Details

24 hours after legislation was introduced to ban corporate and union funding for provincial elections, the Government, in a remarkable change of heart, has decided to extend the ban to cover municipal elections.

In a story buried at the very back of the Toronto Star’s GTA section, Noor Javed reports today that

“initially, the province had proposed passing legislation as part of Bill 181, the proposed Municipal Elections Modernisation Act, which would give municipalities the power to make their own decisions on whether to change the contentious fundraising rules.”

But, yesterday, almost as an after-thought, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ted McMeekin, said it made sense to follow suit at the municipal level.

I am very much in favour of keeping developer money out of elections but we wait to see the small print.

Elections have to be financed. And some elections at municipal level are big, very big. If Chris Ballard’s Bill 42 passes, we could be electing a new Chair of York Region in 2018 with an electorate of 750,000 people. And at municipal level there are no political parties to share the financial burden.

A report to York Region in February 2016 pointed out that candidates could incur significant expenses in a region wide election campaign.

“Campaign spending limits are prescribed by the Municipal Elections Act using a formula based on the number of eligible electors. For a head of council, the spending limit is $7,500 plus $0.85 per eligible elector. Based on 2014 statistics, a candidate in a Region-wide election for the Regional Chair would have a spending limit close to $600,000, Based on population projections the spending limit in 2018 could be in excess of $650,000.”

This sum is enough to alarm even the stout-hearted.

That said, we need a directly elected Regional Chair but there must be tight spending caps, rigorously policed.

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

update on Sunday 22 May 2016: Here is today's Toronto Star editorial

 

Details

The appeal against Newmarket’s Urban Centres Secondary Plan (OPA10) will not be settled at the OMB until January 23, 2017 – almost seven years after the whole tortuous and flawed process began.

Newmarket’s Secondary Plan was approved by York Region in March 2015. 

At that stage, the Region heard pleas from the Estate of Thomas Mulock (whose land lies on the north west corner of the intersection at Yonge and Mulock) which wants their land designated for medium and high density mixed use development. They don’t want a neighbourhood park.

A group of fast food restaurants (Tim Horton’s, A&W, McDonalds and Wendy’s) raised concerns about the Secondary Plan prohibiting drive through facilities.

The sclerotic OMB had its third pre-hearing conference on 28 April 2016 and yet another one is penciled in for 7 July 2016 at 395 Mulock Drive. What on earth do they get to talk about?

The hearing of the merits is, astonishingly, almost nine months away.

It is obvious to all that the OMB is completely silted up and the system totally useless.

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

Details

Last week I wrote that the peer review of the Heritage Impact Assessment - commissioned by Bob Forrest from GBCA (Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd) to support his Clock Tower application - was worse than useless.

In fact, the work of the peer reviewer is so shoddy the Town should terminate its contract with ERA Architects forthwith.

ERA have carried out two peer reviews of Forrest’s proposed Clock Tower development. The first on 22 July 2014 when Forrest was pushing for approval of a nine storey condo.

The second review on 4 May 2016 comments on the latest 7 storey rental building. (You can read them here.)

In 2014, when Forrest was trying to get approval for a nine storey condo, ERA Architects reviewed the conservation strategy proposed by GBCA noting:

“The (GBCA) document concludes that the proposed development achieves a balance between the heritage and intensification goals of the Town by setting the nine storey building outside of the Heritage Conservation District boundary, thus maintaining the Main Street South streetscape.”   (My underlining.)

In fact, the proposed nine storey building was never going to be outside the Heritage Conservation District.

The 2014 ERA peer review continues:

“ERA Architects Inc agrees with the recommendation to relocate the massing away from the low-scale heritage buildings along Main Street South and notes that it is an improvement on the previous proposals.”

ERA goes on to recommend the nine storeys be reduced to six for these reasons:

“A six storey height limit is appropriate based on height permissions contained within the UC-D2 zone, which is found on lands immediately adjacent to the westerly portion of the development site to the rear of the Main Street properties.” (My underlining.)

In the 4 May 2016 peer review, ERA Architects observe:

“The height of the proposed new construction on Park Street (sic) has been reduced from the 2014 proposal from nine to seven storeys. It is our opinion that the current proposed height on Park Street (sic) is appropriate.”

It is only appropriate if you disregard the current UC-D1 zoning which covers the entire Clock Tower development footprint (which limits new development to three storeys or nine metres) and use instead the zoning for the adjacent piece of land, not in the ownership of Bob Forrest, which falls into zone UC-D2 where the limit is six storeys or 18 metres.

This is contorted logic.

ERA is bending over backwards to accommodate the developer while ignoring the Town’s relevant zoning by-law.

Retaining ERA Architects as the peer reviewer for the proposed Clock Tower development no longer serves any useful purpose.

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

Details

The peer review of Forrest’s Heritage Impact Assessment by the Town’s retained heritage consultants, ERA Architects, is disappointingly thin.

No. It is alarmingly thin to the point of being inadequate. You can read it here.

It was sent by email to the Town on 4 May 2016 but there was no reference to it at the Statutory Public Meeting on 9 May 2016. Perhaps councillors only got sight of it today.

As expected, ERA does not challenge the proposed demolition by Forrest of the historic commercial buildings in Main Street South even when the Town’s own Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan says at paragraph 4.2.1.2:

“The Town supports the retention of historic buildings in the district. If a property owner proposes to demolish or remove an historic building, a heritage impact assessment may be required at the discretion of the Council to ascertain whether there are alternatives to demolition or removal. Notwithstanding the findings of the heritage impact assessment, the Town reserves its right to refuse the application for demolition or re-location; and the property owner has right of appeal.”

The Town’s contract awarding “peer review” status to ERA Architects says:

“It is expected that the preferred protective and mitigative measures will be consistent with the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan…”

Well, that’s been thrown out of the window for starters. Ordinary English usage does not apply in the rarefied world of planning where the word "consistent" clearly means exactly the opposite to what the rest of us think it means.

ERA suggests facades are OK. If the Town had wanted facades rather than the real thing it would have said so in its Heritage Conservation District Plan.

The comments look as if they were jotted down on the back of an envelope by someone with five minutes to spare between meetings. Where is “Park Street” for example?

We are told the height of the proposed new construction on Park Street (sic) is “appropriate”.

Where is the policy authority for such a statement? What reasons led ERA to say the proposed seven storeys on Park Street “is appropriate”?

The Town should reject this half-hearted commentary.

Truly, it is worse than useless.

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

 

Details

Back story: In November 2013 Town awarded a “peer review” contract to ERA Architects of Toronto. They would be responsible for peer reviewing any Heritage Impact Assessment for 180-194 Main Street South and for any future peer reviews on an “as needed” basis for five years. You can see the documentation here. 

Taylor breaks the (expected) news.

Regional Councillor John Taylor tweeted this morning:

Clock Tower Heritage Impact Assessment Peer Review is in:

It recommends:

  1. Decrease the height of the proposed new construction by Main Street South by at minimum one storey so that the overall height does not compete with the height of the former Post Office clock tower. The proposed stepback at the upper level should remain to maintain appropriate views of the clock tower from the south.

I have not seen the full report. As soon as I have read it I shall post my comments. But some preliminary thoughts.

From what Taylor says, the peer review seems to be stressing so-called “mitigative measures”. It cannot possibly say that Forrest’s proposals are in line with the Heritage Conservation District policy because, manifestly, they are not. So the peer review will focus on how the most damaging aspects of Forrest’s Clock Tower proposal can best be mitigated. The peer reviewers were never going to say the Clock Tower development should not proceed. That was always something for the fairies.

Planning and architectural consultancies such as ERA operate in a marketplace. They take commissions from developers as well as municipalities. They are not disinterested.

In Leslieville, ERA recommended retaining facades as a way of preserving at least some part of an historic building. But facadism is not appropriate in every case.

Our councillors must not sub-contract their judgement to an outside planning consultancy, no matter how distinguished.

More to follow...

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

Newmarket appoints peer reviewer in 2013. Here is the relevant extract of what was expected:

 1.     SCOPE OF WORK

The Corporation of the Town of Newmarket (the Owner) is inviting proposal submissions for the Peer Review of the Heritage Impact Assessment for a zoning by-law amendment application for 178, 180, 184, 188, 190 and 194 Main Street South, including the Clock Tower Inn and the three adjacent buildings to the south. This contract may be utilized by the Owner for additional similar scope assignments (see Item 3 below)

Information on the Clock Tower redevelopment proposal can be found at: www.newmarket.ca/en/townhall/plannotic.asp”

The Town requires submission of a heritage impact assessment in order to:

? determine compliance with relevant cultural heritage policies

? assist staff with their analysis and report preparation

The rationale for the requirement for the heritage impact assessment arises from: the Ontario Heritage Act; Section 2(d) of the Planning Act; Section 2.6.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2005);

The Peer review will evaluate the assessments provided for heritage impact assessment. This review will include, but is not limited to, addressing inconsistencies, factual errors, discrepancies, inappropriate conservation advice not consistent with recognized standards (see below), omissions and misrepresentations.

It is expected that the preferred protective and mitigative measures will be consistent with the Lower Main Street South Heritage Conservation District Plan and recognized standards for heritage conservation, including:

? Link to the District Plan http://www.newmarket.ca/en/townhall/resourcelibrary/FinalOctober52011HeritageConservationDistrictPlan.pdf )

? Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties

? Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties

? Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Heritage Conservation Principles for Land Use Planning

? Well-Preserved: The Ontario Heritage Foundation’s Manual of Principles and Practice for Architectural Conservation

? the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada

? the Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environment

? the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (the Venice Charter)

 

  • You are here:  
  • Home