Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 14 May 2016

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

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 12 May 2016

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

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 12 May 2016

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)

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 11 May 2016

I think I owe my readers an apology. I was wrong when I said our process and procedure driven Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, had re-jigged the agenda to prevent the public from questioning Bob Forrest.

In fact, the public has no right to question anyone about anything at a Statutory Public Meeting.

For a fleeting moment I thought I might have an opportunity to quiz Bob at the close of his presentation when he specifically invited questions.

But when Van Bynen told Forrest

“We’ll ask you to come back if there are any questions later on.”

he was referring to questions from his Council colleagues not from the great unwashed.

In fact, there were no questions to Forrest from our incurious Mayor or councillors. And those who did have questions – ie the public - were never going to get an opportunity to put them.

As our excellent Town Clerk, Andrew Brouwer, told me on 28 April 2016:

“The purpose of the public hearing meeting is to provide comments on the application to Council, not to enter into dialogue with staff or the applicant.”

It seems to me the Statutory Public Meeting was chaired in a very casual manner by Van Bynen who never asked his colleagues if they had any questions of clarification for any of the people making a deputation. This was a serious oversight for someone who lives and breathes process and procedure.

Am I splitting hairs?

Probably. 

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

The Land Swap

At the Statutory Public Meeting on the Clock Tower on Monday 9 May 2016 Bob Forrest’s much anticipated slide show makes no mention of the land swap which, to all intents and purposes, might be happening in a parallel universe.

We do not know what Bob Forrest proposed and the justifications he advanced. That is why I have lodged yet another Freedom of Information request to see the correspondence and details of the land exchange at the Clock Tower requested by Forrest (and/or his alter ego Main Street Clock Inc) in the period up to 24 June 2013 when a Special Committee of the Whole in closed session agreed in principle to land transactions involving Town-owned land.

The Town is steadfastly refusing to give any details. My Freedom of Information request last week for sight of all the papers relating to that 24 June 2013 meeting was turned down because

“the (Clock Tower) development application and related land negotiations have not been finalized, the closed session records are still confidential at this time.”

Yet the Town Solicitor, Esther Armchuk, told me on 23 February 2016:

“If or when the developer’s development application comes before Council, the details of the requested land exchange will likely become public information.”

The development application is now before the Council. And it seems to me there is no good reason why the terms of Forrest’s approach to the Town cannot be made public.

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

My Freedom of Information request for sight of the agenda, minutes and any supporting papers regarding the proposed land swap was turned down on 4 May 2016 (citing the provisions of Section 6(1)(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Section 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act.)

The powers given to municipalities are permissive (may) not mandatory (shall). Councils can make information available, in whole or in part, if they so choose. But in Van Bynen’s closed world secrecy always trumps transparency.

Municipal Act 2001

6. (1) A head may refuse to disclose a record,

(a) that contains a draft of a by-law or a draft of a private bill; or

(b) that reveals the substance of deliberations of a meeting of a council, board, commission or other body or a committee of one of them if a statute authorizes holding that meeting in the absence of the public.

Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

S239 (2) A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is,

(a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board;

(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;

(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board;