Development Services Public Meeting Minutes

Duran Wedderburn, Manager, Policy, provided a presentation, titled “Planning for Growth in Markham Overview”. The presentation provides an overview of the policy context that informs where and how growth is accommodated in Markham and the role secondary plans play in the process.

4.2
DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MILLIKEN CENTRE SECONDARY PLAN (WARD 8), FILE NO: PR 23 127618 (10.3)

1.PMIR Draft OPA for the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan PR 23 127618.pdf

2.Appendix 1 - Draft OPA for the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan.pdf

3.Staff Presentation - Draft OPA for the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan PR 23 127618.pdf

The Public Meeting this date was to consider a City-initiated draft official plan amendment for the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan.

The Committee Clerk advised that 25 notices were mailed notices were mailed to all standard agencies, including school board, utility, and transit bodies, on November 1^st, 2023 and a Public Meeting Notice was posted in The Toronto Star on November 1^st, 2023. Additional parties including agencies and residences were sent the notice by email. There were 14 written submissions received regarding the proposal.

Stephen Lue, Senior Manager, Development, introduced the item.

Liliana Da Silva, Senior Planner, Policy provided a presentation on the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan.

The following deputations were made on the Draft Milliken Centre Secondary Plan:

Brandon Simon, The Planning Partnership, spoke on behalf of the Milliken Landowner Group, which is comprised of 12 participating landowners. The landowners generally supported the Draft Milliken Centre Secondary Plan, but provided the following feedback: recommended that policy 8.6.2 allow for consideration of both height and density increases rather than just density to provide additional design flexibility; that affordable housing be excluded from the height and density calculations; That maps SP3 and SP4 be added to the appendices with a note that there may be adjustments to height and density when service improvements have been made; and that the Draft Secondary Plan over dedicates parkland based on the updated Bill 23 requirements; that Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces (POPS) and Strata Parks be recognized as potential supplementary parkland; supported the creation of a Master Parkland Agreement between the City and the Landowner Group.
Courtney Fish, KLM Planning Partners Inc., provided the following feedback on the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan, on behalf of 35 and 51 Old Kennedy Road, 7077 Kennedy, noting both of these properties are located within the Milliken Go Station Major Transit Station Area (MTSA): that policy 8.6 be updated to allow for consideration of additional height and density in the MTSA rather than just density to support more sustainable site layouts and building designs; that affordable housing not be included in the calculation of height and density under section 5.1 point 6 of the policy; that POP, strata parks and roads be permitted where appropriate, as they play an important role in providing a full range of public parkland and roads; suggested that some of the policies on built form are overly restrictive and these matters can be addressed without requiring an Official Plan Amendment; suggested that the height and density of the property at 7077 Kennedy Road be increased from 30 to 45 stories, with a 6 FSI where a 3.5 FSI is currently proposed. Ms. Fish demonstrated the Applicant’s support of the Remington Group, Gatzios Planning + Development Consultants Inc., and the Planning Partnership’s comments provided at tonight’s public meeting.

3) Eldon Theodore, MHBC, provided a deputation on behalf of 4440 Steeles Avenue East, noting that the landowner is a participating member of the landowners group and that their property is one of the two sites closest to the Milliken GO Station, and the pedestrian bridge to the station is also linked to their site. Therefore, it is an appropriate site for ample density and height. The owner of the subject lands will be submitting an application for a high-rise development of 35, 49, and 58 stories, which they think is the appropriate built form for the area. Mr. Theodore advocated for more flexibility in the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan that will allow the built form to dictate the height and density, rather than placing maximum on these numbers.

4) Lance Gao, owner of 35 and 51 Old Kennedy Road, provided a deputation questioning why the permitted height for his properties was being reduced from 30 to 25 floors, suggesting that it should be increased rather than decreased to build more affordable housing and based on recent changes to provincial legislation. Mr. Gao suggested that limiting heights will also create a difficult and competitive environment between landowners.

5) Randy Peddigrew, Remington Group, thanked staff for their efforts to move the Draft Milliken Centre Secondary Plan forward. Mr. Peddigrew provided the following feedback on the Draft Markham Centre Secondary Plan:

Parcel 1 located northwest quadrant – happy it includes mention of the possible future GO Station, but concerned that the FSI assigned to the site is very low for a medium density designation. Furthermore, it is an underdeveloped site located largely in vacant areas with employment lands across the street, therefore, the high density would likely cause little conflict with the existing community;
The configuration of Gorvette Road appears to be curved in the Draft Secondary Plan rather than a straight line. Expressed concern that this may require him to build a new road, and hoped that if this was the case, there will be an exchange of land for the old right of way for the new right of way;
Parcel 3 – located on the north side of Sunrise Road – expressed concern regarding the FSI being only 1 when this property is supposed to serve as a mid-rise density that connects to development on the west side of the tracks;
Shared site with Pacific Mall, and Kennedy Corners – appreciate that flexibility has been granted with respect to height and density, but would rather that these numbers be adjusted to avoid future complications, and due to their being a direct pedestrian connection to the existing GO Station. Moreover, the proposed permitted uses should be more general to ensure its marketability;
Advised that the affordable housing policy needs to be clear and easy for everyone to follow.

6) Nick Pileggi,Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., made a deputation on behalf of the W Group, owner of 4 parcels of land within Milliken Centre Secondary Plan, including 186 Old Kennedy Road and 3 parcels of land to south. Mr. Pileggi asked that the City reconsider the need to assign maximum heights and density in the Major Transit Station Area, suggesting instead placing a minimum height and density, like the City of Vaughan. Mr. Pileggi suggested that a similar approach be taken with respect to parking, where there is no minimum parking standard, only a maximum parking standard to encourage transit and alternative forms of transportation.

7) Maria Gatzios, Gatzios Planning + Development Consultants Inc., spoke on behalf of the Pacific Mall property, one of three properties located on the west side of the railway. The three landowners are working together on a shared vision and redevelopment of the sites. Staff were thanked for moving the Draft Milliken Centre Secondary Plan forward, but concern was expressed that the Draft Secondary Plan is too specific and that this will lead to Official Plan Amendments. Rather, the Draft Secondary Plan should be high level and not predetermine what should be on given parcel of land. Additionally, the heights and density proposed in the Draft Secondary Plan for the parcels of land on the west side of the rail are too low, suggesting that they be reconsidered as these parcels of land are unique in the GTA. The three parcels of land are also not part of the Landowner Group that spoke earlier.

8) Adam Layton, Evans Planning, advised that his client owns properties on south side of Steeles Avenue adjacent to the Draft Markham Milliken Centre Secondary Plan Area. Mr. Layton supported the deputants’ comments and advised that he would like to continue to be advised of what is happening with respect to the Draft Secondary Plan. Mr. Layton noted that he will connect with staff offline regarding the Draft Secondary Plan.

Staff responded and provided clarification to inquires from the Committee and the Deputants.

Moved byCouncillor Isa Lee
Seconded byCouncillor Juanita Nathan
1. That the deputations by Brandon Simon, Courtney Fish, Eldon Theodore, Lance Gao, Randy Peddigrew, Nick Pileggi, Maria Gatzios, Adam Layton, regarding the Official Plan Amendment for the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan (File Number PR 23 127618) be received; and,
2. That the written submission by Norman Lingard, Adam Layton, Maria Gatzios, Courtney Fish (on behalf of 2163221 Ontario Inc.), Courtney Fish (on behalf of Kennedy Corners Realty Inc. & Kennedy Steeles Holding Limited), Jonathan Cheung, Joseph Pavia, Randy Peddigrew, Brandon Simon and Wai Ying DiGirorgio, Eldon Theodore, Mina Rahimi, Darrin Cohen, Peter Chee, and Claire Ricker; and,
3. That the record of the Public Meeting held on November 21, 2023 with respect to the City-Initiated draft Official Plan Amendment for the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan (File Number PR 23 127618) be received; and,
4. That the City-initiated draft Official Plan Amendment for the Milliken Centre Secondary Plan, be finalized and brought forward to a future Development Services Committee; and further,
5. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
Carried

4.3
DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARKHAM ROAD – MOUNT JOY SECONDARY PLAN (WARD 4, 5, AND 6), FILE NO: PR 20 142832 (10.3)

1.PMIR Draft OPA for the MRMJ Secondary Plan PR 20 142832.pdf

2.Appendix 1 - Draft OPA for the MRMJ Joy Secondary Plan (16June2023).pdf

3.Staff Presentation - Draft OPA for the MRMJ SP PR 20 142832 (21Nov2023).pdf

The Public Meeting this date was to consider a City-initiated draft official plan amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan. The Committee Clerk advised that 25 notices were mailed to all standard agencies, including school board, utility, and transit bodies, on November 1, 2023 and a Public Meeting Notice was posted in The Toronto Star on November 1^st, 2023. Additional parties including agencies, stakeholders and residents were sent the notice by email. There were 9 written submissions received regarding the proposal.

Stephen Lue, Senior Manager, Development, introduced the item.

Lily-Ann D’Souza, Senior Planner, Policy, provided a presentation on the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan.

There was a brief discussion on how notice was served for the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan. The Committee suggested that Staff consider using a mobile sign to promote Statutory Development Service Committee meetings with a Secondary Plan item on the agenda in the future.

The following deputations were made on the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan:

1) Paul DeMelo, Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP, made a deputation on behalf of the owner of 9331 to 9399 Markham Road. He explained the site is approximately 400 metres from the Mount Joy GO Station, and 40 metres from the southern edge of the station platform. He also explained there is currently a revised Zoning By-Law Amendment Application for this site, proposing a mixed use building with a 37-storey tower and 42-storey tower connected by a 3-storey elevated sky bridge. The proposal seeks to intensify and redevelop the site with the appropriate built form, however, the Draft Secondary Plan has contradicting height and density limits for land parcels close to the Mount Joy GO Station.

2) Khalid Usman, made a deputation on behalf of the Islamic Centre of Markham in regards to the Draft Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan. Mr. Khalid noted that the mosque was originally supposed to be located on 16^th Avenue, but built it in this location instead to make peace with the community. Mr. Usman spoke in opposition to the alignment to re-configure and daylight a portion of Mount Joy Creek and the multi-use trail adjacent to the railway corridor, as they will take away a large parcel of the mosque’s land, which will result in the mosque not having enough space for parking. Mr. Usman noted that the mosque is trying to build a community school on their property, but has not been able to do so due to flooding concerns. The mosque is hopeful that they may be able to build a school if the alignment to re-configure Mount Joy Creek is piped under Anderson Avenue. Mr. Usman also spoke in opposition to the mosque lands being expropriated.

3) Shafique Malik made a deputation in opposition of having the channel open on the mosque’s property, as it is dangerous for children play on the lands.

Response to Deputations 2 and 3:

Giulio Cescato, Director of Panning & Urban Design, advised that staff will look into how the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road -Mount Joy Secondary Plan will impact the mosque property, and will have further conversation with the mosque regarding their concerns.

4) Claudio Brutto, made a deputation on behalf of the owner of 158 Anderson Avenue, on the Draft Markham – Road Mount Joy Secondary Plan. Mr. Brutto noted that his client is fine with the land use designations for their lands, but has concerns regarding the maximum height of 20 storeys identified for the lands, noting that this does not connect with the identified density of 7 FSI. Mr. Brutto advised that he would like to continue to work with staff on this matter.

5) Elizabeth Brown, Sherwood Rate Payer's Association, expressed the following concerns regarding the Draft Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan: that towers are being permitted to be built so close to the roadway; the density being proposed; the traffic the density will create; that the existing transit cannot support the proposed density. Ms. Brown also questioned what is happening with the employment lands, and when the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan will be brought forward to the Development Services Committee for adoption.

Response to Deputation 5:

Darryl Lyons, Deputy Director, Planning & Urban Design, advised that the earliest the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan would be brought forward to the Development Services Committee for Council’s adoption in Q1 2024, but it would likely be closer to March.

The Mayor requested that staff start showing images that display the urban landscaping and finer details when displaying images of what an area may look like in a Draft Secondary Plan.

6) Hayden Poon, resident, made the following inquires in regards to the Draft Markham Road –Mount Joy Secondary Plan: questioned the rational for removing the mixed use land use designation from the lands along Markham Road north of Castlemore Avenue, suggesting that a mixed use development with retail would help encourage residents to walk rather than drive; emphasized the need to improve transit in the area, as if residents experience poor transit service they will purchase a vehicle.

7) Chris Rogge expressed concern in regards to how the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan will affect traffic, noting not everyone has the luxury to take transit.

8) Adam Layton, made a deputation on the Draft Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan on behalf of 9999 Markham Road, requesting that the City assist with the formation of a landowners group for this area to help share costs. Questioned where the future GO Station will be located if one is approved. Recommended that there only be minimum heights and densities, and suggested the heights and densities proposed for the area are disconnected.

Response to Deputation 8:

Mr. Lyons advised that he will speak to Mr. Layton about how the City may facilitate additional meetings with other landowners to discuss the option of forming a landowners group.

The Committee provided the following feedback on the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan:

Discussed how density was determined in the proposed Draft Secondary Plans for Milliken Centre versus Mount Joy;
Noted that facilities for cyclists and pedestrians should be separated;
Suggested that a plan is needed to protect Main Street Markham, and the Markham Village Heritage Conservation District from traffic infiltration;
Discussed if the City can play a role in helping to form a landowners group in the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan Area, and some of the reasons landowners may resist;
Questioned how the ratio of residential to commercial uses is determined for lands with a mixed use designation;
Councillor Karen Rea and Councillor Reid McAlpine requested to meet with staff to learn more about the transit assumptions that were used to inform the Draft Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan, as they were concerned about how residents would get around Markham.

Moved byCouncillor Andrew Keyes
Seconded byCouncillor Reid McAlpine
1. That the deputations by Paul DeMelo, Claudio Brutto, Khalid Usman, Shafique Malik, Elizabeth Brown, Hayden Poon, Chris Rogge, and Adam Layton, regarding the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan (File Number PR 20 142832) be received; and,
2. That the written submission by Claudio Brutto and Francesco Fiorani, Dr. Najmul Siddiqui, Siobhan Covington, Robyn Rabinowitz, Rosemarie Humphries (2), David Burd, Keith MacKinnon, Francesco Fiorani, regarding the Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan (File Number PR 20 142832) be received; and,
3. That the record of the Public Meeting held on November 21, 2023 with respect to the City-initiated draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan (File Number PR 20 142832) be received; and,
4. That the City-initiated draft Official Plan Amendment for the Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan, be finalized and brought forward to a future Development Services Committee; and further,
5. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
Carried

5.
ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Amanda Collucci
Seconded by Councillor Juniata Nathan

That the Development Services Public Meeting adjourned at 11:01 PM.

Carried

No Item Selected

1.CALL TO ORDER

2.DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

3.DEPUTATIONS

4.REPORTS

4.1PLANNING FOR GROWTH IN MARKHAM (10.3)

4.2 DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MILLIKEN CENTRE SECONDARY PLAN (WARD 8), FILE NO: PR 23 127618 (10.3)

4.3DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARKHAM ROAD – MOUNT JOY SECONDARY PLAN (WARD 4, 5, AND 6), FILE NO: PR 20 142832 (10.3)

5.ADJOURNMENT

Details

History

Vote Result

1.
CALL TO ORDER

2.
DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

3.
DEPUTATIONS

4.
REPORTS

4.1
PLANNING FOR GROWTH IN MARKHAM (10.3)

4.2
DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MILLIKEN CENTRE SECONDARY PLAN (WARD 8), FILE NO: PR 23 127618 (10.3)

4.3
DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARKHAM ROAD – MOUNT JOY SECONDARY PLAN (WARD 4, 5, AND 6), FILE NO: PR 20 142832 (10.3)

5.
ADJOURNMENT