Electronic Development Services Public Meeting Minutes

Meeting Number 6
-
Live streamed
Roll Call
  • Mayor Frank Scarpitti
  • Deputy Mayor Don Hamilton
  • Regional Councillor Jack Heath
  • Regional Councillor Joe Li
  • Regional Councillor Jim Jones
  • Councillor Keith Irish
  • Councillor Alan Ho
  • Councillor Reid McAlpine
  • Councillor Karen Rea
  • Councillor Andrew Keyes
  • Councillor Isa Lee
Regrets
  • Councillor Amanda Collucci
  • Councillor Khalid Usman
Staff
  • Biju Karumanchery, Director, Planning & Urban Design
  • Sabrina Bordone, Senior Planner, Central District
  • Daniel Brutto, Planner I, North District
  • Stephen Kitagawa, Acting Manager, Development - West
  • Dimitri Pagratis, Senior Planner, Central District
  • Laura Gold, Council/Committee Coordinator
  • Scott Chapman, Corporate Privacy & Records Coordinator
  • Stephen Lue, Manager of Development, Central District

Alternate formats for this document are available upon request


The Development Services Public Meeting convened at 7:03 PM in the Council Chamber with Councillor Keith Irish in the Chair.  

There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest.

EAST OF RODICK ROAD, IN MARKHAM CENTRE (WARD 2) FILE NO. PLAN 20 127887 (10.3)

 

 

The Public Meeting this date was to consider an application submitted by Dorsay Development Corporation for an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development consisting of two 24-storey residential buildings and a four-storey office building on the north side of Highway 7, east of Rodick Road, in Markham Centre (Ward 2) File No. PLAN 20 127887.

 

The Committee Clerk advised that 4,347 notices were mailed on April 7, 2021, and a Public Meeting sign was posted on April 5, 2021.  There were 20 written submissions received either expressing concern or in opposition of this proposal.

Sabrina Bordone, Senior Planner, Central District gave a presentation regarding the proposal, the location, surrounding uses and outstanding issues/next steps.

Matthew Cory, Malone Given Parsons, representing the applicant provided a presentation on the development proposal.

The following deputations were made on the proposed development:

Gary Lam

  • Recognized all the variables that need to be considered when reviewing a development application (i.e. various stakeholders feedback, and the impact the development will have on existing infrastructure).

William Lui

  • Concerned with the height and density of the proposed development, and the impact it will have on traffic;
  • Suggested more office space is not needed, as there is already many office vacancies.

Anna Wong, Chair of the Board of YRSCC 1183

  • Concerned that the proposed development will block the view of the townhomes;
  • Concerned with the impact the proposed development will have on the storm water management system, water pressure, hydro, school capacity, and social services;
  • Noted that the area is already experiencing sewage back-up after a storm and random power outages;
  • Suggested that the proposed development lacks green space for multigenerational families to enjoy;
  • Suggested that the City needs to encourage employers to have their offices in Markham to ensure there are tenants to occupy office buildings.

Regina Chan

  • Made an informed decision to purchase her condominium unit based on the height and density permitted in the zoning by-law for the subject lands;
  • Suggested that existing zoning by-laws should be honoured;
  • Concerned with the density being proposed for such a small parcel of land;
  • Noted that she has also experienced sewage back-up after a heavy rain, and power outages;
  • Suggested there should be a Master Plan for the area.

Teresa Liang

  • Concerned with the shadow the proposed development will create over the townhomes;
  • Supported the original development proposal;
  • Suggested the units should be larger to accommodate families;
  • Concerned with the condominium located so close to the power lines.

Committee provided the following feedback on the proposed development:

  • Noted that the City cannot protect residents’ views;
  • Suggested that proposed developments that cast shadows over existing homes for long periods of time should not be permitted;
  • Advised that Province has designated Markham Centre for high density due to its proximity to transit, and that the density is needed to address urban sprawl, support rapid transit, and to build more environmentally sustainable communities;
  • Noted that the Markham Centre Secondary Plan is in the process of being updated, but that the City has to continue to review development applications prior to its completion;
  • Suggested that the applicant be mindful of the principles of a walkable community when designing the  proposed development;
  • Suggested adding a roof top garden to maximize the greenspace;
  • Asked that staff investigate the hydro and sewage issues identified by the deputants;
  • Suggested that the ground floor of the condominium be more animated and include retail units;
  • Suggested that the City should consider waiving the development charges for the first floor of condominiums, as an incentive to include retail units, like the City of Toronto does;
  • Concerned with the height and density of the development proposal;
  • Noted that more buses will be added to the Viva Bus Rapid Transit route as the density in the area increases, and the Unionville Go train will run every 15 minutes.

Staff responded to inquiries from the public and committee. Staff cannot protect a view, but will work with developers to try to ensure that the height of buildings maintain the 45 degree angular plane from the existing townhomes to the north to minimize impacts. Staff are or will be reviewing what impacts the proposed development will have on traffic, stormwater management, hydro, and on other City services and infrastructure. The public’s concerns regarding power outages, sewage-back-up, and the lack of social services will be investigated, as part of staffs’ review of the application. Staff consider all variables when making a recommendation to the Development Services Committee on a development application (i.e. community feedback, provincial, regional and city policies, studies conducted on the lands proposed for development, the Buttonville Airport height restrictions, the transit serving the area, and the number of parking spots being proposed).

Staff further advised that the purpose of the public meeting is to obtain feedback from the community and that no decisions would be made at this public meeting. Committee referred the proposed development back to staff to prepare a final recommendation report.

Raza Mehdi, Architect, representing the applicant, displayed the shadow study conducted by the applicant and explained how the study was conducted.  Mr. Mehdi advised that based on the study results, there would be no properties that experienced a shadow from the proposed development for more than three consecutive hours.

Mr. Cory responded to inquiries from the public.  The applicant’s engineering team will develop a site plan that works around the power lines. The hydro and sewage issues identified by the deputants have been noted and will be brought to the attention of their engineering team. The applicant is still exploring the inclusion of affordable housing or purpose built rentals in the proposed development. The inclusion of a roof top garden and ground floor amenity space is also being considered. The applicant is trying to understand the long-term impact of the pandemic on office space.

Amanda Santo, representing the applicant, advised that the applicant has been unable to attract a seniors home as a tenant, consequently, the building is now being proposed as office space.

  • Moved byCouncillor Alan Ho
    Seconded byCouncillor Isa Lee
    1. That the deputations by Gary Lam, William Lui, Anna Wong, Regina Chan, and Teresa Liang regarding the application by Dorsay Development Corporation for a proposed Official Plan Amendment (PLAN 20 127887), be received;
    2. That the written submission from the First Markham Village Residents, Legend Way Neighbours, YRCC Petition, Circa Towers Petition, Tyrone Wong, Ruby Hon, Jay Liu, Sai H Pau, Zhihong Liu, Derek Lung, Bernard Remedios, Audrey Thomas, Gary Lam, Jeffrey Zhuang, Denniz Ng, Peter Ho, regarding the application by Dorsay Development Corporation for a proposed Official Plan Amendment (PLAN 20 127887), be received.
    3. That the Development Services Commission report dated March 8, 2021, entitled “Preliminary Report, Application for Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development consisting of two 24-storey residential buildings and a four-storey office building on the north side of Highway 7, east of Rodick Road, in Markham Centre (Ward 2), File No. PLAN 20 127887”, be received; and,
    4. That the Record of the Public Meeting held on April 27, 2021 with respect to the proposed Official Plan Amendment application, be received; and,
    5. That the application Dorsay Development Corporation for a proposed Official Plan Amendment (PLAN 20 127887), be referred back to staff for a report and a recommendation; and,
    6. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
    Carried

TO PERMIT A PHASED HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 4077 AND 4101 HIGHWAY 7, MARKHAM CENTRE (WARD 3) - FILE NO. PLA 20 140215 (10.3, 10.5)

 

The Public Meeting this date was to consider an application submitted by 2690622 Ontario Inc. (Kingdom – Markham Centre) for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a phased high-density residential development at 4077 and 4101 Highway 7, Markham Centre (Ward 3) – File No. PLAN 20 140215.

The Committee Clerk advised that 991 notices were mailed on April 7, 2021, and a Public Meeting sign was posted on April 4, 2021. There were twelve written submissions received either expressing concern or in opposition of this proposal.

Dimitri Pagratis, Senior Planner, Central District, gave a presentation regarding the proposal, the location, surrounding uses and outstanding issues.

Nick Pileggi, Kingdom Developments provided a presentation on the proposed development.

The following deputations were made on the proposed development:

Jeffrey Taylor, resides in the Village Park townhome complex

  • Concerned that building heights being proposed along Highway 7 are increasing as they get closer to Main Street Unionville when they should be decreasing;
  • Concerned with the height and density of the proposed development, as rapid transit does not extend this far east;
  • Concerned that there is currently no elementary school on the south side of Highway 7 and that students would need to cross Highway 7 to get to school;
  • Suggested that the childcare be one of the uses permitted in the retail units, as two childcare centres recently closed due to recent developments in the area.

Peter Miasek, representing the Unionville Residents Association

  • Supported phase one of development and its minor variances;
  • Concerned with the height and density of the proposed phase two of the development, noting it is almost double the size of the original proposal;
  • Concerned that the proposed development disconnects with the conceptual vision for Markham Centre;
  • Concerned that there are too many tall buildings dwarfing the surrounding residential communities;
  • Supported the extension of Sciberras Drive across the Rouge River and suggested that the applicant resolve issues regarding the crossing with the Toronto Region and Conservation Authority;
  • Suggested that a pedestrian bridge is also needed over the flood plain;
  • Suggested that the proposed development should include more affordable housing units;
  • The Unionville Residents Association does not support phase two of the proposed development.

Lia Baird, Markham Centre resident

  • Spoke about her compassion for the Markham Centre community, and hoped that the voices of the younger generation and newcomers to Markham are also heard;
  • Some of the concerns of residents living in Markham Centre include parking availability, elevator access (especially during COVID with only 3 people permitted in an elevator at a time), and access to retail and childcare;
  • Noted that the height and density of proposed developments can impact the aesthetics of the community, suggesting that a lower height and density is preferred;
  • Concerned that the proposed development and other developments in the area could create wind tunnels or limit the light that reaches the community.

Committee provided the following feedback on the proposed development:

  • Suggested that the applicant has not provided sufficient reasons for increasing the density of the project so significantly;
  • Requested that childcare be included as a use in the proposed development;
  • Welcomed the feedback from residents living in the Markham Centre community;
  • Suggested that Council should do another walking tour of Markham Centre when it is safe to do so;
  • Suggested that Markham Centre residents consider forming a Markham Centre Ratepayers Association;
  • Suggested the podium be animated and include retail;
  • Noted that proposed development includes amenities for children, provides open space on the Rouge Valley, and a world class landscaping architect has been hired to design the landscaping;
  • Suggested that the features inside the building should also be considered;
  • Suggested that the two building facing the Rouge Valley should have an iconic design.

 

Mr. Pileggi responded to inquiries from the Committee and the public. There has been no request by the School Board to add an additional elementary school at this time. The proposed development is within walking distance from higher order transit.

Stephen Lue, Manager of Development, Central District advised that the Preliminary Concept that was recently developed for the Markham Centre Secondary Plan Update study is part one of a three-step process. It represents a broad strokes review of what Markham Centre can look like as a basis for conversation through a series of stakeholder engagements. The next step will be to consult the public and other stakeholders on the Preliminary Concept before a Draft Development Concept (part two of the three-step process) is produced that would require additional stakeholder engagements. This would lead to the Recommended Development Concept (part three of the three-step process) that would require additional engagements before the deliver of the Updated Markham Centre Secondary Plan.

  • Moved byRegional Councillor Jim Jones
    Seconded byRegional Councillor Joe Li
    1. That the deputations from Jeffrey Taylor, Peter Miasek, and Lia Baird, regarding 2690622 Ontario Inc. (Kingdom - Markham Centre), Application for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a phased high-density residential development at 4077 and 4101 Highway 7, Markham Centre (Ward 3) - File No. PLAN 20 140215, be received.
    2. That the written submission from Doug Denby, Winifred Ng, Kelly Tam, Joseph Tsang, the Unionville Residents Association, Sophia Yeh-Chau, Chris Reech, Shat Sundarson, Rico Wong, Kathy Hung, David Kibbey, Arasa Vijithan, regarding 2690622 Ontario Inc. (Kingdom - Markham Centre), Application for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a phased high-density residential development at 4077 and 4101 Highway 7, Markham Centre (Ward 3) - File No. PLAN 20 140215 be received.
    3. That the Development Services Commission report titled “PRELIMINARY REPORT, 2690622 Ontario Inc. (Kingdom - Markham Centre), Application for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a phased high-density residential development at 4077 and 4101 Highway 7, Markham Centre (Ward 3) - File No. PLAN 20 140215”, be received; and,
    4. That the Record of the Public Meeting held on April 27, 2021 with respect to the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, be received; and,
    5. That the applications by 2690622 Ontario Inc. (Kingdom - Markham Centre) for a proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment (PLAN 20 140215), be referred back to staff for a report and a recommendation; and further,
    6. That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
    Carried

ON PART OF LOTS 23 AND 24, CONCESSION 6 (EAST SIDE OF KENNEDY ROAD NORTH OF MAJOR MACKENZIE DRIVE) (WARD 6) FILE NO.: PLAN 20 133038 (10.7, 10.5)

The Public Meeting this date was to consider an application by Minotar Holdings Inc. and Hal-Van 5.5 Investments Ltd. for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit approximately 840 dwelling units (760 ground related and 80 in a mixed-use block) on Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concession 6 (East side of Kennedy Road north of Major Mackenzie Drive) Ward 6.

The Committee Clerk advised that 39 notices were mailed on April 7, 2021, and a Public Meeting sign was posted on April 27, 2021.  No written submissions were received regarding this proposal.

Daniel Brutto, Senior Planner gave a presentation regarding the proposal, the location, surrounding uses and outstanding issues.

Elizabeth Howson, representing the applicant, and Clay Leibel, Applicant provided a presentation on the proposed development.

There were no comments from the audience with respect to this application.

Committee provided the following feedback on the proposed development;

  • Suggested the parkette may not be located in the right spot;
  • Suggested using different material to break up the massing on the townhome complex;
  • Thanked the applicant for not deviating from development standards for this area and for the lovely design;
  • Suggested keeping the green space open for all resident to enjoy rather than having houses backing onto the green space;
  • Suggested that the housing types be mixed together, so that residents are not being segregated by their social economic class;
  • Asked the applicant to explore the possibility of installing an automated waste system in the proposed development.
  • Suggested that the landscaping of the proposed development be well thought through, for example possibly planting more trees in certain spots where there is  more room, and less trees in front of residents homes.

Mr. Brutto advised that the location of the proposed parkette is consistent with the Community Demonstration Plan.

Ms. Howson advised that the park is located near the mixed-use block so residents can walk to the store and stop for a break and let their children play at the park.

Mr. Leibel agreed to look into the possibly of installing a automated waste system in the proposed development.

  • Moved byMayor Frank Scarpitti
    Seconded byRegional Councillor Jim Jones
    1. That the report dated March 30, 2021 titled “PRELIMINARY REPORT, Minotar Holdings Inc. and Hal-Van 5.5 Investments Ltd., Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit approximately 840 dwelling units (760 ground related and 80 in a mixed-use block) on Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concession 6 (East side of Kennedy Road north of Major Mackenzie Drive) (Ward 6)”, be received; and,
    2. That the Record of the Public Meeting held on April 27, 2021, with respect to Minotar Holdings Inc. and Hal-Van 5.5 Investments Ltd., Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit approximately 840 dwelling units (760 ground related and 80 in a mixed-use block) on Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concession 6 (East side of Kennedy Road north of Major Mackenzie Drive) (Ward 6), be received; and,
    3. That the Applications by Minotar Holdings Inc. and Hal-Van 5.5 Investments Ltd., Applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit approximately 840 dwelling units (760 ground related and 80 in a mixed-use block) on Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concession 6 (East side of Kennedy Road north of Major Mackenzie Drive) (Ward 6), be referred back to staff to provide a future recommendation report; and further,
    4. That Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

     

    Carried

The Development Services Public Meeting adjourned at 11:22 PM.