The Public Meeting this date was to consider an application submitted by Gatzios Planning + Development Consultants Inc. on behalf of Langstaff Land Holdings Ltd.
The Committee Clerk advised that 430 notices were mailed on June 5, 2024, and a Public Meeting sign was posted on June 7, 2024. An additional courtesy 229 notices were sent out by mail on June 12, 2024.
There were 10 written submissions received regarding this proposal.
Stephen Lue introduced the item.
Daniel Brutto, Senior Planner, provided a presentation on the request for Council to support a Ministry Zoning Order (MZO) for Langstaff Gateway East Area.
Maria Gatzios, Gatzios Planning + Development Consultants Inc., on behalf of Langstaff Land Holdings Ltd., provided a presentation on the request for Council to support a MZO in the Langstaff Gateway East area. Ms. Gatzios clarified that the variations of the demonstration plan presented at tonight’s meeting are to show that the density can be accommodated in various formats rather than to determine where exactly it will be allocated, or where the schools, parks and community centre will be located.
The following deputations were made on the request for Council to support a MZO in Langstaff Gateway East area:
- Dwight Richardson, Royal Orchard Ratepayers Association, spoke in support of the request to support a MZO in Langstaff Gateway East area as he saw it as a more democratic process than the development process being undertaken for the Bridge Stations Transit Orientated Community. Mr. Richardson was convinced that Markham would make the development of Langstaff Gateway East Area a success. Mr. Richardson saw that the proposal was about more than increasing the density, as it was also about planning the road networks, schools, and community centre. Mr. Richardson questioned the transportation network, particularly raising a concern with future residents commuting out of the area. Mr. Richardson noted that the City should also be required to have an agreement with Holy Cross Cemetery to ensure their interests are being met.
- Louis Olivera, AWRA President, expressed concern that the total density of the Langstaff Gateway community would now be comprised of 30,000 residential units if the request is supported. Mr. Olivera questioned if there would be family size units in addition to smaller units included in this community. Mr. Olivera expressed concern about the following: the maximum building heights; that there is no minimum parking, therefore, residents may not be provided with any parking; that current residents will not be able to take the subway as the trains will be too full; and that the study on the community services is not accurate because it is missing a lot of information related to population estimates. Mr. Olivera also questioned if the units would be walking distance from the subway. Consequently, Mr. Olivera could not support the request for Council to support a MZO in the Langstaff East Gateway at this time.
- Gaetano Alaimino, representing153 Langstaff Road East, expressed the following concerns regarding the Applicant’s request for Council to support a MZO in the Langstaff East Gateway area: that his family and the other landowners were not asked to be included in the MZO request; that the schools and community centre proposed are placed on their lands in the demonstration plan; and that the Applicant will benefit from being allocated the greatest amount of density. As a result, Mr. Alaimino did not support the request for a MZO as presented. However, suggested that other landowners and taxpayers should be included in the discussions for a MZO in this area.
- Frank Alaimo, representing 153 Langstaff Road East, provided the following feedback: the request does not represent the interest of the other landowners in the area; the landowners group supports increasing the density in an equitable manner; that most of the requirements to permit the Applicant to build are being proposed on his family’s land, such as the schools and community centre; and that all of landowners should be involved in the request for a MZO. Mr. Alaimo suggested that Council should not endorse the MZO request for support at this time, as the other landowners need to be engaged in this process.
- Hamed Ismailzadeh, landowner, expressed the following concerns regarding the request for Council to support a MZO in the Langstaff Gateway East area: felt that the proposal dictates the future of the other landowners’ investments as the demonstration plan shows what may be placed on their property; that the other landowners were not consulted on the establishment of the demonstration plan; questioned why the Applicant’s land is being allocated the highest density when it is located the furthest from the subway and GO station; questioned why the schools were being put closest to the subway when students that attend them will reside within the community; and questioned why the Applicants lands are being proposed to be developed as part of Phase 1.
- Rose Cavolla sought clarification on how the proposed Langstaff Gateway East MZO could limit other landowners seeking to develop their lands in the area.
- Lori Zaino, landowner, spoke in opposition to the request to support a MZO in the Langstaff Gateway East area at this time due to the lack of consultation with other landowners and her land being displayed as parkland on the demonstration plan.
- Mike Evensen, landowner, advised that he retained Weston Consulting to provide him with advice on his lands and on the Applicant’s current request for a MZO in the Langstaff Gateway East area, and he was advised that his lands should have an FSI of 11.3 based on where the land is situated relative to the subway. Mr. Evenson noted that he is willing to sell his land at fair market value to the Applicant, or on the open market but is unable to do so at this time as the MZO being proposed is too vague. Mr. Evensen asked that the request for Council to support the MZO be deferred until all landowners have been consulted on the demonstration plan.
- Corie Bonnaffon, Grandview Area Residents Association, advised that they supported the original Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan approved by Council for this area, but continue to grapple with the density currently proposed for the area. She stated that these concerns are not raised just based on the voices of existing residents but also based on the voices of future residents, as there seems to be minimal concern for which makes a livable community. Some of the suggestions within the MZO seem reasonable, including aligning the roads with Langstaff West, and connecting the area to Markham District Energy. Three areas of great concern included: the lack of concern for future residents of all ages; that the population has doubled but the parkland requirements has only increased slightly; and that it is not clear if the housing being proposed will be affordable, which is essential to the proposal’s credibility. Ms. Bonnaffon did not support or oppose the request for a MZO but asked that Council think about what the most important priorities are for this community when deciding on whether it will support a MZO in this area.
- Asad Memom spoke in favour of increasing the permitted density in the Langstaff Gateway East area but expressed concern that the Applicant’s request for a MZO did not involve the consultation of the other landowners in the establishment of the demonstration plan. Therefore, he felt that the Applicant would benefit at expense of the other landowners under current MZO proposal. Mr. Memom requested that Council defer the request to support the MZO proposal until the other landowners have been consulted.
- Eileen Higgins, representing 35 Cedar Avenue, spoke of the history of lands and expressed concern that the interest of all landowners was not being addressed through the request to support an MZO.
- Carmela Carone, representing 25 Essex Avenue, spoke about her father’s vision for their lands as a new immigrant to Canada, and the original Council approved plans for a well-designed Langstaff Gateway community. Ms. Carone expressed concern that the current vision for the land does not benefit all landowners and suggested that the City should work with all the landowners to come up with a new vision for the land that works for everyone.
- Evelin Ellison spoke in opposition to the City supporting the request for a MZO in the Langstaff Gateway East area as the City would lose the ability to oversee the development applications for this area. Ms. Ellison suggested that the landowners should work with the City to develop the area.
- Tom Muench, former Richmond Hill Councillor, spoke about the housing crisis and the unique opportunity Langstaff Gateway East lands have to offer, as this community will have access to five modes of transportation once the Yonge-North subway is extended. Mr. Muench felt that it is time for the City to make this happen, but suggested that the request for a MZO should not be made in isolation. Rather the City should work with all landowners to come up with a vision for the lands. Mr. Muench advocated that Council refer the request to support a MZO in this area back to staff so that all landowners and other stakeholders can be consulted on the request. Mr. Muench reinforced the need to start developing this area to address the severe housing crisis.
- Vera Corone, partial landowner of 165 and 167 Langstaff Road East, noted that she was born and raised on these properties and has enjoyed the full benefits of the fruits of her parents’ labour. Ms. Corone spoke in favour of increasing the density of the Langstaff Gateway East lands but suggested that any plans for the lands should be fully disclosed to the landowners’ group.
Discussion:
Staff and the Applicant responded and provided clarification to questions from the deputants. The Committee also clarified that landowner’s group for Langstaff East was only recently formed and that the Applicant only just became aware of its formation.