Arvin Prasad provided opening remarks and introduced Parvathi Nampoothiri, Sr. Manager, Urban Design, Planning & Urban Design, who briefly outlined the objectives of the workshop which included: highlighting the value of parks, an assessment of the existing supply and distribution of parkland along with anticipated future need based on growth, considerations for future park planning and acquisition, as well as legislative requirements for utilizing alternative parkland dedication rates.
Ron Palmer, Partner, The Planning Partnership, Adam Mattinson, Consutlant, Hemson Consulting, Thomas Kempster, Consultant, Hemson Consulting, delivered various parts of the Markham Parkland Acquisition Study Development Services Committee Workshop, presentation.
There was discussion on the following in relation to the presentation:
- Concerns with the differentiation between City parkland and open spaces such as Rouge Park and Milne Dam and that there be consideration to include specific parkland details;
- That the park maintenance budget configuration be calculated by person to reflect the number of people using the parks in the future as lands are intensified;
- The usage of cash in lieu from intensified areas and its allocation to other underfunded parks. amenities, and public transportation;
- Recognition that additional recreational features may not be implemented outside City parkland such as at Rouge National Park, and Milne park;
- Clarification on maintaining provision targets of Option 1, Maintain Target Through Reallocation;
- The location of other park locations within and outside the identified intensification areas;
- That there be consideration to include the definition of community within a ward and within an intensification area to include easy access to amenities;
- Concerns that a complete community may not include parkland while trying to complete communities within Markham;
- Concerns with providing parks in all areas for complete communities and the actual definition of a complete community;
- The calculations used to determine the amount of parkland required and the costs of the City's required provisions;
- Concerns regarding land areas within intensification areas and that they may not be configurable to provide all amenities;
- That it is necessary to understand that communities are different and that there is a need to identify ways to meet most of the needs of each community;
- The provision of parkland and its calculation method to achieve the prescribed dedication amounts or the cash-in-lieu;
- Concerns in relation to the secondary plans and if they will identify how to achieve necessary parkland requirements;
- Whether there will be consideration to include water features at the parks;
- That there be additional consideration to include storm management ponds and that credits be offered for this and parking where they are already included in a plan application;
- Inquiries regarding the calculations used to determine the intensification area cost per unit, in consideration of the population in 2031;
- The rate comparison between municipalities: Richmond Hill, Vaughan, Markham and Toronto;
- Concerns with the unpredictable costs and buying power of cash-in-lieu funds at the time of commitment or application versus when the plan is approved for development;
- The potential consequences of the cash-in-lieu rates that may result in the need to acquire other funding tools;
- Consideration to apply a uniform rate across the City;
- The importance to meet the September 18, 2022 deadline to implement the appropriate by-laws; and,
- That the by-law implementation cannot be retroactive however, it can be appealed.
The Committee supported in principal, Option 1 and requested additional information in relation to the impacts of Option 1 relative to all City development applications including equity for high-rise and apartment type units.
The consultants and staff responded to the Committee's inquiries and will report back with the additional information requested.