To my knowledge no Council has ever reversed a previous Council’s decision. Mayor Carrier clearly had a hidden agenda as his campaign platform NEVER mentioned the fact that his top priority would be to reverse previous Council’s approvals. Furthermore, to my knowledge, no mayor has ever moved a motion. Not only did Mayor Carrier support the reversal but he went so far as to move the motion.

Mayor Carrier: But, while everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, there is only one set of facts. Contrary to what I often hear, the current Collingwood Council did not “kill this development” or stop it from happening. In fact, the opposite is true. This council found a way to allow it to happen.
Stephen Assaff: The current Council did not "kill this development" as the location of this property in the heart of downtown Collingwood, together with the development concept, will ensure that a development will occur there........ someday! What Mayor Carrier did do is delay the project by two years which resulted in us being exposed to the worldwide financial crisis in the fall of 2008, and at this time it is unknown how long the project will be delayed because of his actions.

Mayor Carrier: This development has been approved, with no outstanding appeals of the planning decisions since July, 2008. Any decisions not to proceed since that time have been decisions of the developers whom to this day have chosen not to apply for building permits.
Stephen Assaff: The mayor states "whom to this day have chosen not to apply for building permits." This FACT that the Mayor lists is FALSE AND MISLEADING!!! In FACT we had applied to the Building Department for the permit. Mr. Bill Plewes, as Building Inspector issued the permit! It was ready for pickup and all that was required was a cheque for $1.3 million dollars payable to the Town. We obviously chose not to pay for it when the project was on hold! In FACT Bill Plewes had to go back to Council to submit a revised building permit activity report as a result of having to cancel the issued permit. Perhaps Mayor Carrier was too busy running up the debenture debt of the Town (from $17,000,000.00 at the start of his term to the expected excess of $50,000,000.00 at the end of his term !!!!!) to notice the cancellation of our building permit?

Mayor Carrier: In order to understand what really happened, it’s necessary to know that the actions of the current council on this file hinged on three facts that were in existence at the time this council was sworn in:
1) All final approvals for the development were NOT in place, as the developer had not yet complied with certain conditions imposed by the former Council. The project was NOT in a position to proceed.
Stephen Assaff: All final APPROVALS from the Town of Collingwood and The County of Simcoe WERE in place. Of course there were certain CONDITIONS such as paying the Town $1.4 million to sign the site development agreement and $1.3 million to get a building permit that was not complied with. What did he expect? We were still under appeal to the O.M.B. by the VOTE Group!

Mayor Carrier:
2) There were heritage policies in place in the planning process for both Collingwood and the Province.
3) There was an appeal pending before the Ontario Municipal Board.
Stephen Assaff: Speaking of the O.M.B. appeal by the Vote Group; everyone acknowledges that the Vote Group helped get Mayor Carrier elected. Interesting then that the first act of the Mayor was to reverse our approvals followed by the Vote Groups withdrawal of their appeals!! Whom would have funded the minimum $250,000.00 cost of the Vote Group’s appeal had they actually had to pay for the lawyers, planners, architects and heritage consultants to testify at the Ontario Municipal Board? It is very important to remember that the Vote Group was appealing our approvals from the Town and the County, which are not easily overturned at the O.M.B. Contrary to Mayor Carrier’s opinion, our advice was that they had a very weak case. In fact, former Mayor and O.M.B. Chairman Ron Emo told me that intensification of the Town’s core would trump the Heritage argument. In his (very knowledgeable) opinion.

Mayor Carrier:

2006

• The Official Plan Amendment, known as OPA#5 was adopted by council in May, 2006. All such amendments are then required to be sent to the County of Simcoe for approval.
  

Stephen Assaff: Town Council and County Council passed our approvals for the project because they believed it was good planning and good for our town.

Mayor Carrier:

• While the file was at the County level, the process continued. Among other things, OPA#5 required, as is usual in the planning process, that the developer prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) be completed to the satisfaction of the Town.
  
  
• An HIA was submitted by the developer.
  
  
• The municipality must then review it and accept it. An independent review team that included historical consultant Su Murdoch, architect David Eckler and planner Robert Martindale, was retained by the former Council. Following an initial draft review of the developer’s HIA, it was deemed by the review team to be insufficient for council to make a decision. The developers responded by preparing a second and more detailed HIA and a complete review took place. Read the peer review here.
  

The Mayor mentions their Heritage Consultants of Su Murdoch, David Eckler and Robert Martondale. These are the experts that represented the Town in the mediated re-design of the building. Which design do you like best? It is interesting to note that when the Town’s Heritage Advisory Committee did not approve of David Eckler’s opinion regarding arched windows on the main floor of the new library......they overruled him. So that would leave one to believe that they only take his advise when they agree with him.

Mayor Carrier:

• During this time, the Town’s Heritage Committee reviewed the HIA and filed a letter to council on August 29th, 2006 summarizing the history of the Heritage Conservation District and property discussions. They also expressly agreed with the contents of the peer review done by the independent review team and, they made several recommendations.
  
  
• Also during this time, a letter was sent to the County of Simcoe by the Ministry of Culture expressing concerns over the approval of the HIA and in particular, that the objectives of the Heritage District had not been adequately considered.
  
  
• The Ministry also raised concerns as to the proposed developments compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). The County did not approve OPA#5 as adopted by Collingwood Council but rather, made 7 modifications to the OPA. Significantly, they replaced the words that were in the original OPA that said any development “would be consistent with a council-approved assessment” to, words that said “Based on terms and conditions that reference the Collingwood Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee’s (Heritage Committee) endorsed policies and guidelines for the Collingwood Downtown Heritage Conservation District…”Three of the remaining modifications also significantly altered the OPA#5 to give strength to the Heritage issues. Here are the 7 recommended County modifications.
  
  
• On September 18, 2006, Collingwood approved the new zoning for the site. It contained the provisions that the lands would be placed in a “Holding Zone” until such time as a further 9 local conditions were met as outlined here in By-law 2006-93. Note that again, a condition was that the HIA be carried out that demonstrates that the proposed development was consistent with the Heritage District guidelines.
  
  
• Despite the concerns raised by the Ministry of Culture, the Town’s Heritage Committee and the HIA independent peer review team all saying that the developers HIA did NOT meet the requirements as set out in OPA#5, Collingwood Council passed resolution #389 accepting the developer’s HIA.
  
  
• On October 11th, 2006, a local ratepayers group filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The basis of their appeal can be found here. Their key concern and basis for appeal was that the Town’s actions were in conflict with the Heritage requirements of OPA#5 and also the Provincial Policy Statement as both related to the heritage district issue.
  
  
• In the previous council’s final month in office in November 2006, the Town conditionally approved the site plan agreement. During the weeks preceding the swearing in of the new council, numerous attempts (all documented) were made to finalize the development deal. However, upon the receipt of staff and legal advice,the various financing requirements as proposed by the developers necessary to securing their obligations under the site plan approval could not be supported by Council.

Stephen Assaff: All approvals from the town and the county were in place. As previously stated some conditions of those final approvals needed to be met. Such as paying the town $1.4 million to sign the S.D.A. The O.M.B. was scheduling the hearing for Feb./March and the decision would have been forthcoming that spring.

Mayor Carrier:

• On January 15th 2007, the new council revoked its acceptance of the Heritage Impact Assessment.
  
  
• On January 22nd, the appeal by the ratepayers group was withdrawn since their basis for appeal (acceptance of the HIA) had been addressed by the new council’s decision.
  
  
• On January 29th, the development group filed an appeal to the OMB on the Town’s decision not to proceed with the site plan even though no agreement had ever been signed and no financial securities had been posted by the developer up to this point.
  
  
• In February, I personally contacted (via telephone and email) one of the developers, (Mr. Assaff), to invite them to meet with senior Town staff and myself to begin a process where their development proposal appeal could be resolved through negotiations instead of an expensive OMB hearing. Mr. Assaff and Mr. Strandholt agreed.
  
  
• On February 15th 2007 there was a pre-hearing telephone conference held with the OMB to inform them that we had initiated discussions and were hopeful that the negotiations would result in a solution. The OMB then directed us to report back on or before March 2nd 2007 with available dates for a hearing to commence no later than July should a resolution through negotiations not be reached. Negotiations continued for several months in an attempt to find a compromise solution. Remember, the developer wanted up to six storeys and the original objectors wanted the maximum 3 storey legal requirements to be adhered to.
  
  
• May 25th: Although a number of issues were resolved by this time, a mediation session was held with the OMB, as an impartial facilitator, to give direction in resolving the outstanding issues.
  
  
• July 3rd: Just six days before the scheduled OMB hearing was to commence, the Town accepted a settlement proposal and the hearing was cancelled. A compromise had been reached to allow 5 storeys (4 full and one set back from the building face). The remaining details were yet to be worked out.
  
  
• In the months that followed, negotiations on specific details continued. A deeming by-law was needed to remove the old subdivision plan that covered the site and also, a consent application was required to split the site into two and create Mr. Assaff’s Admiral Collingwood Project and Mr. Strandholt’s, “The Strand” project as two separate and distinct properties. This critical matter had been raised by the Town with the developers over many months but had not been acted upon. The financial details also still needed to be finalized and required securities posted.
  
  
• March 2008: town staff once again raised concerns that they were still awaiting the details of the agreements (Financing, site plan drawings, the Corporate identities needed to sign the agreements, etc.), which were to have been delivered by the developer.
  
  
• June 2008: An update from legal and planning staff is provided to council saying that all agreements were now finalized and could be signed and securities could be posted.
  
  
• December 2008: The Development group issued a media release saying that the project was on hold and that situation remains to this day.

Stephen Assaff: Rather than comment on the rest of the Mayor’s diatribe of details of the meditated settlement that resulted in the COLOSSAL scaling back of my building from six to five stories, I would point out he forgot to highlight the year 2008!!! Perhaps that is because it took further months and months to redesign the building to conform with the new design and deal with the never ending demands of the Town’s Legal and Planning Teams. It is no secret in the development community that because of this Mayor and Council; Collingwood is a place to avoid trying to do business in. You have an agreement with Council and ooops, no you don’t! A new Council reverses the previous Council’s approvals.

I’ve heard it said that this council’s decision to repeal acceptance of the developer’s Heritage Impact Assessment cost the Town lost tax revenue and jobs. Many of us wonder…

… what if the developers had applied in the first place to do a development that fit within the planning frameworks that existed at the time? Had they done so, the buildings would likely have been long built, occupied and generating tax revenues and jobs.

… given the serious concerns raised by the Heritage Committee, the County, the peer review team and the Province about the Town’s acceptance of the Heritage Impact Assessment, would the ratepayers group’s appeal to the OMB have been successful? Based on legal opinions received by this council, we believe it would have been. Instead, this council found a way to reach a compromise that allowed this development to go ahead without appeal.

So… while everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, there is only one set of facts and I hope that presenting them here has helped clarify the role of this council in trying address the development of this site.

Funny thing, we were encouraged to apply for our development by the former Mayor and Council. They approved our plan and so did the County. Had you not reversed those approvals the building would have been built, occupied and generating tax revenues and jobs.

The Province and County are encouraging municipalities to intensify development in their cores rather than continual Urban sprawl. In particular they encourage mixed use buildings with commercial on the main floor with residential above as extremely good planning in urban cores. We are quite confident that with Municipal and County approvals for our project, the O.M.B. would have upheld those approvals. Comments from former Mayor and O.M.B. Chairman Ron Emo would support that view. Everyone I speak with acknowledges that this was an attack on me - Steve Assaff - personally. Mayor Carrier’s actions had nothing to do with whether this project was good for our town, YES OR NO? As a result of these actions the Business’ that wanted to expand, the families that had purchased homes, the families that planned to purchase homes, the planned retirement home for senior’s in the downtown has all been put on hold. I am quite confident that the electorate of the Town of Collingwood will demand a change of leadership and around the Council table this fall. Then perhaps the next Mayor and Council will do exactly as this one has - reverse a previous Council’s decision.