Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 01 September 2015

To Mulock Drive for the first Committee of the Whole for the new term.

Mayor Tony Van Bynen is back from his leisurely river cruise on the Rhine. In an earlier unguarded moment, he tells me he has never had three weeks away from his desk before. He looks refreshed and ready for new challenges but the problems confronting him are, alas, old and very familiar.

We start with a long debate about parking problems in downtown. Joe Sponga, champion of the farmer’s market, is animated. He points to perfectly good parking bays that are fenced off by the Town and are out-of-bounds. Why? He complains about lack of enforcement of parking regulations.

The longest serving councillor in the Western Hemisphere, the irascible Dave Kerwin, is in full contrarian mode. He says he never has any difficulty finding somewhere to park. And the staff has (modest) safety concerns so he is going to back their recommendations – to the letter. Kerwin says he doesn’t want to be held liable if there is an accident and he didn’t back the staff.

Oh dear! So cantankerous yet so timid.

John Taylor states the obvious. Parking is an issue that will never be fully resolved. It will always be, in some sense, work in progress.

Kerwin’s eavestroughs

Now we are on to the proposed stormwater management rate, a new levy the Town is considering imposing on residents to cover the cost of controlling and treating storm water run-off. At the moment, the costs come out of our property taxes. The Town will shortly be consulting the public on various options.

A curmudgeonly Kerwin tells us he collects his rainwater which goes from his eavestroughs straight into a rain barrel. The water then goes onto his garden. Our green fingered model citizen says he deserves to pay less than people whose run-off goes straight into the Town’s waste water system. We learn he doesn’t generate much garbage yet he pays the same as those who throw out mountains of trash. He is outraged by the unfairness of it all!

Now we skip past agenda item 14 with no debate. This is all about a big development in Kerwin’s ward. Staff want to go out to public consultation on a proposal by the developer, Newmarket Cemetery Corporation/ 2394237 Ontario Inc (Forest Green Homes) to re-zone cemetery and other land, west of Leslie Street and north of Mulock Drive, to accommodate 91 freehold townhouses, 27 stack townhouses, 78 condominium townhouses and two mid rise apartments. By any measure, this is a big development. The Mayor is silent. No talk of defending the Official Plan.

The developer’s eyes and ears, Brad Rogers of Groundswell, is sitting a few feet away from me. As soon as it is clear there will be no debate on his client’s proposal he gets up and leaves. Job done.

The oldest house in Newmarket

The proposed development is next door to the wooded Bogart Trail with its attractive private lake. John Bogart House, the oldest house in Newmarket, is inconveniently situated on land the developer wants for other uses. So it is to be moved to a new location a short distance away.

The clapperboard house was constructed in 1811 and has been designated for its historical and architectural significance. John Bogart was a Quaker pioneer from Pennsylvania, who had a saw mill on the nearby creek. It is one of the first two storey residential buildings constructed north of Toronto. To me, this is quite a big deal.

Dave Kerwin might have told us the old house is open to the elements at the back with a non existent window letting in rain, snow and goodness knows what else. This bit of Newmarket history needs a quick repair job asap.

Silken Laumann and Town-owned land

Now we are on to Silken Laumann. The ward councillor, Tom Vegh, sounds as if he is reading from a prepared script. But that doesn’t bother me providing he is saying the right thing. And he is. He says he does not support the proposed development to build on meadowland, a stone’s throw from the railway. He says the developer needs Town owned land to proceed. The councillors decide to seek legal advice (which will be given at the end of the meeting today in closed session) and return to the issue at the next Council meeting on 14 September. Fair enough.

Now things are moving along at a rapid clip.

Ward 7 councillor, Christina Bisanz, asks what the public can expect from the forthcoming review of the councillors’ code of conduct. Andrew Brouwer, the on-the-ball Town Clerk, tells us there will be public consultation at 7pm on Wednesday 16 September at the Town’s Operations Centre at 1275 Maple Hill Court, Newmarket. It will look at a zillion things including the use of social media. Then councillors will chew the cud in a workshop and consider how to take things forward.

Bisanz calls for a staff report on Glenway

Now Christina Bisanz is on to one of the big issues on the agenda – Glenway. It has been hanging over this council for years and the councillors have a hang-dog expression, weary at the thought of yet another discussion on Glenway.

Bisanz wants a plan of action drawn up by staff – based on Glenn Pothier’s lessons learned report – identifying priorities for action within the next 90 days. Her motion is seconded by John Taylor.

Bisanz is in good form. She wants staff to go back to the Pothier report and see what was recommended and bring forward ten of the most critical things that have to change –  she wants them to look at the process, the dialogue, the discussion, the engagement of the public and the timeframe.

Kerwin says no

Now it is open for debate. Pitifully, no councillor wants to engage in a discussion about what happened. Taylor’s remarks are perfunctory. I sense they all want to move on.

They vote to back Bisanz with only Kerwin against. His arm bolt upright.

Now the Mayor is moving seamlessly into waffle mode. I hear about the Smart Growth for Communities Bill. There’s the First Reading and the Second Reading coming up. And this. And that. He could win a Pan Am medal in waffling.

Forget about the Province. This is the man who refuses to give answers to even the simplest and most straightforward questions about his role in the Glenway fiasco.

When did he first know that Ruth Victor, hired by the Town at a cost of $129,000, was going to recommend that Glenway golf course be built over? What did he do about it? When did he first learn that the Town’s own planners were going to boycott the Glenway OMB Hearing? What did he do about it?

I suspect we are never going to get the answers to these and other questions from the former banker, Van Bynen. He is just not wired to be open and straightforward. It is not in his DNA.

Nevertheless, the book isn’t closed on Glenway. It is important as a case study when the Province, finally, gets around to reforming the Ontario Municipal Board.

In this context, the Mayor’s continuing silence speaks volumes.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 29 August 2015

Why are Newmarket’s planners recommending councillors approve a new housing development just west of Silken Lauman Drive slap bang in the middle of protected meadowland within a stone’s throw of a GO rail track? The short answer is I don’t know.

In the report going up to councillors on Monday 31 August, staff says since the OMB pre-hearing on 26 March 2015

“the applicant has been providing additional material to departments and agencies for review. Staff have now received additional reports, studies and other submission material that indicates that most of the outstanding issues have been appropriately addressed.”

We are told the remaining issues are considered minor.

So I ask the planning department for sight of this additional material that had such a persuasive influence on the Town’s planners.

Earlier this week I am told this is no problem. Then, later, I am told that because the Town is in litigation with the developer at the OMB there could be a problem. Astonishingly, I am told I must first get the consent of the developer.

A senior member of the planning department generously offers to contact the developer on my behalf but I am still waiting to hear if I can see these important documents. I am assuming our councillors have not seen them either – but I could be wrong.

Planning staff recommendations are, in practice, decisions

The OMB Hearing is scheduled for 28 September 2015. If councillors reject the staff recommendation to approve the meadowlands development, where does that leave the Town at the OMB? Will the developer tell the OMB that Newmarket staff saw no objections to the development and their considered views were, perversely, rejected by elected officials?

If Glenway is any guide, the OMB will side with the developer and the Town’s own planning staff. And the mayor will mumble something about defending the official plan and challenging the developer at the OMB was “the right thing to do”.

The promised review of the OMB cannot come a moment too soon. It cannot be right that the views of our elected officials – including our Mayor, Tony Van Bynen – count for so very little.

When it comes to planning, our councillors are increasingly a decorative part of our Municipal constitution. The real power lies elsewhere.

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

PS The Ward councillor, Tom Vegh, has previously spoken out against the proposed development.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 28 August 2015

The libel action brought by former Newmarket councillor Maddie Di Muccio against Regional Councillor John Taylor will be heard next Friday, 4 September 2015, at 10am in the Small Claims Court at the Courthouse at Eagle Street West, Newmarket.

The notoriously litigious Maddie Di Muccio is claiming $5,000 in damages against Taylor for an alleged libel which, she says, made her a target of ridicule, hatred and contempt of others. 

For his part, Taylor says Di Muccio’s libel suit is “frivolous and vexatious”.

You can read the Court papers filed by Di Muccio and Taylor’s defence by opening “documents” in the panel top left and navigating to “Correspondence”.

As I am in the Superior Court of Justice I decide to check out the Small Claims Court room 2002 where the drama will play out. I discover a delicious taster for the main course next Friday.

I chance upon the case of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Elio Dalle Rive who, I learn, has previous form.

The presiding Judge is in his work wear. Black robe with red sash and the judicial collar. He is affable and accommodating even when Dalle Rive asks him to spell out his name, letter by letter. On the table between the plaintiff and defendant are boxes of tissues in case they are needed. A thoughtful touch.

The Bank says Dalle Rive refuses to pay an outstanding Mastercard debt of $13,558.59 and claims he is involved in a “sham debt elimination scheme”.

Long-time Aurora resident, Mr Dalle Rive, responds with a counterclaim against the Bank for $21,487.02. When asked to tell the Court why he thinks he is owed that money by the Bank he refuses to answer. He wants to know first if the CIBC suffered a financial loss as a result of his actions.

Now the judge is getting a tad exasperated but he is bending over backwards to be fair to the defendant. Now the lawyer for the Bank is wrapping things up, referring the Judge to a 2013 case from the Tax Court of Canada where inventive strategies for avoiding tax obligations were described as “vexatious litigation”.

Talking of which… next Friday will be a day of high drama. Taylor, or perhaps his lawyer, will have the opportunity to quiz his nemesis Maddie Di Muccio at length and in great detail. Woo Hoo!

Be there early to get a seat.

(The Judge reserved his decision in the CIBC v Elio Dalle Rive case but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he will find in the Bank’s favour.)

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

update on 4 September. Trial now rescheduled for 15 October 2015.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 24 August 2015

Later this month (31 August) Newmarket’s Planners will be asking councillors to approve a development of 28 Townhouses on designated meadow land which is part of the Natural Heritage System in the Town’s Official Plan. (See agenda item 15) The developer wants the Town to rezone the lands he owns from “Natural Heritage System (Meadow) to Emerging Residential”.

The planners hope to avoid an OMB hearing, triggered by the developer (292145 Ontario Limited) that is penciled in for 28 September 2015.

The proposed development which would be squeezed in between a hydro corridor and the GO rail track at the end of Silken Laumann Drive (a stone’s throw from the Municipal Offices at Mulock Drive) can only proceed if the Town makes available Town-owned land. In this respect it echoes similar concerns people had with the stalled Clock Tower development in Newmarket’s historic downtown. 

The meadow lands project has been in gestation for years, with the developer waiting for all his ducks to be lined up in a row. And now, apparently, they are.

Incredibly, planners want to give approval for a housing development which will be only 45 metres from the rail track. They say the results from noise and vibration studies are in “compliance with Ministry of the Environment requirements” while omitting to say that all windows in the Townhouses would first have to be closed tight shut.

The report from HGC Engineering, published over two years ago in July 2013 warns of low frequency noise and rumbling which has a “greater potential to transmit through exterior wall/window assemblies”.

Air Conditioning on 24 hours a day

It goes on: “The sound levels outside the front facades of the dwellings during day time and night time hours will exceed the criteria” (for acceptable noise). As a result air conditioning will be required.”

The small print in the developer’s Planning Justification Report concedes that warning clauses will have to be inserted in contracts alerting potential owners and tenants that railway noise could be intrusive.

The study was carried out before the announcement last year that the Province intends to dual track the Barrie line within ten years with a huge increase in rail traffic. The July 2013 report measured “sporadic rail pass bys”. The Transport Minister, Steven Del Duca, told me last month that the 70 GO trains per week on the Barrie line will increase to 200 within five years. 

But there is more to it than this. We know the widening of the railway corridor – a public policy imperative set by the Provincial Government – will, inevitably, consume additional precious meadow land.

Protecting or Salami Slicing our Natural Heritage?

Newmarket’s Official Plan explains the Natural Heritage System is made up of:

“locally significant Meadows, Woodlots and Wetlands and the network of water courses and floodplains feeding the Holland River”

and says these will be protected.*

The developer’s land sits in Meadow Type 2 which is outside the flood plain as opposed to Type 1 which is within it. No development is permitted in Type 1 meadows. The designation was changed from Type 1 to 2 by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) after representations had been made by the developer and the Authority found inaccuracies in its earlier calculations which erroneously put the developer’s land within the flood plain.

In any event, even though the land is outside the floodplain, various reports submitted with the application make it clear the land, at least in part, is wet and marshy.

The developer’s Environmental Impact Assessment says “the lands to be developed represent 2.5% of the 60 hectare open field/meadow in which the development lands are located”.  We are asked to believe this is OK. Yet we don’t allow people to build on the Greenbelt because they plead the land they want to develop is only a tiny fraction of the whole.

Developer needs Town owned land for project to proceed

The planners’ 31 August report to councillors says the LSRCA will accept the proposed development and the disturbance to the wetland,

“if the disturbed wetland community (is replaced) in an appropriate location within the vicinity of this development”.

This requires lands currently owned by the Town.

So, what public benefit will arise from the Town making its own land available to the developer to satisfy LSRCA’s concerns?  I don’t see too many advantages.

The Environmental Impact Assessment says the development means the “potential loss of habitat for two threatened species of grassland birds” but says there is no evidence of nesting by the Bobolink nor the Eastern Meadowlark. If such nesting were to happen before work starts it says a permit would have to be sought from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Planners tell councillors everything is now resolved

The planners tell us that since the OMB pre-hearing on 26 March 2015

“the applicant has been providing additional material to departments and agencies for review. Staff have now received additional reports, studies and other submission material that indicates that most of the outstanding issues have been appropriately addressed.”

This additional material on which we are all expected to rely has not been posted on-line. We are taking it all on trust. As it happens, I have salvaged the earlier material and studies referred to above from the Town’s old website and it can be checked out here. Scroll to “Cougs (West of Silken Laumann Drive)”

To my mind, the Town should not be making land available to a developer to ease the way for him to build 28 Townhouses on scarce meadowland, a deafening 45 metres away from a railway that is only going to get busier and busier.

Are we going to be told this is good planning?

Seriously?

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

* See page 65 of Newmarket Official Plan – September 2014 consolidation.

Postscript:  There is an at-grade crossing at Mulock Drive which is in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. According to the noise study, trains begin sounding their whistles at 0.4 km on either side of Mulock Drive. We shall know at the turn of the year from Metrolinx if they are proposing a grade separation at Mulock Drive. If so, the deafening whistles could go but the train noise and vibration would, of course, remain.

The staff report mentions the possibility of a safety berm being required but says Metrolinx concludes one is not required because it would provide little benefit owing to the setback of the proposed dwellings. The staff report also notes that

“if required, this safety berm would encroach into the proposed storm water management facility necessitating a redesign”.

The location of the storm water management facility, adjacent to the railway corridor, appears to sit uneasily with recent guidance (May 2013) prepared for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Railway Association of Canada (at page 50).

These “Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations” would seem to have a bearing on the proposed development.

It seems to me that correspondence from Metrolinx and the other agencies that, together, have persuaded staff to recommend approval of the proposed meadowland development at Silken Laumann Drive should be posted on-line.