Gordon Prentice at Large - Politics in Newmarket
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
We are now less than two weeks away from the OMB Clock Tower prehearing and we still do not know the terms of the "agreement in principle" that was entered into by the Town and Bob Forrest in closed session of the Committee of the Whole on 24 June 2013. 
That's why I am taking a deputation to the Council on Monday (24 April). It will be my final stab at getting the information before the OMB process starts. Then it will be brought up formally as an issue.
We know some kind of agreement exists. On 5 September 2015, Forrest told his business partners:
"Bob Sheaffer is drafting the land swap agreement. When we are happy with it, it will be reviewed by the Mayor and senior staff, then we must go before Committee of the Whole in camera to seek their blessing on it. We already have their agreement in principle."
On 23 February 2016, the then Town Solicitor, Esther Armchuk, told me the Council received a land exchange request from the Clock Tower developer but deferred any final decision until the application for a zoning by-law amendment received approval from the Council. As we know, it was denied. She told me:
If or when the developer's development application comes before Council, the details of the requested land exchange will likely become public information."
That hasn't happened.
What's the big secret?
So why is it so important to keep this information under lock and key?
If councillors were told that the proposed land swap could mean some public parking spaces under Market Square that wouldn't come as a huge surprise.
But were they aware that the land swap would allow for the manipulation of the Clock Tower development's FSI which would, in turn, have a direct impact on the development's built form? This would allow Forrest's development to appear much bigger than its neighbours on Main Street, shattering the Town's existing FSI and height standards for the old downtown.
At the statutory public meeting on 9 May 2016, Forrest remarked in his insouciant way:
"There is no issue of a failure for us to be to scale."
Excuse me? We now know the success of the entire project depended on a covert manipulation of the development's FSI.
On 27 March 2017, the Town told me:
"The Town maintains its position to continue to withhold the records at this time. Council discussions related to any land transaction that has not or will not close(d) remain confidential until such a time as their disclosure will no longer have an impact."
Clock Tower and Glenway
Of course, this very same strategy was deployed during the OMB Glenway Hearing.
The Board, in its written decision on 18 November 2014, observed:
"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."
In fact, on 17 March and 28 April 2008, the Town considered in closed session the possible purchase of the Glenway lands but decided, on the recommendation of the CAO, Bob Shelton, that
"the Municipality was not in the golf course business and the property should not be pursued."
Of course, the Town should not have asked itself whether it was in the golf course business but whether the Glenway lands should be acquired for public open space purposes. At that time it was private open space.
The Town consciously chose not put this information before the OMB.
Changing the dynamic
Had it been made available to the public at that time it would have changed the whole dynamic.
Instead it came to light as a result of a Freedom of Information request I submitted (along with the Glenway Preservation Association) on 24 June 2015.
What does this tell me about the whole OMB process?
Plainly, it is not about getting to the truth.
It is about gaming the system to get the result you want.
These days (and, admittedly, with the benefit of hindsight) it would have been an astute move for the Town to acquire the Glenway lands for public open space.
Of course there is a big difference between Glenway and the Clock Tower. Back in 2014, during the OMB Glenway Hearing, we didn't know the Town had considered buying the Glenway lands. But we do know the Town has an agreement in principle with Bob Forrest.
The OMB will know that too.
I doubt that the Town will be able to keep details of the agreement in principle under wraps
"until their disclosure will no longer have an impact."
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
Read this first. The OMB prehearing on Bob Forrest's Clock Tower development will be held at 10am on Wednesday 3 May 2017 in the Council Chamber at 395 Mulock Drive, Newmarket. Here is a condensed Reader's Digest version explaining how we got here. Forrest's OMB Appeal will throw up a million issues, many of the more important are not even touched on in this 
blog. Over the coming days I shall look at the issues, one by one, that will take centre stage.
The Background: The developer, Bob Forrest, sought a Zoning By-law amendment to allow him to build a seven storey apartment building around the Clock Tower - the old Federal Post Office on Main Street South which is designated. Three historic commercial buildings south of the Clock Tower also in Forrest's ownership would be demolished with their facades preserved, if possible. The proposed development lies in the very heart of the Town's Heritage Conservation District.
The application was considered by councillors at a Committee of the Whole on 28 November 2016 when it was denied. An alternative, proposed by the Town's planning staff, was not supported by Forrest nor by councillors and it too was rejected.
These decisions were ratified by the full Council at a meeting on 5 December 2016 following which Forrest appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The Town's Newmarket Heritage Advisory Committee, ably led by Athol Hart, is "adamantly" opposed. So too is the BIA (Business Improvement Area) which represents businesses in the historic downtown. (The photo below shows Main Street in the 1950s)
The Clock Tower application has morphed through three distinct iterations - nine storeys then six and now seven. In every case the development could only proceed with Town-owned land being made available to the applicant.
Forrest claims an "agreement in principle" was entered into with the Town which would allow him to use Town land for his underground car park. Without this, his project, quite literally, could not get off the ground.
The Market Square Project
Parking in the old downtown has always been an issue and as far back as 2003 the Town had a Market Square "project" which would look at parking infrastructure and how it could be improved. It was against this background that Forrest put out feelers to the Town once he had acquired the Clock Town building in early 2011. He subsequently purchased the historic commercial buildings to the south of the Clock Tower and with them the rights to a small area of surface parking in Market Square.
Forrest believed he could kill two birds with one stone. He would do a land swap, exchanging his small parcel of surface land on Market Square for a much larger Town owned space under Market Square where he could locate the underground parking his development needed.
The developer held out the possibility of allocating some of this space for public parking. This was seen by senior Town staff and at least some councillors as a win-win. In the event, the public parking element proved to be a non-starter when the developer made it clear he was seeking $30,000 from the Town for every space.
The Land Swap
Although the idea of the land swap has been in the public domain for years - and is available for all to see in the plans and drawings related to the proposed development - the details of the so-called agreement in principle have never been published by the Town.
Forrest's proposed development in the heart of the Heritage Conservation District would have had a Floor Space Index of 4.27 (one of the highest densities in the whole of Newmarket) but was massaged down to 2.9 when the Town-owned underground land was factored in. These calculations were never made available to the public.
It was only in December of last year, seven months after the issue had been raised at the Statutory public meeting, that Town staff eventually conceded what we had long known - that the development's FSI was derived by using underground space not in Forrest's ownership.
Manipulating the Floor Space Index
The FSI for new developments in the Heritage Conservation District is 1.0 and there is a three storey height cap. Manipulating the FSI in this way directly influenced the nature of the development's built form.
Forrest sought to get all his ducks lined up in a row before formally submitting his application to the Town. Over a lengthy period, he got close to people and Town staff whom he thought could help him. As his development gestated and mutated, he worked at building support through his community "ambassadors" and "teams".
He and his senior colleague, Chris Bobyk, had one-to-one meetings with councillors reporting back to the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, and to the Town's Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton, on their views and what was said.
Staunch supporter
The Mayor became one of Forrest's staunchest supporters, declaring to the local press in April last year that the Clock Tower was just the kind of intensification the historic downtown needed. Fortunately, despite his enthusiasm, he could not take his councillor colleagues with him and in November 2016 - just before the crucial vote - the Deputy Mayor, John Taylor, wrote in his blog that he would not and could not support a seven storey development. He said:
"It is simply too large for the site and for the Heritage Conservation District."
In the event, the Mayor voted against the Forrest application on 28 November 2016, preferring to support the Staff compromise. This proposed restricting the height on Main Street to five storeys including step-backs and 7 storeys on Park Avenue, again including step-backs.
Mayor Isolated
The Mayor was left isolated and councillors voted both down.
On 5 December 2016, Newmarket Council confirmed its decision to deny the Forrest application for the following reason:
"The development of the subject lands as proposed would adversely impact the character of the established neighbourhood and adjacent properties within the Heritage Conservation District."
This triggered Forrest's appeal to the OMB.
(The sketch above is by George Luesby showing the west side of Main Street around 1920.)
Good Heritage Planning
Forrest's lawyer, Ira Kagan, told the acting Town Clerk on 14 December 2016:
"It is fair to say that Town Staff's most important issue (policy and otherwise) is heritage."
He goes on to say:
"The proposed development represents good heritage planning and good planning in general."
It is this contention that will be tested at the OMB.
- Details
- Written by: Gordon Prentice
104 Belfry Drive, Newmarket, has just sold for $1,240,000. It was on the market for seven days. It is a modest bungalow with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. 
The flyer that dropped into my mailbox from real estate brokers Jay Miller tells me it sold for a staggering $240,000 over the list price. And, more breathtaking still, a jaw dropping $380,000 above the previous highest sale of any house on the street.
Jay Miller cautiously adds - "to date of sale".
Housing hysteria
House prices are spinning wildly out of control. And it cannot go on. This madness is infecting the entire GTA. The prices in Toronto are insane.
According to statistics from the Toronto Real Estate Board the average price of all homes in the Toronto area (condos, townhouses, semi-detached and detached) was $916,567 last month - up $228,556 from a year ago. That is an unbelievable 33% year-over-year increase.
A long piece in this morning's Toronto Star says this:
"Earlier this week, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz warned that the Toronto-area housing market isn't sustainable. Moody's Investment Services suggested that the Canadian housing market invites comparisons to the US housing crisis of a decade ago."
Which brings me back to 104 Belfry Drive. What is it about this address that makes it so special?
Warning Bells
The house looks nice enough but appears unexceptional. No better and no worse than lots of houses in Town. But it sits on a big lot and is zoned R1-C - detached residential. The warning bells should start ringing.
I don't know if the buyer is going to (a) live in the house (b) leave it empty or (c) tear it down and build a monster home, towering over its neighbours.
Useless Zoning By-laws
But if it is the latter the new owner won't need any permissions from the Town providing the submitted site plan indicates the house satisfies the Town's useless zoning by laws.
But, of course, this is just speculation on my part. We shall soon see if the curtains go up or the house comes down to make way for another
Just like 1011 Elgin Street, 104 Belfry Drive is in Jane Twinney's Ward 3.
She is concerned about the rash of monster homes which are beginning to disfigure so many neighbourhoods.
Twinney calls for a review and debate
At the last Council meeting on 27 March 2017 Councillor Twinney, supported by the old warhorse Dave Kerwin, called for a staff review of Zoning By-law 2010-40 and By-law 2013-30:
"to address best practices related to infill development standards across the town as a whole and provide a report to Council".
She tells me she doesn't have a date yet for the debate.
I hope the Planning Department is not going to drag its feet, complaining of too much work.
The analysis has already been done.
What is missing is the will to implement measures to protect the Town's older neighbourhoods from massively inappropriate development.
As Newmarket's very own Dorian Baxter has been known to say:
it's time for a little less conversation and a little more action.
A new zoning by-law is needed now.