Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 03 April 2017

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%)

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 01 April 2017

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:

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 30 March 2017

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.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 29 March 2017

 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.