If a Monster Home goes up in your neighbourhood and you have concerns, what can you do about it?

The short answer is you are on your own. Don't look to the Town for help.  

A few days ago an email came winging in from a certain Mr X, eager to let me have his views on my earlier blog about the huge structure taking shape at 1011 Elgin Street. He lives in the same street.

"You use the words "seems like" and "appears" in your article. But you don't say "it is". So you don't know, do you?"

He goes on:

"Were there any objections by neighbours to the size of the house?"

I'll take these points in turn.

After I discovered this monster home going up in a low rise residential neighbourhood, I contacted the Town. I told the Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, I was concerned that:

"before long this low rise residential neighbourhood is going to be studded with huge, out of place, monster homes, transforming the character of the area. The zoning by-laws as they stand clearly offer residents no protection from monster homes."

Mr Nethery told me:

"Essentially the proposal (for the new building at 1011 Elgin Street) only required a routine building permit issuance as it complies with the relevant zoning requirements in respect of height, setbacks and lot coverage." 

It seemed to me - a complete layperson who knows nothing about surveying - the monster home just didn't look right. It seemed way too big for the lot. (It reminded me of the monstrous Clock Tower development which to the untrained eye seemed way too big, yet the professionals appeared to suggest that, with a tweak, it could be made to fit in.)

Mr Nethery was happy to show me the site plan - and I was grateful - but what if the building under construction was bigger than what was shown in the plan or was situated too close to the property line?

He told me measuring a structure "in the field" was not something the Town’s Building Division could do. It would have to be done by an Ontario Land Surveyor.

And who, I asked, would commission this?

Not the Town. It would be up to me! Or anyone else with concerns.   

Which brings me to Mr X's second point - did anyone complain? 

If the Town does not police its own by-laws does it fall to members of the public to step in to the vacuum if they have concerns?

Mr Nethery tells me:

"It is not a requirement of either the Building or Planning Division to "police" the location of a dwelling after construction. When applying for a building permit, an applicant submits a site plan, typically prepared by an engineer, architect, designer or surveyor to confirm compliance with the zoning requirements regarding setbacks, coverage etc. The preparer of the site plan is therefore responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information submitted."

He goes on

"I don't know if I'm in any better position than you in determining the setbacks in the absence of a survey however I can't conclude that the property is not in compliance."                        

Led up the garden path                                                                

Yet he concluded the property was in compliance when he visited 1011 Elgin Street after receiving a request from a councillor to do so.

Following his site visit several weeks ago, he now tells me on Friday (31 March 2017)

"I satisfied myself that the permit that was applied for was in compliance with the relevant requirements and didn't feel further action was necessary."

Why on earth didn't he say that earlier rather than spin this yarn about his views being no more authoritative than mine?

Mr Nethery now offers an olive branch and

"Under the circumstances of your on-going concern, we will contact the applicant to determine if there is or will be a survey they could share with us to determine compliance."

But what if the owner says no?

Does the Town employ a surveyor or have one on a retainer for this kind of eventuality? And if not, why not?

The issue of "who complained?" is beside the point.

A better question is this:

Who represents the wider public interest - and ensures its own by-laws are being complied with - if it is not the Town of Newmarket?

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


 

The site plan for the property under construction at 1011 Elgin Street indicates:

Front yard setback of 9.88 metres. (minimum 7.5 metres required)

Side yard setback of 1.83 metres. (minimum 1.8 metres required)

Rear yard setback of 10.71 metres. (minimum 7.5 metres required)

Lot coverage of 31.33% (maximum 35%)


 

It is up to you folks! Take your pick!

There are many definitions of remuneration. The Town’s Treasurer, Mike Mayes, sets them out here in all their bewildering complexity.   

So if anyone has the temerity to ask Van Trappist how much he makes, the Mayor can pick the pay package that best suits the occasion.   

In most cases this would be the lowest. But in the unlikely event of the old banker wanting a bank loan he could be tempted to select his highest remuneration.

Mr Mayes, the man with the abacus, tells us

“Remuneration for (the) purposes of the annual Statement of Remuneration and Expenses is based on payments and includes the non-taxable portion of council wages, but does not include payments not ultimately made by the Town, such as those reimbursed by the Region.

“For Public Salary Disclosure purposes, remuneration is derived from the elected official’s T4 form and therefore includes only the taxable portion of Town wages and Regional stipend. It can be confusing.”

Hmmmm. Some of the calculations seem adrift by a few dollars here and a few dollars there. I don't pretend to understand it all. But if I’ve got the gist of it right:

(a)   $117,162 is Van Trappist’s income as shown on the Sunshine List. It derives from the two-thirds of his Town remuneration on which he pays tax ($62,814.94) plus the so-called "stipend"  of $54,337.92 from York Region. This gives a total of $117,152.86. I am a few dollars adrift from the Sunshine List figure which I cannot immediately explain.

If the Mayor paid tax on his whole income from the Town and not just two-thirds, his Sunshine List remuneration would be that much higher.

Regional Councillor John Taylor does not feature in the Sunshine List even though his combined income - like the Mayor's - is greater than the $100,000 threshold.

(b)  $148,560 is the Mayor’s income as reported in the Town's annual statement of Remuneration and Expenses. This is his $94,222.41 from the Town of Newmarket and his $54,337.92 from the Region of York. He is on the Region because he is Mayor.

(c)  $160,564 is the Mayor’s income as above together with the $12,004 he gets from Newmarket-Tay Hydro. He is only on the Board because he is Mayor.

Is that clear enough?

Appendix A in the Statement of Remuneration and Benefits tells us:

 

Remuneration

Benefits per T4 (lease car)

Other Benefit Costs (OMERS, CPP etc)

Remuneration and Benefits

 

Other Expenses

Total

Tony Van Bynen

$94,222.41

$7,651.62

$15,320.69

$117,194.72

$8,560.93

$125,755.65

 Appendix B on Income Reporting says this: (The employment income figure is the one shown on the Sunshine List)

 

Employment Income

Municipal Officers’ Expenses Allowance. Tax free 1/3rd

2016 Remuneration per T4

Tony Van Bynen

$117,162.21

$31,398.12

$148,560.33

Source of remuneration (shown above).  Benefits are excluded from these figures.

 

York Region

Town

Total Remuneration

Tony Van Bynen

$54,337.92

$94,222.41

$148,560.33

2016 Payments made to Members of the Regional Municipality of York Council

 

Remuneration

Benefits per T4

Other Benefit Costs

Remuneration and Benefits

Other Expenses

Total

Tony Van Bynen

$54,337.92

 

$8,992.79

$63,330.71

$4,863.62

$68,194.33

John Taylor

$54,337.92

 

$8,908.33

$63,246.25

$1,193.38

$64,439.63

Payments made to members of Newmarket-Tay Hydro. Van Bynen is appointed by the Council to the Board and is there by virtue of his position as Mayor.

 

Remuneration

Benefits per T4

Other Benefit costs

Remuneration and Benefits

Other Expenses

Total

Tony Van Bynen

$12,004

 

 

$12,004

 

$12,004

 

Sunshine List for members of York Regional Council

And here are the Sunshine List figures for members of York Regional Council. As with Van Trappist above, these figures do not give the whole picture. You've got to take them with a shovel full of salt.

The Sunshine List has serious design flaws and is worse than useless. The figures cannot be relied on.

Aurora's Geoffrey Dawe appears on the Sunshine List for the first time even though his combined income from Aurora and York Region would have put him over the $100,000 threshold in the past.

I also note that Vaughan’s Michael Di Biase whose pay from the City of Vaughan in 2015 was docked for 90 days for improperly interfering in the tendering process, has bounced back with a vengeance, recovering the cash that he lost for his questionable behaviour.

 

Municipality

2016

2015

2014

Mayor Geoffrey Dawe

Aurora

$100,829

nothing reported

nothing reported

Mayor Virginia Hackson

East Gwillimbury

$124,094

$126,035

$119,772

Mayor and Regional Councillor Margaret Quirk

Georgina

nothing reported

$106,806

nothing reported

Mayor Steve Pellegrini

King

nothing reported

nothing reported

nothing reported

Mayor Frank Scarpitti

Markham

$187,881

$187,129

$191,996

Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor Jack Heath

Markham

$137,330

$136,778

$140,163

Regional Councillor Jim Jones

Markham

nothing reported

nothing reported

nothing reported

Regional Councillor Joe Li

Markham

nothing reported

nothing reported

nothing reported

Regional Councillor Nirmala Armstrong

Markham

$129,785

$129,262

nothing reported

Mayor Tony Van Bynen

Newmarket

$117,162

$120,494

$113,921

Regional Councillor John Taylor

Newmarket

nothing reported

nothing reported

nothing reported

Mayor David Barrow

Richmond Hill

$180,958

$174,281

$173,379

Regional Councillor Vito Spatafora

Richmond Hill

$130,310

$126,193

$125,291

Regional Councillor Brenda Hogg

Richmond Hill

$130,310

$126,193

$125,291

Mayor Maurizio Bevilacqua

Vaughan

$179,040

$176,919

$173,459

Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor Michael Di Biase

Vaughan

$139,902

$117,603

$128,778

Regional Councillor Mario Ferri

Vaughan

$132,122

$130,706

nothing reported

Regional Councillor Gino Rosati

Vaughan

$132,122

$130,706

$135,041

Mayor Justin Altman

Whitchurch Stouffville

nothing reported

nothing reported

nothing reported

 

 

 

 

 

Health Warning: Check out the Sunshine Lists:

2016 here

2015 here

2014 here

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


 

The Monster Home that is currently under construction at 1011 Elgin Street did not require any approvals or permissions from the Town because it, apparently, meets the zoning requirements.

If this is indeed the case then the Town's zoning standards need a complete overhaul.

The standards offer no protection for people living in long-established low-rise neighbourhoods where the lots are relatively generous.

The Director of Planning, Rick Nethery, tells me:

"Essentially the proposal (for the new building at 1011 Elgin Street) only required a routine building permit issuance as it complies with the relevant zoning requirements in respect of setbacks, height and lot coverage."

The relevant zoning standards stipulate that the maximum lot coverage should be no more than 35%. I appreciate the eye can deceive but the footprint of the monster house seems way more than that. 

The monster home also appears much closer to the lot or property line than the zoning standards stipulate. At its closest point it is supposed to be at least 1.8 metres (or 5' 9") from the lot line. To me it seems more like 1.2 metres or 4 feet away. It is unquestionably less than 1.8 metres. (The posts and green netting show the property line.)

The Council should embark on a review of zoning standards to see if they are still fit for purpose.

If nothing is done, stable low rise residential neighbourhoods across Newmarket are going to be studded with huge, out of place, monster homes, transforming the character of the area.

For too many Newmarket residents, the zoning by-laws as they stand give absolutely no protection whatsoever from the looming invasion of monster homes.

1011 Elgin Street is all the proof you need.

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


 

 Today I receive a package in the mail from Bob Forrest's lawyer, the silver-tongued Ira Kagan. It is about the OMB Pre-Hearing on Wednesday 3 May 2017.    (See here. Scroll to bottom of page.)

People who attended the Statutory Public meeting on the Clock Tower and spoke or otherwise registered an interest will be getting a letter from Kagan, the doyen of planning lawyers and the developers' favourite consigliere.

Unfortunately, there is nothing at all in Kagan's bundle about the land swap without which the Clock Tower redevelopment cannot proceed. This is the elephant in the room. (Photo right shows Kagan at the recent OMB Hearing in Aurora, acting for the developers who want to build over the Highland Gate golf course.)

Our client's lands

On 29 November 2013, Kagan wrote to the then Town Clerk, Andrew Brouwer, telling him his client (Forrest) was appealing to the OMB:

"To the extent that by-law 2013-51 (the Heritage Conservation District By-law passed by the Town on 21 October 2013) creates any additional burden (procedural or substantive) to the redevelopment of our clients lands, our clients object and hereby appeal By-law 2013-51 to the Ontario Municipal Board." (My emphasis)

Kagan is now leading us into the theatre of the absurd. Forrest needs Town owned land for his Clock Tower development and he never got it.

The OMB considered Kagan's 2013 appeal letter and temporarily removed the Forrest lands from the Heritage Conservation District until the Town decided what it was going to do with the Clock Tower application.

Rejected

The Committee of the Whole met on 28 November 2016 and rejected Forrest's application and this decision was endorsed by the full Council at its meeting on  5 December 2016.  

It is perfectly clear there never was a binding agreement by the Town to make its lands available to Forrest.

Indeed, Forrest's angry letter to councillors on 28 November 2016 says:

"The private lands identified in Market Square are indeed owned by Main Street Clock Inc and they would form a portion of the land exchange."

So, if there wasn't a binding agreement between the Town and Forrest on the land swap was there an "agreement in principle"?

John Taylor doesn't seem to think so. In November 2016, he wrote:

"As many of you know it is unlikely for a development of seven or nine storeys to proceed at this location without the acquisition of Town-owned land (underground rights) for parking. This effectively should mean that the Town will have the final say on the proposed development without OMB intervention. Although one never knows for sure."

Bad Faith

The Town won't say if there was some kind of "agreement in principle" entered into with Forrest.

This doesn't surprise me. It is another example of the suffocating secrecy we have come to expect from Van Trappist's administration.

If Forrest had negotiated a firm and binding agreement with the Town on the land swap - only to see his Clock Tower redevelopment application rejected - he would by now be jumping up and down in his bright orange shoes, crying foul, accusing the Town of leading him up the garden path and acting in bad faith.

I hope we see the details of the proposed land exchange before 3 May. But if not, it will all come out in the wash at the OMB Hearing.

It will be a moment of high drama.

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


The Land Exchange: Over a year ago, I was in touch with the Town Solicitor about this. On 23 February 2016, I was told:

1. Council received a land exchange request from the Clock Tower developer, but has deferred any final decision on that proposal until such time as the developer's application for zoning by-law amendment goes through the usual public planning process and receives development approval from the Council.

2. The details of the proposed land exchange are confidential at this point as they involve the potential acquisition disposition of Town lands.

3. If or when the developer's development application comes before Council, the details of the requested land exchange will likely become public information."

Later that same day (23 February 2016) it was confirmed:

Council last dealt with the matter in Closed Session on June 24, 2013.


 

Read this first: We need good elected officials to take important decisions on our behalf. I don't expect them to wear hair shirts. They should be properly and fairly rewarded for the critically important job they do. But the present system is opaque and makes meaningful comparisons of remuneration way too difficult. Now read on...

Newmarket councillors yesterday voted to stick with the current practice of getting one third of their remuneration tax-free.

If they get rid of it without a compensating salary increase they will, according to Regional Councillor John Taylor, be facing a 10%-15% cut in their take home pay.  

But if they increase their pay to compensate for its loss they will be crucified on the altar of public opinion as the additional cost would be picked up by Newmarket taxpayers.

Taylor, at his inventive best, sees tax-free status as some kind of Provincial grant to the Town. 

Province to blame

Personally, I blame the Province for this lamentable state of affairs.

In 1996 the Province legislated to abolish the tax-free portion of MPPs' salaries yet, 21 years later, councillors are still saddled with this ridiculous and archaic system.

During the debates on the Municipal Act back in 2001, Michael Prue, then MPP for the Beaches riding in Toronto, observed:

"The entire problem with this bill is that they (municipal politicians) have to register that they want to keep the one third tax-free, of course with the publicity that then ensues. The alternative is that they can raise their pay, the same way this provincial Legislature did, in order to cover for that, and then have the newspapers write that they've all given themselves a huge increase, which isn't true as well. Instead of just legislating it, you've made it almost impossible for municipal politicians across those 460 municipalities."

Despite the opprobrium, a number of municipalities have grasped the nettle. To take a few examples, elected officials' remuneration is 100% taxable in Toronto, Vaughan, Peel, York, Halton, Burlington, Mississauga, Hamilton and even in Markham - home to the highest paid Mayor in Ontario, Frank Scarpitti.

Or is he the highest paid?

Tax-free status distorts comparisons

The one third tax-free status distorts comparisons between municipalities. It is not easy or straightforward to compare the remuneration of the Frank Scarpittis of this world with the Tony Van Trappists.

Until a few years ago when I brought the matter to the attention of the Town's Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Shelton, Van Trappist did not declare his remuneration from Newmarket Hydro as he was obliged to do under the Municipal Act.

The Sunshine List simply adds to the general confusion. It mixes together those who have tax-free status and the overwhelming majority who don't. (And the salary disclosure level has never been uprated for inflation, ensnaring more people every year.)

The Town uses comparator municipalities to help set appropriate levels of remuneration. But I don't know how many of these have abandoned tax-free status, if any, and how this feeds through into the calculations..

In any event it seems to me the remuneration of elected officials is a hall of mirrors where, ideally, everything should be in sharp focus.

The Province should do the right thing and legislate to get rid of tax-free status for municipal politicians.

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


How the debate went at Mulock Drive on 20 March 2017

John Taylor: "I'll move option 1."  (To retain tax-free status) 

Dave Kerwin: "I'll second that Mr Mayor."

Mayor: "Any discussions? You wish to speak to it Regional Councillor?"

John Taylor: "Yes. I'll make some brief comments. As many may know but not necessarily all know, this is a requirement that Council reaffirms or rescinds the one third tax free portion of Council pay and they have to do this once per term of office and so we have not dealt with it yet this term so we are doing so now.

It is my feeling that there are fewer and fewer municipalities to be frank that have the one third tax free. I'll be honest, I don't fully understand it. I think it is because people don't like the optic that you are getting something for free.

When you move past that issue it becomes very clear that by embracing the one third tax free we are saving the taxpayers of Newmarket dollars that would otherwise be borne by the Provincial taxpayers which is a much larger pool of taxpayers. So obviously when you spread the money across so many people so, in essence, one third of the pay of each member of Council - the municipal, the Town of Newmarket portion only - is tax free so that is a cost to the Province.

So essentially I can't help but think that we are out looking for and trying to achieve grants from the Province to support us in some of our infrastructure projects or other projects it would be ironic if, on the other hand, we turned down this opportunity that is essentially a form of a grant from the Province to impact us and our budgetting process in a positive manner.

I would say this that if... I also think that... A couple of other things I would raise is that... It is hard to know exactly but if Council's decision as per I believe most municipalities that have dealt with this issue and have removed the one third tax free they typically increase the council members' pay to leave the members (pay) whole. That would probably be approaching about $100,000 impact on our budget in the upcoming year yet as we know in the past year we struggled over a $25,000 figure over whether we could sustain the planting programme at some of our facilities at some of the entrances to our communities.

So $100,000 on a large budget doesn't sound like much but when you are done with your base budget and growth and managing those impacts you are left with actually very little to play with when it comes to enhancements. So this is not a small number in terms of how it impacts the Town budget. Number one.

And number two, I think if you were to not increase councils' pay while eliminating the one third tax free, I think that should be considered by a new term of council. I think essentially... I know there is not a lot of sympathy out there for elected officials and pay but the bottom line is you are talking about something in the range of a 10% - 15% cut in pay. And I am sure there are not a lot of people in our society working anywhere would want to incur that in their own world when they've got to manage family costs and children and sports and mortgages and we all have our own considerations. 

I think it would be right for a new term of Council to consider that as we are so close to the end of this term of council so I would add a recommendation to the option 1 that, again this has to be dealt with every term, this issue of one third tax free be brought forward in the first twelve months of  the next term of council for consideration by that new council so that it can be dealt with early and that it would impact the majority of the term of council one way or another. And I think it gives people time to think about it.

It gives everybody a heads up that that could be an impact in terms of their own budgetting if we were to go that way and it allows some discussions during the election cycle and see what kind of feedback we get. But I have to be honest I get very little feedback about this. I don't think this is a priority or even makes a priority list by any members of our community and it is largely just a routine, administrative function and, again, for now, it is essentially a Provincial grant to the municipality and I think we are wise to take that grant." 

Mayor: "Councillor Kerwin is the seconder. Do you see that as a friendly amendment?

Dave Kerwin: "Yes"

Mayor: "Do you want to speak to that?"

Dave Kerwin: Our Regional Councillor and Deputy Mayor has covered it adequately, Mr Mayor. No further comment.

Mayor: "OK. Thank you. Councillor Twinney." 

Jane Twinney: "Would it be possible... I mean I will support the fact that it is coming back at the beginning of the first term of the next council. Everyone should be aware that it needs to come up and (be) discussed. I'd like to get a little bit more information then perhaps we could get staff to get some information - just high level - of the number of municipalities that are now still at that one third tax-free and the ones that have converted over to having the non one third tax-free portion say in the last one or two terms.

"How many of them have gone and had to increase their salaries so that the end result net is the same for the individual councillors? Or if they have gone and just changed it over to the regular amount without having a net amount decrease in their net salary. Just a little bit of comparison about what is going on out there in the other municipalities and some information because it would be good information to have."

Mayor: "As we go forward? I don't know if that information is currently available Mr Shelton or..."

Bob Shelton: Mr Mayor, we could take that as a staff direction to do as part of the overall review that we do every three years so that could be information that's available that could come forward in the first year of the next term unless the councillor is looking for that sooner.

Jane Twinney: "Is it possible we could get that information before?"

Bob Shelton: "It is possible probably more towards the end of the year...

Jane Twinney: "OK"

Bob Shelton: "...when we have the review in place."

Mayor: "OK. Regional Councillor"

John Taylor: "Yeah. I just wanted to support what Councillor Twinney is saying. I think... I know there is a lot going on. I don't think there is a huge rush but before the end of the term so that we have all the information so that when you go through an election process and this can be discussed and debated that it is done with all the information available. I think if we waited til afterwards there would be some missing parts of the conversation that could occur.

Mayor to Jane Twinney: "And you are satisfied with that as a direction to staff?

Jane Twinney: "Yes."

Mayor: "Any further discussion? All those in favour then."

carried nem con.