The Public Meeting this date was to consider an application submitted by Bousfields Inc. c/o SOS GP Inc.
The Committee Clerk advised that 205 notices were mailed on October 15, 2024 and a Public Meeting sign was posted on October 11, 2024. There were 10 written submissions received regarding this proposal.
Stephen Lue, Senior Manager, Development, introduced the item.
Nusrat Omer, Senior Planner, gave a presentation regarding the proposal, the location, surrounding uses and outstanding issues.
Peter Smith, Bousfields Inc. and Mansoor Kazerouni (Arcadis IBI Group), provided a presentation on the proposed development.
The following deputations were made on the proposed development:
Esther Ravka made a deputation expressing the following concerns regarding the development proposal: that existing infrastructure (road and sewers) cannot support a proposal of this scale; that the proposal would worsen already problematic traffic congestion; that it will take emergency services more time to reach residents due to increased traffic congestion; and that it will alter the economic balance of the community.
Sidney Cohen, President of nearby Condominium Development, made a deputation expressing the following concerns regarding the proposed development: that the mall will no longer serve as a community hub for the people living in the area; that the proposals does not include an accessible place where the community can access services and amenities due to there not being enough parking being proposed on site for the retail establishments; the height of some of towers being proposed in the development; and that adding a development proposal of this size to an existing community does not make sense.
Margo Chan made a deputation asking the following questions regarding the proposed development: what studies had been done to determine the impact of the proposal on the environment, traffic, and schools? How much underground parking was being proposed to be included in the development?
Yan Wang made a deputation on the proposed development expressing concern that the current road infrastructure and transportation system would not be able to handle the scale of the proposal. Ms. Wang suggested that more consideration needs to be given to how the proposal will affect existing residents, suggesting that more public consultation is required.
Debra Saxe made a deputation expressing the following concerns regarding the development proposal: that tenants living within a 200 metre radius were not notified of the proposal; that the sewer and water supply may not be sufficient to support the proposal; and that her rent controlled apartment could be impacted by the proposal, noting that rent control tenants can not be evicted to raise rent. Ms. Saxe was aware that the subject lands need to be refreshed, but she suggested not in this way. Ms. Saxe also asked for clarification on whether the podium is included in the number of stories.
Louie Salmons made a deputation expressing the following concerns: that the proposal may be built prior to the proposed transit improvements on Steeles East and Don Mills; that the proposal will create more traffic congestion; that the convenience of having stores nearby will be gone; that there would not be affordable rentals available for the retail and other employees working in the commercial component of the new development; that it would be more effective to have one larger park than to have several smaller parks, with specific reference made to eliminating the park in the centre of development to have a larger park at the edge of the development.
Miles Bocknek expressed concern regarding the scale of the development being proposed on the subject lands and the impact it would have on traffic congestion, expressing specific concern regarding the impact it would have on traffic on Steeles near the entrance to the Hwy 404.
The Committee had the following questions and comments regarding the proposed development:
- Why tenants living within 200 metres of the proposed development were not notified.
- The status of reports the Applicant’s reports submitted to the City.
- The anticipated time it will take to build the proposed development.
- If the sewer, road, and water capacity were sufficient to support the scale of development being proposed.
- If the proposal could include a range and mix of housing forms, including townhouse units to allow for greater diversity in the housing mix.
- Confirmation of if there is a Municipal Infrastructure Agreement signed between the Owner and the City of Toronto
- What the difference is between a MTSA and BRTs
- The amount of retail being proposed and if the Applicant foresees any issues attracting retail establishments.
- The type of work currently being undertaken on the subject lands.
- That the Applicant should consider including affordable housing and/or purpose-built rentals in the proposed development.
Staff and the Applicant’s team of experts provided the following responses to inquiries from Committee and the public:
Number and height of towers
The proposal includes 13 buildings, which include both high and low-rise towers and the podium height is included in the proposed heights of the towers.
Current work being done on the subject lands
The current owner of the subject lands is undertaking work on the site to decommission the former gas station on site as this is a condition of the sale of the land.
Construction mitigation plan
As part of the development process, a construction plan will be created to mitigate disruption to the community. One of the plans being made to limit disruption to the community includes maintaining the existing food store on the subject lands until the new one is in place.
Construction timing of development proposal
The proposal will be built in phases over many years, with the timing of phases depending on the strength of the future market. Some of the proposed transit improvements were anticipated to be made prior to some of the future phases of the proposal.
Status of reports related to the proposed development
All required reports have been submitted to the City. Staff comments have been provided and are being reviewed by the Applicant. City Staff, York Region, the School Board, and various agencies review and provide comments on the development proposals.
Road capacity and parking
Staff advised that both York Region and the City of Markham have noted that the existing road network does not have the capacity to support all phases of the development proposal at this time.
The Applicant’s Traffic Engineer advised that the project would evolve overtime and that with future improvements to transit the full capacity of the proposal can be supported. The proposal will include some residential parking, but it will be limited to encourage residents to take transit and to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. A new transportation study is required to be submitted at each phase of the proposed development.
Sanitary sewer capacity
The Applicant’s Civil Engineer advised that the existing sewer system has the capacity to support approximately an additional 1,250 units, and that a new sewer is being built in this area that will support the remainder of the proposal.
Utilities
The Applicant’s Civic Engineer advised that no objection was provided from the utility company with respect to providing power.
Water
The Applicant’s Civil Engineer advised that there is current capacity to provide water to slightly more than 3500 units and that a watermain upgrade will be required on Don Mills to supply water to the additional units. The cost of the watermain upgrade would be covered by the developer.
Diversification of housing mix
The Applicant agreed to investigate the possibility of including townhouses in the housing mix being proposed.
Retail
The Applicant did not foresee any issues attracting retail establishments as the type of retail it would attract includes retailers that would be providing services to residents residing in the development or that live nearby, such as a pharmacy, coffee shop, or food store. A considerable amount of retail space is being proposed. The food store alone will be 20,000 to 30,000 square feet in size.
Flooding
Staff advised that the Applicant would address flood control onsite.
Notification
Staff advised that the owner of the properties within the 200 metre radius was notified of the development proposal and that it is the legal responsibility of the owner to advise their tenants of the proposal as the City does not have the tenants’ information.
The Applicant advised that they are committed to working with the community on the proposed development.