- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
The story so far
On 21 July 2014 Newmarket’s top planners sent a memo to the Mayor and Councillors addressing two key issues that many people found perplexing when the Secondary Plan was adopted by the Town at the Council meeting on 23 June 2014.
Councillors asked about the Town’s future population growth – its pace and how it would be accommodated. They also wondered aloud how it was possible to increase density in future developments along the Yonge and Davis corridors without, at the same time, increasing population.
A staff memo to the Mayor and Councillors entitled “information report” seeks to explain the reasoning. The memo did not appear on any Council agenda and but you can read it here by clicking “documents” on the menu panel on the left and navigating to Newmarket documents. Open “Newmarket Urban Centres Secondary Plan: Population and Jobs”.
Fantasy Figures
The memo on page 3 forecasts a population of 97,100 for Newmarket in 2031. This figure and others cited on that page are fantasy figures for the reasons explained in my earlier blog of 5 December 2013.
The memo tells us that for Newmarket’s Secondary Plan to be compliant (with Provincial and Regional planning policy) it has to satisfy the minimum density requirement of 200 persons and jobs per hectare (set by the Growth Plan); an FSI of 2.5 (set by York Region) and a ratio of 1:1 for population and jobs. (I can’t immediately recall where that came from – probably the Region.)
Population and Jobs on Yonge and Davis
We are told: “The Secondary Plan as adopted provides the policy direction to achieve these minimum requirements.” The question in my mind as I tap this out is whether the 33,000 population and 32,000 jobs represents the minimum or if it goes well beyond it. If the latter, then by how much?
The memo purports to give “the rationale for redistributed population and jobs by Character Area”. We see a blizzard of figures with no convincing explanation how they were arrived at. There is no analysis by development block, only by so-called “Character Area”. It is very broad brush.
Although staff at York Region recommended significantly higher densities along Yonge Street and Davis Drive, we are told by Newmarket’s planners there is to be no change in the forecast population (33,000) along the two corridors. The number of jobs is projected to increase from 30,000 to 32,000. All this is to be achieved by shifting population between development blocks.
Gainers and Losers
Thanks to the memo, we now know which character areas are projected to lose population and jobs and which ones will gain. Personally, I think it is all hokey-pokey. The projections change from minute to minute and the assumptions the planners make are as elastic as they want them to be. Of course, in some instances, the boundaries of the Secondary Plan area have changed and this would explain different figures. (Major boundary changes have been made, for example, to the Davis Drive character area, expanding the Secondary Plan area and making the development blocks deeper and therefore more attractive to developers.)
Elsewhere, assumptions have changed, probably about the pace and nature of future development. Staff admits there has been a “general re-evaluation of the population and jobs by Character Area”.
The table below shows the change in population and jobs between the revised draft Secondary Plan on 24 March 2014 (b) and the Plan at 16 June 2014, now adopted (d). The earlier draft was changed at the behest of unnamed staff at York Region who wanted to increase density to give greater flexibility. They had warned:
“The proposed height and density (particularly on Davis Drive) may not achieve the planned intensification along the rapid transit corridor.”
Intensification on Davis Drive
After all the huffing and puffing from the Regional staff, the reworked figures for what they are worth show that Davis Drive is projected to have a smaller resident population (down 900) but more employment (up 1,100)
In fact, the figures put before councillors in the past few months have been bouncing around all over the place. In a report dated 18 February 2014, councillors were told that, at build out, Davis Drive would have a resident population of 4,000. By 24 March 2014 this figure had increased to 4,500. In April it had dipped to 3,993. And by 16 June 2014 this had dropped to 3,600. The employment forecast for Davis Drive went from 1,700 jobs to 1,500 to 1,648 before increasing to 2,600.
In the space of four months, we saw the employment forecast for the Regional Healthcare Centre go from 7,000 on 18 February to 6,700 on 24 March to 6,363 in April to 8,400 on 16 June 2014.
Does any of this matter?
Possibly not for in the long run we are all dead. But in the meantime we are right to feel a little nervous. My fear is that a turbocharged Newmarket will grow well beyond what was originally envisaged under Places to Grow. The planning establishment at municipal and regional level are moving in lockstep to deliver their city-building mission and we are all trapped in their laboratory.
Most people accept the inevitability of change but growth must have limits. As it is, the Town will be a construction site for years to come.
We cannot take things on trust from a planning establishment with its own separate agenda. That’s why the assumptions made by the Town’s planners and their colleagues at York Region should be out in the open and tested to destruction.
A couple of inaccuracies
Since our councillors called for more details, we learn that:
“A more in-depth analysis has revealed that a couple of inaccuracies have occurred on the spreadsheet for the population and jobs calculations, therefore the population and jobs figures by Character Area will be re-evaluated and if there are any changes, they will be brought back to Council for approval along with any other issues that may emerge through the Regional review and before the Region makes a decision on the Secondary Plan.”
Why can’t the spreadsheets referred to in the memo to be put into the public domain? Why can't we crowd-check? Personally, I’d like to know when, if ever, the planners expect construction work to start on 39 Davis Drive. Planning approval was given for a 20 storey condo in 2009. (My own view is that planning approvals should expire after three years or so if owners don’t act on them.)
The Secondary Plan will go to York Region early next year for approval and will then be folded into the Town’s Official Plan. Once that happens, no-one will look behind the text. Who will remember the concerns that people had? Who will recall the soothing reassurances? Everything ever said will disappear into the ether. All will be forgotten.
That's why Newmarket’s new Council, to be elected on 27 October, must be more hands-on. Councillors must involve themselves closely in planning issues.
$47,000 per councillor is way too much to pay if all we get for our money is a spectator and a rubber stamp.
TABLE: Population and Jobs by Character Area (taken from 21 July memo with additional information added)
Note: The change in population and jobs is between the revised draft Secondary Plan (b below) and the adopted version (d below)
Character Area: Yonge North Pop Change Jobs Change
(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors: 6,000 2,400
(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan: 6,000 2,300
(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study: 5,837 2,367
(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted: 6,300 +300 2,700 +400
Character Area: Yonge and Davis
(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors: 11,800 12,000
(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan: 13,000 11,000
(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study: 12,202 11,387
(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted 13,500 +500 10,100 -900
Character Area: Yonge Civic
(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors: 1,500 6,200
(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan: 1,500 6,000
(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study: 1,639 6,481
(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted 2,200 +700 5,400 -600
Character Area: Yonge South
(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors: 6,200 2,700
(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan: 6,500 2,500
(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study: 7,079 2,902
(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted 6,300 -200 2,800 +300
Character Area: Davis Drive
(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors: 4,000 1,700
(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan: 4,500 1,500
(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study: 3,993 1,648
(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted 3,600 -900 2,600 +1,100
Character Area: Reg Healthcare Centre
(a) 18 February 2014 update to councillors: 1,500 7,000
(b) 24 March 2014 Revised Draft Sec Plan: 1,500 6,700
(c) April 2014, GDH Transportation Study: 1,401 6,363
(d) 16 June 2014 Sec Plan as adopted: 1,100 -400 8,400 +1,700
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Summary: Councillors at the upcoming Committee of the Whole on 21 July 2014 should get a written report on how last minute changes to the Secondary Plan, increasing density in a large number of development blocks along Yonge Street and Davis Drive, will impact on Newmarket’s future population. They’ve asked for this, but will they get it?
On 23 June 2014, after four long years of meetings, focus groups, presentations, consultations and endless iterations, Newmarket’s councillors finally signed off on the Town’s Secondary Plan which now goes up to York Region for approval.
Remarkably, despite all this effort, there are still big gaps waiting to be filled.
Most significantly, we don’t know how many people will be living and working along the Yonge/Davis corridors. Forecasts for the Town’s population change more often than the weather. In 2012 Newmarket’s estimated population was 85,435.
At the start of the Secondary Plan process in 2010, the Town wide population forecast for 2051, calculated by York Region, was a manageable 105,300. However, we were warned this was speculative and had no official status. It is now laughably wide-of-the-mark.
Newmarket’s population set to soar
Since 2010, after a fashion, things have firmed up. Newmarket’s planning staff told Councillors in a memorandum dated 28 October 2013 that, at build out, they expect a population between 125,000 and 127,500.
In a memorandum dated 20 November 2013, the Town’s outside planning consultant, Ruth Victor, (brought in to handle the Glenway file) said Newmarket’s current Official Plan assumed a population of 98,000 when the Town is fully built out. Town staff had told her that by 2031 there would be a population of 116,521 “as per the Secondary Plan process currently in progress”.
At the Council meeting on 23 June 2014, Regional Councillor, John Taylor, told us “the Province had set a growth requirement for York Region that would see Newmarket grow to almost 140,000 by 2041”. But he went on to say “our Plan, however, calls for approximately 130,000 by 2051”. He blogs about the Secondary Plan here, talking up its strengths and glossing over its weaknesses.
The projections vary widely but the important point is this: there is no formal cap on Newmarket’s future population which could grow like Topsy. This is the “flexibility” craved by the professional planners who see their mission as city-builders. They do not want developers to be constrained in any way by overly-rigid planning policies.
What is the issue?
Last minute changes to density along the Yonge/Davis corridors, proposed by paid staff at York Region, allow for greater intensification of development, but the supporting analysis, showing the consequential projected increase in population and employment has not been done – or, if it has, it has not been shared with Councillors and the Public. Depending on economic conditions and the state of the market, Newmarket’s future population could soar way beyond the levels previously quoted. You can see the changes here. Go to Schedule 4 on page 128.
In earlier versions of the Secondary Plan we were variously told the number of people living in the urban centre - basically the Yonge/Davis corridors – would grow from 2,555 (in 2012) to 21,000 (by 2031) rising to 32,000 at build-out. We are told to expect development increasing “considerably” between 2021 and 2031. Ruth Victor, told us in her November memorandum that applications from developers to accommodate 21,000 people will be
“received, approved and built prior to 2031”.
At the tail end of the Secondary Plan process on 16 June 2014 unnamed staff from York Region recommended changing the designation of a slew of development blocks, dramatically increasing density. Not a single development block went from a higher density down to a lower one. (“Density” is simply the number of people and/or jobs on any given piece of land – usually measured by hectare or acre.)
Councillors were told these changes in density were required to give the Plan “flexibility”. These officials from York Region said:
“The proposed height and density (particularly on Davis Drive) may not achieve the planned intensification along the rapid transit corridor.”
Yet, despite this, we are asked to believe there will be no increase in the projected population of the Yonge/Davis corridors from the earlier version of the Secondary Plan. This seems to offend against common sense.
What is needed now - before the Secondary Plan goes up to York Region for approval
A Report on the changes and how they were arrived at, as requested by John Taylor, should be presented to the next Committee of the Whole meeting on 21 July 2014.
It should look at the impact of these changes in density on future population growth, using the same methodology set out in Appendix 2 of the Secondary Plan Directions Report published on 17 May 2013 which calculated a population of 32,000 and 31,000 jobs along the Yonge Davis corridors at build-out. The new calculations should be done, development block by development block, as with the original. If new assumptions are made (for example to take account of re-worked angular plane policies which are designed to prevent high buildings going up next to much smaller ones) these should be explained and justified.
In the 2013 Secondary Plan Directions Report, the authors looked at each parcel of land along the corridors assigning it a hypothetical development
“based on an application of the proposed minimum and maximum heights and densities… the application of urban design principles set out in the draft policy directions and a consideration of the parcel dimensions and adjacent land uses.”
That Directions Report forecast a resident population in the two corridors of 6,523 by 2021 rising to 22,506 by 2031 and 32,151 at build-out. Significantly, these figures specifically exclude any additional population and jobs arising from bonusing. No assumptions were made about the extent and impact of bonusing on the grounds it would be too hypothetical. But other assumptions which could impact on growth and its timing (for example, water and sewage allocations) were factored in.
Population is being redistributed – not increased. Please explain
In April 2014, the Town published the Newmarket Urban Centres Transportation Study prepared for the Town by the outside consultants, GHD. This report too gives population and employment figures for development blocks in each character area along the two corridors. Following the changes to the Secondary Plan proposed by York Region staff (and conditionally accepted by Newmarket Councillors) increasing densities along the two corridors, we are told the forecast population at build-out is merely being redistributed. But that begs the question, where are the population shifts occurring along the corridors? Which blocks are losing people and which are gaining?
Mayor reads the script written by others
The Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, would have us believe that everything has been settled. On 7 July, the Mayor, parroting the views of the professional planning staff, wrote:
“…Council members were provided with a full explanation of the reconfigured designations at the Council Workshop on June 9, 2014 and at the Committee of the Whole on June 16, 2014 at which time the issue was discussed thoroughly.”
Councillors, suffocating in planning-babble, were indeed provided with an explanation but they didn’t buy it. I was there and witnessed the exchanges. Tom Vegh thought it was counter-intuitive that density could be increased with no change in the projected population figures. Tom Hempen expressed big concerns about the impact of development on his Ward 4. Maddie Di Muccio is increasingly outspoken on the issue. Others too for their own various reasons appeared unconvinced.
Taylor is as perplexed as the rest of us
Indeed, at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on 16 June, Regional Councillor John Taylor asks Marion Plaunt, the senior planner responsible for the Secondary Plan file:
“Just one quick request. Is it possible… You pointed out here today and in the workshop in response to Councillor Vegh’s question that you don’t see a population increase in conjunction with the increased densities in some of the development blocks because you see it more of a shifting but can you maybe provide an information report for ourselves and the public in the future that more fully explains that because I am having a hard time. I saw where it increased not where it decreased or maybe it has nothing to do with increases and decreases but has to do with the timing or the market aspects. I don’t know. But can we get the fuller explanation on how that works.”
Marion Plaunt (senior planner):
“In fact, I do have that analysis by Character Area already because I posed the question to GHD (the outside consultants brought in to do the transportation study) Will our population shifts impact any of your recommendations with respect to the transportation network? And they’ve done an analysis based on what they were looking at with the draft secondary plan relative to this and identified that overall there is about a 3% change. Their response is that the change is not significant enough to change any of their recommendations with respect to the recommended network. But I do have…”
John Taylor:
“Can we get all that information including the 3% and what that equates to where; if there is a chart that lays out what the numbers are. But also some verbal explanation conceptually of how this works. I think it would be helpful for everybody to understand that portion more fully.”
The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of 16 June went up to the full Council on 23 June (when the Secondary Plan was approved) but there is no mention in the official Minutes of the information report that Taylor called for.
Why?
It was as if the request had never been made.
Note on the Methodology and Assumptions used to forecast population
The methodology that got the planners to the 21,000 people living within the Yonge/Davis corridors in 2031 is set out in the Draft Secondary Plan Directions Report (Appendix 2, Approach and Methodology). At build-out the population is expected to be 32,000. The planners looked at land available for development and a
“hypothetical development was assigned to each parcel (of land) based on an application of the proposed minimum and maximum heights and densities, the application of the urban design principles set out in the draft policy directions, and a consideration of the parcel dimensions and adjacent land uses.”
It goes on:
“Between 2021 and 2031 development is anticipated to increase considerably… The 2031 demonstration (development?) concept was derived by making a series of assumptions regarding the most likely medium term development sites from the standpoint of complexity of parcel fabric, location, proximity.”
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
The details of the Ontario Municipal Board’s decision on the controversial development of Glenway is expected within weeks.
At the OMB Hearing on 23 April 2014, the adjudicator, Susan Schiller, found in favour of the developer, Marianneville, saying her written decision would follow.
The OMB tells me decisions are usually released between 45-60 days of the final date of the Hearing “although it could be a bit earlier or later”. We are now on day 77.
Thanks to Maddie Di Muccio and Chris Emanuel, we have been promised a “lessons learned” meeting once the OMB’s written decision is available. So I hope suitable arrangements are being made by Newmarket staff.
I am sure Glenway people and others will have a zillion questions. Personally, I’d to know why the Glenway hearing was boycotted throughout by the Town’s most senior planning staff. In one of the most controversial planning issues ever faced by the Town, not a single planner from the Town dropped in to say hello.
There has been much comment on the cost of going to the OMB but much less on the appallingly inadequate performance put up by the Town. Modesty aside, I think I could have done a better job.
For those reasons and others, I think it is still touch and go whether the promised “lessons learned” meeting will ever take place – notwithstanding the Council’s formal decision.
The day after Schiller’s decision (24 April) I wrote to the Mayor, Tony Van Bynen, urging him to organise a public meeting. I told him:
“If this can be arranged, say, before the end of June I shall donate $100 to a local charity of your choice.”
I don’t recall ever receiving a reply but – deadline aside - the offer still stands.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
I see that the booming, barrel chested blusterer, John Blommestyn is running for Newmarket Council in Ward 7, hoping to take over from Chris Emanuel who is standing down.
Blommesteyn's wife, Maddie Di Muccio, tweeted last December that she needed "good people" to help her boot all current Councillors from office.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
How realistic is the prospect of all-day two-way GO trains from Newmarket to Toronto? And can Metrolinx deliver?
Last month, the Liberal Chris Ballard smashed the PC hegemony in Newmarket-Aurora, winning the provincial election on the promise (amongst other things) of “all-day two-way north and south, electric GO trains, connecting people to jobs and jobs to people”.
Fighting words, but what weight should we give them?
Back in April, the Town of Newmarket published a transportation study commissioned from the outside consultants GDH. This massive tome informs and lies alongside the Secondary Plan which has now been adopted by the Town and awaits approval from York Region.
In the section entitled “GO Train frequency” the report states:
“…Furthermore, two-way all-day services will be introduced within 10-15 years (before 2031). Metrolinx has advised that the tracks will have to be doubled to Newmarket and beyond, to accommodate this service improvement.”
Armed with this information I wrote to the Chief Executive of Metrolinx, Bruce McCuaig, in April asking if the Next Wave project running two-way all-day GO trains from Union Station to East Gwillimbury would involve laying two tracks along the route in its entirety or whether only part of the route would be dual. Specifically, I asked if twin tracking would be required anywhere in Newmarket.
Over two months later I received a reply from Metrolinx Director of Customer Care, Paula Edwards, who tells me:
“Our planned improvement for the Barrie Corridor is not solely based on twin tracking. Although twin tracking may be required in some areas, it is doubtful if it will be needed for the entire route.”
That’s fair enough but it didn’t answer my question. I made it clear I was only interested in the section of the Barrie line from East Gwillimbury to Union Station.
Ms Edwards tells me that any track enhancements would warrant a review of the infrastructure. I am amazed this hasn’t already been done.
Getting basic information from Metrolinx shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. Now I am back in touch again with Metrolinx asking to be pointed to any publicly available documents on the twin tracking of the Barrie line from East Gwillimbury to Toronto.
And who was it in Metrolinx who told GHD that tracks would have to be doubled to Newmarket and beyond to accommodate all-day two-way GO trains?
On a related matter, Newmarket’s Secondary Plan has a giant circle around the site of the proposed new GO Rail Station at Mulock Drive. When I raised this with Bruce McCuaig his surrogate, Paula Edwards, told me “there are no plans to consider a station at Mulock Drive, however we are constantly monitoring customer demand”.
Does this mean that the proposed GO rail station has disappeared completely from Metrolinx forward plans? Or is it still there, as a possibility Metrolinx may consider, if future demand warrants it?
It shouldn’t be this difficult to get straightforward answers on an issue that took centre stage in the Provincial elections only a few weeks ago.
More will follow.
Page 241 of 279