Details

Written by: Gordon Prentice

Published: 26 January 2015

Later today, Newmarket councillors will be getting a presentation from the Town’s legal people on the ins-and-outs of the municipality buying and selling land and property. It all comes under the rubric of “strategic property”.

I am left wondering, yet again, if the Town of Newmarket ever considered buying the Glenway lands? Was there any discussion at all at Mulock Drive about whether the Town should acquire these lands? Did the Mayor ever contemplate the Town buying the Glenway lands? Maybe the question will arise in some form in the closed part of the meeting today.

We have it on the authority of the longest serving councillor in Canada, Dave Kerwin, that, a few years ago, “we had the opportunity of purchasing the land and we didn’t.”

This could mean (a) the seller made a direct approach to the Town or (b) the Town approached the seller or (c) the Town was simply aware that the golf course lands were on the market.

In any event, in her written decision on Glenway, issued on 18 November 2014, the OMB adjudicator, Susan Schiller, observed:

“In early 2010, the Town initiated studies as part of Official Plan Amendment 10, the Urban Centres Secondary Plan. The evidence before the Board is that by the time these studies were initiated the Town was well aware that the subject lands were no longer in active use as a golf club and golf course and were available for development.”

“There is no evidence before the Board that the Town took any steps to acquire these lands for public open space and public park purposes.”

We know the Town put out some feelers about the Glenway West lands last year. But we are still in the dark about the so-called “subject lands” – the land that is about to be built over.

Some may say this is all water under the bridge. Dave Kerwin has already made his position crystal clear:

“The sooner we move forward with this, the sooner we put the last four years behind us…  I just feel we should move on at this time and not exacerbate the situation and bring up old issues that we’ve already dealt with.”

The problem with this beguilingly simple approach is that a lot of issues have not been dealt with and, if they are not addressed, there is little chance of learning lessons for the future.

I always thought the Town’s planners and legal people were constantly scanning the horizon; on the look out for land and property that might be needed to fulfil the Town’s policy commitments.

But if elected and unelected officials had no discussions whatsoever with the Mayor (or, indeed, other councillors) about the possibility of acquiring the Glenway lands then why not say so?

Regional Councillor John Taylor set out his own thinking on the disclosure of information on 29 September 2014:

"Every Municipality has confidential memos and confidential reports. This is an absolute necessary tool, protecting the interests of residents in our communities. We have often conversations or negotiations or litigation or decisions that sharing them publicly would harm the residents’ interests in a financial way and in other ways.”

“…but in-camera discussions go through a process and most of them eventually, if not all of them, eventually, come out of camera. You go through a process that takes time and staff review it and they report back to us how to bring it out in its entirety or partially and at what stage.”

“At the end of the day there will still be matters that we simply cannot and will not disclose because it is not in the best interests of residents and I think it is very important that we discuss that and people understand that principle and that there are elected officials willing to stand by that principle.”

Fair enough. But information should not be withheld simply because it may cause embarrassment. At some point, people will want to know if the Town considered buying the Glenway lands and, if not, why not?

A “Glenway Process Report” will be coming up to the Committee of the Whole on 2 February 2015.

The Glenway Preservation Association is holding a community meeting on Thursday 12 February 2014 at 7pm at Crosslands Church where local people will be briefed on latest developments.

Details

Written by: Gordon Prentice

Published: 19 January 2015

To Mulock Drive for the site plan meeting on Glenway.

The developer, Marianneville, is unveiling plans to build 74 townhouse units on the site of the former golf club house. This is a taster of what is to come.

The new councillor for Ward 7, Christina Bisanz, complains that details were only made available last week and she wants the public to have a look at what is being put forward. She also wants details of the number of development blocks that will come up for site plan review.

This block and another east of Eagle Street are coming forward first because, says the woman from Marianneville, they are the easiest blocks to service and will cause the least amount of disruption. Another six blocks or so will follow.

Regional Councillor John Taylor asks about the phasing of the development. He wants the global picture and a sense of the timelines. We hear that the phasing is dependent on servicing allocations – hooking up to water and sewage.

Richard Zelinka, Marianneville’s planner, stresses that the townhouse development will not impact on the rest of Glenway - before telling us mature trees will be dug up from elsewhere in the old golf course and transplanted into the new development.

It is all very civilised and measured with everyone on their best behaviour.

But now a curmudgeonly Dave Kerwin dismisses Christina Bisanz’s call for public involvement before any decision is made. “The sooner we move forward the better” he says. “I’d hate to see this project delayed.”

He repeats himself a few times, saying we should move on.

And then he says casually: “We had the opportunity of purchasing the land and we didn’t.” 

Hmmmm.

I’d like to know when the former golf course lands were offered to the Town to buy. And for how much? Did the Town’s planners flag this up in a report to councillors? Did they recommend purchase? If not, why not? If the councillors decided not to buy, what were the reasons? Were all the councillors involved in the decision?

This information is likely to be in the public domain in some form, somewhere, but, in the way of these things, it is probably beautifully camouflaged.  In any event, I don’t recall seeing it. But that’s not to say it is not there. It’s likely I’ve just forgotten.

Anyway… these questions will probably surface at the “Glenway: Lessons Learned” meeting that has been promised by the Town.

All this is still, of course, highly relevant. By the Town’s own figures, the north west quadrant of Newmarket (which, of course, includes Glenway) will be short of 17.6 hectares of neighbourhood parkland at build-out – a shortfall far greater than any other part of town.

In the vote, Kerwin is supported by Jane Twinney, who is at his elbow and is easily influenced, but he has little support elsewhere.

John Taylor, Tom Hempen, Kelly Brome-Plumley and the Mayor all speak in support of Christina Bisanz’s position. Joe Sponga is absent.

Kerwin presses it to a vote knowing he will lose and then, eccentrically, seconds the successful motion to defer a decision pending a PIC (public information centre).

Strange behaviour. But these days, for Dave, it's par for the course.