Details

Now that the Ontario Municipal Board has given approval in principle for a 28 townhouse development on protected meadowland at Silken Laumann Drive all eyes turn to the conditions – 99 in all though only a handful of these are critically important.

Just days before the OMB Hearing on 28 September 2015, Metrolinx submitted two conditions it wished to see incorporated into the so-called “Conditions of Draft Approval” (see note at bottom). I saw the conditions for the first time when I was on my feet giving my views to the Board.

The developer’s lawyer, Paul De Melo, tells the Board these are standard conditions. This is incorrect. Condition 88 stipulates that the owner shall ensure that the main walls of any dwelling units shall be at least 48 metres from the rail corridor. This is a condition specifically tailored to the circumstances of this development. Condition 89 is standard. (See below)

Townhouses on the move

In March 2013, the developer’s planner, Gary Templeton, tells Metrolinx’s rail corridor management division that the closest new townhouse to the eastern boundary of the railway lands would be 43.2 metres – well within the 48 metre cordon sanitaire now imposed.

Back in 2013, there is a prolonged to-and-fro between the Metrolinx people responsible for rail corridors and Gary Templeton on whether a safety berm between the railway and the new townhouse development is actually needed.

The issue is critically important. If Metrolinx insists on a safety berm it could drive a stake through the heart of the meadowlands development. The staff report from the Town’s own planners tells councillors on 14 September 2015 that

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

No Redesign

A redesign is the last thing the developer wants given the tight constraints of the site.

The alternatives are to (a) push the townhouse development further away from the railway and/or (b) ensure there is a difference in grade between the railway and development by adding height to the latter. Both create their own complications.

In the event, the developer wants things settled and offers to locate the townhouses at least 48 metres from the railway. Based on that information, Metrolinx confirms a safety berm is no longer required.

At Monday’s OMB Hearing, Templeton tells Jan Seaborn, the OMB adjudicator, that the plan – which is also circulated to the participants in the meeting room - has not changed since it was filed in 2013. He is, perhaps, being economical with the actualité. The plan shows the lots - which won’t change- but not the building lines, which will.

Stormy waters

Condition 16 is worth keeping an eye on. This concerns storm water management. The Town’s consulting engineers, Burnside, told the Town on 20 August 2015 that:

“Block 6, which is currently indicated as a storm water management area, is not adequately sized to accommodate the storm water management pond and the outlet pipes and channels… Easements and agreements to construct and maintain facilities on Town owned lands will be required prior to registration of the final Plan of Subdivision.”

Maybe this is all fancy dancing on my part. The big picture is this: despite what the experts say, we are seeing some seriously bad planning.

If this is "good planning", try living there

The Town should not be facilitating this kind of development. The planners and lawyers who say it “represents good planning” wouldn’t be seen dead living there - sandwiched between a hydro corridor and a railway that is going to see a huge increase in train traffic in the near future. No way. Not in a thousand years.

Our councillors are probably already programmed to give approval to this inappropriate development, beguiled by the developer’s offer of a three metre wide asphalt trail, set out in Condition 48. They say their hands are tied – even the ward councillor, Tom Vegh, who finds it all slightly amusing.

The offers to purchase will, of course, contain warning clauses along the lines set out below in the 2013 noise and vibration study. (see Documents)

This dwelling unit has been supplied with a central air conditioning system which will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the noise criteria of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment.

Caveat Emptor

But our councillors could do more. They could adopt some of the measures set out at page 43 in the Guidelines for New Developments in Proximity to the Railway. I like the sound of this:

Municipalities are encouraged to require appropriate signage/documentation at development marketing and sales centres that

  • identifies the lots or blocks that have been identified by any noise or vibration studies and which may experience noise and vibration impacts;
  • identifies the type and location of sound barriers and security fencing;
  • identifies any required warning clause(s); and contains a statement that railways can operate on a 24 hour basis, 7 days a week.

The 28 townhouses may still sell like hot cakes.

But I rather doubt it.

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

To read the conditions of draft approval, click documents in the panel above left, navigate to the folder Silken Laumann and open.

Metrolinx conditions

Condition 88: The Owner shall agree that the main walls of any dwelling units on the subject lands will be located a minimum of 48 metres from the Rail Corridor.

Condition 89: The Owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement to provide the following warning clause in all offers of purchase and sale:

Warning: Metrolinx, carrying on business as GO Transit, and its assigns and successors in interest are the owners of lands within 300 metres from the land which is the subject hereof. In addition to the current use of the lands owned by Metrolinx, there may be alterations to or expansions of the rail and other facilities on such lands in the future including the possibility that GO Transit or any railway entering into an agreement with GO Transit to use the Metrolinx lands or Metrolinx and their respective assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand their operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwellings. Metrolinx will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under its lands.

 

Details

To the Town’s Operations Centre for the 10am OMB Hearing (28 September 2014). We are in the Training Room decorated in beige and office grey.

At the front, behind a table, sits the pleasant and quietly efficient adjudicator and Vice Chair of the OMB, Jan Seaborn. She has been on the Board since May 2000 and clearly knows the ropes.

In front of her sits Paul De Melo, from Ira Kagan's law firm, representing the developer and with him is his planning expert, the mumbling Gary Templeton. I see the familiar faces of Esther Armchuk, the Town Solicitor, and the genial Dave Ruggle who is the senior planner responsible for the Silken Laumann file. He is silent throughout.

There is a group of people from Silken Laumann who hope to have their say.

Some tinkering needs to be done

To recap. The Developer, in the shape of the numbered company 292145 Ontario, and the Town have stitched up a deal to allow a development of 28 “at grade” townhouses on protected meadowland between the GO rail tracks and the hydro corridor. Paul De Melo tells us he has worked diligently with the Town and they have reached a consensus. He says Metrolinx has no concerns “but some conditions”. He admits that, overall, “some tinkering needs to be done”. In order to bring the project to completion the developer will need access to Town-owned lands. This will be forthcoming if the developer comes up with some “significant benefit” to the Town. This is how the bartering works.

Esther Armchuk tells the Board the Town has worked very hard to “scope down” the issues.

Surrounded by Town owned land

Gary Templeton is now addressing the adjudicator. He says it is a small site, 200 metres long; 55 metres at the southern end and broadening out to 110 metres at its northern end. We are told it abuts municipal land on the north, south and west. He says the plan has not changed since it was first submitted in 2013. He stresses the land is outside the flood plain and that the environmental impact assessment, carried out by the developer’s expert, Beacon, shows the development would not cause “any negative impact”.

He then takes us to s51.24 of the Planning Act and tells us he has “had regard to all the elements in this section” and that in his professional planning view the development is not premature. Whoa! Not so fast!

The Planning Act stipulates that:

“in considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had… to

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;”

Experts say development “represents good planning”  Pull the other one!

Templeton says the development represents “good planning”. The Town’s Solicitor chimes in that in her view too the development “represents good planning”. I am left wondering what “bad planning” would look like. Their contributions are all so obviously fake.

Now Paul De Melo is going through the formulaic script, ticking the boxes as he goes. It is all so utterly predictable. We hear no objections were raised by York Region and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Hydro One had no concerns about proximity of the development to the hydro corridor. Metrolinx, apparently, has no objections, sending in a standard condition in the last few days. Of course, concerns were raised by a number of agencies but these were either worked through (as with the safety berm issue) or shunted into a siding, to be addressed later.

Gene-pool

Now it is open to the members of the public. First up is Katharine McLeod who is concerned about the development’s environmental impact on protected meadowlands. She talks about the importance of wildlife corridors, allowing creatures to travel widely to mate which is good for the gene-pool.

Wasim Jarrah is next up. He appears calm and confident, speaking without a note. He points to the twin tracking issue which, he says, has not been addressed by either side. There has also been no mention of the Town’s proposal for a new GO rail station which could impact on the development.

Another resident, Mary Colton, tells us the area in question is a well-head protection area. How does that square with developing it? She is concerned about protecting our supply of clean drinking water. She is also worried about the absence of a safety berm between the railway and the townhouses. She says children will always go exploring and next to the railway that’s dangerous. She also worries about the noise.

Tom Vegh chortles

I am up next and am feeling a tad hyper. All this stuff about the development representing “good planning” is almost more than I can take. I see the ward councillor, Tom Vegh, amused and chortling as I put in my twopenny worth. He is ostensibly against the development but ends up voting for it.

I return to the points made by Wasim Jarrah. There are proposals from Metrolinx to double track the rail corridor but the implications of this are, as yet, still unclear. There is also a proposal in the Town’s Official Plan to locate a new GO rail station a stone’s throw away on industrial land south of Mulock Drive. Neither the Town, nor the developer, nor indeed the adjudicator shows any curiosity about the Town’s policy on the GO rail station. No questions. No comments. No interest.

The twin tracking seems to be regarded by everyone who is paid to be at the OMB Hearing as speculative. We are asked to believe that Metrolinx would have flagged it up with specific conditions if they were serious about doing anything to the railway corridor. As it is, all they send to the Town are their standard conditions safeguarding their position if developments take place within 300 metres of the railway. (The condition will be posted here as soon as I get it from the Town’s solicitor.)

It is not my finest moment as I badger the developer’s lawyer about the significance or otherwise of the Metrolinx condition – which had been kept from me until that very moment. I feel exasperated by the way in which everything is stage-managed down to the last expert's opinion. Paul De Melo walks up to my table and lays the paperwork in front of me. That’s the condition. It’s all there for you to read.

No basis to stop the development says OMB

Now all eyes are on the adjudicator who, without missing a beat, tells us she will approve the development, citing the close working relationship between Town and developer. She tells us the Town has worked hard with commenting agencies and has gone through the proposal carefully, reviewing it with a fine tooth comb. She says there is no legal or planning basis to stop the development proceeding.

But she says, this doesn’t mean that everything is finalized. There are close to 100 conditions that will have to be satisfied before the first concrete is poured into the protected meadowland.

What do I take from all this?

The whole planning system is totally, hopelessly bankrupt.

Who - other than a professional planner or lawyer – would conclude that what is on offer at Silken Laumann Drive and is now approved in principle “represents good planning”?

Why is it that no-one from the Town – either at the Council on 14 September or at the OMB this morning - is prepared to venture any opinion whatsoever on how the development could impact on its own proposal, set out in the Official Plan, to locate a new GO rail station close by?

The progress of this development needs to be followed very, very closely. Step by step. Condition by condition.

Like Glenway, it has all the makings of another text book classic on what’s wrong with a planning system that is no longer fit for purpose.

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

 

Details

A controversial plan to build 28 townhouses on protected meadowland at Silken Laumann Drive in Newmarket, sandwiched between a hydro corridor and the GO railway track, looks certain to be approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on Monday (28 September 2015) after the Town and developer struck a deal.

The Town desperately wants to avoid the cost of going to the OMB for a full Hearing – estimated at $100,000-$150,000 – even though few believe the development represents good planning. The ward councillor, Tom Vegh, voted for the proposed development despite proclaiming it is way too close to the railway.

Silken Laumann is another shining example of a planning system that is truly deformed – where approval in principle is given before all the details are fully worked out. Slessor Square, a barren plot in a prime site in central Newmarket, empty for years, provides the case study par excellence of this approach.

On 14 September councillors agreed that the Silken Laumann development could proceed leaving loose ends to be tied up later in discussions between the Town and developer. Councillors also wanted some significant community benefit from the developer as the price for allowing development on protected meadowland. Their decision is premature at best; cavalier at worst.

Resolve issues now – not later

As recently as 20 August 2015, Burnside, the Town’s consulting engineers who reviewed the developer’s plans, raised questions about culverts under the railway which were not shown in the plans. They said the stormwater management area, next to the railway corridor, was not big enough. They told the Planning Department:

“Our preference is that all the outstanding issues be addressed at this time, although we acknowledge that some issues can be deferred to the detailed engineering design stage with appropriate draft plan conditions.”

Metrolinx sets conditions for the development

Earlier this week Metrolinx gave the Town’s planners conditions it expects to see incorporated into the so-called “Draft Conditions of Approval”. The developer must comply with these conditions if the project is to proceed. These were not available to councillors on 14 September and will be kept from the public until after Monday’s OMB Hearing.

We do not know if the Metrolinx conditions are significant or inconsequential.

These draft conditions will morph into the “terms of settlement” that will be put before the OMB Hearing on Monday 28 September 2015.

Until earlier this week, the sole comment from Metrolinx focused on whether a safety berm was or was not needed. (When the developer decided to add additional height to the site by using fill, Metrolinx agreed that a safety berm was not needed because of the difference in grade between the railway and townhouses.)

Twinning the train track

Councillors had no information on whether the track at Silken Laumannn would be twinned and whether that might involve widening the rail corridor. One of my well connected spies tells me a second track and electrification can be accommodated within the existing corridor and, in any event, there is no guarantee that the track will be twinned.

Fair enough. But councillors had no information before them on 14 September showing what Metrolinx has in mind for the 6km of railway through Newmarket. Senior staff at the meeting were unable to shed any light on its thinking.

However, we do know that Greg Percy, the President of GO transit and the person responsible for the roll-out of Regional Express Rail, told the Metrolinx Board in September 2014:

“We know one new track will be required pretty much along the full length of the (Barrie) corridor because much of it is single track today. We need to double track that corridor and it also includes quite a few road and rail grade separations along the way.”

  The Metrolinx Board heard on 25 June 2015 that an    Environmental Assessment of the Barrie corridor was currently under way and is scheduled for completion in December 2016. It is looking at additional track from Parkdale (Toronto) to Allandale (Barrie) and a layover facility north of Bradford. We do not know where that additional track will necessarily be laid but the accompanying graphic – which went to the same Board meeting - clearly shows the possibility of twin tracking to East Gwillimbury. (Work on twin tracking between Rutherford and York University is currently underway.)

New GO Rail Station – a stone’s throw from the Silken Laumann development – is ignored

Although I raised the issue in my presentation to councillors on 14 September, there was no discussion of the possible impact of the development on the proposed new GO rail station at Mulock Drive or vice versa. The Town’s own consolidated Official Plan (2014) says

“conflicts between railway facilities and adjacent land uses shall be minimized where possible”.

Indeed, a report by the Director of Engineering to councillors on 23 April 2015 recommended that Metrolinx be invited to give a presentation to Council in which the new rail station would feature.

“The Town has a policy in its Official Plan (2006) about a potential new station in the industrial area on Mulock Drive. It would be an opportunity to discuss this concept with Metrolinx in the context of the new Regional Express Rail program.”

Questions about the footprint of the proposed GO rail station on the south side of Mulock Drive were simply left unaddressed by councillors.

The OMB Hearing on the Silken Laumann development will be held at 10am on Monday 28 September 2015 in the Training Room at the Town’s Operations Centre, 1275 Maple Hill Court (off Harry Walker Parkway). It is open to members of the public.

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

 

Details

I formed the view some time ago that Official Plans are generally not worth the paper they are written on.

When Newmarket’s Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, told us “it was the right thing to do” to stand by the residents of Glenway and “defend the official plan” at the OMB he was talking his usual hogwash.

Newmarket’s planners boycotted the OMB. The Town’s hired consultant came down on the side of the developer. And the Mayor, not wanting to cause any unpleasantness, typically looked the other way. It was no surprise then that the OMB adjudicator Susan Schiller, decided in favour of building over the greens and fairways of Glenway.

The open space that gave Glenway its quiet, green ambience is about to disappear despite the residents’ heroic campaign to preserve it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Further to the south, in the neighbouring Town of Aurora, lies the former Highland Glen Golf Course which the owners want to redevelop notwithstanding its current designation as Private Parkland and Environmental Protection in the Town’s Official Plan.

The owner wants to build 184 single detached houses and a high density residential building with some commercial. This requires a zoning by-law amendment moving from major open space to residential.

In the Planning Opinion submitted by the developer, Highland Gate Developments Inc, Glenway is cited (on page 71) as a precedent:

“The subject site presents a unique opportunity adjacent to an existing stable residential neighbourhood. As provided for by the OMB decision for the Glenway Golf Club site in Newmarket, there is no test of need to support intensification within the built boundary in the PPS and Growth Plan and therefore the policies contained in Section 3.3 should be interpreted as a directive of where growth ought to go, and not be restrictive in terms of the location and amount of intensification.”

It goes on:

“Although the subject site has not been identified as an area for intensification in the Official Plan, it represents a viable option for general intensification due to its location both within the built-boundary (utilizing existing municipal services) and settlement area, adjacent to the Yonge Street Regional Corridor. This is in keeping with the general policy intent of the Growth Plan and the York regional Official Plan that intensification is to occur generally within the built-up areas of municipalities; while there are areas specifically identified and recognized by the Region and Town for intensification, this does not limit intensification to those areas.”

History, alas, is in danger of repeating itself.

The second of three public meetings on the controversial Highland Gate Development in Aurora will be held at the St Maximilian Kolbe Catholic High School cafeteria, 278 Wellington Street East, Aurora at 6.30pm next Wednesday (30 September).

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

 

Details

In a surprise move, the Town’s Chamber of Commerce has blocked Dorian Baxter from the federal election debate on 6 October 2015 on the grounds that his Progressive Canadian Party does not have enough support to warrant his inclusion.

A new rule brought in by the Chamber of Commerce says

“a political party needs to have representation in the House of Commons/Provincial Legislature or proven popular support in the country/province of at least 5 per cent of the popular vote in the polls to be invited to the debate. Other candidates may participate at an open house portion of a debate with a display table.”

At the last Federal Election in 2011 Baxter came 5th of out of 6 in Newmarket-Aurora with 998 votes, 1.71% of the total. The high water mark for Baxter was in the 2004 general election when he got 2.1% of the vote in Newmarket-Aurora.

The Party’s election results show it bumping along at the bottom, never getting anywhere near the 5% threshold set by the Chamber of Commerce.

Personally, I hope the Chamber thinks again about excluding the Progressive Canadian candidate. His politics are not everyone’s cup of tea – he wants to “revisit capital punishment with the view of the punishment must fit the crime” – but his theatrical performances on stage liven things up.

On 10 September – after the social policy hustings at Trinity United Church in Park Avenue – I ask him how he stays so cheerful when he always comes last in elections. Looking me in the eye and shaking my hand he says: “Paul, I never lose a debate.”

"Paul" certainly has a more biblical ring to it than my own name and he is mortified when I correct him.

Dorian Baxter is a one-off. He adds to the gaiety of the nation. (Or would do in the vanishingly remote possibility that he might be elected.)

The Federal Election debate will be held at Newmarket Theatre on 6 October 2015 from 7pm til 9.00pm with an open house from 6pm – 7pm where all candidates will be available to meet the public from 6pm.

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

Update on 21 September 2015: Baxter tells the Era newspaper he is outraged.

Update on 22 September 2015. The Rev Baxter is very, very angry!!!  Phew!!! What Next?!!!

AN OPEN LETTER: Hello Debra:
 
I was most surprised not to have received your promised phone call today! Having just discovered your e-mail response I thought I should respond right away.
 
I find your intransigence to be very disappointing and obfuscated! 
 
You speak in vague generalities and appear to have little or no understanding of seriousness of your actions and the actions of those who have purportedly helped you make this dastardly decision against democracy!!!
 
Democracy denied is democracy destroyed!!! 
 
Remarkably, and I believe to your shame, your decision to "Deny Democracy" is a decision to deny and denigrate the supreme sacrifice made by our Allied Forces in the Second World War!
 
I find it utterly repugnant that you and your purported cohorts (who remain strangely anonymous) glibly state that you can do whatever you like because it is your debate! 
 
 You appear quite content to ignore the democratic rights of the members of this constituency and those democratic principles for which our armed forces laid down their lives because you say, there are other debates that have decided to be democratic and the implication is simply that this means you don't have to be democratic!!!
 
Not only do I believe this to be wrong but I believe that it presents as an impious design to erode the democratic process in Canada in the most obscene and insidious manner!!!
 
Failure to correct this bizarre turn of events can and will only bring serious doubt upon the integrity and character of the Newmarket Chamber! 
 
In the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King,"It is always the right time to do what is right!!!" Debra, you and your alleged cohorts need to "do what is right"!!!
 
I will be asking the remaining four candidates to boycott your undemocratic debate if you and your purported cohorts do not relent as it sets a very dangerous precedent that undermines everything democratic that Canada stands for!!! I can be reached on my personal mobile phone at (289) 221-2687.
 
Respectfully Submitted,
 
Dorian A. Baxter
B.A., O.T.C., M.Div.
PC Party President, and Progressive Canadian Party Candidate for Newmarket/Aurora
  • You are here:  
  • Home