Electronic Development Services Committee Meeting
Revised Agenda
Revised Items are Italicized.

Meeting Number 13

Monday, June 07, 2021 at 9:30 A.m. - 1:00 P.m.

Live streamed

Note: Due to COVID-19, our facilities are closed to the public. Access is not permitted to the Markham Civic Centre and Council Chamber.

Members of the public can participate by:
1. VIEWING THE ONLINE LIVESTREAM
Development Services Committee meetings are video and audio streamed at: https://pub-markham.escribemeetings.com/
2. EMAILING A WRITTEN SUBMISSION:
Members of the public may submit written deputations by email to [email protected].

Written submissions must be received by 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting*
*If the deadline for written submission has passed, you may:
a. Email your written submission directly to Members of Council; or
b. Make a virtual deputation at the meeting by completing and submitting an online Request to Speak Form
*If the deadline for written submission has passed and Council has finished debate on the item at the meeting, you may email your written submission directly to Members of Council.
3. REQUEST TO SPEAK / VIRTUAL DEPUTATION :
Members of the public who wish to make a live virtual deputation, please register prior to the start of the meeting by:
1. Completing an online Request to Speak Form , or,
2. E-mail [email protected] providing full name, contact information and item they wish to speak, or,
3. If you do not have access to email, contact the Clerk's office at 905-479-7760 on the day of the meeting.
*If Committee has finished debate at the meeting on the item, you may email your written submission directly to Members of Council. The list of Members of Council is available online at this link.

​Alternate formats for this document are available upon request.

Closed captioning during the video stream may be turned on by clicking the [cc] icon located at the lower right corner of the video screen.

Please bring this  Development Services Committee Agenda to the Council meeting on xx 2021.

---

1.

CALL TO ORDER

2.

DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

3.

APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

3.1

DEVELOPMENT SERVICESCOMMITTEE MINUTES – MAY 25, 2021 (10.0)

• 1. That the minutes of the Development Services Committee meeting held May 25, 2021, be confirmed.

4.

DEPUTATIONS

5.

COMMUNICATIONS

5.1

RECOMMENDATION REPORT GARDEN HOMES (MARKHAM) INC. 73 MAIN ST. S. PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 19TM-17005 TO PERMIT 13 TOWNHOUSE DWELLINGS AND A DETACHED DWELLING (WARD 4) FILE SU 17 157341 (10.7)

Note: Please refer to Item #8.1 for staff report.

• 1. That the communication submitted by Mark Yarranton, Partner, KLM Planning Partners Inc. providing comments on the above subject matter be received.

5.2

INFORMATION REPORT – PHASE 3B: NEW COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW PROJECT, PR 13 128340 (10.5)

Note: Please refer to Item #8.2 for staff report.

• That the communication submitted by J.D. McDermott, Principal Planner, McDermott & Associates Limited providing comments on the above subject matter be received.

5.3

THE ALIGNMENT OF THE YONGE NORTH SUBWAY EXTENSION (5.14)

Note: Please refer to Item #9.3 for motion.

• That the following communications providing comments regarding Motion - The Alignment of the Yonge North Subway Extension be received for information purposes:

  1. Daniela Provenzano
  2. Neomal Jayasekera
  3. John Craig
  4. Carolyn MacDonald
  5. Gael Robertson-Craig
  6. Kan Zhang
  7. Farzad Tooryani
  8. Bill and Debbie Antonacci
  9. Joe Amodeo
  10. Louise and Gordon Patterson
  11. Norine Thomason
  12. Eileen Neuts
  13. Don Russell
  14. Carol Takagi
  15. Iemima Elefteratos and Petru Florin Caracuda
  16. Jack Le
  17. Alice Young and Jason Tung
  18. Marilyn and Ed Helcoe

6.

PETITIONS

7.

CONSENT REPORTS - DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES

7.1

GLYNNWOOD TRIBUTARY – MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) STUDY UPDATE (WARD 1)

L. Cheah, ext. 4838

• 1. That the staff report entitled “Glynnwood Tributary – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study Update, (Ward 1), be received;
  2. That the revised preferred alternative for new storm sewer and channel from the Thornhill Community Centre to the Glynnwood pond, to alleviate flooding in the area as set out in the Environmental Study Report be endorsed;
  3. That staff be authorized to issue a Notice of Study Completion for the project and make the Environmental Study Report available for public review for a period of 60 days commencing July 2021;
  4. And that staff be directed to report back to Council on property acquisition, funding and negotiations with HCN-Revera (Glynnwood retirement Living Inc). and Liberty Development Corporation (Shouldice Hernia Centre) for the acquisition of certain lands / easement and construction required for the new storm sewer and channel;
  5. That Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

7.2

DESIGNATED PROPERTY GRANT APPLICATIONS -2021 (16.11)

P. Wokral, ext. 7955

• 1. That the report entitled “Designated Heritage Property Grant Applications -2021”, dated June 7 2021, be received; and,
  2. That Designated Heritage Property Grants for 2021 be approved in the amounts noted for the following properties, totaling $29,999.99, provided that the applicants comply with eligibility requirements of the program; and,
     1. 32 Washington Street, Markham Village-up to $3,332.67, for replacement of existing aluminium storm windows with traditional wooden storm windows and reconditioning of the existing historic wooden window;
     2. 36 Church Street, Markham Village- up to $3,686.58 for the reconditioning and restoration of the historic wooden board and batten siding;
     3. 33 Dickon Hill Road, Dickson Hill-up to $5,000.00 for the reconditioning/restoration of the existing historic wooden 6 over 6 windows;
     4. 99 Thoroughbred Way, Markham-up to $3,686.58 for the restoration and selective replacement of damaged wooden clapboard siding;
     5. 11172 Warden Avenue, Markham-up to $3,686.58 for repointing and repairs to the stone foundation and historic brick walls and buttresses;
     6. 188 Main Street, Unionville-up to $1,921.00 for the production of traditional wooden storm windows to fit the arched window openings;
     7. 123 Main Street, Unionville-up to $5,000.00 for the repair and replacement of the front veranda floor deck, veranda post trims and the re-puttying and painting of historic storm windows;
     8. 26 Colborne St., Thornhill-up to $3,686.58 for the removal of later wooden cove siding and restoration of the underlying historic wooden clapboard siding; and,
  3. That the grant request to fund repairs to the south facing reproduction veranda of 1 Millbrook Gate which is not visible from the public realm be denied; and,
  4. That the grants be funded through the Designated Heritage Property Grant Project Fund , Account 620-101-5699-21010 ($30,000.00 available for 2021); and further,
  5. That Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

7.3

COMMERCIAL FAÇADE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM FOR 2021

P. Wokral, ext. 7955

• 1. That the report entitled “Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Program for 2021”, dated June 7, 2021 be received; and,
  2. That the $10,000.00 2021 Budget for the City of Markham Commercial Façade Improvement Program be topped up to $30,607.50 by utilizing unused funds of $13,107.50 from the 2019 and 2020 Commercial Façade Improvement Grant Programs (Accounts 620-101-5699-19015 and 620-101-5699-20018 respectively) and $7,500.00 from the 2019 Designated Heritage Property Grant Program (Account 620-101-5699-19015); and,
  3. That the recommended grants be awarded proportionally based on the $30,607.50 worth of funding available for 2021; and,
  4. That Council supports a grant for the proposed new awning at 139 Main St. Unionville subject to the applicant obtaining a Building/Heritage permit for the proposed work (up to a maximum of $2,885.63); and,
  5. That Council supports a grant for the replacement of the existing rotten wooden board and batten siding of the roof dormers at 157 Main St. Unionville with an appropriate aluminium siding selective repair subject to the applicant obtaining a Building/Heritage permit for the proposed work (up to a maximum of $4,620.31); and,
  6. That Council supports a grant for the selective repair and repainting of the wooden board and batten siding at 205 Main St. Unionville subject to the applicant obtaining a Heritage Permit for the proposed work (up to a maximum of $4,620.31); and,
  7. That Council supports a grant for the completed installation of a new cedar shingle roof at 206 Main St. Unionville (up to a maximum of $13,860.94); and,
  8. That Council supports a grant for the repair and repainting of the exterior 209 Main Street Unionville subject to the property being brought into compliance with the City’s Sign By-law and the applicant obtaining a Heritage Permit for the proposed work (up to a maximum of $4,620.31); and further,
  9. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

      

7.4

HERITAGE EASEMENT AGREEMENT TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF HERITAGE DWELLING (ARTHUR WEGG HOUSE), 10537 KENNEDY ROAD, WARD 6 (16.11.3)

R. Hutcheson, ext. 2080

• 1. That the staff report titled “Heritage Easement Agreement , Temporary Relocation of Heritage Dwelling (Arthur Wegg House), 10537 Kennedy Road, Ward 6”, dated June 7, 2021, be received; and,
  2. That a by-law be passed to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a Heritage Easement Agreement with the property owners of the Arthur Wegg House, and any other documents required to give effect thereto, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in support of the temporary relocation of the building; and,
  3. That Council has no objection to the temporary relocation of the Arthur Wegg House to facilitate grading work in support of the future development of the property; and further,
  4. That Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

8.

REGULAR REPORTS - DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY ISSUES

8.1

RECOMMENDATION REPORT GARDEN HOMES (MARKHAM) INC. 73 MAIN ST. S. PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 19TM-17005 TO PERMIT 13 TOWNHOUSE DWELLINGS AND A DETACHED DWELLING (WARD 4) FILE SU 17 157341 (10.7)

R. Hutcheson, ext. 2080

• 1. That the report dated June 7, 2021, titled “RECOMMENDATION REPORT, Garden Homes (Markham) Inc., 73 Main St. S., Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 19TM-17005 to permit 13 townhouse dwellings and a detached dwelling, (Ward 4), File SU 17 157341”, be received; and,
  2. That Council direct the Director of Planning and Urban Design, or his designate, to issue draft plan of subdivision approval for 19TM-17005, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix ‘B’ to this report, as may be amended by the Director of Planning and Urban Design, and further subject to confirmation that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has approved the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and approved in principle the Site Plan Control application; and,
  3. That the draft plan of subdivision approval for Plan of Subdivision 19TM-17005 will lapse after a period of three (3) years from the date of Council approval in the event that a subdivision agreement is not executed within that period; and,
  4. That Council assign servicing allocation for up to 14 dwellings; and further,
  5. That Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

8.2

INFORMATION REPORT – PHASE 3B: NEW COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW PROJECT, PR 13 128340 (10.5)

G. Day, ext. 3071

Note: Nick McDonald, President, Meridian Planning Consultants will be in attendance to provide a presentation on this matter.

Revised presentation attached.

• 1. That the report titled, “INFORMATION REPORT – PHASE 3B: New Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project, PR 13 128340” dated June 7, 2021, be received; and,
  2. That the Development Services Committee authorize the scheduling of three non-statutory Open Houses and a Development Services Workshop, as outlined in this report; and further,
  3. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

9.

MOTIONS

9.1

CITY OF MARKHAM TANKING STORM PONDS AND CREATING PARKLAND ON TOP (5.0, 6.3)

Note: The notice of this motion was given to Development Services Committee at its meeting held on May 25, 2021.

• Whereas the City of Markham is considered a leader in Community Planning and Development; and,

  Whereas the City of Markham recognizes that new Community Development should be premised on the efficient use of land for the benefit of the City and its residents; and,

  Whereas the Robinson Glen Block and other areas in the future urban area represents an opportunity for the City to implement industry leading techniques and technologies to create more livable communities; and,

  Whereas for example, the current stormwater pond located south of Sheridan Nurseries with a fence around it, should be tanked and parkland created on top as it is in a high density urban area and be financed by Kingdom Development because of their parkland deficiencies and they should be given a parkland credit; and,

  Whereas the Langstaff Gateway has been approved for stormwater storage tanks 11 years ago and parkland will be created on top of the tank and Condor should be given a parkland credit; and,

  Whereas the City of Markham’s $40 million stormwater pond being created on the west side of Torbay Road should be tanked and parkland created on top (in this case a bubbled sports dome that creates the equivalent of two regulation soccer fields) and be classified as parkland and paid for by applicants who have parkland deficiencies in their development applications submitted; and,

  Whereas the City of Markham needs to hire a civil engineering firm like SCS Consulting Group, Shaffer Consulting or Urbantech Engineering and engage B+H Architects to work on the Torbay Sports Fields Centre Concept; and,

  Whereas when storm ponds are identified in complete destination Transit Oriented Community stations, they should be tanked and parkland created on top because it makes a more desirable urban public realm; and,

  Whereas any storm ponds installed or being installed and requires fencing, indicates they are unsafe for the public, therefore tanking the storm ponds should be considered and parkland created on top; and,

  Whereas storm ponds created in TOC communities, tanking the storm pond should be considered as they serve a dual purpose, 1st, as a stormwater storage tank, and 2nd, parkland on top of very expensive lands; and,

  Whereas parkland cash-in-lieu is taken because the application doesn’t have sufficient parkland contribution; and,

  Whereas, parkland cash-in-lieu is worth approx $3,750,000 in Markham, but it is subject to a market value appraisal, Lands in Markland Centre, Langstaff Gateway / Richmond Hill Centre and Vaughan Metropolitian Centre are valued between $13,000,000 to $25,000,000 per acre; and,

  Whereas one such technique is to discontinue where possible, the practice of constructing traditional style land-consumptive open stormwater ponds; and,

  Whereas it is recognized that open stormwater detention ponds are an undesirable inefficient use of land, collect unsightly garbage, are unsafe and dangerous to local residents and present a local breeding ground for disease carrying mosquitos; and,

  Whereas the use of underground stormwater storage tanks will eliminate the undesirable impact of traditional stormwater detention ponds; and,

  Whereas underground stormwater storage facilities create an opportunity for the City to develop more parkland for active and passive recreation for the benefit of the residents of the municipality; and,

  Whereas the annual maintenance cost of underground stormwater detention facilities is significantly less, relative to the traditional stormwater detention ponds; and,

  Whereas underground stormwater storage facilities meet or exceed stormwater management standards with a design life of 100 to 150 years and will only require minor maintenance during that period to extend beyond that period of time. Further, the total life cycle for the water storage tanks are up to 200 to 300 years, rendering the City’s Alternative Infrastructure Policy unnecessary; and,

  Whereas the City will peer review the detailed structural design of the underground tanks at the expense of the proponent; and,

  Now Therefore Be It Resolved,

  1. That the City of Markham endorse and approve the use of underground stormwater storage facilities in all residential, industrial and commercial developments as they are a benefit to the Community by providing opportunities for usable parkland, etc; and,
  2. That the City of Markham not impose the Alternative Infrastructure Policy for the use of underground stormwater storage facilities; and,
  3. That the City of Markham endorse and approve the use of underground stormwater storage facilities for the Torbay Properties in the Markham’s Steeles-area to provide the required stormwater protection and resolve an existing on going flooding problem; and,
  4. That the Chief Administrative Officer for the City be authorized to negotiate a fair parkland credit for the parkland created by the use of the underground stormwater storage facilities and come back with a stormwater storage tank and parkland on the top policy,
  5. That the Commissioner of Development Services develop a stormwater management retrofit plan strategy and identify the storm ponds that could be converted to a water storage tank with parkland on top.

  Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to:
  • Hon. Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks;
  • Hon. Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing;
  • Hon. Laurie Scott, Minister of Infrastructure Ontario
  • Hon. Victor Fedeli, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade;
  • Hon. Lisa MacLeod, Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries;
  • MPP Billy Pang, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport (Tourism);
  • MPP Vincent Ke, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport (Culture and Sport)
  • Debbie Low, President & CEO – Canadian Sport Institute Ontario
  • John MacKenize, CEO, Toronto, and Region Conservation Authority.
  • Chris Raynor, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of York;

9.2

RICHMOND HILL GO TRANSIT LINE - OPPORTUNITY FOR A TOC GO STATION AT GREEN LANE/JOHN STREET AREA (5.14)

Note: The notice of this motion was given to Development Services Committee at its meeting held on May 25, 2021.

• Whereas the Green Lane/John Street/Bayview Avenue area of Thornhill is and has been in transition for several years and contains a wide range of low-density employment lands; and,

  Whereas there is the possibility that with a comprehensive and sophisticated level of urban planning, all stakeholders could see their land use priorities realized to their satisfaction; and,

  Whereas significant traffic volumes are a concern with new development applications like Tridel (167 units) on the eastern edge of the Ladies Golf Course, Liberty Development proposed (1,287 units) development on the Shouldice lands and Timbercreek proposed (579 units) redevelopment of the Thornhill Square Shopping Centre lands; and,

  Whereas significant amounts of land needed by GO Transit for traditional park and ride solutions are unavailable and/or not viable due to the high price of land at TOC GO Stations; and,

  Whereas medium and high-density condos and office development will be in and around the TOC GO Station, minimal or no parking will be available at the station and mobility solutions will be walking, cycling and autonomous (minibus) vehicles to get around the “Village of Green Lane” community and GO Station; and,

  Whereas YRT buses coming from the east will drop transit riders off at Green Lane / John Street GO Station and the potential Yonge Subway Stations at Royal Orchard Blvd. and/or Clark Avenue; and,

  Whereas merging different modes of transit into one service to suit the mobility needs of individual customers is now an established business model, known as mobility-as-a-service (MaaS); and,

  Whereas in the future, autonomous vehicles will have a role as an F/L/O mile option. People switch if they experience transit as fast, convenient, and affordable. People do not typically switch to sustainable modes of transport for their green credentials. They switch if the overall experience is fast and convenient. F/L/O mile options led to more sustainable mobility if they make the public transit experience as good as or better than that of using a car; and,

  Whereas community planners need to be thinking about autonomous vehicle (like the Olli minibus) solutions because of the significant impacts they will have on travel within the TOC and to and from the GO transit station; and,

  Whereas autonomous (minibus) vehicles would provide the F/L/O mile connectivity to transit users, increasing mobility options for people within a ¾ mile radius of the station and will greatly benefit the disabled, seniors, and children too; and,

  Whereas construction of the Yonge North Subway Extension (YNSE) is scheduled to start 2022-23 near the Langstaff GO Transit Station; and,

  Whereas Metrolinx in the latter part of 2021 or 2022, is planning to study the Richmond Hill GO Transit Line and prepare an initial Business Case; and,

  Whereas the Richmond Hill GO Transit line, may have the potential to add several new TOC GO Station stops including Bloomington, Gormley, Elgin Mills Road, Major Mackenzie Road, 16th Ave, High-Tech Road, Green Lane/John Street, Steeles Ave, Finch Ave, York Mills, Eglinton Ave, Bloor Street, Queen Street and Corktown (Distillery District) in the future; and,

  Whereas all RH TOC GO Stations should be planned as complete, integrated destination stations. Before the pandemic, ridership was 10,500 passengers a day. Every station should be planned as destination TOC Stations with a ridership target for the RH GO line by 2051 of 300,000 passengers a day; and,

  Whereas these lands are in a very strategic location with frontage on Green Lane/John Street, and abutting two rail lines, one of which is the Richmond Hill GO Transit Line going from Richmond Hill to Union Station, as well as being contiguous to, or a short distance from low and medium density residential uses; and,

  Whereas this 65+ acres of employment lands at Green Lane and John Street is a strategic parcel for residential intensification infill, as well as for a significant increase in non-industrial employment opportunities for the residents of Markham; and,

  Whereas there are few locations of this size in the GTA available for both residential intensification and non-industrial employment opportunities, leading to the conclusion that these lands should be thoroughly studied with the intent of having a comprehensive Green Lane / John Street TOC Secondary Plan; and,

  Whereas with proper urban planning, it is extremely important that prior to any new development occurring a comprehensive local road and pathway network and land use plan be established; and,

  Whereas the Village of Green Lane goal is to be planned as a net-zero green community, with district energy, automatic waste collection, energy from waste, solar and geo-thermal solutions be investigated; and,

  Whereas it is in the interest of the city, local businesses, and residents to have this plan cover all the relevant lands and have an interactive planning process involving landowners, ratepayers, Metrolinx, I/O, MTO, YRT and professional world class TOC urban design and planning consultants; and,

  Now Therefore Be It Resolved:

  1. That staff be directed to report back on an estimated cost for the studies, timing, and potential financial resources; and,
  2. That Staff engage consultants determined by Staff to be necessary, such as urban design architects, TOC urban planners, transportation engineers, landscape architects and retail consultant to complete a secondary plan study for the lands shown on the attached Appendix A; and,
  3. That Staff investigate the feasibility of being part of the City of Toronto Transit Commission and Metrolinx automated vehicle trial at the Rouge Hill GO Station as it represents a key role in the establishment of complete destination rail transit integrated community station at Green Lane / John Street and other TOC rail stations in Markham and York Region.
     • Hon. Caroline Mulroney, Minister, Ministry of Transportation;
     • Hon. Kinga Surma, Associate Minister of Transportation;
     • Hon. Laurie Scott, Minister of Infrastructure;
     • Hon. Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation & Parks;
     • Hon. Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing;
     • Hon. Victor Fedeli, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade;
     • Hon. Catherine Mckenna, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities;
     • Phil Verster, President and CEO, Metrolinx;
     • John MacKenize, CEO, Toronto, and Region Conservation Authority;
     • Chris Raynor, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of York;
     • All Members of Federal Parliament in the Regional Municipality of York;
     • All Members of Provincial Parliament in the Regional Municipality of York; and,
     • All Members of Regional Council in the Regional Municipality of York

9.3

THE ALIGNMENT OF THE YONGE NORTH SUBWAY EXTENSION (5.14)

Note: The notice of this motion was given to Development Services Committee at its meeting held on May 25, 2021.

• Whereas, the Yonge North Subway Extension is a priority project in the Province of Ontario’s Transit Plan and is York Region’s Top Transit priority, and

  Whereas, a capital cost funding commitment by the Federal government on May 11, 2021 means the project is now fully funded by all three levels of government, and

  Whereas, the Environmental Assessment for a Yonge Street alignment for the 8-kilometre route from the Toronto Transit Commission’s Finch Subway Station to the end-of-the-line in the Langstaff Gateway/Richmond Hill Centre included extensive public consultation and was approved by the Province of Ontario in 2009, and

  Whereas, Markham Council has endorsed York Region Rapid Transit Corporation’s Environmental Assessment that recommends a Yonge Street subway alignment, and

  Whereas, of the three potential alignments explored by Metrolinx as outlined in their Initial Business Case confirms that Options 1 and 2, each with a Yonge Street alignment, provide greater benefits in terms of individual Vehicle Kilometres Travelled and the number of people who will use transit during morning rush hour in 2041 than Option 3, and

  Whereas, there is statistically no difference among the three Options in terms of Benefit Cost Ratio and total Capital Costs as outlined in Metrolinx’s Initial Business Case and Supplementary Analysis which states Option 3 has “a more complex deliverability case”, and

  Whereas, Markham Council endorsed a Yonge Street alignment for the subway at its May 28, 2019 meeting indicating “optimizing the Yonge Subway Extension alignment in its own established transportation corridor which is Yonge Street;”

  Now Therefore Be It Resolved:

  1. That, Markham Council reject Metrolinx’s proposed Option 3 alignment for the Yonge North Subway Extension, and
  2. That Markham Council requests Metrolinx to pursue the Options 1 or 2 alignment for the Yonge North Subway Extension that adheres to Yonge Street, a major arterial road appropriate for intensification and economic development, and
  3. That any other alternative alignment for Options 1 and 2 considered by Metrolinx be kept on the Yonge Street corridor as much as possible to minimize any impacts to the existing community, and
  4. That once a final recommendation has been determined that all measures be considered including full compensation to any property owner impacted by any proposed alignment, and
  5. That Markham Council requests the Province of Ontario include subway stations for Thornhill at Clark Avenue and Royal Orchard Blvd. in the Yonge North Subway Extension capital project, and
  6. That a copy of this resolution be sent to:

  • Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario
  • Hon. Caroline Mulroney, Minister of Transportation
  • Hon. Kinga Surma, Associate Minister of Transportation
  • Hon. Laurie Scott, Minister of Infrastructure
  • Hon. Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation & Parks
  • Hon. Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
  • Hon. Victor Fedeli, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade
  • Hon. Catherine Mckenna, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities
  • Phil Verster, President and CEO, Metrolinx
  • John MacKenize, CEO, Toronto, and Region Conservation Authority
  • Wayne Emmerson, Chairman and CEO, York Region
  • Chris Raynor, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of York
  • Stephen Huycke, City Clerk, City of Richmond Hill
  • Council of the City of Vaughan
  • Council of the City of Richmond Hill
  • All Members of Federal Parliament in the Regional Municipality of York
  • All Members of Provincial Parliament in the Regional Municipality of York; and,
  • All Members of Regional Council in the Regional Municipality of York.

10.

NOTICES OF MOTION

11.

NEW/OTHER BUSINESS

• As per Section 2 of the Council Procedural By-Law, "New/Other Business would generally apply to an item that is to be added to the Agenda due to an urgent statutory time requirement, or an emergency, or time sensitivity".

12.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

13.

ADJOURNMENT