Before the meeting got underway, Muench introduced several “outside planners” and developers fighting to build higher buildings in the village core who, Muench said, would “answer any questions we have with regards to what’s going on in other municipalities … what are the problems… So if we have an opinion we can have some sober second thought, an open discussion without any bias.

“These planners came out of their way to try and help us and I’d like to recognize them.”

Also in attendance were landowners investing in the area, business owners, non-profit groups, people who want jobs in the area and people who want no changes to the downtown at all, Muench said.

But several attendees pointed out crucial voices were missing — town planning staff and other municipal and regional representatives, prompting some residents to mutter “what a waste of time”.

“We need to get some clarification from the planning department,” said resident Chris Musselman.

Town planners were invited, Muench said: “I did invite staff and I did invite others and there are some people who are team players and there are others who are not.”

“These people are employed by the Town of Richmond Hill and if they’re notified of a meeting, they come to a meeting,” said upset resident Brian Hatt. “If we do not employ the best people, then lets get rid of them and start over.”

“I gave an invitation,” said Muench. “If people don’t come, don’t goddam me.”

Not true, according to Ana Bassios, commissioner of planning and regulatory services. “I can confirm that planning staff were not invited to the councillor’s meeting.”

On Wednesday, Muench told the newsroom that he informed town CAO Neil Garbe about the meeting, and was told that as it was just a community meeting, not a formal council meeting, no planners or town staff needed to attend.

However, Garbe says he wasn’t asked about having staff attend the meeting.

The March 31 deadline was another bone of contention, but Patrick Lee, director, policy planning, planning and regulatory services said yesterday that residents will still be able to voice concerns.

“The town requested that public comments be submitted by March 31 to allow for them to be considered for the draft of the Downtown Secondary Plan. Residents are welcome to continue submitting comments before the Downtown Secondary Plan is finalized later this year.”

DEVELOPER HEIGHT CONCERNS

Most of the evening was spent discussing residents’ concerns about the potential loss of heritage buildings, widening of Centre Street East and the future of the historic Richmond Hill United Church, along with developer concerns about height restrictions in the downtown.

Muench warned that as population grows, so too will the number of gridlocked drivers taking shortcuts on Crosby and Centre streets.

Under the 2010 Official Plan, Centre Street is designed as a collector road and as such, 26 metres or 13 metres on either side of the middle line can be used to have the road widened, he said.

Murray Evans, of Evans Planning, said the town can legally expropriate land if necessary to widen the street and that extra 13 metres could land in the middle of somone’s home.

“Go to Davis Drive [in Newmarket]. There’s a lot of half properties left,” he said. “Will that ever happen? Probably not. But there’s the ability.”

That led one man to angrily threaten legal action.

He said he purchased a home on Centre Street East after researching the area and determining it was a quiet street with protected heritage.

“I planned on bringing my kids to come and live on the street ... Now you’re gonna turn that around, knock it down… I’m going to go tomorrow door by door on Centre, going to get the names and go after you and go after the city (sic). You’re ruining my investment….I would not have bought this property.”

“Not one of us was ever told what you were planning,” an upset Bott added. “The clown that was councillor before didn’t advise anybody of anything. Nor did the town.”

But Dan Terzievski, town director of development engineering, planning and regulatory services, said yesterday there are no imminent plans for widening Centre Street.

“Some smaller scale improvements to Centre may be required in the long term”, but should applications come forward in the future, residents will be notified as part of the regular planning process.

FIRESTORM OVER CHURCH

Muench asked those at the meeting if anyone was concerned about the town “overly protecting” its history and who should be responsible for preservation. He referred to derelict buildings in a downtown that is “not overly vibrant” and a historic church that is struggling financially.

But when he disclosed details about the financial status of the United Church, he was challenged, with attendees shouting “that’s none of your business!”

“A church is a private enterprise; you have no right to comment on how a business is run. I think you owe it an apology,” said Hatt.

“Centre Street is to be widened,” Muench said. “It’s not going to be taken from the church [side] because the church is a sacrosanct heritage building and so it should be.”

He noted that most municipalities don’t have the money to throw at heritage preservation.

“The town should have gotten involved more [in heritage preservation] and I thought they were going to after I left office,” said former mayor Al Duffy, attending the meeting. “In fact, they took the heart out of the town when they took [town hall] over to Markham and seem to have ignored the downtown.”

Duffy said development charges in York Region are too high “and if you want this Main Street to work, do a study on it and waive development charges so people can afford to build here.”

Developers also complained about the “artificial” five-storey limit on development in the core, intended to keep new buildings from towering over historic church steeples.

That restriction means it’s not economically viable to develop in the village core, the planners present told the gathering.

“There is a cost involved with heritage buildings and the incentive is not there,” Evans said. Underground parking is expensive to build — about $30,000 a space — so “five storeys doesn’t cut it”, he said.

One planner, currently fighting the town at the OMB to build eight storeys on Yonge, said eight is “absolute minimum”.

After the meeting, many residents expressed confusion over what they had heard and lined up to speak with Ward 5 Councillor Karen Cilevitz and Ward 4 Councillor David West sitting quietly at the back of the room.

West said he felt it important to attend, as half of the village core resides in his ward.

“I was there to listen and I was not all that thrilled with how the meeting was conducted.”

There were many valid concerns raised, he said, but it would have benefited from input from town staff to explain what’s envisioned for preserving the heritage.

Cilevitz said she was stunned to hear a fellow member of council give misleading and erroneous statements to residents, creating a forum for developers and unnecessary consternation for residents.

Resident Stacey Johnson admitted she was leaving the meeting with unanswered questions and concerns, but added “I appreciate what Tom did. He got some information out there … but then it kind of went down a rabbit hole.”

Muench blamed those with a political agenda for derailing the meeting, at one point visibly showing anger and pounding on a table and raising his voice.

“I have no skin in the game,” Muench said several times. “I’m concerned our downtown is not being invested upon and if it’s not invested upon it will become worse off. I’m not against heritage and not wanting to tear everything down… Can we please work together, because if not, we might all lose.”