The Public Meeting this date was to consider an application submitted by Garden Homes (Markham) Inc. for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan Control to permit a townhouse development at 73 Main Street South, Markham Village (Files: OP 15 108135, ZA 15 108135, SU 17 157341 and SC 17 157341).
The Committee Clerk advised that 199 notices were mailed on May 1, 2019, and that a Public Meeting sign was posted on April 30, 2019. No written submissions were received regarding this proposal.
Staff gave a presentation regarding the proposal, the location, surrounding uses and outstanding issues.
The Applicant made a presentation on the development proposal.
The following deputations were made on this development proposal:
Peter Ross, provided the following feedback on the development proposal on behalf of the Vinegar Hill Ratepayer Association:
- Expressed appreciation that Heritage Markham Committee, Staff and the Applicant were able to work together;
- Supported both the development proposal and the Heritage Markham Committee recommendation regarding the proposal;
- Requested that a Community Information Meeting be held on the application prior to Council considering it;
- Requested that landscaping and grading/elevation plans be presented at the Community Information meeting to better understand how the development will fit into the cultural heritage landscape of the area, and the height relationship with existing adjacent dwellings.
In response to inquiries from the Committee, Peter Ross advised that a formal motion was not passed by the Vinegar Hill Ratepayer Association in support of the development proposal. Instead, the Executive Committee reviewed the submission and feedback was gathered informally through the circulation of a newsletter on the proposal and information about the proposal had been posted on their website.
Rebecca Shaw, resident provided the following feedback on the development proposal:
- Spoke in opposition to the development proposal;
- Concerned about the density of the development proposal;
- Concerned about the impact the development proposal will have on the ecosystem of the Rouge Valley;
- Concerned about the impact the development proposal will will have on traffic;
- Concerned that the proposed retaining wall will negatively impact her backyard and that it will impact the mature trees in this area;
- Will support a development proposal with the appropriate number of dwellings and that considers the heritage character of the area;
- Suggested the Applicant continue to work with the community on the proposal.
- Submitted a petition of 70 signatures in opposition.
Howard Tewsley, resident provided the following feedback on the development proposal:
- Concerned that the configuration and narrow width of Mill Street, especially at the Main Street South intersection, will not support the added density to the area.
Discussion
Committee provided the following feedback on the development proposal:
- Requested that the applicant hold a second Community Information Meeting, as there has been significant changes to the development proposal since the first meeting was held;
- Suggested reducing the number of townhomes and replacing them with a row of semi-detached units;
- Asked what materials the retaining wall will be built with and if it will be visible from Mill or Main Street;
- Asked if the development proposal is still part of the original development proposal given the significant changes to the proposal;
- Asked if there will be a significant change to the grading of the hill on Main Street, and the relationship between the public sidewalk and the front entrance of the townhouses.
In response to inquiries from the audience and Committee, the Applicant advised they would consider holding another Community Information meeting, but did not commit to it. It was confirmed that the retaining wall will be made out of cement, that it will not be visible from Mill or Main Street South, and that it will be approximately 14.8m in height in the mid area tapering down towards both the east and west.
In response to the Committee’s inquires, staff advised that the secondary access to the proposed development is generally supported by Fire and Emergency Services, Waste Management and the TRCA for operational and safety reasons.
The applicant advised that the proposal will require significant re-grading of the existing steep slope. The applicant further confirmed that the development proposal is considered part of the original application, which was submitted under the City’s previous Official Plan.