gonna be something that we can all be proud of at the end of the day.”

Sounds like for. Could be against.

That's our Joe.

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

You can watch the video here. The statutory public meeting starts 2 hours 9 minutes in.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 07 May 2016

Last month, in a gushing public tribute from a long-serving Newmarket councillor, we learned that Bob Forrest is a gentleman whose word is his bond. He is “absolutely transparent”. 

So, as he takes centre stage on Monday evening, I know that Bob will be completely straight with us.

And I hope he will bring along a scale model of his proposed Clock Tower development so we can have a better understanding of how all the pieces fit together.

In Bob’s presentation on Monday (agenda item 19a) he will say he wants to separate fact from fiction (slide 23). He will say it is a fact that three and six storeys are permitted on Park Avenue. He is proposing seven. Bob is being economical with the truth.

The importance of zoning: how Bob gets to 7 storeys

The proposed development, above ground, falls entirely within the zoning classification Historic Downtown Urban Centre Zone (UC-D1) and goes right up to Bob’s property line. The underground garage extends beyond the property line into land owned by the Town of Newmarket and into another zoning classification – the Downtown Urban Centre Zone (UC-D2).

The Town’s Zoning By-law 2010-40 specifies a maximum height for new developments of three storeys (or 9 metres) in UC-D1 and six stories (or 18 metres) in UC-D2.

Bob uses the fact that he will be taking ownership of Town land in UC-D2 to justify his claim that six storeys are allowed for his Clock Tower development. It is a three card trick in all but name. (Bob told his colleages last year that he believed he could get approval for a seventh storey if the building were rental.)

Town makes its land available to Bob: but we don’t know the terms

Bob wants to enter into a strata ownership agreement with the Town which would allow for the underground parking area to extend beyond the site boundary. Town land would, therefore, be conveyed to Bob by way of stratified title. Crucially, the Town refuses to publish the details of the agreement-in-principle it entered into with Bob in 2013 telling me property matters must remain confidential.

I may be wrong about all this. In which case I shall be eating a lot of humble pie on Monday evening. But the upside is this. Even if I am wrong, honest Bob will have to tell us what he provisionally agreed with the Town on the land swaps way back in 2013.

Fact vs Fiction

Bob will tell us the objectives of his presentation are to (a) review the current Clock Tower proposal (b) address heritage considerations (c) distinguish fact from fiction and (d) answer questions.

On Thursday (5 May) I asked the Town’s planning people if they would comment on Bob’s presentation, giving us their professional planning view on whether Bob is correct on all the matters he states as fact on his slides. No. That would be a step too far. I am told we must wait for the forthcoming comprehensive report to a future Committee of the Whole and Council.

So, on Monday night folks, we, the public, are on our own. The Town will not be providing a commentary on Bob’s presentation nor offer any validation of the points he makes. Doesn’t really surprise me. After all, in a very real sense, Bob and the Town are partners. And the Mayor is the project's handmaiden.

Bob pours a quart into a pint pot

Bob uses his slide 6 to compare his proposal to the Town’s By-law. In an oversight, Bob forgets to mention that By-law 2010-40 specifies a maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 1.0 and his project comes in at 2.9. This is critically important. The FSI is the ratio of a building's total floor area to the size of the piece of land upon which it is built. Put simply, Bob is trying to pour a quart into a pint pot.

Bob’s own Planning Justification Report tells us the Historic Downtown Centre Zone (UC-D1) permits up to 80 residential units per net hectare and up to and including a 1.0 FSI. Yet the cheeky Bob wants a residential density of 430 units per net hectare and an FSI of 2.9.

Bob’s report justifies this by saying:

“While the proposed density exceeds the Official Plan policy requirements in Table 1, it must be recognized that the Proposal does not have the benefit of additional land for surface parking and landscaping.”

“The units per hectare value appears much higher due to the building footprint mirroring the property line and as such this condition must be taken into consideration when considering the appropriateness of the density.” (my emphasis)

Whoa!

Who says we must take this into consideration? The site, quite simply, cannot carry this scale of development.

Bob drafts the Town’s Zonong By-law Amendment

The ever helpful Bob has conveniently drafted a Zoning By-law Amendment for the Town of Newmarket. (You can read it at Appendix B in Bob’s Planning Justification Report).

Bob wants an FSI of 3.0!

And he wants the maximum building height to go from 9 metres or three storeys to 21.5 metres or 7 storeys.

Old buildings. I just love ‘em

Bob cherishes heritage buildings and tells us:

“the retention of historic buildings is important to us, and to the Town of Newmarket”. (Slide 12)

Bob loves these old buildings so much he plans to knock them down! The facades will be the only bits left to remind us of what was once there. The historic commercial buildings at 184,188 and 194 Main Street South will be a heap of rubble behind the smiley facades.

Four more parking spaces

Bob tells us there will be four more parking spaces than are currently available – after years of construction and mayhem.

Bob has been busy “collaborating with near neighbours” including Trinity United Church and Newmarket Public Library (slide 21). Trinity told the Heritage Advisory Committee it wanted to be indemnified to the tune of $10 million against any damage caused by Bob’s construction work. I don’t know what guarantees he has given.

Significantly, Bob does not mention the shadows that will fall across Trinity United Church. His Planning Justification report on page 15, risking an avenging bolt of lightning, concludes

“there is no significant impact from the proposed development on the enjoyment of surrounding land uses.”

We must all pray he is right. But the congregation will wish to see the evidence.

Bob's Tenants evicted. Retail units on Main boarded up for 18 months.

Bob tells us in his website that he is an honourable man, of conviction and tenacity. I wonder how his former business tenants on Main Street South view him?

They will, no doubt, have their own stories to tell. The leases all had demolition clauses which allowed Bob to terminate with six months notice. The business tenants met Bob a  number of times as he was putting his plans together. He offered to extend the leases to nine months and then on a month by month basis. Bob told them this arrangement was conditional on them withdrawing all objections to his development proposals.

At the end of the day, they were all evicted before Bob had any Town approvals to redevelop the site.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 05 May 2016

Maddie Di Muccio’s defamation action against Regional Councillor John Taylor will be held in the Small Claims Court at Newmarket at 10am on Friday 28 October 2016.

I had hoped the increasingly fragile Di Muccio, a former Newmarket councillor, would put the past behind her. But no. The circus act continues even though there is no prospect whatsoever that Di Muccio will get the scalp she treasures above all others.

It is not going to work out that way.

She has already lost an action for alleged discrimination against her by the Town of Newmarket.

In the action against Taylor, Di Muccio amended her original claim and now alleges, in addition to defamation, he committed “misfeasance and malfeasance” in public office. She says he was responsible for intentionally inflicting mental suffering on her. She says he continues to defame her character “even as a private citizen”. She wants her pound of flesh from Taylor in the shape of $5,000 in damages to compensate for her hurt feelings

Di Muccio is consumed by bitterness, unwilling and unable to move on, using surrogates to malign Taylor for every imagined injustice in Newmarket.

I look on from afar and it is pitiful to watch.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 02 May 2016

On 21 October 2013, Newmarket’s Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, signed By-law 2013-51, bringing into force the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District which specifies a 3 storey height cap on any new developments.

On 11 April 2016, Van Bynen told the Era newspaper that the seven storey Clock Tower development

“is a great example of the intensification we need.”

and

“There may need to be some fine tuning on how we get there.”

but

“This is the kind of invigoration Main needs if it truly intends on being sustainable in the longer term.”

According to Van Bynen, these robust and forthright statements should not be taken as support for the proposed Clock Tower development. Oh no!

Van Bynen supports the concept and principle of the Clock Tower project

On 18 April 2016 at the Town’s Committee of the Whole, Van Bynen said:

“I don’t think our community is so naïve as to think that, by making general statements about a concept and a principle, is evidence of having a pre-determined position.”

However, by supporting the concept and the principle of the Clock Tower project Van Bynen is abandoning any pretence that he supports his own Heritage Conservation District By-law. The two are mutually exclusive.

The Heritage Impact Assessment that Forrest himself commissioned (from Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd, Architects) makes it crystal clear that the proposed development does not meet the Heritage Conservation District Plan in terms of height restrictions but

“could be mitigated in order to allow the Town to meet a number of other planning goals in the Historic Downtown Core”.

Forrest’s Heritage Impact Assessment goes on:

“In this current development proposal, the new commercial/residential building seeks to balance the complementary interests of increasing density, while preserving heritage character as best as possible. The proscribed goal of maintaining two-to-three-storey buildings throughout the HCD boundaries is weighed against the goals of increased density, sustainability, financial viability and vibrancy in the historic Downtown.” (My emphasis)

The Town has commissioned a peer review of the Forrest Heritage Impact Assessment which will be carried out by ERA Architects in Toronto. It will come to the same inescapable conclusion – that the Clock Tower development falls squarely outside the terms of the Heritage Conservation District Plan. They too will almost certainly comment at length on the mitigation measures promised by Forrest and will probably welcome the retention of facades, even though the accompanying historic buildings will end their days facing the wrecking ball.

Demolition and Destruction

But let us be clear about one thing. The slippery Van Bynen is throwing overboard all talk of heritage conservation and he is embracing “revitalization” with a vengeance, even if that means the demolition and destruction of heritage properties and the obliteration of renowned panoramas and vistas.

But it doesn’t stop there.  The prolonged construction period for such a huge undertaking could force many Main Street businesses to the wall. Forrest’s development doesn’t meet the Town’s parking standards by a mile. It would cast a shadow on Trinity United Church and its famed stained glass windows. And the excavation of Market Square for the three level underground garage could change the flow of the underground water courses, exposing other fragile heritage structures to damage. This point was made forcefully by the Newmarket Heritage Advisory Committee whose report to the Committee of the Whole

“adamantly recommends that the Council of the Town of Newmarket rejects this proposal”.

Trust me says Van Bynen

And, to cap it all, Van Bynen, is prepared to make Town land available, without which this whole monstrous project cannot proceed.

Van Bynen has the nerve to ask us to trust him. He tells the Era:

“Let’s give Council the opportunity to take an objective review of what’s available. Let’s review within the context of what the objective of revitalizing Main was all about. The fact is, there’s been modification talks about the desire for the developer to find something that will work. We’ve learned through Glenway that polarity doesn’t help anybody.”

Personally, I don’t trust Van Bynen to take an objective review of what is available. It is as plain as a pikestaff that he has made his mind up.

That is the long and short of it.

And that’s why he should not be chairing the Statutory public Meeting on Monday 9 May 2016.

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