Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 04 March 2015

Tomorrow is the big day when York Region gives its imprimatur to Newmarket’s Urban Centres Secondary Plan.

Seems to me there is a lot of smoke and mirrors in the world of planning. Everything is not quite as it appears at first glance.

Take the Plan’s Schedule 6, for example. It still has chunks of Glenway appearing in a light green colour denoting Natural Heritage Parks and Open Space (Outside of Secondary Plan Area). I realize planning moves at a glacial pace (when it suits) but we have known for a year that much of this open space is to be built over. Shouldn’t this be recorded in some way?

Future GO Rail Station

And I see on Schedules 3, 4, 5 and 6 the site of the “Future GO Transit Station” (sometimes referred to as the Future GO Rail Station). The unwary reader might believe that a GO Rail Station is to be built there at some point in the future.

Hold on! Not so fast!

If we go to the Newmarket Official Plan (Office consolidation September 2014) we learn:

The location of the “Conceptual Future Rail Station” at Mulock Drive is not intended to be specific and the identification of the final location will be subject to the applicable process and will not require an amendment to this Plan (OPA#7, By-law 2012-42).

So why not say in the Secondary Plan: “Conceptual Future GO Rail Station”?

We learned from Greg Percy’s presentation to the Metrolinx Board yesterday (3 March 2015) that one new station is being penciled in on the Barrie corridor – Downsview Park. No sign as yet of one at Mulock Drive. The knowledgeable Mr Percy also tells us that a new GO Rail Station costs between $25-$50 million, excluding land costs.

Mobility Hubs

The text of the Secondary Plan spells out the policies but these are complemented by colourful schedules, maps and plans, used to help us better understand what the authors have in mind.

So why did Newmarket planners reject a clear recommendation from Metrolinx in April 2014 to detail the study area for the anchor hub at Yonge and Davis?

“The four plans in Schedules 3 (land use), 4 (height and density), 5 (street network) and 6 (parks, open space and natural heritage) identify the two Mobility Hubs within the Newmarket Urban Centres and the conceptual Mobility Hub Station Area Plan Study Area for the Newmarket GO train station. It is recommended the conceptual Mobility Hub Area Plan Study Area for the Anchor Hub at the intersection of Yonge Street and Davis Drive be detailed on the Schedules.”

Newmarket Councillors were told by planning staff in June 2014   

“there is not going to be a circle on the map”.

No-one asked: why not?

Maybe I’ll find out tomorrow.

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

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 02 March 2015

Newmarket’s Urban Centres Secondary Plan goes up for approval by York Region’s Committee of the Whole on Thursday morning (5 March) following the conclusion of a special Council meeting on the “York Region Official Plan 5 Year Review”.

Newmarket’s plan has been endlessly revised, re-written, re-jigged and re-drafted but question marks remain. It has always been work in progress and that continues to this day. Mulock Farm and 230 Davis Drive fall into a new “Deferrals” category where decisions are put off to another day.

More modifications

The report going to the Region lists a long series of “modifications” to the Secondary Plan that was formally adopted by Newmarket in June 2014. There are new additions in bold and zillions of strikethroughs.

The covering report by regional staff is laudatory:

“The long-term vision, as detailed in the Secondary Plan, is for a vibrant urban community at build out of 33,000 residents and 32,000 jobs. However, it is understood that full build out of the Secondary Plan will likely not be achieved during the current planning horizon (2031) and is anticipated to be well beyond 2031.”

There is, of course, not the remotest possibility that full build out will happen by 2031.

Only 15 months ago, (November 2013) the Town’s expert external consultant on Glenway, Ruth Victor, was telling councillors there would be 21,000 people in the urban centres by 2031. This was her fictional account:

“There are currently approximately 2500 people living within the urban centres. It is forecasted that by 2031 this number will be approximately 21,000…. The Town currently has development applications on file for lands within the urban centres for 3,359 people. It is expected that all of these applications will be built prior to 2031, and that other applications totalling the remaining 15,141 people (21,000 – 2,500 existing – 3,359 in applications = 15,141 remaining) will also be received, approved and built prior to 2031. This assumption is based on discussion (Newmarket) staff has had with land owners within the centres related to their development plans and timings.”

Magic Circle

Last year, regional staff pushed for greater population density on the Yonge and Davis corridors to support VivaNext and the new rapidways. In a conjuring trick worthy of the Magic Circle itself, Newmarket’s planners told mystified councillors that population was being redistributed along the corridors to satisfy the region’s concerns. Overall, population numbers (33,000) and jobs (32,000) remain unchanged. The planners subsequently sought to clarify things, but failed.

In paragraph 6.3.2 of the Plan we see revised population and jobs by Character Area. I take all this with a shovel full of salt. On the face of it, these figures are impressively precise. But they are entirely spurious.

The future of Upper Canada Mall

The big question mark hovers over the future of Upper Canada Mall – one of the biggest in the Province. The intersection at Yonge and Davis is supposed to be the focus of growth in the future as the Town builds upwards. Yet planning for the Mall site has been shuffled off to the Mall’s owners – Oxford Properties – who are quite happy with the Mall as it is right now, thank you very much.

Two questions for Thursday. When did work on the Master Plan for UCM start? And when it is due to be completed?

Transit still up-in-the-air

York councillors are being told that Newmarket’s Secondary Plan:

“includes detailed mixed-use and transit-supportive policies for the defined “Major Transit Station Areas” including Newmarket’s GO Rail Station, GO Bus Terminal and each of the transit stations for the Viva Rapidways."

In fact, the future of transit in Newmarket and the Mobility Hubs is still very much up-in-the-air.

The Secondary Plan now before the Region strikes out the word “proposed” in relation to the new GO Rail Station at Mulock Drive. Where is the evidence from Metrolinx that they are planning a new station there?

Dedicated Parkland

(As an aside) we know that green space will be at a premium in the future yet the Secondary Plan “also provides for the reduction in parkland dedication where land has been dedicated to the Town to accommodate the future burying of hydro lines.”

I also see that the total amount of additional neighbourhood parkland required at build out in the Town’s North West quadrant goes up from 15.4 hectares to 17.6 hectares. Another moving target.

Summing it all up, the effusive planners at York Region tell us:

Newmarket’s Urban Centres Secondary Plan provides a tremendous city-building opportunity for the Town and Region.

That "city-building" sentiment must jar with our regional councillor, John Taylor. I recall his blog “High Rise Development in Newmarket” that he wrote when we were starting out on this tortuous journey towards the Secondary Plan.

 Remember we are the Town of Newmarket, not the City of Newmarket.

The underlining is his.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 02 March 2015

In April last year in a speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade, the Premier, Kathleen Wynne, made this momentous commitment:

Over ten years, we aim to phase in electric train service every fifteen minutes on all GO lines that we own.

And in her mandate letter to Transport Minister Steven Del Duca on 25 September 2014 she said this:

“Working to transform existing GO commuter rail into a Regional Express Rail rapid transit system over the next 10 years, with the support of Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario. The system will provide 15-minute, two-way electrified service and is the cornerstone of our government’s transit plan. Your goal is to manage congestion and move people throughout the GTHA.”

Tomorrow (3 March 2015) the Metrolinx Board will be meeting to get an update on progress from the Head of GO Transit, Greg Percy. You can see his presentation here.

Percy will talk about:

“An electrified service on corridors Metrolinx owns (and Barrie is one) with 15 minute frequencies in core areas.”

But what precisely is a core area? The original commitment seems to be morphing into something else.

We learn that implementing RER (Regional Express Rail) will mean 15 rail-road grade separations, 150 km of new track and 500km of overhead catenery. That adds up to a lot of work and mountains of money.

A 15 minute service will inevitably mean hugely expensive grade separations at Green Lane and at Davis Drive. So, is a 15 minute service still on the cards for our part of the Barrie line?

Percy will also talk about “future stations”. He says an “analysis of potential locations for new stations is ongoing”. But will he have anything to say about a GO Train station at Mulock Drive? Metrolinx told me last year there are no plans for one yet Newmarket’s Secondary Plan says otherwise. This is not a trivial issue. Land values are affected when sites are earmarked for major stations or terminals.

We also learn an environmental assessment is being carried out:

for rail corridor expansion from Union to Allandale Waterfront GO Station to enable increased frequency and bi-directional service.

I am left wondering how much land is likely to be required in Newmarket for rail corridor expansion. This, alone, could be a huge undertaking.

At a time when growth in York Region is slowing markedly* I hope this will not be used as an excuse to cut back on spending on the Barrie line.

Our councillors need regular updates on the Regional Express Rail programme and how it will impact on our town. Unless they speak out strongly - with their colleagues at York Region - we could all be left behind.

*York Region’s 2015 Fiscal Strategy tells us growth and DC collections continue to trend lower than originally forecast. A paper that went to the Committee of the Whole on 19 February 2015 says this:  “The Region’s population has been characterised by alternating periods of robust and more moderate growth. While the population continues to increase, the rate of growth has moderated significantly from the levels seen in the early 2000s. In recent years, York Region’s population growth has been less than earlier forecasts. Since 2011, the Region has been growing at an estimated rate of 22.8 thousand people per year, approximately 12% less than the 2010 Official Plan forecast for the period 2011-2016.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 25 February 2015

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)