City Council Meeting Transcript Overview

Council Public Meeting - May 27, 2025 - 7 p.m. - City of Richmond Hill

Estimated read time: 1:20

Summary

During the Richmond Hill City Council Public Meeting held on May 27, 2025, various proposals for development in the city were discussed. Key discussions included a development proposal on Weldick Road West involving zoning amendments for residential dwelling units, and a controversial high-density mixed-use development on Longworth Avenue. Residents expressed concerns over both developments, citing potential issues with traffic congestion and environmental impacts. The meeting concluded with the planning staff being directed to further review the proposals and gather more input from the community before any decisions are made.

Highlights

Development proposal discussion for 176 and 180 Weldick Road West. 🏠
Community members raise objections about potential overdevelopment and loss of neighborhood character. 😟
Concerns about increased traffic and environmental impact are highlighted. 🌿
Proposed high-density development on Longworth Avenue faces community resistance. 🚧
Richmond Hill Center zoning bylaw amendments are explored for future growth. 🌆

Key Takeaways

Learn about zoning changes and development proposals in Richmond Hill. 🏗️
Community members voice their concerns about local developments. 📢
Discussion includes the importance of maintaining neighborhood character and environmental considerations. 🌳
The council discusses traffic concerns related to new developments. 🚦
Richmond Hill Center zoning and future infrastructure projects are explored. 🏙️

Overview

The May 27, 2025, City Council Public Meeting in Richmond Hill covered important topics around city development proposals. The proposed changes aim to address housing needs but are met with community resistance. Residents in attendance express concerns about maintaining the current community feel, pointing to issues like increased traffic and environmental changes.

A significant amount of debate centered around zoning amendments on Weldick Road West, with community members feeling that the proposed changes would alter the character of their neighborhood. Concerns about increased building height, traffic congestion, and environmental impacts dominated the discussion, highlighting the complexity of urban planning in growing cities like Richmond Hill.

The council also tackled the challenges presented by proposed high-density residential projects like the one on Longworth Avenue. While these developments could provide much-needed housing, they also come with complications, including infrastructure strain and maintaining neighborhood aesthetics. The meeting concluded with commitments to integrate public feedback into decision-making processes, indicating a collaborative approach moving forward.

Chapters

00:00 - 03:03: Opening and Introduction of Public Meeting The chapter introduces the public meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 27th. The chairperson welcomes the attendees and officially calls the meeting to order. Before proceeding with the meeting, it is necessary to read the public hearing statement.
03:04 - 51:40: Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application for Weldick Road West This chapter discusses the procedural prerequisites for appealing decisions related to official plan amendments or zoning bylaw amendments in Richmond Hill. Specifically, it states that individuals or public bodies who do not actively participate in the submission process—either by making oral submissions at a public meeting or by submitting written documents—will be denied the right to appeal the decisions made by city council to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Additionally, they cannot be included as parties in any tribunal hearings, unless deemed reasonable by the tribunal itself.
51:41 - 85:00: Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application for Zero Longworth Avenue The chapter details a council public meeting specifically organized to introduce a development application for Zero Longworth Avenue. It clarifies that the meeting's purpose is to present the application and discuss its aspects without reaching any final decisions regarding approval. The council will deliberate on the application at a later stage once the development application process is duly completed.
85:01 - 108:11: Draft Richmond Hill Center Zoning Bylaw Amendment Discussion The chapter discusses the Richmond Hill Center Zoning Bylaw Amendment and focuses on referring all comments back to city staff for further action, marking the early stages of the process. Additionally, the meeting aims to gather public input on the applications, allowing the city planner and the applicant to present and explain the application details.
108:12 - 109:00: Conclusion and Adjournment The chapter titled 'Conclusion and Adjournment' covers the final section of a meeting where the floor is opened to attendees. Audience members have five minutes each to present their views on the application being discussed. Afterwards, council members will speak. This is followed by discussions, making motions, and referring comments to staff for further action. The chapter ends with a motion to adopt the agenda by Councelor Tree.

Council Public Meeting - May 27, 2025 - 7 p.m. - City of Richmond Hill Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 Okay. Uh, good evening everybody and welcome to the council public meeting for uh, Tuesday, May the 27th. Uh, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Uh, before I do, or as we do that, I need to read the public hearing statement. If a
00:30 - 01:00 person, public body, or specified person does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the city of Richmond Hill in respect of a proposed official plan amendment or zoning bylaw amendment, the person, public body, or specified person is not entitled to appeal the decision of the count city council to the Ontario land tribunal and may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario land tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Uh so for
01:00 - 01:30 those of you in the audience and for those of you watching online, I just wanted to be clear. This meeting tonight is a council public meeting, not a regular council meeting. And the purpose of that meeting or this meeting is to uh introduce uh a development application when it's completed. There will be no uh final decisions on approving or not approving any of the uh the uh issues before us uh tonight. What will happen is um we the council member that moves a
01:30 - 02:00 motion will be moving a motion to refer all comments back to staff so that staff can uh continue uh with what is in m most cases the beginning of the process uh going forward. So, um, but what the other purpose of the meeting and I guess maybe the main purpose of the meeting is to hear from the public any comments on any of the applications. And so, once the city planner introduces the application, the applicant will have a a chance to also speak to the application.
02:00 - 02:30 And once that happens, we'll open it up to the floor uh for anybody in the audience uh to speak on the application. And when you do so, you have five minutes uh to address council. And uh then once we're finished with all the members of the public that want to speak, it'll be council's turn to speak. Um and then we'll have that discussion, move that motion, and and refer all the comments heard tonight back to staff. Okay. All right. So, I need a motion to adopt the agenda. Councelor Tree,
02:30 - 03:00 Councelor Shu, all those in favor that carries unanimously. uh disclosures of pecunary interest or the general nature thereof. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, uh we'll move to scheduled business. So, the first item on the agenda tonight, uh we have three items, by the way, but the first item is um official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application uh for 176 and 180 Weldick Road West. And our planner is Juliano
03:00 - 03:30 Lamogi. and uh Juliano, you uh can introduce that um the application to us. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council, and members of the public. This first item tonight involves the submission of proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications for the lands municipally known as 174, 176, and 180 WJI Road West.
03:30 - 04:00 So to begin, the subject lands are comprised of three parcels located on the north side of Weldrick Road west, east of Walmer Road. The lands have a total lot area of 0.8 hectares with a combined frontage of 82.3 m along Weldrick Road West. The lands currently contain three single detached dwellings, two of which are to be are to be demolished to facilitate the proposed development. Adjacent land uses include single detach dwellings and Peton Park to the north
04:00 - 04:30 and east, Wald Road to the south, and Patterson Creek to the west. The subject lands are currently designated neighborhood in accordance with the city's official plan. The neighborhood designation permits lowdensity residential uses such as single and semi- detached dwellings as well as medium density residential uses subject to specific criteria of the plan. The lands are currently zoned second density residential R2 zone and
04:30 - 05:00 flood zone under bylaw 2325 as amended. The R2 zone which applies to the eastern portion of the lands permits single detached dwellings among other uses. The flood zone which applies to the southwest corner of the lands permits conservation, forestry and recreational uses. The applicants are seeking council's approval of its official plan and zoning bylaw amendment applications to permit a lowdensity residential development
05:00 - 05:30 comprised of 12 single detached dwellings. The proposed single detached dwellings are to measure three stories in height with access from a private conominium road. Each of the proposed dwellings are to be designed to accommodate up to two additional residential dwelling units. Further, the applicants are proposing to retain and expand the existing dwelling presently located at 180 WIK Road West. Given the presence of a flood
05:30 - 06:00 plane, the official plan amendment application seeks to amend the policies with respect to natural hazards, specifically to permit the proposal within hazardous lands and to reduce the minimum protection zone of 10 m associated with hazard lands. The zoning bylaw amendment application seeks to reszone the lands to fourth density residential R4 zone under bylaw 2523 as amended to permit the proposal with sight specific development
06:00 - 06:30 standards. Planning staff have circulated the subject applications to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. The purpose of the report is to provide council and the public an overview of the development proposal and has been structured for information purposes only with a recommendation that all comments be received and referred back to staff for consideration. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. And um who do we have speaking for the
06:30 - 07:00 applicant? Okay. Yes. Hello. Good evening. Thank you, Mayor West. Council members, my name is Thomas Dowski from MHBC. Uh we're the planning consultants representing our clients interests regarding the proposed official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application. Just change slide here. Awesome. As noted, the subject lines, they comprise of three continuously linked properties which are municipally known as 174 through to 180 Wick Road West.
07:00 - 07:30 Uh when reviewing the highle project statistics, the proposed development it essentially develops approximately 60% of the subject lands generally within the eastern and central portions of the site. The western portion of the site which is located closest to the adjacent hydraological feature and adjacent natural heritage features including its vegetation and trees are proposed to be retained. The proposal provides approximately 5,000 square meters of new residential GFA on the site. It provides 12 new three-story single detached dwellings and also retains and will
07:30 - 08:00 further expand the existing 180 W road west dwelling for a total of 13 dwellings on the site. It provides a total of 51 new parking spaces on the subject lands which consist of 48 residential spaces. So essentially four residential spaces per each lot as well as three visitor parking spaces. This is just an overview of some of the submission materials that were prepared and submitted to ensure a complete OPABA application submission. This includes a natural heritage evaluation study, a
08:00 - 08:30 functional servicing and storm water management report, just to name a few. Overall, these materials collectively demonstrate that the proposed development can be appropriately accommodated and can function on the subject lands. This is the site plan. So, as was noted, the proposed development generally occupies the eastern and central portions of the site. The proposal gains access by way of one private road, which extends northwards off of Weldrick. A sidewalk is provided along the western edge of the private roadway. Three visitor parking spaces
08:30 - 09:00 are provided to the north of the first dwelling. You also have two snow storage areas on site. One to the west of the visitor parking spaces and a second larger area located to the west near the northern terminus of the roadway. Now to kind of add a little bit more uh detail, the landscape plans, they provide much more information when it comes to the wide range of both hard and soft landscaping interventions that are proposed across the site. This includes street facing tree planting and boulevard enhancements, landscaped front yards and rear yards, pathways and
09:00 - 09:30 decorative paving treatments, uh outdoor furniture and plantings, all of which are intended to foster a pleasant and functional living environment. uh these landscaping interventions they intend to support the day-to-day well-being of residents and visitors but also to enhance the streetscape quality and contribute meaningfully towards the public realm as is experienced from Wild Rift Road West. These are some general elevations. So as noted, the proposed development comprises of three-story dwellings. Uh they feature traditional architectural
09:30 - 10:00 forms and articulated facads and a cohesive material pallet. Attention has been paid to massing and detailing to ensure compatibility with the adjacent low-rise residential uses while offering a visually appealing and contextsensitive build form. Now to briefly conclude, these are some of the renderings which provide further uh illustrated detail on the proposed development and it also demonstrates the architectural quality that is being pursued. So this is the first rendering which provides a more traditional treatment with a uniform brick facade and warm color tones. This
10:00 - 10:30 is a second rendering that might be further explored including which contains a more contemporary aesthetic utilizing deeper materials and enhanced articulation. Now this is them side by side. In both cases the design reflects a commitment to highquality materials, clear architectural rhythm and thoughtful massing with further details which shall be advanced and explored as part of the project's detailed design stage. Uh this concludes our brief presentation. We welcome the opportunity to respond to any questions or comments.
10:30 - 11:00 Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh and now we have one person signed up already as a delegation from the public. Uh Yelina Goran. Welcome, Miss Goran. And you've got five minutes to address council. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Uh my name is Elena Gorn. My husband and I own the property at 168 Wald Road West. Uh my husband and I live
11:00 - 11:30 there with our three children. They all grew up in that home. We've lived in this home for the last 15 years and we strongly object to the development being proposed. Um I guess what was presented by my friend here was part of the story. The second part of the story is uh a corresponding development that's being proposed after this is approved on the
11:30 - 12:00 other side of our property. Um so this huge development on the west side of us with a goal of replicating it on the east side of our property line will make it impossible for us to continue living in our home. uh this huge development proposed by our neighbors will have seven houses with three units in each house. So that wasn't uh discussed today, but the fine print in
12:00 - 12:30 their proposal is that they would like to add an additional two dwelling units to each dwelling. Um, and this is backing directly onto our lot. Uh, and it'll be on both sides of our property without any buffer space. Um, the proposed height is 14 m, which is really about four stories, not three stories. Um, and that means that
12:30 - 13:00 we'll essentially have a concrete wall running all the way down our property line on both sides of our property. Um, this will block the light to our house. It'll block our views and it will shadow the entire lot. Um, they're not proposing to put any kind of road or buffer between our property and the two developments that are proposed on on
13:00 - 13:30 each side of our property. Um what they're really proposing is to build town houses without calling them town houses because each unit will have three dwellings in it. Um and given that there's no roads being proposed uh to separate our property from these two other properties will be locked into our lot. Um they're putting a I don't know if you
13:30 - 14:00 recall the picture. They're putting a small road parallel to Weldrick Road um in the middle of the property. And this means that about 100 cars will be going into this little road driving right up to our kitchen and our bedrooms. Uh the builders are proposing um sorry um so if if there's an additional two
14:00 - 14:30 units added to each dwelling house, there's going to be 36 new families moving next door to us on each side of our lot. Uh meaning that we'll have approximately 200 new neighbors on each side of our house. And this is by no means uh a low density development. Um and like how are these 400 additional people going to pour out
14:30 - 15:00 onto Waldreek Road West in the morning to go to work? It's it's a two-lane road. Um and you know the the traffic and the noise that this will generate is just unimaginable. Um, and it's going to be intolerable. Uh, they're proposing Go ahead. Sorry. You got a minute still. Oh, sorry. Um, they're also proposing to build on an environmentally protected land with a
15:00 - 15:30 low water table. This may result in flooding and damage to our land. It will hugely interfere with the with our enjoyment of our property. Um, our home will not be resellable and it'll be a huge financial loss for us. Um, we request that the city put we request that the city not put us in a situation where continuing to live in our home becomes unbearable and our home
15:30 - 16:00 will lose essentially all its value. Um the builder's objective is to make this uh to make our living situation completely unbearable so that we hand over our home to them at a fraction of the cost so they can maximize their profits. Um and we urge the city to reject this proposal. Okay. Thank you very much, Miss Gorin.
16:00 - 16:30 Uh, is there anybody else in the audience? Okay, come on up, sir. Uh, I need you to state your name and address for the record and then you've got five minutes also to address council. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. Uh, Sheldon Stro, 27 Walmer Road. So, I'm the first house north of the this this whole process here. I I want to bring up two things. First of all, the guy who was in charge of planning, he talks like he does this all the time, and he probably does. I don't. So, I wish he'd
16:30 - 17:00 talk a bit slower and maybe I'd understand more of what he said. I did get catch on to some of these. Where do I find out all these things? Honestly, I don't know because one of the things that bothers me is when you look at these drawings, there's no dimensions. There's nothing telling me it's 10 ft from here and it's 20 ft from here. It's 15 ft from here. There's nothing that I can see. They may give you a square footage, which means nothing to me. So, I'd like to see some drawings with some dimensions, and I'd like to see a list
17:00 - 17:30 of the things that they're trying to get out of for the uh to get their application through. Okay. I I This isn't really a back and forth, sir. It's just No, that's fine. That's all I'm saying. Okay. No, it's fair fair question. Yeah. All right. I just need to find out later on uh through whatever parties who do I see able to get the dimensions and who do I see about getting all of these things for the the variances because I know that when we live on the flood plane when we did renovation to our house I wasn't even allowed to plant Kentucky
17:30 - 18:00 blueg grass grass seed in the backyard because it's not native. So how you can actually turn around now and and re claim some land in the flood plane is beyond me. Right. Because in my experience that's not what it was like. Right. That's all I have to say. Okay. Thanks sir. I'm going to give you an early Christmas present and I'm going to give you the staff report so that you can read that at your leisure because it does have a lot of answers in there. So but you won't be getting anything else for me for Christmas. Okay. Right. Um
18:00 - 18:30 All right. So is there anybody else? Uh, actually I think you ma'am were next. Come on up. No, it's okay. Come on up. And then you, sir, will be next. Hi, my name is Dominic Stalter. This is my wife Daniela Arro. She owns a property adjacent to the the proposed the lands proposed for this development nine way. Um yeah, we too are strongly object to to this
18:30 - 19:00 development um on the basis that they're seeking variances that we don't understand what the justification for allowing those variances are. As the previous speakers both said they're looking for a variance to 14 meters high when I think the current per permissible height is 11. the this is surrounding all single family homes and they are we concur they are seeking to put three
19:00 - 19:30 dwellings on uh a three family home in each dwelling. Um this was confirmed by their real estate agent who is um advertising to those prospective buyers that we are seeking permits to to allow three dwellings on uh you know three in each three family homes in each dwelling. So it isn't uh we're not mistaken about that if their real estate agent are proposing this. So the
19:30 - 20:00 transparency isn't there. They're they're calling it single family homes when in fact these are three family homes and we're not against development, but stick within the permits. We don't know what the what the um the clearance between the the the building and the the next property line is. The lady before us uh had similar concern. We have the same concern. um the percentage the footprint percentage of the the the
20:00 - 20:30 grounds that's a concern for us as well. We just don't see any justification to allow these variances that will permit them to do what they obviously are planning to do which is build three family homes and many of them in a single family home uh area and that's going to affect the the current people on Weldre. It's going to affect the people behind Waldrech uh on Wayright and and you know progress
20:30 - 21:00 needs to happen slowly and in assuredly in assured manner. Uh I I think this is rushing it. They're building high density in a low density area and I just don't think that's right. I just wanted to add a couple things for council to consider. Um the Weldrickch Road West tertiary plan for the development at Weldrickch and Young Street um is a very
21:00 - 21:30 detailed plan which I'm you may all be well aware of already. Um it also is uh you know in an area that it would be inappropriate. It's across the street from u many uh well established condominium buildings. It's beside a gas station. So, it's already in a very high density area. Not to mention, it's just feet from Young Street. So, I understand that. Um, like everybody has mentioned, this is a very low residential or uh low density area with single family
21:30 - 22:00 dwellings. Um, the perimeter of the property allows for no buffer zone between this uh proposal and the homes beside and to the north of it on Wayright Avenue. Um, Wayne Avenue unfortunately has very shallow lots. They're about 120 ft deep. So, the backyards are small. And you can imagine what, you know, it's going to look like when you have 14 meter high, you know, uh, buildings, you know, right into your backyard and in looking into your
22:00 - 22:30 bedrooms. Um, what uh we are seeing in uh one example in Woodbridge uh where there's the board of trade is being redeveloped and they're putting a brand new subdivision in there. what they have proposed and has passed is that there's a buffer zone and I get that this is a smaller location, but there's a buffer zone of several meters uh between the existing established residential um community and this new development. So, it kind of gives them a bit of tree space and uh some privacy in their
22:30 - 23:00 backyard. So, I just wanted council to to consider those things as well. We just feel that there's a lack of transparency between what they're telling us that telling everyone that they're going to develop and what their true plan for development is. And we think that the it's up to the council to make sure that this does not proceed as planned or as presented in this in this plan. Um, it's and when it comes to the protected lands, the flood planes, I don't see how
23:00 - 23:30 the council can can justify amending the the current uh restrictions to allow for this sort of development when you're talking about a flood plane. I was in El Paso, Texas when they messed with the flood planes and it was disastrous. Okay. Thank you very much to both of you. Thank you. Okay. Uh there was sir, come on up. So name and address for the record. My name is Demetri Famelam. I'm here on
23:30 - 24:00 behalf of 168 Weldrickch. Um personally like to start off with uh developing these lands is not something new. When u the actual current homeowner who passed away was u looking into developing these lands for quite some time. Myself, I'm a real estate agent and I know I've even personally brought clients and approached the city about developing these lands. The city's position has always been, as far back as I can
24:00 - 24:30 remember, more than 10, 15 years ago, there's no development on these lands. It's currently zoned to have a 50ft frontage and a certain depth. When did the city stray away from these standards? None of us know. Um, I don't believe the developer even owns this land at this point. Last I checked. Is it going through an assignment sale or something like that? Cuz I know they've approached 168 Wreck. They approached the current owners. They approached owners all down the street offering them
24:30 - 25:00 a $10,000 20 or whatever it is small minimal deposit and plan to make this huge development and proceed forward. And then afterwards they may or may not purchase the land if it does or does not get approved. And what's what's happening is um in in cahoots with their real estate agent and the developer. They marketed this as town houses, as apartment buildings, as detached homes, as a house to go live in. Anything you
25:00 - 25:30 can imagine, they took whatever it may be, threw it against the wall, and to see what's going to stick. This is what we're with today. In the meantime, for the past four years, as they're flip-flopping back and forth, they've made these homeowners life a living hell, too. Sorry for my expression, because even if they wanted to move, you know, they they erected massive illegal signage for the past four years on the property advertising town houses for sale. When were these town houses approved? Nobody knows. Finally, after
25:30 - 26:00 contacting the city, I don't know, 50 times, they finally cut down the signs with a chainsaw. the properties are not taken care of and honestly myself and discussions with majority of the neighbors and the homeowners nobody thinks that they have any plan of building these houses or apartment buildings. So we strongly would urge a city to reject uh their proposal cuz first off it's not something that's ever previously been approved. city's always
26:00 - 26:30 had a position on how they'd like to see the development in the middle of Waldrich, a quiet city street, move forward, and this position has always been to keep the status quo of a minimum 50ft frontage and a minimum depth requirement. Why would you enter into an agreement or whatever sort of purchasing plan you have with these homeowners if you know exactly what's permitted on this property? What's this immediate need for R4 housing in the middle of of a street with pretty much estate
26:30 - 27:00 bungalow estate homes? That's what all I have to say. Thank you. Okay. No, thank you very much, sir. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this application? Okay. Seeing none, uh we'll bring this back to council. Uh this is actually a ward five location, but uh councelor Silvitz is not well tonight, so she's not here. and I think she talked to councelor Thompson to uh to bring this forward on her behalf. So, councelor Thompson, if you want to move the motion to refer all comments back to staff and
27:00 - 27:30 uh go ahead and speak if you wish. All right. Thank you very much. Uh yes, it's uh councelor Silivitz does send her regrets that she uh wish that she could be here this evening. Um she does have a few comments that she would like me to to express, but I think number one, I think she would definitely want to thank all the delegates that have come out and spoken this evening. Um before today's uh um application was heard, um she did
27:30 - 28:00 indicate that uh she had only received one written communication up up until 11:00 this morning. uh but I know that she would be very interested in being able to hear from each and every one of you. Um this is we're at a very early stage at this particular point in time. This is just uh an idea that has been brought forward and the whole thing at this point is to hear all the comments and refer them back to staff. And I I'm
28:00 - 28:30 sure that councelor Silivitz would welcome all the comments from the delegates that have spoken uh and would certainly like to connect with you each and every one of you. Um she did uh also indicate that uh she had spoken with staff and the applicant and you know the bulk of the comments that she had received thus far she was more or less comfortable with except uh that she did want to get some clarification in terms of uh where there
28:30 - 29:00 is a mention of the lot coverage being 50% and being so close to the flood plane. So, I know that, you know, this would be a a a TRCA um type of situation to to look at, but if TRCA believes that the the buffers are okay and that uh it meets with uh their engineering, um then she would also, you know, have
29:00 - 29:30 to accept that that's uh that is uh the case here if that's what TRCA says. Uh she does note that this particular application would be similar to others that she has seen uh through Dexter Road extension uh similar uh with the Annette Gate uh so these which are I guess to the west of this location. Um but in if you're looking at it in general uh
29:30 - 30:00 detached homes would be something that would be best in this area. uh when you're talking about infill and that having smaller ones would certainly be more suitable for more affordable options to help us meet those uh uh housing crisis that we we certainly are feeling today. Um, beyond that, I think I've covered off all the comments that she wanted to make at this this point, but definitely
30:00 - 30:30 she would definitely want each and every one of you to reach out to her uh so that uh she can uh get more information on all of that. Um, so I don't know if if she was actually looking for a comment for staff in regards to the the flood plane and the coverage of the 50% and the buffers. Uh did TRCA indicate uh anything at this point in time? If if I may, TRCA is Toronto Region
30:30 - 31:00 Conservation Authority. Go ahead. Through the chair to councelor Thompson at this stage, uh TRCA is continuing to review the application. They generally don't um uh comment with respect to coverage. Rather they're going to be looking at the flood plane flood pl the extent of the flood plane as well as the buffers that are applied to flood plane to determine what the development limits should be and then within the limits of development uh the municipality will determine what the appropriate
31:00 - 31:30 development standards should be applied to the development at hand. Got it. Thank you through the chair. So it sounds like we're just not at that stage at this point in time. Um, I think those are all the comments uh at at the moment uh Mr. Mayor and uh return this back to you. Uh councelor Davidson. Thank you and thank you everyone who came through Mr. Chair. Um I have a
31:30 - 32:00 couple of questions. One is uh the map in the in the package from staff shows the natural corers areas exactly around this property. Is it actually encroaching on any core areas through the chair to councelor Davidson? So the uh map 4 which is the OP designation is um illustrative. So it's actually not um um doesn't necessarily
32:00 - 32:30 delineate to the exact um degree whether the feature is actually on the property or not. Um, we've determined that there is a portion of the pro uh portion of the feature that is is on the property and the applicant has submitted a natural heritage evaluation and a phase one environmental assessment uh which will assist the city as well as the Toronto Region Conservation Authority in determining the features the extent of the features the extent of the flood plane and any associated buffers that
32:30 - 33:00 need to be on the property to facilitate development on the lands. Mr. chair. So in simple terms for me, it means that this the environmental impact, the the flooding, all those things, we haven't received final reports on those things yet. So we may see a change in plans based on those reports through the chair to councelor Davidson. We've seen the reports. We're currently reviewing the reports which may determine the development limits um of the property. So um depending on the assessments that have that are um accepted by the TRCA
33:00 - 33:30 and staff, we will determine whether or not significant revision or the proposal as currently constituted is appropriate from a strictly TRCA um and city perspective in terms of flood planes uh buffers and the extent of the natural features on the property. Thank you. Through you, Mr. chair. Hypothetically, completely hypothetically, can someone submit plan applica a plan application to the city without on a piece of
33:30 - 34:00 property they don't own? Is that a I've never I've this hasn't come up to me before, but hypothetically, do you have to own a piece of property to get approval for a plan through the chair to councelor Davidson? So, uh, typically when the property is not owned by the applicant, we require the owner's authorization to submit an application on their behalf. Thank you. Okay. Uh, and you'll second the motion. Okay. Uh, uh, region local counselor
34:00 - 34:30 Chan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, thank you everyone who come and people who spoke. Um, I hear your concern loud and clear. Uh, and perhaps you, Mr. chair. Um I do have some question I want to ask based on the staff report but just on the basis what I've been hearing on the our delegation um because on paper it looks to me that is 12 additional um single detach that is being applied
34:30 - 35:00 for however not one more than one dedicate we're talking about that are appears to be uh market or advertised as such uh without any approval mind you uh of anything go from single I even here three family units whatever um through you Mr. chair from our planning staff. Um to what extent that uh the senior planning down the road uh assuming let's say approve for 12 additional units to
35:00 - 35:30 the existing one uh what kind of measure that the city does have to um ensure that will be actually 12 additional single family do we have that authority or no through you Mr. here through the chair to councelor Chen. So the the applicant is proposing 12 uh new single detached dwellings. Um and that is what should the should the city deem
35:30 - 36:00 that appropriate, we would approve 12 s the lands for 12 single detached dwellings. It would appropriately be zoned in that regard. What I think you're trying to get at is the additional residential units that may be permitted. So, the ARUS, as you recall, uh we passed an ARU bylaw in 2024 that allows up to uh four units per lot as of right. Um and there are variations to that uh depending on lot size, what have you, if they want to have some in a
36:00 - 36:30 accessory structure or entirely allin-one dwelling. Uh the province um amended the regulations in the planning act that allows uh for three additional residential units in a dwelling. the city uh went a step further um and allows for four residential units in total. So, one primary plus three additional residential units as of right across the city. So, that's where we're getting the um notion of the three
36:30 - 37:00 additional units um that is permitted as of right currently today. So, this application in front of us would only seek to permit the 12 single detached dwellings, the additional ones. Uh, the ARU permissions exist today and would exist to uh would apply to those properties in the future. I I hear you. Um, and and I can understand where discomfort from resin come from. So um now I'm turning to the things where
37:00 - 37:30 we also have control of based on the staff report. Um on page eight it talking about the minimum fun setback seeking is moving from 25 ft to 5t. That's quite a drastic shift. Um and would that be considered appropriate or common in this type of expanding the number of
37:30 - 38:00 uh building lots for you Mr. Chair through the through the chair councelor Chen. So as you take a look the um R4 zone that's currently uh proposed is under a very old bylaw and it really facilitated what what you see in that neighborhood today. So, um, uh, the, uh, the 25 meter, uh, front, uh, is the 25 meter front yard is what reflects, uh, there today. And they're
38:00 - 38:30 looking to pro redevelop the lands. So, they're looking at a a much larger front yard setback to a much shorter front set front yard setback, which is more typical of newer development that you would see for residential. Okay. Yeah. Actually, when I look at the agent's um illustration, it seems to be almost the front is almost right to the lot line or something like that. But we still have about 5 ft. Um so that's I can understand what people who are
38:30 - 39:00 currently living there who have concerns about um the other thing talking about I believe I might have heard certain land may be tied and help me understand through Mr. here on page 10 um from planning staff that is something about the future lots and this parcel of title land what would be what does that really mean would that be impacting on adjacent lands I just want to get some clarification through Mr. Sure. Uh
39:00 - 39:30 through the chair to councelor Chen. No. So we've just flagged the fact that the applicant has not submitted a draft plan of subdivision. Uh which is typically done when an area when a particular area is not under uh a registered plan of subdivision any longer. So we're basically asking how are you planning on dividing this uh these lots up because it isn't being done through a draft plan of subdivision. So, we've asked the applicant for clarification and it would only apply to the subject lands and not to anybody
39:30 - 40:00 else's lands. But we're not far from being there yet if I understand it correctly. This is only a zoning bylaw amendment at this point in time through the chair. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So, this is something have to be visited in addition to my college measure by the buffer and all these other things. No further comments or questions. Uh, Mr. Chair, thank you. I support the motion in front of us. Councelor tree. Okay. Thank you so much.
40:00 - 40:30 Uh I miss three Mr. Chair to our planning teams. So I look at this uh map eight uh even we talking about the current proposal that is around 50% of the coverage of the land. I look at the map eight. So from what I see now I can see for the phase one there's only 12 dwellings phase two if I count correctly definitely this is just projection right there are
40:30 - 41:00 15 dwellings and look at another map even there is no such design yet might be a similar 15 as well if you sum up all those three piece a project together just in case we prove the phase one it going to be around 30 + 12 going to be around 42 piece of land just on this small patch.
41:00 - 41:30 If you calculate the parkings only for the face one 48 parkings there just 48 cars just assuming okay so three connect together that be 150 cars just on there if you look at entire street well street they are all uh town houses uh characters and this piece of line actually sit in the middle of entire block.
41:30 - 42:00 So I go back to the maybe the simple ways normally we approve a little bit high densities either the main street or the corner I haven't see type of the high densities I want to say high density maybe my term is not right but I'm just saying in the middle of the road 150 units occurs in there around 50 units is really the community character
42:00 - 42:30 I just threw the question here. So I I would like maybe uh consider is this what city trying to achieve through the chair to counselor tree. So as part of the application in front of us, we're only taking um map 8 actually goes beyond that. Uh, one of the things we ask uh the applicant to do is demonstrate how this development could
42:30 - 43:00 potentially uh fit into the neighborhood and they've created this concept plan. So, by no way um shape is this an endorsement of this proposal. It's simply you're proposing a new form of development in this area that is largely lowdensity residential. Show us how it would not preclude development on adjacent lands and how it would fit in. So, as part of the review and um evaluation of the application, the things that you've mentioned in terms of, you know, including a new private
43:00 - 43:30 road, the amount of units that could potentially uh be traveling on that new private road, the number of units in this area, u all of those things will be considered as part of the review and evaluation of this application and looking at the context of the area. Okay. And my next question guarding to this no services here. If I look the IVP P1 already one just there's a single line there. I saw in the middle there is uh maybe turning point just concerning about that garbage whether garbage
43:30 - 44:00 collections or is there no services is that enough space through the chair council tree. All of those uh matters will be reviewed as part of the evaluation of the application to ensure that the development if deemed appropriate can function on its own with respect to snow storage and waste removal. Okay. Um yeah, I I think um that's all my questions so far. I just want to echo uh one more time uh if the phase one really
44:00 - 44:30 is just being improved like this and the phase two phase three coming up and this where might be a bottleneck because uh currently the world only have single lane in and out inside in the middle of this road we pop up around 100 cars turn whenever right or left or might be a problem. I'm just uh comment on that. Thank you.
44:30 - 45:00 Okay. Anybody else on council? Okay. Seeing none, I I just have a few comments. Um I I do I wanted to just um address a couple of things that that some of the uh comments said and I and I really do appreciate everybody coming out. I think collectively and individually your uh your concerns were very well conveyed. Um, somebody said something about straying away from standards and I think the public needs to understand that um, uh, that's not I don't really think that
45:00 - 45:30 that's a probably a very good way to describe this because the planning act and the the uh, dictates from the province on on what municipalities need to conform to has changed substantially. So, um I don't think it's really us that's straying away from standards, but in a lot of cases, it's us responding to what the province has now uh changed in terms of the planning act. And I think that's very important to remember. I mean, we are in a housing crisis, so there is um you know, a a lot more
45:30 - 46:00 pressure on municipalities in urban areas like this to build housing. Um I'm sure you've heard that in the media again and again and and we are on council living uh that that change and I and I get it. I mean, I understand the reason that the province is doing it. Um, but anyway, having said that, um, this is not really affordable housing. Now, I do appreciate that the builder is trying to find an innovative way to make a very expensive dwelling unit affordable by by allowing the built form
46:00 - 46:30 of the house to accommodate the possibility of additional residential uh, dwelling units. And to be clear on that, again, the province a few years ago uh brought down uh changes in the planning act to say that that any home in in a residential area in Richmond Hill can have uh three and now up to four uh dwelling units. So any of you one of your houses, you could rent out the basement, you could have a uh you know, a secondary suite in the backyard. I mean, there are some restrictions to that, but it's pretty much as of right.
46:30 - 47:00 Um so I on the one hand I do appreciate that this is a fairly innovative way to make expensive housing more affordable by allowing the owner of the house to have um other people you know sharing the space with them and also sharing the cost. But again, having said that, there is no infill plan for this area, is there? And and I think that's part of the concern that I have is that I I think in the end, we're remember we're at the very beginning of this planning
47:00 - 47:30 process. But I really do think that what we're seeing in front of us today is what we'll call a very ambitious plan from the developer to to maximize the yield on the land for housing units. and and it you know it's up to planning staff to go through that application and make sure that um you know anything that needs to be changed based on our policies which are mostly in conformance to provincial legislation are actually taken care of. But I think at the end of the day I personally think that this is
47:30 - 48:00 a little bit more than this area realistically should be handling. Um I don't like the look of those buildings. I I think it it's actually to me it's a very strange form of building because it's almost like they're town houses but they're not. And um and so that brings me I guess to the final question and I'm a little puzzled by this. Why? Like I guess have we in situations like this allowed private roads in situations like this? Because it seems like we're we're
48:00 - 48:30 cramming a lot into that area. And I mean, this is smack dab in the middle of an established residential neighborhood. [Music] I'm not sure what that was. Me neither. It wasn't me. Uh, so to answer your question, um, so th this is a proposed common element condominium. Um, typically we're not seeing, uh, common element condominiums, uh, for single
48:30 - 49:00 detached um, in the city. I know um Oaknull was kind of one of the first and generally largest um common element condominium developments with single detach. So it's not uncommon and quite often uh developers are doing this to minimize the need to install a public road network. So it's not impossible. Um it is an opportunity to add uh create additional density in the area and it has um does it go beyond the parameters of the OP? It doesn't. So it's it is an
49:00 - 49:30 opportunity to create a you know gentle intensification if you will and I use that very you know with quotations. Um it it does allow for intensification beyond what would typically be allowed in a general area. But what we do have is the official plan policies which really speak to the compatibility of the proposed development kind of what you know to allow for the evaluation of the proposal in the context of what's there. So that's where we're going to have to
49:30 - 50:00 do an evaluation is does this make sense here? Um it doesn't a current the only uh official plan policies that the applicant is seeking relief on is with respect to the natural hazard lands and buffers associated with uh the OP. Beyond that they generally meet the other uh uh official plan policies but we are currently evaluating it to ensure that it does meet all the other parameters for infill development. Okay. Well, I I would like I I I'm still
50:00 - 50:30 concerned and and I think, you know, I get that some of these issues may not realistically be within our control, but I I think we need to look very carefully at those to make sure that they that they we are doing something that represents good planning. I guess the the last thing I just wanted to mention was the flood plane issue. So um you know Toronto Region Conservation Authority has not yet commented on the the exact delineation of the flood plane. Is that correct? That is correct.
50:30 - 51:00 Okay. I mean I've driven by that place many many many times and I I realize how close that is to the creek. So, I have to assume that there's a, you know, there is an issue with flooding and and you know, heaven knows with uh the more intense storms and so on that we're having, we need to be very careful that we're not going to be building in a place that's that's ultimately going to be uh in a hazard area. So, um Okay. So, thank you. I I I do appreciate the uh the comments and as I said, I do appreciate everybody coming out and uh very uh succinctly and to the point uh bringing forward some of the concerns
51:00 - 51:30 that that you all have in the neighborhood. um you know there there are um there's there's a new way of doing uh development in Ontario right now and we do have to comply with it but at the same time you know we do need to make sure that we're doing the best that we can from a um so having said that unless there's any other comments and I don't see any uh we have a motion to refer all comments back to staff moved and seconded so all those in favor opposed
51:30 - 52:00 that carries unanimously. Thank you very much and thank you everybody for for coming out for that. You're welcome to stay for the other applications. If if you uh if you would like. Um the next application is um request for comments official plan and zoning bylaw amendment application for Zero Longworth Avenue and our planner on that file is Jeppi Russo and uh if you can uh let us know what's going on there Mr. Russo that would be great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor West,
52:00 - 52:30 members of council, and the public. The second public meeting tonight involves official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment applications to permit a highdensity mixeduse residential and commercial development on the lands municipally known as Zero Longworth Avenue. The subject lands are located at the southwest corner of Leslie Street and Longworth Avenue. Have a total lot area of approximately 2.35 acres and a total lot frontage of approximately 89 mters along Longworth Avenue and 108 m along
52:30 - 53:00 Lensley Street. The lands are currently vacant. The surrounding land uses include single detached and townhouse dwellings to the north, agricultural lands within the Oak Ridges Marine to the east, and single detached and townhouse dwellings to the south and west which are currently under construction. The lands are designated neighborhood commercial in accordance with the city's official plan. The applicable policies allow for a range of uses including retail, commercial, and office uses. Development within the neighborhood commercial area are subject
53:00 - 53:30 to a maximum building height of two stories. With respect to the current zoning, the subject lands are zone neighborhood commercial zone under bylaw 5415. Through these applications, the applicant is seeking approval to permit a highdensity mixeduse development to be comprised of two five-story buildings at a density of 2.03 FSI containing 2011 apartment dwelling units. The proposal the proposal is to incorporate indoor and outdoor amenity space, a green
53:30 - 54:00 rooftop, and underground parking. Access to the site is to be provided from Longworth Avenue. The applicant's official plan application seeks approval to redesate the subject lands from neighborhood commercial to residential mixed use and to add sight specific exemptions to include uh to include permissions to allow for a high high density mid-rise residential and commercial uses, a maximum building height of five stories, permit outdoor amenity space on the rooftops, and permit underground and
54:00 - 54:30 surface level parking. The applicant's zoning bylaw amendment application seeks approval to reszone the subject lands to residential mixeduse zone under bylaw 5415 as amended with sight specific provisions to implement the development proposal. Staff have circulated the applications to internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. The purpose of the report is to provide council and the public with an overview of the applicant's development proposal and has been structured for information purposes only with a recommendation that
54:30 - 55:00 all comments be referred back to staff for consideration. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. And uh let me see here who we got for the applicant. Who do we have? Okay. Hello sir. How are you? Good evening your worship members of council, staff, members of the public. My name is Keith McKinnon. I'm a partner with KLM Planning Partners, Inc. Also with me this evening is my colleague Zenara. Um both of us have been working on this
55:00 - 55:30 project. Uh we're certainly pleased to be here before you this evening uh to present our proposal. So as Mr. Russo noted, uh we have filed an official plan amendment and a zoning bile amendment application to the city uh for Zero Longworth Avenue. The noted lands are at the southwest corner of Lesley and Longworth. Uh Mr. Russo noted that it is uh about.9 of a hectare, just over two acres in size with frontage both on obviously Lesley and Longworth
55:30 - 56:00 Avenue. The development proposal application is for two five-story mid-rise buildings uh which would accommodate 201 residential dwelling units. uh we had wanted to ensure that as part of this development application that we didn't remove obviously the commercial permissions that are there today. So we wanted to better integrate that as part of an overall development application. So by doing that we've included about 780 square meters of commercial floor space that obviously
56:00 - 56:30 would provide enough commercial uses to ensure that the community uses or community functions that would be provided by a typical commercial unit in that area could still be served by the residents that uh live and will live in this area. We got about 690 square meters of amenity space, 280 uh approximate uh residential parking spaces, and 135 bicycle parking spaces. Mr. Mayor, you certainly hit the nail on the head earlier that we are all
56:30 - 57:00 a creature of the of the province these days. Uh it seems as though the planning world and policies related to it are changing at an ever fast speed. Uh we obviously with the latest with bill 17, one of the most major uh updates of course was now known as the planning a provincial planning statement used to be provincial policy statement which was uh provided to the province uh for all municipalities and applications of which to be consistent with um have to be
57:00 - 57:30 adhered to within the province of Ontario. There are a number of different policies related to it. We've outlined a few here. I certainly won't go through them. Um we of course still have the Oakidge Marine Plan uh which is still in place uh when we were actually in uh developing this overall community back in the day when it was ultimately approved by settlement at that what then was known as the inter municipal board back in 2016. The Yorkidge Marine Conservation Plan still formed a major part of this overall
57:30 - 58:00 community. We have the Yorkidge York Region Official Plan. Obviously the difference there being now is that forms part of the city of Richmond Hill versus uh you know what used to be with York region now that's under the city's purvey. We've got a number of different requirements and designations all of which uh lend itself to permitting development on the subject property. We've outlined a number of different policies in the York Region official plan. Obviously wanting to
58:00 - 58:30 ensure that you know development is consistent with the provincial planning statement uh certainly is conforms to Yorker's marine uh conservation plan. We have a number of different policies that relate to ensuring adequate uh provision supply residential units. Uh ensuring that we provide a range and mix of uses ensuring that we are developing land in its most efficient way to ensure that land and resources and infrastructure are being used efficiently. All of which have been identified as part of the work
58:30 - 59:00 that's been undertaken as part of our application. We have the city of Richmond Hill official plan and of course the West Gormley secondary plan. West Gormley secondary plan's been around for quite a long time. Uh this identified site was uh designated um well still is designated as neighborhood commercial in the West Gormley secondary plan. certainly appreciate the city is currently undergoing a review of your official plan which likely will include the West Gormley secondary plan as well.
59:00 - 59:30 But in terms of timing for us, uh our applications are already uh ahead of that uh scheduled time frame. In terms of our official plan amendment, as Mr. Russo noted uh we're seeking to have residential mixed use uh on the subject site um which would allow both residential and commercial uses to prevent a maximum height of five stories to create again an appropriate mix of both the commercial uses and residential uses to ensure we're creating a high
59:30 - 60:00 quality development that ensures residential uses are being permitted in conjunction with the commercial uses. got a number of policies related to the West Gormley secondary plan. Again, I won't go through those, Mr. Mr. uh your worship and members of council. You're certainly well aware of these policies, but for those members of the public, you know, these are policies that we have to review in terms of development applications and we've done that as part of this application, the current Richmond Hill
60:00 - 60:30 City uh zoning bylaw. Map it up. Yep. Okay. I'll just skip to the to the uh the end here. So, so Mr. Russo noted we do have some identified elevations. These are representative examples. Uh our client has retained a very highquality architect in Turner Fleer to provide what we feel is a very high quality development to this location. It's an important location. It's on a regional road major intersection in this location. Um we feel that certainly the
60:30 - 61:00 concept plan and the renderings associated with it are representative of that. These are the materials that have been submitted as part of the application. They're certainly with the city that can be reviewed by any members of the public. Okay. So, you're over time, so just if you just wrap it up, that'd be great. And that's it. Your worship and happy to answer any questions that uh council or or the members of the public might have. Thank you, Mr. McKennon. Okay. Um, so is there anybody in the in the audience that would like to speak to this? Okay, come come on up,
61:00 - 61:30 ma'am. And if you can just uh state your name and address for the record, and you've got five minutes to address the council. Welcome. Yeah. Hi. Hello everyone. I'm Alan. Um I'm living in uh 20 um back house drive um hill. Um I first I I have the big concern big concern is the traffic. As far as I know um even at uh 3 p.m. westbound of Stove
61:30 - 62:00 Road, it's just like a parking lot from Highway 44 to Bayville, right? especially to from 44 to Gley's uh street even at 3 p.m. So I'm I'm just a runner if we add 200 union for the high density building two buildings there but um we only we don't have any plan on
62:00 - 62:30 whitening that's true we know we have maybe have plan for whitening uh stoia road but we have to we have to note that the assess of the this property there avenue the only SS is on the LY street I didn't see any SS on still road so I have concern is Lesley street the intersection of Lesley street and the
62:30 - 63:00 stove road will be another bottleneck of the traffic so I would like um for everybody here to consider about the future traffic issue so I as far as I know the region because the east street is the the right of way of the York region. The York region has no plan to widening le tree. So the traffic issue will be the daily complaint, daily issue for the local
63:00 - 63:30 resident and also for the uh resident of city of Richmond Hill because um Soviet road is a is a main um main main road to the highway 404 and the GO train station. So everybody use that road for the commute during the rush hour. So it will be a big issue if we approve this
63:30 - 64:00 um this proposal is the first my first concern. I didn't see any um any traffic study plan have has addressed or concern about that. So that that's my first concern and my second concern is the 200 union residential compared to the commercial property it will be increased the large
64:00 - 64:30 flow rate of the waste water flow. So if the uh I don't I don't I don't know if the city of Richmond Hill has uh evaluate or review the local sanct system and also work with yoker region for the vdss capacitys means yoker during um sewage system because um over rich molecule
64:30 - 65:00 with the water will discharge south to the diamond creek water treatment plan that's another issue may maybe in future city of uh Richmond Hill and we'll work with York region to review the local santory sewers capacity we review the station also reveal work with the during region to reveal the capacity of different creek
65:00 - 65:30 so that's a very big issue if this will increase Another issue will they normally they will issue a study for the physibility of the composity. This study will normally cost $10,000 only for a study and if the result we have to increase the capacity will cost millions dollars for the design and maybe $10 million for the increase the capacity of this whole system. Who will pay for that? I don't
65:30 - 66:00 think the developing fe can cover that. So everybody here, everybody of resident of Yoko region, everybody resident here of from the Richmond Hill will pay that. So I I didn't see this proposal. Everybody here or in yogen will benefit from this proposal even for the future residential of the this condo. There are
66:00 - 66:30 no public transit here. And uh they no there are no commercial no grocery store nearby. The nearest grocery store will be 5 kilometer away here. So if this land of used for a [Music] commercial grocery stores the local resident will benefit from that but if we approve the proposal nobody will benefit from here. So that's my point.
66:30 - 67:00 Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay. Is there anybody else that from the audience that would like to speak to this? Okay. Seeing none, uh this is W one uh item. So we'll go to W one counselor uh Carol Davidson. Thank you um and through you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the delegate and thank you to the 69 people who sent in letters of opposition to this application. Um, I want to say I I know we're this
67:00 - 67:30 council does nothing but well we do other things but we really focus on housing. We know there's a need for housing but not here. This is a very small neighborhood. West Gormaly is a contained area of a smaller subdivision and the West Gormaly secondary plan describes it as a cohesive neighborhood with an identity um that blends into the surrounding natural area. And five stories here would be by far the tallest
67:30 - 68:00 buildings in the area and one of the parts of the secondary plan requires development protects views of the marine. So this is yes a settlement area in the Oak Ridg's marine but it is surrounded by protected areas. As the uh resident said there is no transit on this street I on on Leslie no transit in that neighborhood. There's no transit to the GO station. There's no continuous sidewalk to the Ghost trains which are
68:00 - 68:30 limited by the way. They don't run all day. There's no sidewalks. If a resident wanted to ride their bike or walk 5 kilometers to uh farm boy or over six kilometers to no frrills, there's no sidewalks. So these this neighborhood is pretty much apart from everything else. And trying to go shopping or do anything commercial, you require a car. We really need this commercial building area kept commercial, two stories. it will serve
68:30 - 69:00 this service this community. I don't know if it'll be a store or a daycare or a dentist office or whatever it is because I agree the city needs to um increase housing and we do that. But we also need to plan for for neighborhoods that are walkable. If we take away the designation of commercial for this plot, we're basically telling everybody in that neighborhood, yeah, you're going to have to drive everywhere. every time you want a liter of milk, you're going to have to drive because there'll be
69:00 - 69:30 absolutely no services for you in this neighborhood. Um, I agree that it'll increase traffic. I agree that it will be to me the thin edge of the wedge of starting to overdevelop this very sensitive area and it's zoned for four for residential, two for commercial. And in keeping with the planning and the visions that the city has, I think we need to keep it that way. Um through you, Mr. Chair, to staff, if we change the zoning from commercial to mixed use,
69:30 - 70:00 um what is the guarantee that the applicant will still keep the commercial portion? I mean, right now, we're hoping for two stories of commercial, but if it gets switched to housing as well, and they decide, oh, you know what? We're not going to make it commercial after all. We're going to make it all housing. Is there any recourse for the city through the chair to councelor Davidson? The only way to guarantee uh that commercial exist uh would exist on the
70:00 - 70:30 property is to uh put minimum uh commercial area floor area requirements so that it would ensure that commercial uses need to be part of any uh development that uh happens on these lands. That's the only way to ensure it among the other residential uses through you, Mr. Chair. But by removing the commercial designation and making it also housing, we're weakening the strength of our ability to say to that neighborhood,
70:30 - 71:00 you're going to have commercial, you're going to have maybe some retail, some services. If there's more steps now, is that right to ensure commercial on that corner through the chair? Not necessarily. They're asking for a residential mixed use which is very common along the city's centers and corridors. So if there was a concern that we wanted to ensure that commercial uses remain uh we through the through the eval uh through the approval of the application if council uh wanted to ensure that commercial does continue
71:00 - 71:30 exist we would uh put in minimum commercial uh floor area requirements so that the residential can't exist without the commercial area being developed as well. Right. Thank you through you Mr. Chair. Um, I think that as I just said, five stories, two five-story buildings, that increase in density will put a huge stress on the infrastructure, on the sewage, and again, uh, this isn't a main corridor. This isn't a main center. This is a small separate community in the
71:30 - 72:00 middle of the Oakg's Marine that unless something big changes about the settlement areas of the Oak Ridges Marine Conservation Plan will remain a small community. So there's no need for this much density. It goes against the plan and I think twotory commercial is what this neighborhood wants and certainly 70 people have told me in a very short time that that's what they want and I hope my colleagues will agree. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh
72:00 - 72:30 regional counselor depal you're uh next and regional sorry councelor Davidson you will uh move the motion to refer all comments back to staff and councelor depaly you will second that. Okay if you can unmute yourself and you can go ahead. Okay happy happy to second that Mr. Mayor and uh you know I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the the ward counselor. Um this this is an area that's uh separated by nature from from from
72:30 - 73:00 most of the other services and amenities. Um you know really not not not possible to to walk even to the GO station. So, um, not a community that's going to benefit from public transit, be car dependent and, you know, a comm community, uh, commercial, uh, presence would be really helpful for for the community to at least have some walkability. And um you
73:00 - 73:30 know I really it's really unfortunate the um the the few remaining exempted uh parcels in in Richmond Hill uh that are exempted from from the rain. This isn't this isn't where we uh we would want intensification. Uh you know it's it's a shame that the province has pulled away the the major transit stationary that this council approved in the York region official plan. uh you know asked for a
73:30 - 74:00 major transit station area around Gormley and and the province said you know has the nerve to say we have to build x number of units and they downgraded a zoning that was that was passed by York region. So um you know that's it's very difficult when we're trying to uh put density where it is a walk uh walkable situation to public transit expensive public transit. Um so
74:00 - 74:30 that's the situation we're in. But I wanted to and I just just piped up because I wanted to address the the one resident uh that spoke to to the plan here before us. uh you you definitely are very knowledgeable, but uh the the future planning for York Region is a little bit different than what they'll tell you is uh currently in the in the 10-year capital plan. Um Stoville is meant to be widened. Uh the the product is designed and engineered. Um it was it
74:30 - 75:00 was you know construction was imminent but but uh in examining the migration habits of the Jefferson Salamander it was it had been delayed and now the construction costs have really escalated from what was originally proposed and um the the region opted to take it out of their 10-year capital plan. Now I I'm hopeful that we can get it back in and it's something that the community
75:00 - 75:30 desperately needs. Stoville widening from Bay View to the 404. Um it's very important project and as the the U deputant said uh Lesley widening is equally important and Lesie will be widened. the region does have a plan as they're building the York Durham SE uh sewer system uh to to really handle capacity for uh New Market and the north the northern parts of the region. They're no longer going to Lake Simco as
75:30 - 76:00 you said uh going going to the Duffin plant in uh in in Pickering. That that line is servicing other areas. We had we do have capacity but as that system sewer is being built and it's been fasttracked by the province and they they are exporporating lands to allow for a jog elimination of Lesley. So, um, in in doing so, rather than going back twice and exorcating land, they're also
76:00 - 76:30 taking a full width, uh, road allowance, um, where they intend to eliminate the jog of Lesley. It will be four lanes uh, with left turn lanes to typical standard road like it is the um, south of uh, 19th Avenue. So, so the plan is there for It's it's going to have to be funded. It will be costly and and uh you know Rich Richmond Hill will will have to fight to
76:30 - 77:00 get the funding for the widening of Stoville and Lesley, but that is the future plan and um the the the regional development charges are are going to be allocated toward that that project. So, um, we we will get there. That community won't be left behind and those roads will be improved uh eventually. That's the plan. Thanks.
77:00 - 77:30 Okay. Thank you very much, councelor. Uh, anybody else? Go ahead, Councelor Thompson. Uh, thank you very much through you, the mayor. I'd also like to uh thank the ward counselor for for her comments. Uh, I think that's bang on. I mean this is uh definitely a car ccentric uh location. This is not anything close to uh public transit in in the way that we would expect to see it in terms of development. Um and definitely that
77:30 - 78:00 particular piece of of property should be there's no question in my mind that should be a small plaza. If you go over to Ba and uh uh Humberland, you will find a similar type of situation. It's a very car ccentric area. You have a small plaza that sits right on the corner that's uh heavily used by the locals that live in that area. Uh I think this is a classic example of what is actually
78:00 - 78:30 needed there. Do we need the type of housing that we saw in the proposal? Absolutely. This just isn't the location for it. So, those are my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, councelor tree. Yeah. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Just let you know last weekend I drove through this intersection lastly and and the st there was a car incident actually down the west side little bit there was downhill uh close to Islamic society of York a few years ago. There was a car in
78:30 - 79:00 one resident died there as well. So I'm just saying Stoville is really busy street. As long as I'm late for uh returning back home from 44 as long get down from highway the go stations cars are packed up that that traffic around uh four uh maybe 30 to one hour long. So from maybe 5 until 7 that peak time. So it's always
79:00 - 79:30 challenge get through this area. Um my question I believe uh uh our original counelor J Pal mentioned so within 10 years there is no plan to widen the ST wheel. Is that correct? Uh uh to our maybe director from planning team uh through the chair to councelor tree. Uh I would have to confirm that uh with our development engineering group but uh councelor Japala seemed to have a little
79:30 - 80:00 bit more up-to-date information in that regard than I do. Okay. So yeah so that that's my concern and concern may also look like around this areas u this you have to drive a car basically. So whenever you go to Costco nearby or go to other uh locations along young street this is really driving area. So intensify here you're going to bring more traffic down the road. Russia are very very headache because go train
80:00 - 80:30 nearby there's only single line until someday and the bridge on that uh stoville might be reconstruct or build a more capacities this type of traffic will be always showing up ongoing. So I'm not sure 10 years later there might be a different situations but at least within this 10 years if there's no plan to either widening stoville or lessly what
80:30 - 81:00 I can see is the more traffic will be here so situation will not get getting not getting better the next 10 years and if you look at lessly street we are seeing more and more uh densities on Lesley Street which is around 1 kilometers down there short side and more cars will come to here and along the sley and the stew wheel. So yeah so
81:00 - 81:30 you're seeing more and more traffic maybe 10 years later situation getting better all the infrastructure refreshed that time being situation is different but so far I I cannot tell or see any improvement around this corner. So this proposal bring around 200 units here and that might be quite a problem for local community. That that is my comment. Thank you. Okay. Anybody
81:30 - 82:00 else? Okay. Seeing none, um again, I'll just make a couple of comments. Um the advantage of going last is that everything's already been said. Um I I agree this is this is, you know, this is a very ambitious plan. Um and I don't think it's really appropriate for this particular area. Um just to be clear there the um mixeduse component still does allow for commercial on the bottom floor through the chair um to the chair that
82:00 - 82:30 is correct. Okay. I mean I think we you know at the at the very minimum and I I mean there needs to be more than just what I'm about to say but at the very minimum I think we need to ensure that the the commercial that this was intended to supply for the community is maintained. I mean, you know, there does need to be some some ability for people to, you know, have uh stuff that they can purchase and services and so on close by. Um, can I can we go back to the original uh presentation uh by our
82:30 - 83:00 staff? I think it was like maybe the fourth uh where the fourth slide where there was the artist rendering. I just wanted to ask a little detail. Um uh that's it. So does this tell me that the angular plane is being uh abused in in at least two of those diagrams like they're not meeting the
83:00 - 83:30 angular plane. Um so the angular plane actually doesn't apply here. uh angular plane policies apply to highdensity high-rise develop adjacent to the neighborhood. So in this instance, notwithstanding, they've shown angular plane, it actually doesn't apply. Oh. Um why doesn't it apply? So the angular plane policies apply to high-rise highdensity development adjacent to uh
83:30 - 84:00 the neighborhoods. So this is not considered high-rise highdensity. Okay. All right. Fair enough. That's that's a good sorry. Good point. Um I guess I'll still say what I was going to say though is that you know regardless of that I mean you know it's kind of an indication there are certain symptoms that lead me to believe that something's too big and you know the fact that it's not meeting the angular plane. um you know regardless of whether it's an actual uh you know criteria that needs to be met or not is something and I guess the only
84:00 - 84:30 other thing I would say and and I hesitate to even say this because um you know there's more problems here than just this but you know I was a little surprised to see uh in on the on page 10 of the staff report that they haven't really even thought about affordable housing and it would seem to me that if you're going to propose something that's bigger, clearly bigger than what it is that you're supposed to be doing in an area, that's probably what you should
84:30 - 85:00 lead with. And and I I just, you know, there's there's just a number of of issues with this application that really need to be looked at. And um you know, I appreciate that the applicant has the um has the right to to apply for whatever. And it, you know, as I said, this is the beginning of the of the planning process. So, we are, you know, there's a lot of water to go under the bridge, so to speak, between now and then, but I think that there are, you know, there's quite a bit of work that needs to be done here, um, to get this, uh, application to a place where it fits in
85:00 - 85:30 better with the neighborhood. So, um, anyway, having said that, that's all my comments. We have a motion on the floor to, uh, refer all comments back to staff. All those in favor opposed. That carries unanimously. Thank you very much. And our final item of the day is um draft Richmond Hill uh center zoning bylaw amendment and that is going to be presented by Clement Chong. Clement tell us all about the Richmond Hill Center in all in five
85:30 - 86:00 minutes. I will try my best. So good evening uh Mayor West and members of the council. Uh I'm here to speak on the uh third and final uh item on the agenda tonight. Uh the purpose of this presentation um tonight is to provide an o brief overview of the key points uh and highlights of the Richmond Hill Center zoning bylaw amendments uh that will likely that will ultimately implement the policies of the recently approved RHC secondary plan.
86:00 - 86:30 To quickly recap and to provide some context, the RHC secondary plan is generally located in the areas northeast highway of highway 7 and um Young Street as identified on the map that you see on the screen. And the RHC secondary plan was approved at the OT following the resolution of appeals of the appeals in late uh 2024.
86:30 - 87:00 The purpose of the RHC zoning bylaw is to fulfill the planning act requirements that stipulates uh first that no later than three years after the approval of the secondary plan, council must pass a zoning bylaw to support its implementation. Second, the proposed RHC zoning bylaw amendment includes permitted uses, restrictions, and development standards which implement the policies of the Richmond Hill Center secondary plan. The RHC zoning bylaw amendment is also one of the city's commitments under the housing accelerator fund and must be
87:00 - 87:30 completed within a specified time frame in order to remain eligible to receive uh funding dispersements. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to hold a statutory public meeting and to listen and for staff to listen and receive feedback on the proposed RHC zoning bylaw amendment with the intent that it will be brought forward to council for approval in September 2025. The draft zoning bylaw amendment proposes minor changes and updates that will bring the RHC into the recently
87:30 - 88:00 approved centers and corridors components of the comprehensive zoning bylaw as required. It includes permitted uses and development standards such as lot coverage, minimum and maximum building heights, minimum and maximum density, maximum podium heights, angular plane requirements, stepback provisions, and maximum floor plate sizes. The draft bylaw also uh includes three relevant schedules and together it will ultimately form part of the comprehensive zoning
88:00 - 88:30 bylaw. The first schedule you see on the screen is the zoning schedule A1. It identifies the areas to be zoned RHC as shown on the map. Um for the lands on Elner Circle, there's additional holding provision. This area will be subject to land assembly criteria to ensure the eventual redevelopment of the area will be done in a coordinated manner. The draft zoning bylaw amendment will continue to permit single detached dwellings on Elner Circle until subject properties
88:30 - 89:00 are assembled to create a single development block. If the conditions of the proposed zoning bylaw amendments are met, the holding provision may be removed and the lands be redeveloped in accordance to the prescribed regulations. The second map you see on the screen is the proposed density schedule B1 which defines the zones which are applicable which applies the minimum and maximum densities in accordance to the Richmond
89:00 - 89:30 Hill Center secondary plan character areas to further support appropriate development uh appropriate built form in the RHC. The secondary plan provided some flexibility for sight specific densities when it can be demonstrated that the average densities outlined in the secondary plan could be met to the city's satisfaction. If such relief is required, this will be administered through the minor zoning bylaw amendment process.
89:30 - 90:00 The third schedule on the screen is the proposed height schedule C1 that shows the minimum and maximum podium heights in accordance to the Richmond Hill Center secondary plan character areas. The secondary plan does not pro prescribe any specific maximum building heights but instead governs building heights using maximum density and anchor plane policies. A key component of the secondary plan was to direct the greatest intensification away from existing low-rise residential neighborhoods and towards the center of the uh
90:00 - 90:30 RHC. This is done by way of angular plan requirements for transition areas that abut existing low-rise residential areas. Similar to uh density, the RSC secondary plan also provides some flexibility on angr plane by allowing minor projections when it can be demonstrated that the impacts such as shadow, wind, light, view, and privacy can be addressed to the city satisfaction. And again, if this relief is required, this will be administered by way of a minor zoning by amendments
90:30 - 91:00 process. And a key item to note uh from the report are the areas within the Richmond Hill Center secondary plan boundary that were excluded from the Richmond Hill Center zoning bylaw. These areas are reflected on the map shown on your screen. Uh first there are four properties the RSC that either relates to a recent uh OOLT decision or involved in an active development application. The city intends to recognize these
91:00 - 91:30 existing or pending permissions and therefore have excluded these properties from the proposed draft zoning bylaw amendment. Second is the high-tech EMTO. The regulations of the EM ZO take precedence over municipal zoning bylaws and therefore these lands have been excluded from the draft zoning bylaw amendment as well. And finally, um, an upcoming batch of the comprehensive zoning bylaw updates will introduce new citywide zoning for areas such as the greenway, utility
91:30 - 92:00 corridor, and the CNR. As such, these lands have been also excluded from the draft zoning bylaw amendments. In conclusion, staff recommends that the staff report with respect to the RHC zoning bylaw amendment be received for information and that all comments from tonight will be referred back to staff for consideration. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh regional
92:00 - 92:30 councelor Chan, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh thank you for the presentation. I was there at the open house the other night. Uh it was just a week ago I guess right? Yeah. And we have uh quite a turnout. Um anyway um is helpful and um oh first of all I'd like to move the motion uh Mr. Chair to have all the uh comments uh re uh back to staff and receive this for information.
92:30 - 93:00 I just want to um seek clarification in both the star report and the slide I guess in attachment five um as well as slide number seven and so on. Um because on page three it talks about of the four accepted excluded area. Um and it and it said the comprehensive zoning bylaw would would come back
93:00 - 93:30 dealing with greenway including woodlands. And if you go to one of those slides, seven or maybe attachment five, I I'm looking specifically at the northeast corner of seven and young that is currently a wood lot. That's for excluded from the bylaw. Is that not my understanding that is also under the is e as well? So Mr.
93:30 - 94:00 just to confirm three you Mr. chair. Uh the wood lot was excluded from the EM zo. There's a the wood lot was excluded from the EM zo. Yes, thank you for that answer. So so it falls back to the city uh in terms of that because um yeah because that is a phrase somewhere the uh EM is silent on
94:00 - 94:30 this or actually not in it. So it's the city's responsibility to come back later on with comprehensive zoning bylaw regulating that. That is correct. Um right the lands the the wood lot is owned by the city and therefore excluded from the EM setup. Got it. and and well um I guess at this point in time um the city can deal with what within that area that we could under this uh particular
94:30 - 95:00 bylaw that will be coming back in September. Um so just to confirm and I noted that on page nine to Mr. chair just confirm. So between now and September when the bylaw will be brought back um then there will be no further um public consultation so to speak. I mean is that correct through Mr. Chair? Uh through you Mr. Chair, we've had we
95:00 - 95:30 had a public open house last week as you know. Uh we're here at council public meeting today and our intent is to um engage directly with uh impacted land owners between now and September. Um we haven't heard a significant amount of feedback on this. It's not a surprise given that what we're doing here is implementing the Richmond Hill Center secondary plan which had a very extensive consultation process associated with it uh through uh through its developments. Um, but we are committed to working with uh with land
95:30 - 96:00 owners that have an interest uh and I know we as you know there was a land owner uh who had an interest at the open house and we that same land the owner has uh submitted uh documentation to us today as part of this agenda and so that's we'll certainly uh follow up with them and anyone else who has an interest uh through the Thank you for uh thank you for the answers through Mr. here and yes I did noted that uh at least one if not more then only I would have comments and so on but effectively um the the
96:00 - 96:30 bylaw to come back in September substantively will be already here isn't that attachment one through Mr. Chair three Mr. here. Uh the draft bylaw has been prepared uh and that is what we're consulting on today. We will take feedback from council and the public and evaluate that feedback through through the process uh and potentially make revisions to the bylaw in advance of bringing it back to council in September. But our intent is to do that
96:30 - 97:00 consultation uh to evaluate that feedback to make revisions if needed and to bring it back to council in advance of uh the end of September. Okay. Thank you. Is there any particular um fixed uh cut off date uh in ter getting feedback from all parties including land owners through Mr. Chair? Through you, Mr. Chair. Um you know, we were at this meeting uh to take feedback. We'll continue to engage uh
97:00 - 97:30 you know, we will likely need to have uh a draft a final draft of this sometime in August in order to have it prepared for uh September approval. uh September approval is important to us because it's associated with our half uh commitments. Uh and so we're we're committed to advancing it within those timelines. Uh but up until the point where we need to have u documents completed for council agendas, we'll continue to engage and and and work with uh interested parties.
97:30 - 98:00 Thank you for the answer. So just to be clear, so it's not there's no particular fixed set date by then, you know, it's no more um feedback or uh further comments or suggestion would be um uh in time to have the final uh bylaw come back to council for consideration. I think that's probably fair to say that. Yeah. Three you Mr. chair. Um, our timelines are fixed in
98:00 - 98:30 that they're associated with the half deadlines and therefore we need to have sufficient time to bring items forward to council and in order to meet those deadlines. Uh, but like today we're not sitting here with a deadline of two weeks from now. Uh, you know, that's we work with uh with the community and interested parties and receive feedback from council in order to refine this document. Thank you. Yeah, as I said, I move the motion. Anyone who have the interest uh on this uh do it soon or later in terms of finding comments to
98:30 - 99:00 council members and our staff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As I said, I move the motion as recommended. Okay, councelor Shu, you want to second it? Yes, I want to second it. Uh thank you for the presentation and I would like to refer it back to the staff and I would like to move it forward. Just two questions about this. Uh the first one is referring to the uh the last part of the uh staff report which is the map appendex A1 I think uh is regarding the
99:00 - 99:30 slide presentation slide number four is about the area of the Richmond Hill center. It shows that one of the areas under this uh zoning bylaw is the southeast corner of Yang and Bentry which is a top uh the top part of the map. this in the center top. Yeah, actually um where there's a currently a townhouse complex with residents living there now and according to the B1 the
99:30 - 100:00 next page B1 it shows that the uh the FSI the density which is which could be up to four which could be up to four at the same area which is obviously not in the current situation. So that means if any future application want to develop a high-rise there the density is up could be up to four. So that means if the Richmond Hill cent bylaw destination
100:00 - 100:30 applies to this area it could mean that this this area residents may be required to relocate right am I correct through Mr. Chair? Uh three Mr. chair. Um the plan doesn't uh envision the redevelopment of those townhouse complexes. Uh and uh in order to facilitate that, it would be a very complex um consolidation that would be very like very challenging within the
100:30 - 101:00 market. Uh so uh the density that's being contemplated in that area uh is uh a density that contemplates that those town homes those existing town homes remaining. Okay. uh and I think it would be very very challenging to see those sites redeveloped from a market economics perspective. Uh so it's not something that we envision being uh likely or or likely feasible quite honestly. So that means there's no any application want to make this area is it
101:00 - 101:30 FSI 4 or just so so that site is is a Mr. Chair uh that site is a site that's substantially built from our perspective. Mhm. There may be small scale development that happens within there on undeveloped lands, but for the most part uh that character area is uh is primarily built and the densities that are reflected there would be reflective of those uh uses continuing within that area. Okay,
101:30 - 102:00 I see. I got it. Yeah. Um my next question and also the last question is even if the city has zoning bylaw plans in place for the Richmond Center area, can any potential applicant or developers still appeal this soon bylaw for example when they ask for uh a greater density or increase the building height something like that while they submit the application can they appeal for this zoning by as well? Um through you Mr.
102:00 - 102:30 chair. I mean, the city would uh consider sight specific reasoning applications on on lands. Uh the intent here in in prezoning these these lands is to facilitate development in accordance with the secondary plan. And so we're allowing developers who meet the city's vision for this area to essentially have the option of bypassing a zoning bylaw amendment process and move direct to site plan if they're in compliance with the with the zoning. The
102:30 - 103:00 reason why we're doing that is to, you know, support um the city um moving towards achieving its housing targets. We want to be able to facilitate development that is in accordance with uh the community and council's vision for this area. And so we're trying, this is an opportunity to potentially streamline or fasttrack those applications. Um if someone uh has an interest in uh moving forward a development application that's not in in in accordance with the secondary plan
103:00 - 103:30 then there would be another process to do that and the city would you know obviously evaluate those applications within that context and uh and you know make the appropriate decisions associated with those applications. So this doesn't preclude that from from happening. It's intended rather to provide a more direct path for development to proceed in accordance with the secondary plan. I see the the reason why I asked this question because I know there's an ongoing appeal at the
103:30 - 104:00 uh young and north of 16. There's an an appeal to the OOLT ongoing to appeal the comprehensive bylaw there. Yes. Yeah. So I just wondering could it be happen again in the Richmond Hill Center three Mr. Chair uh within the context of the applications that we've been dealing with in Richmond Hill Center to date we've decided to recommend to council that we deal with those as exceptions and remove them from this process. uh
104:00 - 104:30 those uh applicants generally have an interest in meeting the secondary plan and we've settled a number of them through council's direction through the OOLT and so active applications have been considered as part of this process moving forward if someone wants to come forward with a development application we would evaluate those through our standard process and and make the appropriate evaluation and recommendations to council. Okay now thank you Mr. Mayor. Great. Thank you. Uh, Council Davidson.
104:30 - 105:00 Thank you, uh, through, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. Have does the city get updates on where we're at with the subway? Because all this is great as long as we have that subway, but I haven't heard anything, and maybe you do. Um, three, Mr. Chair. Um, we don't have any official updates from, uh, Metro Links or the province on the timing or delivery of the subway. Uh that's not to say that uh progress has stopped or work has stopped. We continue to be very active in the subway project. Um we're
105:00 - 105:30 evaluating uh designs uh you know a variety of different components of the subway. So the project continues to move forward. Uh but in terms of when it ultimately will be completed, I mean we can see that these are complex projects that you know have you know some potential risk and timeline sometimes can be challenging. Uh so the last date that we received from the province was a target date of 2031. Um and uh you know we'll we'll see
105:30 - 106:00 if we meet uh 2031. I I suspect that we we may be um you know we may be getting some revised timelines from the province at some point. But you mean shovels in the ground or putting the last bit of dirt down? Do you mean the beginning or the end? No. So, so, uh, the last update from from, uh, the province in terms of when they offered actually offered timelines was that the subway would be operational by 2031. Shovels in the ground have already occurred like the early works at Finch Station has already been completed. Uh, so this project is,
106:00 - 106:30 you know, underway and moving forward. Uh, and we're moving through procurement for the various components of the subway. I next up is the tunneling contract which may be awarded later on this year. So uh the project is progressing but in terms of uh timelines that I could say yes we have a revised timeline that we have confidence in. We just we don't have a revised timeline from the province that we would put in front of council um and and with any confidence to say that this is the date
106:30 - 107:00 that they will be operational at this point. Hopefully when once we're through the procurement process for all the components of the subway we'll have better timelines. Thank you. if you're available on the weekend and you know I have like a wheelbarrow and and a shovel. We could just start digging. Would that help? Yeah. Okay. Maybe not. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Seeing none. Um again, just a couple of quick comments. Uh I I was at the um the uh open house the other
107:00 - 107:30 day and I I have to say that the artist rendering that you h have prepared including a number of the different amenities that are in that um area. I I really think this plan I mean it got off on a uh probably on not a great foot when it was uh released as an EM ZO and the public wasn't particularly happy about it. But I think as we're doing the work that's been done through the staff work and and so on and when we're
107:30 - 108:00 starting to see how the amenities and the street patterns and and the other things that are happening in that area, um I I will say I I I think that it is turning into something that's going to be a very important place in Richmond Hill. And uh so I appreciate the work that's being done. Um so I I think um you know, we're going to move forward on this. it'll it'll come back in September and we'll get that uh you know that underway. And you're right, Councelor Davidson. I mean, the the the missing link right now is to actually get the
108:00 - 108:30 subway here because that would really be the the trigger to get the development uh you know, going and have all of this vision realized, at least beginning to be realized. So, okay. With that being said, all those in favor opposed. That carries unanimously. Thank you very much. And uh we'll see council here tomorrow morning for counsel. Oh, motion to adjurnn. Councelor tree, councelor Shu, all those in favor opposed. That carries.