Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 18 February 2015

Two years ago tomorrow, the much-maligned Ontario Municipal Board gave formal approval to the proposed Slessor Square development.

I remember it well. The casually dressed adjudicator, Mr Reid Rossi, giving the impression he had a train to catch.

A week earlier (11 February 2013) Newmarket’s councillors voted in favour of the massive complex opposite Upper Canada Mall, explaining their reasons one by one. It made for fascinating theatre.

Dave “it’s pointless to consult the public” Kerwin feared any more delays could bankrupt the developer.

As if!

With planning approval granted, the old car dealership site, pitted and desolate, is now worth millions. The approval is, as the lawyers say, “attached” to the land indefinitely. Once given, it cannot be taken away. It sounds almost biblical.

In any event, this allowed the Slessors to drain $7,500,000 out of the equity.

We heard in October 2013 that the site had been sold, conditional for 60 days. That “sale” obviously fell through but there may have been other offers. Who knows? But the Land Registry records show no change in title.  Dwight Slessor Holdings Limited remains the owner.

And still, day-in day-out, the huge red billboard shouts at us: THIS LAND FOR SALE.

To me, it is a constant reminder of our broken and dysfunctional planning system, infested with calculating lawyers and dissembling planners and presided over by randomly qualified OMB adjudicators with tunnel vision.

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

To see details of title open “documents” in the panel top left, navigate to Slessor Square 2015 and open “Slessor land registry 17Feb15”

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 17 February 2015

The OMB has turned down my request to review the decision of the Glenway adjudicator, Susan Schiller, on 18 November 2014, allowing development on the former golf course lands, on the grounds that I was not a Party or Participant at the OMB Hearing.

I argued that the Board:

(a) heard misleading evidence from a party or witness which was discovered only after the hearing and which could have affected the result and

(b) should consider evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing but that is credible and could have affected the result.

The Associate Chair of the OMB, Wilson Lee, says:

"I have concluded that the Request is an attempt to reargue the issues raised in the hearing and addressed in the Decision."

He goes on:

“The Request refers to a number of reports on Town-initiated studies which assisted in the finalisation of its Secondary Plan and the adoption of this plan. The release of the reports and the adoption of the plan occurred after the issuance of the Decision (27 March 2014) and while settlement discussions were underway.”

“At paragraph 62 of the Decision, the Board determined that there was no requirement for completion of any Town-led, Town-wide study to precede its consideration of the appeals.”

(Paragraph 62 reads: The Board attached no weight to the suggestion that a Town-led, Town-wide study must precede consideration of the Marianneville development proposals.)

I appreciate that the Board “strives for finality in its decisions” and cannot allow things to drag on indefinitely. But I remain absolutely convinced that the entire dynamic of the OMB Hearing would have been fundamentally different if the participants – including the Adjudicator – had known in March 2014 what they know now. 

You can read the OMB letter by clicking on Documents in the panel above left, navigating to Glenway.  Open “OMB Review letter 13Feb15”   A copy of my request for a review is in the same Glenway folder.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 16 February 2015

It upsets me no end that wealthy property owners can get planning approval for a development and then sit on it for years, sometimes decades, doing nothing.

Too often this goes directly against the public interest.

In today’s Toronto Star, Christopher Hume, argues for a sunset clause where planning approvals expire after a set number of years if construction has not started. The property owner would then have to re-apply. In the UK planning permissions generally lapse after 5 years.

Hume talks about our broken planning system:

 “You needn’t look far to see that planning in Ontario is anything but. It has become a process so flawed, it actually creates the opposite. Indeed, if we had set out to create a system guaranteed to result in chaos – we’ve got it.”

He goes on:

 “The most recent example came last week when Riteland Holdings Inc announced it would build a luxury housing subdivision in the Oak Ridges Moraine – more than 16 years after the project was approved.”

In Newmarket we can do better than that. Planning approval was given for a 12 storey 115 unit condo at 22 George Street in 1993 and, scandalously, it is still a patch of bare dirt 22 years on.

The same owner, Peter Czapka, is also sitting on undeveloped land at 39 Davis Drive where planning approval was given in 2009 for a 280 unit 20 storey condo.

This is not a matter just for the owner. There are Town-wide ramifications if development is postponed indefinitely. Water and sewage allocations that would ordinarily go to major developments in Davis Drive and the urban centre will be channelled elsewhere, to Glenway perhaps. Another example of the law of unintended consequences is in the making.

So, what is to be done?

In October 2013 the Province announced a review of the land use planning system but it is like wading through treacle to get hold of a list of those who responded and to find out what they said. Is seems as if everything has disappeared into a big black hole. Where is the sense of urgency?

On 13 January 2014 Newmarket put in its own submission to the review but our councillors, inexplicably, are not demanding a change in the law to force developers like Peter Czapka to act on planning approvals rather than allow them to gather dust. (If the earlier link doesn't work try this and scroll to page 116.)

What will it take to get our councillors to act? 

Empty buses going past empty lots on Davis Drive while developers hoard their land, waiting for its value to go through the roof? Maybe then we shall see something stirring in the undergrowth. 

Update on 17 February 2015: Regional Councillor John Taylor has helpfully been in touch to say that when he was Chair of Planning he asked staff to include in York Region's submission to the Province a request that the Land Use Planning Review include a sunset clause on planning approvals.

A copy of the covering letter of 9 January 2014 from the then Director of Long Range Planning Val Shuttleworth and Edward Hankins, Director, Treasury Office was forwarded to me. It says this:

“ON January 9^th, 2014, York Region Committee of the Whole considered and discussed the attached report. Committee of the Whole endorsed the Report with the additional request that the Province also consider possible legislative changes to the Planning Act that would allow approval authorities to place time limits on zoning approvals, similar to those lapsing provisions already available on plans of subdivision.”

Taylor says: “I think it is safe to say we will not know to what degree this is being considered until we see draft legislation or a report of some nature.”

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 13 February 2015

I am in the cavernous Crosslands Community Church to hear at first hand what lies in store for the residents of Glenway whose lives will soon be turned upside down.

As I enter, I see Brad Rogers of Groundswell whose face is creased in a huge grin. As loyal lieutenant to the developer, no doubt he will be getting his share of the multi-million dollar jackpot.

There are lots of empty seats - quite unlike the earlier meetings where it was standing room only. The atmosphere is subdued.  I sense a feeling of resignation in the air.

The agenda is all about the nuts and bolts of how Glenway will be developed. Bob Shelton, the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer, runs through a series of slides briefing us on the “Interface Compatibility Plan” and the “Tree Location and Planting Plan” and so on.

Macavity

Alongside Shelton sits the softly spoken Peter Noehammer, the newish Commissioner for Development and Infrastructure Development who has been with the Town for five months. He does not have the long institutional memory of, say, the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, who, like Macavity, is nowhere to be seen. Joining them on the platform is Ward 7 councillor, Christina Bisanz, Regional Councillor John Taylor and His Worship, Tony Van Bynen.

Down below the salt, in the audience, I see councillor Dave “it’s pointless to consult the public” Kerwin; Tom Vegh and, at the very back, Tom Hempen.

The GPA’s Dave Sovran is MC for the evening and Brian Gard, the Deputy Sheriff, takes us through the chronology, explaining how we ended up in this sorry mess.

Who is the Glenway “go to” person?

Dave Sovran wants to know who the Glenway “go to” person is at the Town now that Ruth Victor has gone. Peter Noehammer clearly doesn’t have a clue and wanders up hill and down dale before suggesting the “planning department”. Oh dear! Alternatively, people should contact the ward councillor, Christina Bisanz, who will direct them to the appropriate staff member.

Now the meeting is being opened up to questions from the public.

What’s going to happen with the Glenway West lands, also owned by Marianneville?

Shelton tells us it is too early to say but the developer had a pre-consultation meeting with the planners on 20 January but “there are no specifics of what they propose”.

Let’s have a dialogue

The Mayor, applying the soothing balm for which he is famous, tells us some concessions may be negotiated – providing everyone is “reasonable”. The word is left undefined. “Let’s have a dialogue and see if we can come up with a reasonable compromise.” It is all totally meaningless.

Now we hear someone ask if the Town would consider purchasing the land. Soon we are engulfed in Mayoral waffle of the highest quality. The Town is considering 40 properties and pieces of land and might purchase some if it is the right fit… blah blah blah. Now Van Bynen gives one of his beaming smiles and says to the questioner: “How’s that for a non-answer?”

There is no outrage. We are in a Church, after all.

Now an earnest Eric Smith, dressed in combative red, submerges himself in a series of questions about aquifers or artesian wells and the threat to people’s basements from water penetration as a result of the proposed development. He conjures up a picture of the planned Regional Building – which he dubs the aquarium – slowly sinking into a swamp. He is heard in silence as befits someone who gives the impression of knowing what he is talking about.

Worryingly, this is all news to Noehammer who is on safer ground when asked about construction dirt and noise. We learn the wind comes from the west and dirt will blow directly into folks’ houses. Will there be some kind of barrier? Don’t fret says Noehammer. The residents are to be protected by 130 conditions that developer will have to comply with before getting the go-ahead. Ah!

Now an interesting question about servicing – hooking up the new houses to the water mains and sewers. Bob Shelton, with all the skill of an old pro, says staff will, in due course, be making a recommendation to Council about when the hook up should take place now that the OMB has made its decision.

Shelton, more delphic than usual, tells us the question to be asked is this: “What is the fit across the municipality?” He could have told us the priority areas get hooked up first. That’s the Davis Drive and Yonge Street corridors and, more generally, the urban centre. Everything else waits in line. But he didn’t.

We feel bounced around

Now the Mayor fields a question about the OMB and how the Town handled things. “There was never, ever a compromise of process.” (Meaning he wants us to believe the Town did things by the book.) “We feel as bounced around as you do.”

Now he is being asked a question about the GO Bus Terminal and the Mobility Hub, matters which figured so prominently in the OMB Hearing.

The Hub, he says, is focussed on the Tannery. “That’s all I’m aware of.”

Is the Mayor seriously asking us to believe that there will be no Mobility Hub study of one of the busiest intersections in Newmarket, Yonge and Davis, where explosive growth is promised with 13,500 new residents and 10,100 jobs?

The Secondary Plan, endorsed by the Town last June and now waiting for Regional approval, reminds us that Metrolinx wanted two Mobility Hubs – one at the Tannery and another at Yonge/Davis. The one at the Tannery has a huge circle on the map, denoting its status. The one at Yonge/Davis a small red dot – identified in the document nevertheless as a “mobility hub”.

The text explains that a Regional Shopping Centre Study Area is planned for the Upper Canada Mall site and this will involve “mobility hub study considerations.”

Why the self defeating and obfuscating semantics? Is Yonge/Davis a mobility hub or not?

A Tale of Two Circles

Intriguingly, the Secondary Plan has another giant circle at Mulock Drive denoting the site of a planned new GO Rail Station. Yet Metrolinx told me last September:

"While the Town of Newmarket supports a new station at Mulock Drive, GO Transit has no plans to build a station in this location.”

As we all know, Metrolinx urged the Town to delineate the study area of the Mobility Hub at Yonge and Davis but this was rejected by the Director of Planning. Why?

A line on a map would inevitably have had to include the GO Bus Terminal, adjacent to Glenway. This would have made it difficult for the developer to maintain there was not “a shred of evidence” that the Bus Terminal may, at some stage, be moving.

What other explanation is there?

But if there is one we should hear it, in person and in detail, from the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery.

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

Update on 14 February 2014: Read the GPA Question and Answer document that was handed out at the meeting on 12 February 2014. Click "Documents" in the panel above left and navigate to "Glenway". Click on GPA Q&A 12Feb14