- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Bob sends a confidential briefing on the Clock Tower to the Mayor, councillors and to the seven candidates running for office in the Ward 5 by-election. 
Woo Hoo!
You can read the document here. (Scroll to the bottom of page two and open.) There is a public interest in full disclosure.
Throughout the document Bob is economical with the actualité.
Important facts about the history of his planning proposal don’t rate a mention. For example, there is no reference to the views of the Town’s own Heritage Advisory Committee which is adamantly opposed to the proposed redevelopment. That’s an oversight.
And let us never forget that the redevelopment can only proceed if the Town makes its land available to the developer. To be clear, Bob is submitting a planning application which covers land he does not own.
The Town will first consider his planning application and then decide whether or not it wants to make Town owned land available to him. We are in classic cart before the horse territory.
“A Project Landscape” opens with a statement of purpose. Bob wants people to learn about the Clock Tower development. Bob poses questions and then gives answers.
“It is not uncommon for confusion or misperceptions to arise from a lack of available information.”
Indeed.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What is this application about?
Bob says he wants to build an L shaped condo and he needs some amendments to the current by-laws.
What the answer doesn’t say: Bob omits to mention he needs Town owned land. He talks about the “subject lands” but these are different from the land that Bob owns.
Will Bob do a good job?
Q2: How do we know that the Forrest Group will do a good job in this important location?
Bob tells us he has a tremendous track record building other developments in Newmarket. He is squeaky clean and he always delivers.
What the answer doesn’t say: The other examples Bob cites are not in a Heritage Conservation District with its own policy regime and by-law. With the Clock Tower, Bob’s business practices stink. He evicted his business tenants years ago saying the properties were going to be demolished. The properties have been shuttered and empty ever since, casting a blight on that part of the old downtown. Bob put the Clock Tower up for sale and then, inexplicably, swore blind to people that he had never done such a thing. There is documentation for all this.
How big?
Q3: How big is the proposed building?
Bob says he wants to build 165 residential suites and five ground floor retail units.
What the answer doesn’t say: The development is much bigger than the zoning by-law (UC-D1) allows. We learn it has a FSI of 2.9 when the zoning by-law specifies 1.0 (The FSI is a ratio of floor space to total site area.)
Lawyers for the Trinity United Church say
“the proposed 430 units per net hectare and 2.9 FSI is excessive and therefore impacts the prominence of the Church”.
How many 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units?
Q4: What is the building mix?
Bob says there will be 115 one-bedroom suites and 49 two bedroom suites and one, lonely, three bedroom.
What the answer doesn’t say: The five retail stores will have no rear servicing. Customers and deliveries will go through the front door. There is no parking on that side of Main Street South.
Landmark building
Q5: The Clock Tower building is a significant local landmark. I am concerned that its visibility will be diminished when flanked by a modern building.
Bob says he really appreciates the Clock Tower building. There are going to be step-backs and design details to showcase the Clock Tower. It is going to be terrific.
What the answer doesn’t say: The report from the heritage consultants that Bob employed (Goldsmith Borgal) concludes that
“the proposed development, while not meeting the Heritage Conservation District Plan in terms of height restrictions, could be mitigated in order to allow the Town to meet a number of other planning goals in the Historic Downtown core.”
The consultants say:
“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.” (My underlining)
By-law amendments needed
Q6: The application seeks a number of by-law amendments. Why shouldn’t the applicant simply be required to build within existing by-law limits?
Bob says land use planning is very complicated. There is the Town and Region to worry about and then there are all these Provincial policies to worry about. It is all very confusing.
What the answer doesn’t say: The Zoning By-law 2010-40 was passed in June 2010 and consolidated in December 2013. Bob says “the existing By-law for the area was drafted before much of the existing policy directives were put in place”. The Heritage Conservation District By-law was passed in October 2013. There is nothing to prevent the Town enforcing its own zoning and heritage by-laws.
Bob says the Downtown Heritage By-law does not apply to the Clock Tower lands. This is Bob doing another body swerve, veering away from the whole unvarnished truth. Bob appealed to the OMB asking it to exclude his lands from the Heritage Conservation District on the grounds that he had submitted his complete application (in August 2013) to the Town before it enacted the HCD by-law (in October 2013).
Bob told the Town through his lawyer he didn’t want the OMB to set a date for the appeal hearing until after Council makes a decision on rezoning the lands he owns.
Zoning magic
Q7: Building height is a particular concern of mine.
Bob says the site "consolidates" a number of existing properties that are zoned UC-D1 (3 storeys) or UC-D2 (6 storeys). Bob wants to tweak the zoning by-laws to give him 7 storeys.
What the answer doesn’t say: Bob’s properties lie entirely within the Heritage Conservation District. The zoning is UC-D1 restricting height to three storeys. The Town’s own zoning map confirms this. We need to look very carefully at the zoning map and Bob’s property line to see how close they are. 
Bob’s Planning Justification Report January 2016 (page 23) says this:
“While a maximum building height increase is required to allow the proposal within a UC-D1 Zone from three storeys to seven storeys, it is important to note that a portion of the property and the lands to the west zoned UC-D2 permit six storeys as of right.” (My underlining)
Is Bob using his proposed underground car parking (which goes beyond his property line and into zone UC-D2) to justify seven stories? Is he relying on a portion of his property being in UC-D2. If so, what are we talking about? One per cent? Five per cent? How many inches are we talking about?
Bob tries to get round this by proposing a new zoning by-law that will allow him to go up to 7 storeys in the delineated area of the Heritage Conservation District.
In the shadows
Q8: Won’t the new building cast a shadow on surrounding areas?
Bob says the Trinity Church sanctuary during Sunday morning services will not be affected.
What the answer doesn’t say: There will be shadows where there are none today. Trinity United Church is very concerned:
“The proponent’s study concludes serious shadow impacts to the Church during the spring and fall mornings. The east and south facades are prominent due to their entrances and stained glass windows and therefore the impacts are concerning.”
Demolition
Q9: From the renderings it appears that the applicant proposes to demolish part of the old Clock Tower building on Park Avenue.
This is setting up a straw man only to knock him down. There never was any intention to demolish the original Clock Tower structure as opposed to the 1950s extension.
Facades
Q10: What about the shops facing Main Street South; it seems the applicant proposes to retain the fronts only.
Bob tells us the interiors of these historic commercial buildings have been modified in many ways over time - rarely with a view to respecting their original character. 
What the answer doesn’t say: There has been no report from ERA Architects, the peer reviewer, on the architectural or heritage merits of the buildings that Bob wants to demolish. Bob wants to retain only the facades, if possible. There is no discussion of the particular problems which might flow from the demolition of 194 Main Street South (the former Lemon and Lime) on 196 Main Street South (the Olde Village Free House) which are two halves of the same building, sharing a roof and common wall.
Consultants clash
Q11: I have heard that a heritage consultant has recommended reducing the overall height on Main Street South by at least one storey.
Bob says one consultant said one thing. Another says something else. Big deal!
What the answer doesn’t say: The heritage consultant paid by Bob is happy with seven storeys. The (wholly inadequate) peer review by ERA Architects, paid for by the Town, recommends the height of the proposed new construction on Main Street South should be decreased by one storey
“so that the overall height does not compete with the height of the former Post Office Clock Tower”.
(The recommendations of the peer reviewer should not be given much weight. I wrote earlier to the Town asking it to terminate ERA’s contract on the grounds it did not follow the terms of its engagement.)
Bob also told his business associates that he thought he could get approval for seven storeys if the building were rental. It no longer is rental.
Parking
Q12: I hear that parking in the area will be adversely affected by the project.
Bob says there will be a temporary reduction in parking spaces and after construction we shall be back to where we were before with possibly a few more spaces.
What the answer says: Parking won’t be adversely affected because “a recent study confirmed that there are approximately 411 publicly accessible offsite parking spaces located near the subject site, providing ample parking for the area throughout the duration of construction.”
No need to worry your little heads then. You’ll find a place to park. Even with the Old Town Hall now open for business?
Underground parking
Q13: Won’t public parking spots simply be taken over by building residents?
Bob says no. The development will have three levels of below ground parking. More than enough for residents and visitors.
What the answer doesn’t say: The Town’s engineers say the proposed development needs 290 parking spaces. Bob is proposing 199. Bob calls in aid “current standards in York Region and the GTA”.
Parking standards
Q14: Exactly what do you mean by that? What are the current parking standards?
Bob says lots of places are cutting parking standards. Time for Newmarket to do the same.
What the answer doesn’t say: Bob points to 212 Davis Drive with a parking ratio of 1.10 spaces/unit. But that’s rental and it is on a major transit route.
More people = more traffic?
Q15: Won’t the presence of more people create a traffic problem generally?
Bob says don't be silly. His traffic consultants say existing roadways and intersections are capable of accommodating any increase in traffic the development may generate.
What Bob says: Apparently not. His condo will be full of young people and empty nesters “who will tend to walk to local destinations and use transit for distance travel”.
Parking in Market Square
Q16: Will “Market Square” between the Clock Tower building and the public library to the west be affected by the proposal?
Bob concedes there will be a temporary reduction in parking spaces as Market Square is dug up.
What the answer doesn’t say: The library has only 22 dedicated spaces. During the construction period - which could last for an extended period – the library will be under huge pressure.
Hooking up the development to water and sewage
Q17: Won’t the proposal put an added load on water and sewer services in the area?
Bob says no. Plenty of capacity to accommodate the proposal.
What the answer doesn’t say: When a development is given planning approval that is not the end of it. It must also be given a water and sewage allocation. This is because both have to be rationed pending the completion of the big pipe (the Upper York Servicing Solution) in 2024. Every year around April/May the Town considers the Annual Servicing Allocation Review. The Clock Tower is currently priority 2. If a water and sewage allocation goes to the Clock Tower ipso facto it doesn’t go somewhere else.
Water table 8 feet below the surface
Q18: I have heard that there is an underground river directly beneath the site. What impact will the construction have on the foundations of neighbouring properties?
Bob admits there is a very high water table but no underground river. The engineers will be able to make it all work. No problems.
What the answer doesn’t say: Lawyers for Trinity United Church told the Town on 6 May 2016:
“The Church has experienced problems with groundwater affecting its foundations so it is concerned about the impact of the proposed underground construction on groundwater flows and with the impact of the vibrations of the proposed construction generally.”
What about the pub?
Q19: What will happen to current building occupants during construction?
Bob says his properties are all empty.
What the answer doesn’t say: He evicted his business tenants ages ago. Bob doesn’t say what will happen to the business at 196 Main Street South, the Olde Village Free House.
Heritage Character
Q20: I am concerned about the impact that bringing a modern building and more residential use into the historic downtown area will have on its heritage character.
Bob waffles on about mixing the old and new and breathing new life into the old downtown.
What the answer doesn’t say: If the Clock Tower gets the go-ahead it will set a precedent for developments elsewhere on Main street South.
Once they're gone they're gone
Q21: What does this have to do with heritage preservation?
Bob says preserving heritage is not about "freezing old buildings in time and treating them as museum exhibits".
What the answer doesn’t say: No one is suggesting preserving historic buildings in aspic. They can be put to new uses. But not if they are knocked down.
Economic benefit
Q22: Will the proposal produce an economic benefit to our community?
Bob says there is money in his development. Millions and millions.
What the answer doesn’t say: There would still be an economic benefit if it were located somewhere else in Town, in a more appropriate location.
Rental v Condo
Q23: Didn’t this start out as a proposal for a rental building?
Bob says it was originally a condo, then rental and now it's back to being rental again. Young people will be able to buy and get on the housing ladder. Empty nesters will be their neighbours. Nice.
Q24: Where can I find more information or read the referenced materials (ie studies, reports etc)?
What the answer doesn’t say: Visit http://www.shrinkslessorsquare.ca
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
The Town has now released details of the proposed redevelopment of the King George school site in Park Avenue.
The developer wants to build 14 townhouses on the site and convert the old school building into 11 apartments. 
If the development goes ahead as planned it means the loss of open space and much more intensive land use – something which leading opinion formers such the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, have been endlessly calling for. Advocates for greater "intensification" in the old downtown will be overjoyed.
Under heritage laws the old school building could not be demolished and it is good to see that it will be put to a new use. But, as always, the usual questions need to be posed. Overall, is the development appropriate for the area? Will it work? What will the impact be on the neighbourhood? Is the developer trying to squeeze too much on to the land he owns?
The King George school site is in the heart of Ward 5 where a by-election takes place on 17 October 2016.
The seven candidates will, no doubt, be quizzed on their views on the proposed development at the Chamber of Commerce Q&A next Tuesday (4 October).
Neil and Chrisula Selfe bought the King George School on Park Avenue in 2011 for $1,275,000 and sold it on to Sam Reisman of Rose Corporation last month for $3,500,000.
The Rose Corporation is the developer behind the 15 Storey rental apartment building on Davis Drive.
A statutory public meeting will be held at a future unspecified date.
The plan below shows the proposed layout and landscaping on the site.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Steve Hinder believes opposition to Bob Forrest’s proposed development “makes no sense”. 
Hinder, who will be jointly moderating the Ward 5 candidates Q&A on 4 October 2016, believes a seven storey apartment building in the heart of the Heritage Conservation District is needed, dismissing as irrelevant the three storey height cap mandated by the Heritage and zoning by-laws.
Hinder, an Aurora resident, believes it is OK to demolish irreplaceable historic buildings – including one dating from 1845 where the first female pharmacist in Canada had her business. This is a matter of no consequence to him.
Surprised at opposition
Hinder is “surprised” at the opposition to the Clock Tower redevelopment.
And yet this is the man who will be holding the ring at the candidates Q&A next Tuesday, responsible for ensuring fair play.
We all want to see the Town’s Heritage District survive and prosper.
But the real question is this: Will Bob Forrest’s Clock Tower development be a dose of arsenic to the old downtown, killing it off completely, or will it be a tonic?
Even with a whole section of Main Street South shuttered and boarded up for years by Bob Forrest the street has gone from strength to strength. Everyone celebrates its vitality.
But can the street survive three or four years of construction with dump trucks thundering along residential roads? Can the Heritage District stay its old attractive self with this monstrous out-of-place development at its very heart?
Steve Hinder clearly thinks so.
The letter below was sent by Steve Hinder to Newmarket Council earlier this year. He staunchly supports Bob Forrest’s Clock Tower development.
How on earth can the Chamber of Commerce consider him an impartial referee?
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The letter from Hinder to the Mayor and Members of Newmarket Council reads:
I would like to express my opinion on what I think is a tremendous opportunity for the Town of Newmarket.
I am surprised to hear there is opposition to the Clock Tower redevelopment knowing the benefits it will create for Main Street, adding to the current assets that already exist in the area.
Although I live in Aurora, I shop, dine and visit Main Street on a regular basis. For the last 40 years as a resident of the area, I have watched how the street has changed from one that struggled with maintaining and attracting retailers, restaurants and people, always however recognizing the potential.
To today, where it has become the total opposite and is known as one of the most attractive areas in which to visit and a focal point for the community. A destination for people.
I applauded the leadership of politicians and community leaders that envisioned this “people” place and acted by designing and developing River Walk Commons.
This addition brought people to Main Street. It became alive with activity and commerce because that’s what people bring. New restaurants and retail followed and resulted in attracting even more. It has become a jewel for the area.
Newmarket is fortunate to have a great Main Street, Riverwalk Commons and Fairy Lake all linked in an attractive community setting.
I heralded the news of the Clock Tower redevelopment recognizing that it would bring more residents to the downtown core. More prosperity, more opportunity, more support for small business. This can only be a positive economic boost that will help ensure a vibrant, sustainable Main Street for decades to come.
To present opposition to such a positive addition makes no sense. To maintain the status quo for the sake of not wanting change is the type of thinking that will jeopardize not only local business but risk squandering something very special.
I personally find the lifestyle such a development would offer, extremely attractive. I know I speak for many of friends who shared the excitement about living in such a special community that provided dining, shopping and recreational opportunities all within a short walk. We’ve been talking about this redevelopment as a positive move forward since it was first proposed and considered it the next logical addition.
I encourage members of Council to look forward to what might be, rather than focus on what used to be. If downtown Newmarket does not see this great opportunity before them, others will and this exciting addition will be lost forever.
It’s time to continue building on what’s been started and ensuring the sustainability that will make Main Street the desirable community it can be.
I encourage you to continue with your leadership for the good of all residents, businesses and all that enjoy this great space today AND tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Steve Hinder
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Bob’s at it again!
Is there no end to the number of re-designs of the Clock Tower development? How many more expensive makeovers is it going to get before Bob finally throws in the towel? 
I asked the Town if Bob’s application - with all its elevations and drawings - had been amended or supplemented in any way since the public meeting was held in the Council Chamber on 9 May 2016.
Apparently Bob has been tweaking again.
Ongoing discussions
I am told there have been “ongoing discussions” with the applicant’s heritage consultants on the massing and density but no formal version can be shared with me or the wider public.
I expected conversations between staff and Bob’s people on the state of the brick facades at 186-194 Main Street South now that the metal sidings have been removed.
Massing and Density
But discussions on “massing and density” go a bit beyond what even I was expecting. We have already had six, nine and now seven storeys. We’ve had condo, rental and now condo again.
Could the wily old fox be about to unveil a re-worked version of his seven storey apartment block?
Bob has invested years in this project – and spent barrow loads of money. He is not going to give up until we prise his fingers from the historic properties he is determined to demolish.
Elsewhere… Information surfaces from Terraprobe - the consulting engineers hired by Bob to examine the state of the ground underneath the Clock Tower and Market Square. Drilling took place in May this year (photo below). Their letter to Bob dated 20 June 2016 tells him they found water 8 feet below the surface at the site. 
“Because the ground water level is so shallow in the area large rainfalls that cause the ground water to rise may cause flooding in basements.”
“The proposed development includes three levels of underground parking. In order to construct the structure the local ground water table will have to be temporarily lowered. Based on the depth of the water table, the presence of the dense sands and silt till layer and the use of a concrete cut-off foundation wall for the proposed structure, the amount of dewatering will be relatively minimal. Therefore, the ground water table and its levels will generally remain unaffected by the dewatering activities during construction. The ground water will still continue to flow toward the Holland River which is at a lower elevation.”
“The underground structure of the development (a three level underground car park) will not block the flow of water to the Holland River. Instead, the water will slowly flow around it and under it, like a stream around a rock.”
Civic Vandalism
With inventive engineers and loads of money – and a dose of civic vandalism - I suppose anything is possible.
The June 2016 letter should be read in conjunction with the earlier Terraprobe report of 10 October 2012. This “preliminary geotechnical investigation” report is, of course, out of date.
It envisioned a six storey structure with only two levels of underground parking. Paragraph 5.2 talks of basement floor slab design with crushed stone “compacted by vibration to a dense state”.
I am left wondering what impact this relentless pounding will have on the irreplaceable stained glass windows of Trinity United just across the road.
Paragraph 5.7 estimates Market Square will be excavated down to 8 metres below the surface to accommodate the two level underground parking. I assume they will be going deeper to get a third level.
It will be quite the hole.
If it ever gets dug.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To access the Terraprobe documents open here and scroll to the bottom of the screen and open.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
I now have clarification from the Chamber of Commerce about their event on 4 October 2016.
Let me say at the outset that I am very grateful that the Chamber has taken this initiative.
I am told the event is not a debate and has not been advertised as such. It is a question and answer session.
Two people will be running things - Steve Hinder and Neil Moore. I am advised they will simply take written questions from the audience and read them out.
This is, indeed, a very circumscribed role.
I am assuming there will be “rules of engagement”. There will be seven candidates on stage. Will they all have an opportunity to answer every question? What criteria will be used to select questions? Will questions from the audience directed at a particular named candidate be ruled out of order? And so on and so forth. The permutations are endless.
Steve Hinder is a man of many fine qualities but, clearly, he is not disinterested in the outcome. Far from it. He tells us he wants to move to Newmarket’s “enhanced” downtown.
“I think this project (ie the Clock Tower) will continue to enhance the downtown by adding people to support the local retail and restaurants. Great for economic development. I want to move there myself.”
I fear Mr Hinder is putting himself in an exposed position – even if he does nothing more than read out questions metronomically with a face wiped clean of any expression.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Page 177 of 269