Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 10 March 2016

These arresting figures come from a survey of employment and industry that York Region has carried out across all nine municipalities since 1998.

In March last year I broke a story (if that doesn’t sound too immodest) about Newmarket generating a paltry 100 new jobs between 2009 and 2014 compared with Aurora’s 5, 700. After a storm of controversy the figures were subsequently revised upwards giving Newmarket 570 new jobs and Aurora 5,920.

I only picked up on this last year because I was physically present in the Regional Council Chamber listening to the debate in the Committee of the Whole which is neither broadcast nor streamed.

So today I go along to the Regional HQ to learn about the Employment and Industry Report for 2015.

Local statistics

Paul Bottomley, the Manager of Policy, Research and Forecasting, goes to the lectern to give his presentation. All the key points are projected onto a giant screen. In his preamble he tells us the details for the individual nine municipalities do not form part of the presentation but council members have been given a handout and the information will be sent on to the constituent municipalities. Hmmmm.

This is information that is not available to the public. Why?

Mr Bottomley completes his tour d’horizon and takes one or two questions. Later, as he gets up to leave the Council Chamber, I follow him out.

Excuse me, Sir

Excuse me, I say, as I sidle up alongside him. I ask him why the information on individual municipalities has not been included in this year’s report. Was it because of the huge kerfuffle last year? He tells me they wanted to focus on what is happening Region-wide. Fair enough, I say. But can I see a copy?

Mr Bottomley agrees this is public information but, rather quaintly, it is not made available to the public. You’ve got to ask. He politely gives me his card and I email him with a request. I get the information an hour later. (Open York Region Municipal Profiles 2015 at the bottom of the page.) I am impressed.

The details of employment growth by municipality show Newmarket gained 570 jobs (or 1.5%) in 2014-15 and Aurora 201 jobs (or 1%).

The average annual employment growth over the period 2005-2014 was 0.2% in Newmarket and 3.2% in Aurora.

Business growth over the period 2005-2014 was 1.4% in Newmarket and 2.3% in Aurora.

I learn that in Newmarket

“employment in health care and social assistance sector was the primary driver of growth, adding close to 2,000 jobs to the Town’s employment base since 2005. This sector also experienced the most growth between 2014 and 2015.”

Across the Region employment is growing, outpacing national and provincial growth rates. York Region is the second biggest business hub in Ontario (after Toronto) with 48,910 businesses. Manufacturing is still the largest single sector in York Region. It has rebounded to 79,000 jobs in 2015, up from 73,000 jobs in 2010.

Working at home

I hear that work-at-home employment is on the rise. It is estimated there were 43,000 home based jobs in York Region in 2015, up from 29,400 in 2001. This trend is, I think, likely to accelerate given the changes in technology.

Curiously, there are only a few desultory questions from council members. The Chair wants to know about the impact of internet shopping. Georgina’s Margaret Quirk asks about employment in agriculture. And Newmarket’s regional councillor John Taylor wants to know if the Region is on track to deliver on the jobs/population ratio. He wants this information every year. Paul Bottomley tells him they are just a little shy of reaching the targets in the growth plan for jobs/population but not so much as you would notice the difference.

All fascinating stuff.

No need to keep the local statistics under wraps.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 09 March 2016

Dave Ruggle, the senior planner responsible for the Clock Tower file, told the Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee last night that Bob Forrest’s proposed redevelopment on Main Street will likely be considered by the Town’s Committee of the Whole on Monday 18 April. He also confirmed there probably would be a second public meeting given the first one was over two years ago, on 3 February 2014.

Athol Hart, who chairs the influential statutory Advisory Committee, said Forrest’s proposals would be considered formally at its next meeting on 5 April 2016 following a report by a sub-committee.

Insurance Cover

In a powerful presentation, Doug Booth, the chair of the Board of Trustees of Trinity United Church, expressed concerns about the impact of any construction and excavations. He told the Advisory Committee the Church would want the developer to underwrite the cost of insuring against catastrophic damage. He said $10m of insurance would be required. Mr Booth drew attention to the delicate and fragile stained glass windows which need special care and attention.

In a letter to Athol Hart dated 8 March 2016 the Chair of Trinity’s Church Council, John Ostime, wrote:

“While we support improved and increased residential space on Main Street, we are very concerned with the proposal. Specifically, we are concerned with the height of the development and its impact on the daylight available to the church. Also, we are concerned with parking in an area already with limited space available and we are extremely concerned with the flow of the underground stream.”

“Trinity United has already had to make a substantial expenditure due to shifting of our walls caused by a change in flow of the water. Any future development must take into account the water flow. As we all know, the water will flow and find its path of least resistance. Trinity United as well as many other buildings in downtown Newmarket will be badly impacted if any proposed building impacts the water flow and is not accounted for properly.”

Wrong place

The Advisory Committee also heard from Anne Martin, a leading light on the downtown business improvement area committee and former council candidate for Ward 5. Her slide presentation showed how the 6 storey condo in Aurora at Yonge and Wellington – currently under construction – was already negatively dominating the surrounding residential area.

She takes the view that Bob Forrest’s proposed apartment building is in the wrong place.

Forrest’s seven storey apartment building is within the boundaries of the Heritage Conservation District which stipulates a maximum height of three storeys. The policy makes it clear:

“demolition and replacement of historic buildings needs to be avoided since the conservation of historic buildings is essential to maintaining the district’s authentic historic character and revitalizing the district.”

Forrest’s plans involve the demolition of a string of historic commercial properties including one, at 184-186 Main Street, dating from 1845. It was owned by Charles Simpson who was apprenticed under Dr John Bentley for seven years to become an apothecary. He ran his business from this property. He died during a devastating typhoid epidemic that decimated Newmarket in 1879, taking the lives of one in every 10 people.

Façades to be saved from the wrecking ball

Forrest wants to retain the façade of this building and others that will come down if he gets approval from councillors.

Bob Forrest’s properties at 180-194 Main Street lie within the boundaries of Newmarket’s Heritage Conservation District. On 21 October 2013 Newmarket Council enacted the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Bylaw 2013-51 and it came into effect on that day except for the land owned by Forrest which is the subject of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

In August 2013 Bob Forrest filed a rezoning application to redevelop the lands at 180­-194 Main Street. He says his application was lodged at the Town before the Bylaw came into effect and was complete. He has appealed to the OMB on this point. The Heritage Conservation District Policy, which is the subject of the Bylaw, was agreed in 2011.

A date has not been set for hearing of the OMB appeal until after Newmarket Council makes a decision on the rezoning application for the Forrest-owned lands.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 05 March 2016

Bob Forrest’s planning application for a monstrous and out-of-place 7 storey apartment building in the heart of Newmarket’s heritage conservation district has now been lodged with the Town. It is expected to be considered by the Town’s Committee of the Whole in April or May.

But, before then, it goes to the influential Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee which meets on Tuesday 8 March 2016 at the Town’s HQ at 395 Mulock Drive.

The agenda at item 8(b) under “Designated property Maintenance and Concerns” refers to Main Street Clock Tower – 178-180 Main Street. These heritage properties have been boarded up for ages.

A covering note from Dave Ruggle, the senior planner responsible for the file, draws attention to supporting documents which include a complete package of drawings relating to the proposed development and the full Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). (You can read these documents by clicking on agenda item 8(b).)

He says the drawings include a “revised” site plan and an “updated” HIA. In what way, I wonder, has the site plan been revised and the HIA updated?

Mr Ruggle goes on to say:

“Please be advised that the Heritage Impact Assessment will be peer reviewed.”

This rather begs the question: who exactly will be peer reviewing the HIA of this very controversial planning application? This is hugely important. If the Town’s own planners come down in favour of Forrest’s proposal and this view is buttressed by an "independent expert third party" HIA review then Forrest wins. The Town’s heritage district is changed forever.

OMB boycott

If councillors were to vote against a recommendation of their own planners in these circumstances Forrest would appeal to the OMB with a 95% chance of success. (He already has an appeal at the OMB which is sleeping.) The Town’s own planners, following the Glenway precedent, would boycott the OMB Hearing saying they cannot be forced to argue the Town’s case if councillors have chosen to ignore their advice.

So. What is to be done?

If I were a member of the Heritage Newmarket Advisory Committee I would ask:

1. When will the HIA peer reviewer be chosen?
2. What criteria will be used to select the peer reviewer?
3. What is the process used in selecting the peer reviewer?
4. Has the peer reviewer substantial experience in assessing the merits or otherwise of developments in Heritage Conservation Districts?
5. Where can I access and read previous assessments and recommendations of the peer reviewer which relate to developments in Heritage Conservation Districts?

There are any number of highly qualified planners and architects out there working in the heritage field. Many of them swap notes on the National Trust for Canada website looking at ways in which the integrity of heritage conservation districts can be preserved given the challenges of today when developers, like Bob Forrest, are constantly knocking at the door.

Now is the time to raise the issue of the peer review - not later when the views of the Town’s Planning Department are settled (if they are not already).

Tuesday’s agenda also flags up a report (at item 12c) from the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Advisory Group.

Now that all the papers relating to the Forrest development are in the public domain I think we can expect a lively debate on Tuesday.

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

Update on 7 March 2016: I learn today that ERA Architects is the firm used by the Town of Newmarket to carry out peer reviews on Heritage Impact Assessments. I am told the peer reviewer is selected through an RPF process where firms submit their proposals which are then evaluated against a set of criteria.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 04 March 2016

Yesterday, at the Small Claims Court in Newmarket, Deputy Judge Bernard Aron ruled that Maddie Di Muccio’s libel action against regional councillor John Taylor should proceed to full trial.

Di Muccio now has 60 days to ask the Court to set a trial date.

Astonishingly, the Judge called for the police to be physically present in Court before he would begin the settlement hearing.

Di Muccio has now amended her original claim and now alleges, in addition to defamation, Taylor committed misfeasance and malfeasance in public office. She says he was responsible for

“abuse of power, intentional infliction of mental suffering and injurious falsehoods, targeted malice, breach of confidence and breach of privacy”.

In her amended statement of claim Di Muccio comes across as a tortured soul. She says Taylor “has a history of abusing his authority in office to defame my character”. He displays “an arrogant, high handed and abusive attitude” towards her. She says Taylor continues to defame her character “even as a private citizen”.

Di Muccio stressed out

She says this has taken its toll on her health. Taylor’s alleged false statements about her continue to make her a “target of ridicule” in her own community and this has caused her great personal stress which required “significant medical intervention”.

Maddie Di Muccio is, of course, a well known drama queen but no-one wants to see her health suffer as a result of all this. It is open to her to drop the action against Taylor at any time before the matter goes to trial. No-one is forcing her to extract $5,000 in damages from Taylor. She brings this on herself.

She and her perpetually angry husband, John Blommesteyn, should strike camp and move on with their lives. Both of them spend a huge amount of time shaking their fists at the Moon and yelling about all sorts of imagined injustices.

If Di Muccio’s Court action against Taylor succeeds I shall be astonished.

In fact, I am amazed it got this far.

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