Details

My attention is drawn to an interesting piece in the Toronto Star about open space in Richmond Hill. The article asks the question: “How much money should developers have to put up for parks and green space if they want to build in Richmond Hill?”

Richmond Hill passed a by law in 2013 specifying the Town would require one hectare of land for every 300 units, or the cash equivalent. Developers are challenging this at the OMB, claiming it is too much.

As it happens, here in Newmarket an amendment to the Official Plan in August 2012 specified precisely the same one hectare for every 300 units yet there were no appeals to the OMB. In June 2014, Rick Nethery, told councillors that parkland and open spaces were next in the queue of issues to be addressed by the Town’s planners.

On 15 December 2014, an information note on “Alternative Parkland Dedication Scenarios” was circulated to the Mayor and councillors informing them a new By-law is in preparation.

The Town’s Parks Policy Development Manual adopted in November 2012 identifies “areas of park shortfalls” but leaves it to the Secondary Plan – now waiting approval by the Region - to address these in detail.

The Plan tells us Newmarket’s North West Quadrant (which is home to the much publicised Glenway) had 15.6 hectares of Neighbourhood Parkland in 2011. The plan forecasts an additional 22,000 people at build out (when there is no more space left to build) requiring another 15.4 hectares of Neighbourhood Parkland.

On page 76 we read:

“The Urban Centres do not contain sufficient land area to include larger Community Parks and Town Parks that facilitate active parkland uses; however, the Urban Centres will be planned to accommodate Neighbourhood Parks as well as Urban Squares and Plazas.”

And on page 78:

“Although additional Neighbourhood Parks and Urban Squares may be added through future development applications, it is anticipated that there will remain a significant shortfall of parkland within the Urban Centres to serve future residents. Therefore, improvement of existing parks and/or acquisition of new parks both within and in proximity to but outside the Urban Centres will be critical to achieving the vision for the Urban Centres. Opportunities need to be identified early in the planning process in order to ensure these spaces are secured for the future.”  (My italics)

Pity all this was overlooked by the Town’s external consultant on Glenway, Ruth Victor. There is no mention of “parkland” in her report to the Committee of the Whole on 25 November 2013 - when councillors voted to back the residents - and one glancing reference to it in her memorandum of 20 November 2013 which updated her earlier memo of 15 November 2013.

I hesitate to add another question to the long list for the forthcoming "lessons learned" meeting on Glenway.

But if open space is so important now why wasn’t it an issue then?

Correction on 28 February 2015: It was incorrect to say there is no mention of "parkland" in Ruth Victor's report to the Committee of the Whole on 25 November 2013. A glitch in the word search function on my iPad threw up "no matches" whereas, in truth, there are many.

And in her two memos of 15 and 20 November 2013, Ruth Victor wrote:

"Questions on matters such as parkland and school requirements were discussed and considered not only in the context of this specific site (ie Glenway) but in terms of the broader community requirements and the ongoing Secondary Plan process for the adjacent Urban Centre lands."  (my italics)

 

Details

I arrive in the Council Chamber for the Canada Post presentation. As I enter I see the large bulky form that is John Blommesteyn who is here to complain about the behaviour of Regional Councillor John Taylor who, quite properly, leaves his seat and joins the public in the audience.

I sit down directly behind Blommesteyn, noting a thick wad of notes in his hand, and strike up a conversation. I ask him if he feels nervous. No. He tells me he has done this before. He is chatty and smiles a lot, ignoring the fact that I often write unflattering things about him.

I ask if he is going to request extra time. Back in December 2013 he led a deputation of three – the others being his young sons – and loudly demanded 20 minutes instead of the usual five. Then he was the raging bull.

Now he is at the microphone complaining about breaches of the Town’s code of conduct and about this and that. Now and again the Mayor tells him he mustn’t stray from the subject and he complies without demur. He is going through the motions. Soon his five minutes is up.

The Mayor asks the councillors if they will give him some more time to finish what he has to say and, to my surprise, they refuse (with the exception of Christina Bisanz and, I think, Kelly Broome-Plumbley who are newcomers to Council). The animosity of the old guard, hidden behind blank faces, is deep and enduring.

I expected a roar or a rant from Blommesteyn, denouncing the Mayor or Taylor or, perhaps, just the system. But there was nothing. He smiles at me, collects his papers and silently exits without waiting for the discussion. Bad manners, I’d say.

Now we are on to a weary discussion about how the code of conduct should be updated and reviewed. There were a few good points made but I can’t immediately recall them. As the debate concludes I hear the Mayor make a plea for the new Code to contain a definition of what constitutes a “frivolous or vexatious” complaint.

No prizes for guessing who was in his mind when he said that.

Canada Post tells us to pick up our own mail

Canada Post delivers two men in suits to Mulock Drive. They are here to tell us to prepare for the end of home delivery of mail by the Fall. Bringing the mail to someone’s home is, apparently, the old-fashioned way. And it costs twice as the alternative “community mailboxes”.

Even though I hear that only one third of us now get mail delivered to our doors, what is happening is clearly a degradation in service and it can’t be wrapped up as anything else.

I learn we are all collectively to blame for this state of affairs. The number of letters in the system shrank by 1.2 billion between 2006-13. I hear this trend from paper to digital is irreversible. There is less mail and Canada Post is delivering to more addresses. We are told this is not sustainable.

Over the coming five-year period, five million addresses will be converting to community mailboxes. We are being pummeled into submission by statistics.

A slide comes up on the big screen showing a fictional map of two adjacent neighbourhoods giving us an idea of what life could be like with community mailboxes.

One neighbourhood has a smattering of red dots. Fewer dots mean bigger community mailboxes. Next door is a neighbourhood with measles. Lots of little red dots mean more - but smaller - community mailboxes.

Personally, I prefer the latter.

But maybe that’s because I have a feeling in my bones that, before the year is out, and despite all my protestations, something with a Canada Post logo is going to be sitting at the bottom of my garden.

 

Details

Inspectors from York Region are responsible for making sure the food we eat won’t harm us. They are the unsung heroes, policing restaurants and fast food joints on our behalf.

In Newmarket, so much of the public discourse is polarised around the (false) premise: private sector good: public sector bad.

Only simpletons are fooled by such talk.

We need efficient and effective public services and we should be prepared to pay for them. 

I’ve just checked out a number of places where I dine out from time to time. And there’s one I definitely won’t be going back to. Others keep on the right side of the food inspectors - just. A few have impeccable records. They’ll get my business.

The green Inspection Notices on restaurant windows and doors tell only half the story.

You can dig deeper by visiting York Region’s Food Safe website. Type in the name of the restaurant and it pops up as a pin on the map. Click on the pin and read the inspection reports and prepare to have your eyes opened.

You can also lodge a complaint against a restaurant or other food premises by calling Health Connection: 1-800-361-5653 or TTY 1-866-252-9933 or emailing This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Restaurants that pose an immediate health hazard are closed down. The fact that this doesn’t happen very often is due, in large measure, to the work of our food safety people.

Case made.

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

 

Details

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

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.

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home