The Public Meeting considered applications submitted by 2310602 Ontario Inc. for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 1,136 unit independent living retirement home complex at 3912 and 3928 Highway 7 East (Ward 3) File No. PLAN 20 123727.
The Committee Clerk advised that 1,359 notices were mailed on February 10, 2021, and a Public Meeting sign was posted on February 4, 2021. There were 14 written submissions received regarding this proposal.
Staff gave the initial presentation followed by Lincoln Lo, Project Manager, from Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Both presentation provide the location, surrounding uses, existing and proposed planning policy context and outstanding issues.
The following deputations were made on the development proposal:
1. David McBeth:
- Suggested the building height should not be greater than eight storeys (the legally permitted height under the current Zoning By-Law);
- Suggested that life leases are not affordable for most seniors;
- Concerned with the lack of green space;
- Concerned that there is no central access point to the buildings;
- Concerned with shadow impacts on the existing residences in close proximity to the property;
- Concerned with the new site alignment;
- Concerned about the proposed new north-south public road and its intersection with Highway 7.
2. Christiane Bergauer-Free:
- Suggested the entrance to the development is unsafe for seniors;
- Concerned with the lack of greenspace and parkland;
- Suggested the proposed buildings are too close together;
- Concerned with the high density of the development proposal and the pollution it will create;
- Concerned that the development proposal will create a shadow over the neighbouring properties;
- Concerned that the development proposal will create wind tunnels;
- Suggested that the units being proposed are not affordable;
- Concerned that the development proposal will have an impact on the neighbouring properties privacy;
- Concerned that the development proposal will have an impact on traffic congestion in the area and on the traffic flow at local intersections;
- Asked if there will be a nursing or personal support worker station at the facility.
3. Ju Tung (adjacent property owner to the east):
- Strongly opposed the increase in the height of the proposed buildings;
- Suggested the development proposal should be respectful to the surrounding developments;
- Concerned about the privacy and shadow impact the development proposal will have on his property;
- Urged Members of Council to review carefully the development proposal to ensure the existing infrastructure can handle the added density.
4. Michael Gannon (Unionville Residents Association representative):
- Suggested the development proposal does not compliment the surrounding area;
- Suggested the orientation of the buildings may not be appropriate;
- Asked if the proposed independent living retirement home will be open to all seniors.
5. Yang Lui (adjacent property owner):
- Suggested the buildings are too close to the easterly property line and that it will create a shadow effect, which will impact the adjacent townhomes;
- Suggested the height of the buildings should gradually increase from the neighbouring properties;
- Suggested the development proposal does not compliment the surrounding area, as there are no other high-rise buildings in the area;
- Suggested the development proposal should be a maximum of eight storeys (the legally permitted height under the current Zoning By-Law);
- Worried the development proposal will have an impact on his property value.
6. Ken Wightman (local resident):
- Suggested that the height of the development proposal is too high for the area and suggested a reasonable height is five storeys given the existing adjacent townhouses to the east;
- Suggested there should be a gradual increase in the height of the buildings from the neighbouring properties;
- Asked if Sablewood Park could be expanded, as part of this development proposal;
- Asked if the proposed public park to the north of the proposed development could be advanced ahead of the construction of the development proposal, and suggested cash in lieu should not be accepted in compensation for the parkland.
7. George Abdelsayed:
- Suggested the project is not a good fit for the area;
- Concerned that the development proposal will have an impact on traffic congestion;
- Concerned that the development proposal will create a shadow.
Members of Development Services Committee provided the following feedback on the development proposal:
- Asked if the independent living retirement home will be run by a non-profit corporation;
- Suggested life leases are not affordable for most seniors;
- Concerned about the setbacks from the adjacent properties;
- Concerned about the proposed building height;
- Requested more drawings and renderings of the greenhouse and recreational area to allow for the Committee Members to better visualize and understand the space;
- Suggested that the height of the buildings should gradually increase from the adjacent properties;
- Requested that the Applicant consider using Markham District Energy, noting this would make the building more energy efficient and it would reduce the need for a mechanical room on the roof;
- Suggested there may not be enough parking, as many seniors drive into their eighties;
- Asked for more information on the types of units and if there is will be a dining facility;
- Asked why two bedroom units plus a den were required for a seniors unit;
- Asked if there could be more affordable rental units;
- Noted that the existing Sablewood Park cannot be connected with the new public park park to the north of the proposed development, as the proposed elementary school block is situated between the two parks;
- Asked that the unit pricing be aligned with York Region’s definition of affordable housing
- Asked that a comparison of the current development proposal with the 2016 proposal be provided, including a comparison of the shadow study, if available;
- Asked how many at-grade accessible parking spots there will be;
- Suggested putting more of the parking underground to create more greenspace;
- Suggested there should be a place designated for dropping seniors off;
- Suggested there should be a walkway provided in between the buildings where seniors can cut across so that they do not have to walk all the way around the buildings.
Lincoln Lo, Project Manager, Malone Given Parsons Ltd. responded to inquiries from the public and Members of Development Services Committee. The independent living retirement home will be run by the Lang Yi Foundation. The units will be open to all seniors. The affordable rental units will be more affordable in comparison to current market prices, but will not be subsidized. The seniors residence may include a personal support worker station, but this is still being determined at this time. Parking is purchased independently from the units. The price of the parking and if there will be bike storage was not known at this time, but it was agreed that this information will be provided to staff. The original approvals for the subject lands predated the construction of the townhomes on the neighbouring property. Balconies were not added to the proposed building due to the design of the building and the privacy of residents may have also been considered on the rear side of the building. The park could possibly be developed after the draft plan of subdivision is registered and the land is transferred to the City, but this could take some time. There have been many technical studies conducted, including a shadow study, which was presented to the Committee. The Applicant will continue to work with staff on the design of proposed development and the proposed building setbacks.
Andre Brochu, ICKE Brochu Architects Inc., displayed renderings of the proposed greenhouse space, and the walking track. Blinds could be added to this space, if required.
Tracy Jones, Chief Executive Director from Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care, responded to inquiries from the public and Members of Development Services Committee. Life leases are more affordable than retirement homes. Care programs are also subsidized when seniors purchase a life lease. Two bedroom plus den units are being offered, as some seniors will have a caregiver living with them. The overall objective of the development proposal is to allow seniors to remain in their units for the remainder of their life.
Sabrina Bordone, Senior Planner for the City of Markham, responded to inquires from the public and Members of Development Services Committee. She advised that it does not appear that the new public park block can be connected with the existing Sablewood Park, due to the location of the proposed school block. York Region District School Board has advised that the proposed school block is still being reserved for an elementary school to serve future growth and that the timing of the school’s construction depends on when funding is provided by the Ministry. She advised that she would get back to the Committee with the number of residential units that was contemplated as part of the original approvals in June 2016..The current development proposal includes approximately 1,036 units, of which 986 are Life Lease units and 150 are rental units.. She noted that the original approvals for the subject lands predates the construction of the townhomes to the east.
Councillor Reid McAlpine, Ward 3 Councillor, thanked the residents for their deputations and written submissions.
The Mayor thanked the public for attending the meeting and for their feedback. The Applicant was requested to work with staff to analyze were the life lease units fall in the affordable housing spectrum, and to ensure that the affordable rental housing is affordable as defined by Markham and York Region.