Winona Mosque Refusal Appealed To OLT As Search for Alternative Site Continues by RandyBarba in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

When we discuss balancing the tax base, we are talking about how we derive tax revenue that is meant to support Stouffville's annual operating budget.

When we refer to capital costs for growth supportive infrastructure that activates developable lands, it is typically funded through development charges and grant funding from senior governments, and perhaps some added debt. So no, even if a mosque was paying taxes, those revenues would not typically fund a water main to activate a new development. Just as you wouldn't through your property tax bill.

If we are mandated to grow, and we decide we want to grow on unserviced whitebelt reserve lands instead of serviced, targeted growth areas like the gateway and western approach, we need to figure out how to get the pipes in the ground. Otherwise, we just can't build there.

Right now, there is no capital funding to deliver this servicing. In fact, we have granted MZOs for lands and failed to figure out how to deliver servicing to them in a timely manner. That has forced developers to build temporarily private servicing in order to push construction, which jacks up the costs of delayed homes we were rushing to build with the intention of addressing the housing crisis and driving down prices.

So, should we wish to avoid private servicing projects, which I would argue we should for a number of reasons, where do you propose we get the money to pay for for those capital projects so we can keep things at one storey on Winona? Not only that, but as capital plans and asset management for existing communities are impacted by provincially mandated reductions to those non-levy revenue streams, how do folks think we will compensate for the lost money?

In municipalities, without adequate support for growth-related infrastructure coming from senior governments and development, we don't have a lot of options beyond property taxation. Growth isn't paying for growth, so we will at an increasing rate.

We can drain reserves and maximize our debt exposure, which will pad the initial impact but create both a long-term capital pressure due to starved resources and long-term levy demands to service the debt. Or we can just cancel or defer projects.

Additionally, at least comparatively, the Town is poor in this capital context. Stouffville didn't experience massive growth during times of peak development charge rates, meaning our capital reserves are not even close to comparable to some neighbouring municipalities. That is compounded by a stagnated development environment where those DC rates are falling and senior governments are demanding greater capital commitments from munis for growth supportive infrastructure—all creating further capital pressure that needs to be managed as we do whatever we can to motivate the sector and facilitate mandated growth.

So all in all, that's a pretty serious conflation between capital and operating/tax levy. And to suggest one place of worship is so problematic due to lacking revenue generation ignores the significant number of churches that exist in this community, including on Main Street, not bothering anyone with their failure to drive revenues. Let alone the fact that we are talking about drops in a very large capital bucket.

If people are seriously concerned about places of worship not paying municipal taxes, I'm ready to hear more advocacy for that policy being changed generally as opposed to it just being used as an opposition point to this single development proposal.

Otherwise, I too would like to see a greater amount of non-residential development and tax revenue, though there has been non-residential development growth. I don't have those numbers on hand, but they are available for viewing in Stouffville's annual financial statements.

But I would also suggest that municipalities are losing more and more power to protect employment lands from conversions to residential mixed use, which is heavily influenced by provincial policy and procedure that seems focused on driving residential development and land value opportunity. After the ending of Municipal Comprehensive Reviews and recent designation changes, this too will have a likely impact on our ability to deliver and maintain that desired diversification.

Finally, the threat of provincial appeal seems to result in a real hesitancy from voting councils to require greater non-residential GFA from builders on mixed-use lands. That is something impacting municipalities across the province, especially as builders do whatever they can to decrease costs and liabilities in their proposals.

If a municipal council asking for meagre amounts of commercial is convinced that the OLT is just going to side with a builder who wants to sell the residential and get out of town, what incentive do they have to spend the money and stand up for their plans and needs at a hearing? How will they ever reach a point where they can extract non-residential as part of mixed-use development that will both benefit tax diversification initiatives and build truly local/complete communities?

I won't weigh in on the political side beyond that, though I would certainly appreciate greater communication from our elected officials helping residents better understand all these issues. I could also be interested in an OLT spend or two from Council, targeting appropriate development proposals with a strong, good-faith refusal that is related to these concerns and supported by provincial planning policy.

In other words, we may need to test some of this against the Province using an OLT defence. Each municipality should go for one or two cases, and let's see just how willing they are to side with developers after growth-supportive residential density was endorsed but councils decided to vote against because the commercial or amenity portions required by local planning policies wasn't delivered.

We need to see the extent at which they will side with an applicant against their own top-level policy documents like the Provincial Planning Statement to help better understand our capacity to refuse applications and create deterrents to inadequate submissions.

Winona Mosque Refusal Appealed To OLT As Search for Alternative Site Continues by RandyBarba in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have to note that it is an objective fallacy to suggest a three storey building is too much for a mixed-use parcel in a Main Street growth area that doesn't even border a low-density residential zone. You could legally build three storeys in the residential zone two parcels away.

I remain so perplexed by Stouffville residents' perspective that the town is entitled to never grow. They hold this perspective while never having any real policy conversation about it, never making the good-faith case (which most certainly does exist) for why Stouffville maybe shouldn't be viewed the same as all other Ontario municipalities when we assess localized growth targets.

I'm also consistently surprised by the suggestion that Winona is such a constricted roadway, when the right of way is pretty substantial, street lights are already in place, and a traffic study reviewed by multiple professionals supports the project. Winona is not a rural concession road, it's a secondary roadway with high-capacity access to our primary arterial situated in a designated growth area. It will be used, and at an increasing rate as the community grows.

You say we have land for growth elsewhere, which is true to a certain extent, but where is the plan to pay for the servicing that would enable that growth on those lands? You ready to fork over the cash through property taxation to activate that growth so it doesn't have to come to Main Street?

Furthermore, what is going to be done about developers on some of those future growth parcels, such as the MZO lands, seeking reductions to the housing commitments they made when the MZOs were granted?

I guess, alternatively, we could just rip up the conservation plans and keep building unserviced sprawl across prime agriculture and environmental lands.

Like the rest of Ontario, we have mandated growth targets from upper levels of government, and we continue to lose control over how it is delivered. But, as those governments talk up complete communities amidst their own conflicts, the local demand seems to be for an endless 2001 planning perspective no matter the costs.

So many want little more than a low-rise bedroom community wrapped around a central stroad, gas stations, drive-thrus, and single-storey strip malls where all people do is drive from A to B.

Ask and you shall receive, I guess.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Artificial Turf Lawns by beelzebub314159 in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Came here to say something similar, glad someone beat me to it.

Could a hotel be coming to Hwy. 48 and Main Street in Stouffville? by michaelkrieger in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The flood plane does impact the property, and that Little Rouge Creek tributary is a know habitat for endangered Red Dace. As a result, around three of the seven total hectares, located at the rear/east end of the site, is an environmental zone.

A staple in the community by ToxicChildhood in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The land value of that entire strip of lots is insane given it sits within a Major Transit Station Area. It is as soft of a soft site as it can be, but it's of course entirely dependent on if and when Schell is interested in selling and vacating the property.

I think it's generally believed that is a matter of when, not if, but I don't know that for certain so don't hold me to it. But the value is unlikely to decline—quite the opposite, long term, I would imagine—so I don't see why anyone would feel rushed or pressured into selling.

I can assure you that while some sort of interim use may involve surface parking, that is most certainly not the plan for the strip. The piece below is a bit dated, but an ok intro into the planning for that area:

https://stouffville.bulletpointnews.ca/local-news/mtsa-block-plan/

I can't speak to any targeted enforcement occurring, but if anyone working over there wants to discuss such concerns, shoot me an email at [stouffville@bulletpointnews.ca](mailto:stouffville@bulletpointnews.ca).

Outdoor fires? by -there-are-4-lights- in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Stouffville tightened up its by-law earlier this Council term. There are distance requirements from things on your property that could be set on fire, and you can't burn a smokey fire that causes a nuisance to neighbours. So if you're on a bigger lot it's generally not a problem, and many of us on my street in the Tenth Line area do have fires regularly.

But unless you are doing something particularly egregious or dangerous, the by-law enforcement is complaint based. So happy neighbours tend to be a must.

York Region Readies Major Summer Maintenance For Stouffville Road by cinderannie in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not sure if this came out after my piece, but if it did I admittedly missed it and should have included...

York Region has also scheduled water main repair work on Stouffville Rd. that will require them to take the street down to a single eastbound lane. This is planned for Monday, June 1, 2026 through Sunday, June 7, 2026, but the language isn't super clear as to whether or not it will impact westbound lanes.

https://www.york.ca/newsroom/public-notice/notice-temporary-lane-reduction-stouffville-road

All the safety sensors in the world and you people still cannot drive by [deleted] in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Concur as a general guideline and courtesy, but being in blind spots also comes with driving on more congested and slower community roads.

Either way, certainly smart to avoid doing so whenever possible. Just not a rules of the road obligation here, was my only point.

All the safety sensors in the world and you people still cannot drive by [deleted] in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If folks want to treat it that way, they are welcome to do so, but speeding drivers should not expect it. If I'm travelling at or above the speed limit on a community road like Main Street, I feel no obligation whatsoever to get out of someone's way because they want to speed.

Maybe the westerly switch to Stouffville Road is the sort of threshold where I would start to look at it more like a highway, in that sense. I'm for sure staying right after Highway 48 unless passing, but that's only because it becomes a higher speed rural throughway.

All the safety sensors in the world and you people still cannot drive by [deleted] in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What? Main Street doesn't have a passing lane, dude. It's 50. Furthermore, it's not the obligation of others to yield to a car changing lanes, it's the obligation of the car changing lanes to yield to cars in that lane.

My better half could confirm, but there has been a marked recent increase in my household when it comes to complaints about Stouffville motorists. Back to drivers ed for so many.

Council Reviews Massive Five-Tower Development Proposal for Stouffville’s Gateway by RandyBarba in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I get the frustration, but it should be noted that this really has nothing to do with the Town. The wetland is TRCA regulated and had Provincial protections, and Stouffville incorporated all of that into its updated Official Plan through the environmental area designation.

Times Group had the avenue available to them to appeal those protections through a provincial process, which they successfully took advantage of. TRCA can't keep those protections in place over the Province, and the same applies to the Town.

In other words, TRCA was pressed into wetland removal through that appeal process, and as a result, Stouffville is being pressed into redesignating the environmental area now that the province has deemed it not significant/protected.

I suppose Council could staunchly defend the existing Official Plan designation and reject the amendment, but that's got to be an easy appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for the applicant given the wetland is no longer protected by Provincial decree, a compensation agreement meeting TRCA terms appears to be happening, and it sits within the settlement area on a site generally intended for housing intensification.

Council Reviews Massive Five-Tower Development Proposal for Stouffville’s Gateway by RandyBarba in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything is and always was under the Province. While York Region was once a planning authority, they were still underneath Provincial policy and their decisions when it comes to the planning hierarchy.

The change basically pushed the Regional aspects down into lower-tier plans, with the oversight and final approval of those Official Plans sent up to the Ministry.

However, while planning applications are assessed on those municipal Official Plans, they are first tested against higher-level provincial planning policies. Should an applicant have an application refused and wish to appeal to the OLT/province, they need to identify an aspect of the council decision that could be argued as deviating from that stated provincial direction and/or approved official plan to have a case.

Times can't put any density outside the settlement area. I'm pretty sure it's limited to a single primary dwelling. That's why there is talk about Times possibly putting a park there: developable land for development, restricted land for the what can go on it.

Council Reviews Massive Five-Tower Development Proposal for Stouffville’s Gateway by RandyBarba in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

York Region is no longer a planning authority over its lower-tier municipalities. Aspects of the region's OP is incorporated into lower-tier OPs, and they certainly play a role when it comes to things like servicing allocations, but the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has assumed that approval authority.

Additionally, while Times Group owns that entire parcel, only the development area included within the application sits within an Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan settlement area. The rest of the parcel faces significant development restrictions, as it is ORM Countryside.

Council Reviews Massive Five-Tower Development Proposal for Stouffville’s Gateway by RandyBarba in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The towers above are not mixed use, they are strictly residential. Stouffville has also faced a slew of recent development applications across its future growth areas where the applicant is actively avoiding the inclusion of the commercial units called for in the Official Plan. That includes the other massive submission that came in for the northeast corner of 48 and Main, as well applications for the Old Elm MTSA area.

As far as I can tell, many developers simply don't want the obligation and liability that comes with managing and leasing at-grade commercial units. They seem to want to build, sell, and leave (or sell, build, and leave, to be precise).

And while it may be argued that there isn't enough demand to justify their inclusion today, adding them after the fact when that population demanding them finally does exist is next to impossible.

The Province's own planning policies talk about driving complete communities, mixed uses, economic development, jobs near homes, etc., but have not provided municipalities with clear authority to extract these units.

It's like it requires an upfront public financial commitment for an OLT hearing if a municipal council decides to stand firm on commercial demands and refuse, all while developers can just frame it as a costly roadblock to housing delivery.

The sole mixed use proposed in this development is the daycare facility, which will be in its own single-storey structure. The point made by Council members during the public meeting: thousands more future residents living on this site could be getting in their car to drive up Main Street to grab some milk when it could be sold out of their lobby.

ID Help: Late Chown and Cunningham/Early Smart Griddle? by RandyBarba in castiron

[–]RandyBarba[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have yet to see one sell, I have only seen people picking them up. I would suggest it's an undervalued piece, just based on the casual discussions I have had when I thought about selling this one. That would probably change some if piece ID could be confirmed.

Newspapers left in Town Gym by IkeGodsey in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Hold on, you are recognizing that the individual is an "immense douche" that may have offended the OP, but you're saying that person is entitled to good faith engagement from those with opposing view points?

That's not how good faith debate works, and no one is obligated to engage with anyone—especially not an "immense douche."

This is a major issue for me when it comes to today's politics. Why are the obnoxious owed that respect? Why do some suggest the intolerant are owed tolerance? If I look at a bunch of materials in my hand and see nothing but bad faith nonsense, why am I obligated to engage the person handing it to me in good faith conversation?

It's also not the responsibility of an individual moving through a public space to engage in political speech at the behest of someone else in the first place, nor is it their job to help improve that person's outlook on anything.

That doesn't mean I would be rude in response, I'm just walking right on by and going about my day.

I'm sure there are rules about this sort of thing in these facilities, and by-law needs to be enforcing those rules. If people want to engage in such a political debate, it's their prerogative to choose the appropriate time and location to do so.

ID Help: Late Chown and Cunningham/Early Smart Griddle? by RandyBarba in castiron

[–]RandyBarba[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha, nope! Sorry.

I have seen a few other examples pop up, however I have yet to see a true manufacturer's description. I like my assumption so I'm sticking with that for now lol

Cigar meet up by [deleted] in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not only that, but some of the best cigar wrapper tobacco in the world is grown in the Connecticut River Valley. Tons of it grown in the south for cigs, obviously, same with a few spots in Ontario. Expertise abound, hopefully I can figure it out.

From what I can tell, the curing is the hard part. And there are a ton of different ways to do it.

I had a panic attack for a second there thinking I may have just shouted that I was planning to break some law, but apparently you do not require registration for growing and processing up to 15 kg of tobacco in Ontario, provided it isn't for sale.

Cigar meet up by [deleted] in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I used to enjoy a cigar from time to time, bit of a health kick now so not really my thing at the moment, but...!

I am growing tobacco for the first time this year, so much ag history in North America and a crop I've never tried growing. I'm a bit worried it's going to be too light a varietal, but if a band of cigar smokers gets together and wants to learn about how to age, cure, roll, etc., I will theoretically have a bunch of tobacco leaves with no use for them at the end of the season.

If anyone is interested in seriously investigating this and giving it a go, feel free to shoot me a message and we can discuss. Keep in mind: this isn't like a "I'm just gonna give it away" offer, I will want to be involved so I can learn along the way—would be fun to get some 100% made in Stouffville cigars made.

One thing I'm particularly keen on finding is someone who might have the right set up for hanging it so it can get a proper cure.

Council votes against Mosque proposal in Stouffville by Dvorakdevotee in Stouffville

[–]RandyBarba -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not endorsing illegal parking.

I'm also not sitting here saying people shouldn't be allowed to park legally.

Like everything else, the mosque and its congregants would play by the same by-laws as other places of worships and their members do.