- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Tomorrow (12 December) Newmarket Council will vote on a motion condemning Doug Ford’s Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. 
The motion says the Town cannot meet Ford’s stated target of 12,000 new homes by 2031. It says the Act will have a “significant negative impact” on heritage and social housing and will undermine environmental protection. It claims taxpayers across the province could be on the hook for up to $1 billion as developers’ costs are transferred to them.
Bill 23 is now law after being rushed through the legislature with many people wishing to comment but unable to do so because of the compressed timetable.
The Town’s motion will register its formal opposition to Bill 23 which, if passed, will go to the Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister, Steve Clark, and to our local MPP Dawn Gallagher-Murphy who is, unfortunately, a complete lightweight and cipher.
"Efficient local decision making"
Dawn Gallagher Murphy has been running ads in the local press expressing her support for Bill 23. And, last week, in her single contribution to the debate on its sister legislation, Bill 39, the Better Municipal Governance Act, she said this:
“The core of this legislation, it is very simple. I’ve read it over a few times now, and it is very simple. It gives local legislatures elected by Ontarians the extra tools that support efficient local decision-making. That’s something I want to reiterate: efficient local decision-making.
It also gives elected officials the tools they need to remove barriers that are stalling development, like housing. I want to reiterate that point: It’s stalling development.”
Majority Minority Rule
The Better Municipal Governance Act was also fast-tracked becoming law in three weeks from start to finish. It got a huge amount of media coverage, panning the proposal to allow the Mayor of Toronto to get his way if only one third of City councillors support his proposals which must be “Provincial priorities”. And, comically, it is the Mayor who decides if his proposals meet that test.
Gallagher Murphy talks about “local legislatures elected by Ontarians” blissfully unaware of the fact that the Bill gives the Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister the powers to appoint the Regional Chair in York region (and in Niagara and Peel).
Our MPP’s democratic credentials are, of course, wafer thin as she was personally selected by Doug Ford to run as PC candidate for Newmarket-Aurora with local Party members entirely cut out of the process.
As the official PC candidate she boycotted the election debates after claiming she missed the first one because of a “family emergency”. All invented.
Hypocrisy
In an excellent op-ed in this morning’s Toronto Star, Irene Ford draws attention to the hypocrisy of the Government’s approach (How far are Ontarians willing to go to protect the Greenbelt?). At the Provincial election only six months ago Ford was silent on his real agenda. A few bland slogans, echoed by Dawn Gallagher Murphy, concealed the true reality.
Returning lands to the Greenbelt
In her recent newsletter (2 December 2022) Gallagher Murphy says:
“Should these lands be removed from the Greenbelt, it is the government’s expectation that the landowners develop detailed plans to build housing quickly. Significant progress on approvals and implementation must be achieved by the end of 2023, with construction begun no later than 2025. If these conditions are not met, our government will return these properties to the Greenbelt.”
That's a hostage to fortune if ever I've heard one. And it will upset the powerful developers who bankroll the Progressive Conservatives.
Wastewater
This is a very accelerated timetable given that sewage and wastewater treatment capacity in Newmarket and the surrounding area is going to run out in five years. Gallagher Muphy can only deliver her promise if sewage and wastewater from the north of York Region can be directed in double-quick time down to Duffin Creek on the shores of Lake Ontario.
Personally, I'd like to see the Town invite Dawn Gallagher Murphy to a meeting to discuss the practicalities of delivering Doug Ford’s agenda – and the assault on our democracy.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall, listening to our Mayor and MPP in conversation.
It could be streamed or zoomed quite painlessly but, of course, it will never happen.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Click “Read More” below to read Gallagher Murphy’s "Community Update and Greenbelt Message."
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Frank Klees is a consultant lobbyist and a former Progressive Conservative Cabinet Minister. 
The Lobbyist Register shows that he has been involved in projects concerning the Greenbelt and in attempts to redraw its boundaries.
Fifteen years ago he told readers of the Auroran newspaper that he was proud to champion the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act and that the passage of this landmark legislation had taken the guesswork out of development applications in the moraine.
“Although we could not stop development that had been approved prior to the implementation of this act, more than 470,000 acres of land – much of it in York Region – are now permanently protected from development.”
Permanently protected?
Has he spoken recently to his close friend Doug Ford?
Building on the Greenbelt
One of his past clients – the Rice Group – is now embroiled in a huge controversy over its recent $80M purchase of “permanently protected” Greenbelt land in the municipality of King, west of Bathurst and immediately adjacent to Newmarket. (Right: the Greenbelt land purchased by Rice, south of Miller's sideroad between Dufferin on the west and Bathurst on the east. The Oak Ridges Moraine is shown blue).
Klees lobbied for Michael Rice’s development group from October 2019 to September 2020 but we don’t know the details.
The land purchased by Rice is largely agricultural but with core area natural heritage features. The south-western portion lies within the Oak Ridges Moraine (see map).
Klees didn’t get back to the Toronto Star when they asked what he did for his client. But why not? The whole point of the Lobbyist’s Register is to make lobbying transparent.
What are you attempting to influence or accomplish?
Klees was asked to describe his lobbying goal(s) in detail.
“What are you attempting to influence or accomplish as a result of your communications with Ontario public office holders?”
He replied opaquely:
“The objective of the communications is to brief certain Ontario public office holders on the economic development opportunities represented by a number of the client's emerging projects.”
Is that kind of waffle from Klees even remotely acceptable?
The register tells lobbyists they should give specific information about their lobbying goals and the intended outcome of the lobbying.
Whatever happened to the specifics and the intended outcome?
Why doesn’t the Integrity Commissioner just ask him?
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 6 December 2022
Click "Read More" for Frank Klees' letter to the Auroran 4 September 2007
See also: From the Toronto Star: Taking Durham Land out of the Greenbelt could cause irreversible damage says Parks Canada in blunt warning
Below: The Oak Ridges Moraine. "Permanently protected from development" according to Frank Klees in 2007.
Read more: The Consultant Lobbyist Frank Klees and the Greenbelt
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
People living in bungalows across Newmarket should know that the Town will not object to a new building going up next door which towers over their home, perhaps overlooking their property and casting shadows over it.
The Town’s Established Neighbourhoods Compatibility policy is not worth the paper it is written on. Nor the much trumpeted zoning by-laws spawned by it.
The building under construction at 116 Eden Court is 9.7 metres high and looms over its neighbours. There is no dispute about the height of the building – only how the height is measured.
The Town’s Zoning By-law allows 8.5 metres. The applicant says the building is 8.29 metres high. How is it possible to have a disagreement over the height of a building?
9.71 metres vs 8.29 metres. Surely that is a matter of fact?
It’s not so simple.
Orwellian
In an Orwellian twist, the Town says height in this case should not be measured from the finished grade, where the building meets the ground at the front of the building, to the top of the roof. Instead, we are told 116 Eden Court has a pitched roof (though it looks very flat to me) which is measured from the ground to a “ridge” invisible to the eye.
Using this formula, the official top of the roof at 116 Eden Court is 1.42 metres (or 4' 8") below the actual top of the roof that we can all see with our own eyes. My photo shows a man standing on the top of the roof.
The new house looks way too big and too bulky for its immediate surroundings.
Compatibility
The Town’s compatibility policies say:
“Where a new building is being constructed within an established neighbourhood it must be designed, massed and located to respect the predominant context.”
The Town’s planners say:
“The applicant is proposing a two-storey building in a pie shaped lot with a moderate size which respects the general characteristics of the neighbourhood and maintains its compatibity.”
And that the application complies with:
“all applicable zoning standards except for lot coverage.”
Green Light
Developers now have the green light to buy bungalows across Town and knock them down in the certain knowledge that an application for a new much bigger building, 9.7 metres high, based on the drawings submitted by the applicant at 116 Eden Court, will be approved.
For its part, the Committee of Adjustment is told by the Town it can only rule on the issue of lot coverage, not height.
And as the new building covers only a fraction more of the lot than it should – 31.5% instead of 30% - they allow construction to proceed.
Way to go!
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 30 November 2022
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Frank Klees represented Newmarket-Aurora in the Provincial Parliament for 19 years from 1995 – 2014. I’ve blogged about him over the years, most recently over his involvement with Pace Credit Union where he made a mountain of money sourcing and facilitating real estate development projects.
Three years ago Klees told the Globe and Mail: 
“As a consultant, my role was to source and facilitate real estate development projects between Pace, land owners and developers/builders… For those services, the parties with whom I had agreements were invoiced by my company for fees commensurate with the services delivered.”
At the time I wrote:
I am left wondering how many real estate development projects Klees facilitated here in Newmarket, if any. I’d love to know.”
I see from this morning’s Globe and Mail that Frank Klees was hired by the Rice Group in 2019-20 to lobby the Ford Government:
“on the economic development opportunities represented by a number of the client’s emerging projects”
What were these “emerging projects”?
The Globe and Mail says
“The contract predated Mr. Rice’s purchase of the land in King Township. Mr. Klees did not return an e-mail seeking comment.
In addition, provincial records also show that a person with the name Michael Rice has donated more than $10,500 to the PC Party since 2018. This individual also donated money to the Liberals in 2018. As well, three donors with the same names as Rice Group executives have given the PC Party thousands of dollars since 2018.”
FordNation posted this encomium about Klees on 14 February 2018: 
Longtime MPP and former provincial cabinet minister Frank Klees has announced his support for Doug Ford as the next leader of the Ontario PC Party. “We need a responsible leader that will take a stand on issues that matter to all Ontarians including lowering taxes. Doug is building a coalition of the full spectrum of conservatives strong enough to beat the Wynne Liberals, and principled enough to earn the trust of Ontario voters. He has the experience in both politics and business to put Ontario back on the road to prosperity” says Klees.
Doug is humbled to have his support. “Frank Klees is one of the great architects of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party. His track record as serving our Party for 19 years speaks for itself, and he is someone who worked closely alongside my father during his time at Queen’s Park. He’s someone our members have always looked up to and I am honored to have him in my corner, advising my campaign.”
What precisely did the lobbyist Frank Klees do for Michael Rice?
And for the "principled" Doug Ford?
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
See also from the CBC (25 November 2022) Prominent developer family linked to more Greenbelt properties slated for housing
Update on 5 December 22: Toronto Star editorial: With so many questions Greenbelt plan must stop
Update on 1 December 2022: From the Toronto Star: How to stop developers from profiting from the Greenbelt controversy and from the Globe and Mail's editorial board: Troubling questions about Doug Ford's move in to the Greenbelt
Update on 30 November 2022: From the Toronto Star: Did anyone tip off the developers?
Update on 29 November 2022: Details of Frank Klees' lobbying activities can be found here. Klees has lobbied on behalf of clients seeking changes to the boundaries of the Greenbelt. He was a consultant lobbyist with Block 21 Developers Group from November 2018 to December 2019, describing his lobbying objectives in this way:
"The client owns lands within the City of Vaughan, adjacent to the planned Kirby GO Station and is seeking an adjustment to the Greenbelt boundary to allow for the said lands to be included in the future growth plans of the Town."
Klees has lobbied for the Stronach Group:
and for Castlepoint, Greybrook Huntington Inc:
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
The house under construction at 116 Eden Court in Newmarket which looms over its neighbours does not comply with the Town’s own Zoning By-laws which are supposed to regulate matters such as height and lot coverage.
The issue goes before the Town’s Committee of Adjustment next week (30 November 2022). The Committee has authority to approve developments which do not strictly comply with the Town’s Zoning By-laws so long as these are considered minor and do not offend the Zoning By-law’s general principles.
The Town’s Planning Director, Jason Unger, told Newmarket Today that the house meets the height requirements of the municipal by-law. But does it?
If this is not a mansard roof then what is it?
The by-law puts mansard and flat roofs into the same category and draws a distinction between them and other types of roof where height is measured in a different way. 
“With a gabled, hip, gambrel or any other type of pitched roof (height is measured from the established or finished grade to) the mean distance between the eaves and ridge of a roof.”
Assessing Compatibility
The Established Neighbourhoods Compatibility Study, commissioned by the Town and reporting in October 2020, recommended new, updated definitions in the Zoning By-law giving this rationale:
"The zoning by-law has long included rules that measured height differently depending on whether the roof was flat or pitched.
However, the by-law did not include definitions of how to determine what a flat, pitched, or mansard roof was. This allowed for greater height for new houses that were built with roofs that appeared like flat roofs but included cosmetic sloping elements."
Astonishingly, there is still no definition of a mansard roof in the Town's by-laws.
That said, the report helpfully shows a photo of a house with a mansard roof on page 69 (photo right). It is one of a series of illustrative examples of buildings which either meet or fail to meet the Town’s proposed new standards. It goes on:
“The building height exceeds the maximum permission of 8.5m. The assessment of building height is impacted due to the fact that this development features a mansard roof, as this increases the perception of height and massing. It is treated as a flat roof rather than a pitched roof...” (My underlining for emphasis)
Buildings with these roofs look bigger and bulkier.
"Giant freaking eyesore"
This explains why people in Eden Court feel overwhelmed by their new next-door neighbour. One resident told Newmarket Today:
“I don’t care if it’s to code, it’s a giant, freaking, eyesore.”
Lot coverage
The new house also exceeds the maximum lot coverage though only marginally. This was indicated up-front by the applicants when their drawings were submitted to the Town for approval earlier this year. It was waved through by the Town’s Building Control people.
The Director of Planning, Jason Ungar, told Newmarket Today: 
“The new by-law did reduce the lot coverage from 35 per cent to 30 per cent, which this new home is violating by covering 31.5 per cent of the lot."
The paper added:
"Unger said a minor variance application is required and will be reviewed by the committee of adjustment."
Height and mass
It seems to me the lot coverage issue is secondary.
It is the height and mass of the new building dominating Eden Court that concerns people.
Clearly, we need the Town's definition of a mansard roof.
Or are we expected to know one when we see one?
The Town spent a huge amount of time and money developing its policies on compatibility to ensure new buildings fit in to established residential neighbourhoods.
We need to know if the Town seriously believes No 116 fits in with its neighbours.
And if it doesn't, what is the remedy?
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 22 November 2022
Page 47 of 284